/lit/ - Literature

File: 275 KB, 533x403, blog_hungryghost-533x403.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 19:57:07 2022 No.20076997 [Reply] [Original]

The Buddha never taught that Atman means anything different than Hinduism, meaning the concept of a soul is in his thought. No living Buddhist has ever proven by scriptural citation that the concept of the soul is denied in Buddhism, and instead attempt to assert that the texts dogmatically deny the soul, when their arguments are at best vague for their aims.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 19:58:31 2022 No.20077003 >>20076997 than in Hinduism*

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:38:29 2022 No.20077201

>>20076997
people don't understand what the Buddha means when he says that an "enlightened" person doesn't consider something to exist or not exist
the Buddha realized that all logic is ultimately based on an assumption, and cut out the source of all thought (the assumption)
he doesn't believe in a soul because he doesn't believe, he doesn't know anything, and thus he has the supreme knowledge, he doesn't exist not because he does or does not exist, but because he does not believe either is true or untrue, or neither
he's a nihilist though, a man of great wisdom before Christ remade the covenant between Man and God, I doubt his fate could have been otherwise.
Maybe he didn't understand Love, maybe he did not believe in God, whatever tormented his soul--it now continues to pollute the souls of many.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:41:46 2022 No.20077217

>>20077201
I can't believe he got so popular. It really is retarded that his answer to everything was "you don't know that". Almost no generative knowledge can be had of Buddhism except in a nihilistic society that has worn out it's words already. Lowering the epistemological standard for a claim to enrich our understanding sounds evil to a nihilist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:44:25 2022 No.20077229 >>20077201 Buddha wasn't necessarily a nihilist. The scriptures are vague about whether he considered the soul to exist or not.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:47:56 2022 No.20077248

>>20076997
>The Buddha never taught that Atman means anything different than Hinduism
This is incorrect.

>meaning the concept of a soul is in his thought.
Correct, there are souls in Buddhism. They're just impermanent, changing, and made up of parts.

>No living Buddhist has ever proven by scriptural citation that the concept of the soul is denied in Buddhism
The above line was demonstrated to you in the last thread before you deleted it.

>instead attempt to assert that the texts dogmatically deny the soul
Buddhism does not deny the existence of souls, it just posits that they are impermanent, changing, and made up of parts.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080618235725/http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/008-Kalyanamittavaggo-e.html
https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=277
Are you going to delete this thread now too?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:49:20 2022 No.20077257 >>20077229 No, the Pali Canon is explicit, the Buddha believed in souls. It's also explicit that the Buddha taught that souls, like all things, are impermanent. >>20076997 Are you the guy from yesterday that got BTFOd by your own link?

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:54:06 2022 No.20077283

>>20077229
did you read what I wrote?
The Buddha says that an enlightened person neither exists, nor does not exist, nor neither

he says that, because an "enlightened" person does not consider anything to be true or false or neither or both, an Arhat does not believe or think or "take action"(create karma) .
he IS a nihilist, his entire mode of thinking is supreme nihilism, because he realized that logic is always a jump from somewhere

here is an example
>we exist
can you self-reference this? doubt it, you can't logically prove it except that you know it to be true, but you can't reason it
the buddha did this
>
that's all
he didn't even consider existence or non-existence, he simply chose not to reason at all because reason isn't reasonable
so he was supremely reasonable, and thus became some guy sitting under a tree doing nothing
of course, it's absolutely retarded, because after that he should have realized that reason is fake and gay, and faith (abandoning logic and reason) triumphs over attempting to storm God's throne (to know)
t. practicing buddhist for several years but converted to Christianity after realizing that "enlightenment" is simply the first step to becoming human (which is to accept that one knows nothing and not even know that)

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:54:58 2022 No.20077287

>>20077248
>The above line was demonstrated to you in the last thread before you deleted it.
janny did for whatever reason

>Are you the guy from yesterday that got BTFOd by your own link?
Idk who you're talking about. I have not seen a eastern religion thread beside my own.

>Correct, there are souls in Buddhism. They're just impermanent, changing, and made up of parts.
Good, this is better progress than when I was talking to that dogmatist.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:55:24 2022 No.20077289

>>20077283
the Buddha might have known faith is better than reason, but he tried to show the path of reason taken to it's extreme, he fully showed the most reasonable path, and he shows that it is indeed fake and gay
the rest you can figure out yourself

the good ending

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 20:56:13 2022 No.20077294
File: 492 KB, 1280x1280, 1640029136693.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anatman or nairatmya is inseparable from the doctrine of all dharmas or elements of experience as being momentary—hence they are identityless. This is in the nikayas and is picked up with greater emphasis by Mahayanists, who are going to attack the reification of these dharmas by the Sarvastivadins, just as if they were as soluble as the skandhas/aggregates, and the exegetical method they use (sunyata) later evolves into its own formal school. So across both the earlier Buddhist schools and into the Mahayana, anatman remains the defining characteristic of Buddhism, and that which serves to consistently distinguish it from its many sectarian and non-Buddhist dialectical partners in India over the centuries. Meanwhile "soul" is largely a translation quirk of western Christians going back to the 19th century. To say "there is no enduring identity in conditioned experience of momentary phenomena" has nothing to do with whether a God breathed life into you or not. You could perhaps comb the texts to see if there was a opinion on this or not, but would seem evident that such a notion cannot be construed as the "original" teaching prior to sectarian development.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:00:00 2022 No.20077317

>>20077294
>You could perhaps comb the texts to see if there was a opinion on this or not, but would seem evident that such a notion cannot be construed as the "original" teaching prior to sectarian development.
Are you even listening to yourself, tranny?
Then nothing you said could be taken as original teaching before sectarian development.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:04:22 2022 No.20077330

>>20077287
Then why bother making this thread? Why not spend five minutes actually looking at what Buddhism involves instead of having strangers dunk on you if you're so clueless that you're getting hung up on such a basic point? As just a simple exercise, how the fuck do you think that the enormous webs of Buddhist theorizing on the Subtle Body are supposed to work if Buddhists "don't believe in a soul"?

Start with What the Buddha Taught, and then read the Heart Sutra.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:06:55 2022 No.20077339

>>20077330
Because none of you midwits have real expertise in Buddhism despite what you fancy about yourselves. None of you have ever proven with Pali citations what you claim the Buddha taught, indeed no living Buddhist has. Even beyond that, none of you can prove definitively what you claim what certain concepts mean, relying on vague interpretations of texts and self-asserting dogma.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:11:15 2022 No.20077362 >>20077317 "Original teaching" is a Christian cope. As the Emperor Julian said, you should be banned from studying anything other than your fairy tale anthology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:12:54 2022 No.20077369 >>20077339 >self-declared authority on Buddhism vaguely denounces his opponents for their vague, self-taught interpretations, more at 11

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:30:08 2022 No.20077443 >>20077362 >>20077369 I'm not seeing anyone pull out Pali. That's what I thought about you midwits. Low effort and try to protect their fake doctrines with a handwave. Cope seethe dilate YWNBAW

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:34:20 2022 No.20077457 Have any of you actually studied at a Buddhist or Hindu temple, or are you lot basically just otaku prots?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:35:21 2022 No.20077460 >>20077443 That's not how this works, but since you are so familiar with that form of exegesis, you should be able to refute yourself using the Brahmajala sutta. Won't make you any more enlightened though, keep seething

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:40:12 2022 No.20077487 >>20077460 >>20077369 >>20077362 Imagine being a Buddhaboo and being unable to actually defend your shaky doctrines other than with meme tier excuses. Embarrassing, it's clear to me why Buddhism is the religion of self defeat.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:44:48 2022 No.20077503 >>20077443 >>20077487 There are countless Buddhism threads where they BTFO arguments. In fact I would say it's the norm. Don't be a retard. Explore the archive if you really care.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:50:06 2022 No.20077517

>>20077503
So far I don't see you blowing any argument out over your axioms. I don't care about any of those other threads if you can't fix such a crucial axiomatic matter, from which the rest either follows or falls apart.

All Buddhist proponents I've seen base their doctrine on dishonest handwaving. They don't read Pali, they don't know for sure what the texts say, and they sure as hell don't know what the Buddha taught.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:53:50 2022 No.20077533

>>20077517
My suspicion is that every translation is based on sectarian or McBuddhist beliefs. If there's a translation of the canon, with commentary that indicates strongly and self evidently how accurate its version is, please post. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong, since I don't have anything against a well rounded Buddhism in particular.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:55:03 2022 No.20077538 >>20077517 I'm not an expert on Buddhism, that was my first comment in this thread. You're an ignorant blowhard. Talking to you is a waste of anyone's time, maybe why this thread is shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:56:24 2022 No.20077546 >>20077538 The McBuddhists here are full of shit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 21:57:43 2022 No.20077552 >>20077538 Also if you're so sure you have a handle on the matter, how would you prove Buddhist sect doctrines are true?

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:00:49 2022 No.20077561

>>20077487
You are arguing in bad faith anyway. There is no citation from the nikayas that would convince you to change your position, which is just culture war posturing anyhow. You'd merely shift angles and continue bleating "YWNBAW" as if that meant you had won. And the next day you do it over... It's almost like arguing with... oh well I'm sure you KNOW where I'm going with this, it's from a book quite popular with tourists

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:09:28 2022 No.20077589

>>20077561
I only started posting about Buddhism today. Idk who you mean. I barely use this board.

>There is no citation from the nikayas that would convince you to change your position
That's because the nikayas don't have such a passage at all, thus don't support the McBuddhists' position.

Atman likely is true, and it's compatible with Buddhism. But then you might as well follow Advaita, instead of pursuing modern Buddhism, all of which are fake sects. Ultimately everyone's atman should seek to rejoin brahman, instead of this nihilistic position where it fades into nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:18:01 2022 No.20077615 >>20077589 Anatman is not a 'McBuddhist' position, and if anything, it would be a 'McVedic' position to argue that Buddhism is really Advaita Vedanta.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:20:28 2022 No.20077624 >>20077615 It's a watered down version of Vedanta, and all the Buddhist sects even more so

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:26:17 2022 No.20077653 >>20077615 >>20077624 What I mean is the caste system and rituals aren't the integral part of these belief systems.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:28:49 2022 No.20077666 >>20077624 Oh really? Show me the Pali; where's your citation?

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:43:45 2022 No.20077705

>>20077666
Pali scripture's compatibility with atman, eternal self, proves it. Anatta/an-atman is simply the Buddha's way to give hard edges to understanding atman. Anatta means "this is not atman", and when you look at the scriptures link above and in the janny-deleted thread, it is found and refers to any mode of being that's impermanent, like eyes, ears, mind, worldly consciousness. Advaita resemble purer Hinduism, before the imaginative deities, the caste system that holds Hindus down, and likewise the weighty rituals.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 22:52:38 2022 No.20077731

>>20077705
Buddhism does preserve archaic elements of Vedic religion like Indra being a powerful god instead of a fat alcoholic, and anatman is a means of describing what is impermanent or momentary, but that is not the same as asserting there is an ontologically real atman that matters to Buddhist philosophy or soteriology in the way atman does to that of Vedanta

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 23:13:27 2022 No.20077813

>>20076997
What level of Buddhism are you on? I bet im a better Buddhist than you. What rank are you? How many certifications do you possess? I am a qualified Buddhist trained by Master Vem Haio from the Zhing Zouh Temple in the Nahu Se Touang province.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 23:17:47 2022 No.20077824

>>20077217
Buddhism is good for accepting your poorness and turning into a positive: I don't even want those nice things anyway, life is better without luxories, I bet those rich people arent even happy.

No doubt someone will respond that rich people arent happy, and we have to trust that this anon knows all rich people.

Buddhism is a way to control ones mind, try to shake off possible culture baggage of specific upbringing and biases; and getting to know a more cosmic, fundamental, universal self

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 23:32:06 2022 No.20077863

>>20077731
What I mean is the scriptures can't be used to show that atman doesn't exist, because they don't say atman's not real. But even the scriptures aren't guaranteed to truthfully tell what Buddha said, since texts can be tampered with, or if what Buddha historically said even checks out cohesively, or what's the actual truth about reality. Which is why bootstrapping sutras had to be invented several times. To fix that, we have to use our minds to discern the answer, and Advaita has a more self-sufficient and cohesive system (most are familiar with it here, since Vedanta anon is active, I'm told) than Buddhism, which is full of holes that other systems, even Abrahamisms are able to satisfacorily and rationally settle, as it gives a cohesive explanation for reality and individual existence. I'm not sure if Advaita's core is true or not, but it makes more sense than any other Hindu school, most of which are disgustingly clunky cults. Advaita is more satisfyingly bootstrapping than Buddhism, whose sects' shaky beliefs are full of holes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 16 23:34:22 2022 No.20077868 File: 482 KB, 1280x1160, B2D85E4A-0CC5-4EBA-8C60-25425623395F.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Lmao at this thread. Reading this shit set me back at least a year in my search for enlightenment. I hate this board, website, culture, and epoch.

Anonymous Wed Mar 16 23:57:49 2022 No.20077960

>>20077705
Advaita is literally the result of a Hindu copying Nagarjuna's (a Mahayana Buddhist scholar) homework and pasting Theism over it, bro. That's what the poster you're arguing with means by it being a 'McVedic' philosophy. Advaita is a comparatively modern, syncretic religion or sect based off Mahayana Buddhism

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 00:03:29 2022 No.20077984

>>20077960
No it's not. I'm aware of the criticisms, but they're not as potent as you think. McBuddhism copies Vedic lit's homework. All the terms in Advaita are present in the Vedic literature, just in a more compact systematic form. He's more like a reformer of Hinduism with a better spirituality guide that's parallel in origin to, and better than, Buddhism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 00:04:30 2022 No.20077989 >>20077868 Part of philosophy is generating more problems than solutions, but don't become a tranny.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 00:12:20 2022 No.20078024 >>20077863 >the holes in buddhism are filled [...] by just-so theological copes ok please demonstrate your atmans and brahman and all that jazz, been waiting for 2500 years

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 00:16:51 2022 No.20078039

>>20077984
Why did it take an enormous span of time between Buddha and Shankara for Hindus to realize they were the real non-dualists all along? Just because the vocabulary words of AV can be found in the root texts does not make the interpretation any less resultant from its dialectic with Buddhism. That's like skipping from the English Magna Carta to the US Declaration of Independence without acknowledging anything happened in between them.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 00:17:33 2022 No.20078042

>>20078024
It makes more sense, and is more elegantly bootstrappable. If you want to stick to Buddhism, whatever, but it's become increasingly irrelevant and stillborn. Theological systems like the Abrahamisms and Hinduism will do more to save more souls.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 00:51:36 2022 No.20078142 >>20078042 >i just like x better because i agree with it neat

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 01:05:55 2022 No.20078163

>>20078142
Most rational people agree with systems that check out. This is why there are so many intellectual with sincere faith in Islam and Catholicism. Advaita is similarly sturdy, but also more flexible and generally applicable. Problem is, not many really follow it; it's perhaps too flexible to become broadly institutional.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 01:22:34 2022 No.20078187 >>20078163 What do you mean by "systems that check out" or "rational people"? It seems like this is just a fancier way to dress your opinion, not any sort of demonstration. We are still waiting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 03:03:23 2022 No.20078392 File: 23 KB, 640x474, 1647361945239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 08:46:21 2022 No.20079173 File: 35 KB, 593x517, 0D719660-1981-490E-9960-827346C6F2CC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >le Buddhism is le rational!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 09:38:31 2022 No.20079336 Buddha did not say that atman does not exist, he just pointed out which elements are not atman.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 10:32:41 2022 No.20079586

>>20078039
>Why did it take an enormous span of time between Buddha and Shankara for Hindus to realize they were the real non-dualists all along?
It didn't, practically all the major non-denominational Hindu texts from the time of the Upanishads down to Shankara's time all have strongly non-dualistic passages, including the Puranas, Manusmriti, the Bhagavad-Gita and other sections of the Mahabharata as well like the Uttara Gita.

We just don't have any voluminous corpus of one non-dualist thinker's writings like Shankara, but before Shankara; but this is pretty standard for pre-Medieval India, there was a massive amount writings lost, partly because of the events of history like invasions and sacking libraries etc but partly also because they were writing on fragile materials like bark and palm leaves, there was no widespread printing or mass-engraving in India until the late-medieval/early-modern era. It's totally foolish to think that just because Shankara is the first systematic non-dualist think whose writings survive that no Hindus were writing about and teaching non-dualism before him.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 10:37:34 2022 No.20079607

>>20078039
>Just because the vocabulary words of AV can be found in the root texts does not make the interpretation any less resultant from its dialectic with Buddhism.
The Advaita interpretation is not a result of a dialectic with Buddhism, in case you didn't remember Shankara doesn't even engage with Nagarjuna in his works but Shankara considered him too stupid to be worth the time to criticize him. There was never any dialectic between Mahayana and Advaita, such a scenario would actually require that Mahayana Buddhist thinkers read and reply to Advaitin's works so that they could have an actual dialectical debate where each party considers the others response, but this never actually happened in medieval- or early-modern India, Tibet etc.

The Upanishads unequivocally state that Brahman projects the world/multiplicity and that this duality is an illusion, the domain of ignorance, when Shankara says that there is an absolute truth of Brahman and the illusion projected/cast by it, he is just doing a straightforward explication of what they Upanishads already teach, the Upanishads themselves make a distinction between the level of falsity and ultimate truth or between reality/truth and illusion/ignorance, it's not an invention of Buddhism. Advaita is just taking this model that is already present in the Upanishads and sticking with it.

Also, truth vs falsity in Advaita is a pretty consistent model that the major Advaitins stick to without issue; whereas on the other hand in Buddhism its a lot more vague, contested and problematic. Most Buddhist schools disagree on what Nagarjuna taught about two truths, it's not clear just from a reading of his works alone what he means. Buddhists disagree with each other about whether the absolute truth is Nirvana/the Absolute and Madhyamika is just supposed to remove our misconceptions of this, while other Buddhists say "there is no absolute truth that exists on its own, the absolute truth is just the groundlessness of the conditioned but isn't anything over and above that". Even the modern scholars can't agree with each other, Kalupuhana trashes Stcherbatsky's and Murti's reading of Nagarjuna for example and says they are erroneously attributing a pantheism to Nagarjuna. The Wittgensteinian-reading of Nagarjuna that post-modern western academoids tend to prefer is itself thoroughly trashed by Tsongkhapa and subsequent Gelug scholasticism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 11:41:11 2022 No.20079848 >>20077705 Cite the scripture faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 12:07:49 2022 No.20079928 Whats with this troll?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 12:09:41 2022 No.20079932 >>20077257 >No, the Pali Canon is explicit, the Buddha believed in souls What fucking pali canon are you reading? The Pali Canon expounds the no-self doctrine at every turn. God I hate this board and its pseuds. GO READ.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 12:41:41 2022 No.20080072

>>20079932
>The Pali Canon expounds the no-self doctrine at every turn
You seem to not understand that certain things can be "not-atman", but that there can be an atman. Here's a challenge: show me a single verse from the Pali Canon where the soul is said to not exist. Should be easy, considering it's one of the fundamental doctrines of McBuddhist Bezos-sponsored nihilism, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 12:53:06 2022 No.20080126 >>20079932 You're responding to a troll.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 13:36:14 2022 No.20080309 >>20079932 You, like the above McBuddhist pseuds, obviously haven't read the Pali canon, much less in its original language. Like >>20080072 said, cite one quote where the eternal soul, atman/atta, is unambiguously stated to not exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 14:20:10 2022 No.20080488 >>20080072 He does say "sabbe dhamma anatta" which leaves room for a self, but only if that self is not a dhamma, but everything from material reality up to Nirvana is a dhamma. What do you think the soul is then?

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 14:47:57 2022 No.20080598

>>20080488
>sabbe dhamma anatta
"The Blessed One said, “What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas." (SN 35:23)
To say that all sense-phenomena/things (sabbe dhamma) is not the soul is something even most Christians, Muslims, and Jews would agree with. You've not shown that Siddhartha teaches that the soul does not exist. I don't operate under Buddhist metaphysics/epistemology, so it doesn't matter how I reconcile Buddhist scripture - it only matters to show others that Buddhism does not teach a doctrine of "[there is] no soul".

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 14:49:38 2022 No.20080603 File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1588804762178.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20079607 >The Advaita interpretation is not a result of a dialectic with Buddhism

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 15:03:29 2022 No.20080674

>>20077201
I don't understand what the end goal of Buddhism is then. What happens when everyone does this? The cycle ends and humanity just ceases to exist, but animals will still be around somehow? Plants and everything just continue on until the heat death of the universe anyways?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 15:16:17 2022 No.20080735 >>20080488 >up to Nirvana Retarded spotted. Everything he says from this point forward can be safely disregarded.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 15:28:07 2022 No.20080769

>>20079607
>this never actually happened
Then why is Shankara famous for "refuting" Buddhism? What, you think nothing took place in India intellectually for a thousand years? One day there was the braminical religion of rituals and sacrifices to appease the gods and one day there was non-dualism and phenomenology? And I suppose you don't think there are multiple conflicting opinions from scholars and sectarians on what Shankara meant either, that this is a problem unique to only systems you dislike?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 15:32:45 2022 No.20080785 >>20080674 I think to treat the lingering question without a slapdash fix is philosophical fair, but so many other religions do as much for spirituality, and have rationally sufficient implementations for individual eschatology.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 16:13:38 2022 No.20080965

> "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

>"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...

>"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...

>"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...

>"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

>"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

There, have I shown you autists that anatman is in the pali canon? Any questions? Concerns? You LITERALLY just needed to google “pali canon anatta sutta” and voila.
>le show me one sutra that teaches nonself!!!!
Sure. There. “Anatta-lakkhana Sutta”. Can we wrap this up?

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 16:15:17 2022 No.20080975

>>20080965
Continued...

> "Any kind of feeling whatever...

>"Any kind of perception whatever...

>"Any kind of determination whatever...

>"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

Any questions? Concerns? There’s your anatta bros

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 16:23:33 2022 No.20081012

Literally who cares if Advaita Vedānta seems more structurally sound? Buddhism is the religion of Aryan, Mongolian, Central Asian, Japanese Chads. It is literally anti-street shitter, anti widow-burying, anti shit-bathing in its ESSENCE. Advaita Vedānta is the street shitter religion par excellence. Shankara was an inferior South Indian operating on an inferior South Indian framework. Can we please acknowledge that Buddhism is the based Aryan/based Japanese religion and that Hindoooooism is clearly faulty by its racial adherence and makeup? Thank you!

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 16:45:28 2022 No.20081109

>>20077201
How are you gonna accurately convey buddha's apophatic syntax and then end it with "he's a nihilist though"? He negates nihilism too--there is no meaning, nor is there LACK of meaning. It's all negated. It's not nihilism, nor is it anything else

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 17:38:35 2022 No.20081336 >>20080975 >sense-data and consciousness are not the soul This is not "a doctrine of no soul". This is saying something that even most Abrahamic theologians would agree with, who also believe in a soul.

>>	Anonymọus Thu Mar 17 18:19:26 2022 No.20081510 These threads are a great examination of the loss of spirituality and self-confidence im the West. Just endless question dodging bullshit summed up as "well you can't know" so that you don't have to actually answer about your way of life.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 19:42:09 2022 No.20081908 >>20081510 Buddhoid — to wit, negroid — “philosophy” is a species of sophism, which genus invariably plagues civilizations at their terminal phase, starting with the blasé, decadent and indifferent urbanite.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 19:46:57 2022 No.20081927 File: 800 KB, 1438x1034, 1639390952770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] advaita is just mahayana buddhism with a thin coat of paint

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 19:49:56 2022 No.20081940 >>20077217 What the hell does a retarded jumble of fanfictions stamped as the word of god provide to the masses instead?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 19:55:47 2022 No.20081977 >>20080769 >Then why is Shankara famous for "refuting" Buddhism? But he isn't. He's a minor nihilist in the Indian tradition, and a literally-who in the Buddhist tradition.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 19:57:39 2022 No.20081988

>>20080674
>What happens when everyone does this?
All sentient beings achieve Nirvana. That's it.

>Plants and everything just continue on until the heat death of the universe anyways?
Yep. There's multiverses though, so this isn't as spoopy as it sounds.

Now granted given how much internal diversity there is within the Buddhist tradition there's probably some thinker out there who came up with "and eventually the plants become sentient so the Bodhisattvas who stuck around through infinite spacetime teach Buddhism to the sentient trees"

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:00:07 2022 No.20082002

>>20079607
>The Upanishads unequivocally state that Brahman projects the world/multiplicity
Except for the parts where they state the opposite.

>that this duality is an illusion
Except for the parts where they state the opposite.

>he is just doing a straightforward explication of what they Upanishads already teach
Except for the parts where they state the opposite of what he believes.

> Most Buddhist schools disagree on what Nagarjuna taught about two truths
Why bother typing up all of this if you STILL haven't read Nagarjuna?

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:01:05 2022 No.20082010

>>20081977
No he's not. He's more like Aquinas if he was Bruno. A definite genius with tons of strong authoritative arguments to suppress his opponents. But the problem is, like Bruno, he's been marginalized, as are many worthy free thinkers. But he's entered scholar consciousness for his merits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:01:34 2022 No.20082015 >>20082002 wait how the fuck does that work? if the point is nondualism then why is there dualism in the upanishads?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:03:01 2022 No.20082027 >>20082010 Compare him to his contemporaries, and similarly systematic Hindu thinkers, and Shankara is still heads and shoulders above the crowd. Not minor, more like marginalized.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:04:08 2022 No.20082031
File: 1.45 MB, 1628x2892, 1633659280819.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20082015
the upanishads have elements of pantheism, nondualism and monism but also dualism and other things

shankara applied medieval buddhist idealist metaphysics and epistemology to revived vedanta and read a monist nondualist system into the upanishads

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:05:00 2022 No.20082034 Is Shankara a pantheist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:05:13 2022 No.20082036 >>20081977 Well if that weren't his reception among /lit/'s poorennialists then he wouldn't be brought up in every thread

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:06:03 2022 No.20082040

>>20082010
>A definite genius
Not according to the majority of Hindus.

>he's entered scholar consciousness for his merits.
He entered the Western consciousness because Advaitins cozied up to Crowleyites and Theosophists during the Raj who, while looking for secret hidden teachings of the orient, didn't bother to ask Hindus what they actually believe.

>>20082015
The Upanishads are a collection of oral discussions of the Vedas composed and edit by hundreds of individuals across 800BC to 800AD (The Buddha, for comparison, lived around 500BC). They're essentially an attempt at putting a "why" to the "what" and "how" of the rituals of the Vedas. To that end, you can use them to justify whatever the fuck you want because most of the passages in the Upanishads are utter gibberish without a very rigid hermeneutic to figure out what exactly they're talking about.

For comparison, the two major schools of Vedanta are the Vishishadvaitans, who argue a monistic doctrine wherein the soul of Brahman is the soul of the universe, and the Dvaitans who argue that Brahman's souls is separate from the incredibly large number of different souls of the things in the universe. The nihilistic doctrines of Shankara are largely a historical footnote to these two schools (both were founded because of their founders' disagreements with Advaita Vedanta).

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:07:45 2022 No.20082050 File: 1.08 MB, 914x684, froggo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20077868 nice frog, anon, very wabi-sabi

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:09:37 2022 No.20082058 File: 2.21 MB, 1450x5947, autism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20077868 >he doesn't know that the study of ancient and foreign religions only exists so that autists can screech at eachother on the internet during work hours

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:13:59 2022 No.20082081
File: 31 KB, 258x400, 1481835797609.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20082058
>he doesn't know that the sage Ryokan burned down his entire hut when he took a candle to his thatched roof trying to make a hole for a bamboo shoot growing in his closet

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:14:33 2022 No.20082085 >>20082040 >Not according to the majority of Hindus. Haters gonna hate.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:16:22 2022 No.20082097

>>20082040
>He entered the Western consciousness because Advaitins cozied up to Crowleyites and Theosophists during the Raj who, while looking for secret hidden teachings of the orient, didn't bother to ask Hindus what they actually believe.
Which thinkers are better than Shankara? Do their moral and soteriological systems lead to strong, forever advancing societies?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:21:30 2022 No.20082110 I've noticed Cicero seems to apply "omnis" to nouns in the plural (rather than "omnes"). IIRC he does this with some other adjectives as well but I'm too lazy to go back and confirm. Is this normal or am I misreading?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:22:31 2022 No.20082114 >>20082110 oops delete this

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:23:12 2022 No.20082119 >>20082110 If you aren't using LLPSI you will never understand, an LLPSI user would FEEL what Cicero means and not have to ask such a question

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:29:54 2022 No.20082148 >>20082119 lmao fuck off, not here too

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:30:38 2022 No.20082154 Goddamn Ranieri faggots are even shitting up other shitfest threads F U C K O F F U C K O F F

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:33:45 2022 No.20082174 >>20082154 lol I'm not that anon but that was clearly a trollpost satirizing ranierifags

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:49:06 2022 No.20082250

>>20080769
>Then why is Shankara famous for "refuting" Buddhism?
Because of the philosophical refutations of Buddhism in his works.

>>20082002
>Except for the parts where they state the opposite.
They don't
>Except for the parts where they state the opposite.
They don't
>Except for the parts where they state the opposite of what he believes.
They don't

>>20082015
When the Upanishads speak of dualism, it's within the dualistic conventional existence that they already state elsewhere is due to maya/avidya; they don't ever say "multiplicity is absolute and non-illusory"; of course there will be conventional dualism when containing a spiritual lesson in a parable requires a multicity of actors, actions and objects in that parable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:52:58 2022 No.20082276 >>20082250 >Because of the philosophical refutations of Buddhism in his works. So there is a dialectical relationship between Shankara and Buddhism, and you are a retard for denying it in your previous post

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 20:57:40 2022 No.20082304

>>20082031
>shankara applied medieval buddhist idealist metaphysics and epistemology to revived vedanta
Wrong, Shankara wrotes arguments refuting the idealist metaphysics and epistemology of Yogachara Buddhism while carefully distinguishing his own Advaita Vedanta from it.

>Shankara believes in epistemic realism and ontological idealism. He is equally opposed to subjective idealism (like Yogachara) and ontological realism (atomism etc). For him, the empirical reality of this world of subject-object duality cannot be denied nor can its ultimate reality be upheld. The world is empirically real and transcendentally unreal. It would be absurd to suppose that Shankara, while criticising Buddhist idealism, compromises with his own idealism or becomes a realist or uses the arguments of realism in which he himself does not believe. Shankara accepts and defends only epistemic realism as it is not incompatible with his absolute idealism. His criticism is directed mainly against subjective idealism. He also carefully distinguishes his Vedantic idealism from the Buddhist idealism which he criticises.

>Vijnanavada condemns the subject and the object as totally unreal; they do not enjoy even empirical reality. They are purely imaginary (parikalpita). Only their ‘forms' which appear in knowledge are empirically real; they are superimpositions on the modification of consciousness (vijnana-parinama). Consciousness, infected with transcendental Illusion of Objectivity, appears in the form of subject and object. Consciousness assuming these forms is empirically real, for it is conditioned by avidya (paratantra). Pure Consciousness which is totally free from this avidya and the subject-object duality projected by it is the ultimate reality (parinispanna).

>Shankara’s main objection is that the denial of even empirical reality to the individual subject and the external object is extremely illogical and contrary to our experience. From the empirical standpoint, it is illogical to separate the ‘form* of consciousness form its ‘content' and retain empirical reality for this ‘form’ and reject the ‘content’ as totally unreal. When both the form and the content appear in knowledge together and both vanish together, what is the sense in making this uncalled for and impossible separation between the two? And when even this ‘form’ is discarded as ultimately unreal, why this needless partiality in favour of the‘form' and the prejudice against the ‘content'? You cannot cut a hen into two to cook one half and reserve another half for laying eggs, says Shankara. The individual subject and the external object enjoy equal status. Both are empirically real, though transcendentally both are superimpositions on pure consciousness. But their empirical reality cannot be questioned and they cannot be rejected as purely imaginary (pankalpita). To do so is to disturb our empirical life without any compensatory gain.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:07:50 2022 No.20082347

>>20082276
In a dialectic there is an exchange between two or more parties. There was no exchange between Buddhism and Advaita, because the Buddhists seem to have not read his work and replied, because no medieval or early-modern Buddhist replied to his arguments even though they replied to the specific earlier arguments of Kumarila, Nyayikas etc. They also get the fundamentals wrong in the few works that do briefly mention Advaita or Upanishadic monism/non-dualism.

There are examples of real dialectical exchanges in Indian philosophy where a certain thinker or school will issue a critique of another school, the intended party will read it and issue their reply, the original party will read it and issue and a counter to the rebuttal and so on, this never occurred with Vedanta and Buddhism.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:19:03 2022 No.20082392
File: 252 KB, 650x778, 1614636244796.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20082347
>ummm, no he wasn't influenced by Buddhism at all and his system is literally just a 1:1 copy of the Upanishads and adds no new developments that took place over interim thousand years of Indian philosophy. In fact Shankara's refutations of Buddhists, other Hindus, and other Hindus who had argued against Buddhists to develop their own positions, are entirely Shankara having a conversation with himself, because the atman is brahman, so there really were no other thinkers or ideas for Shankara to argue with as they were all himself dreaming about himself in order to argue with himself about himself. So there was no dialectic, also the Upanishads wrote themselves

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:20:24 2022 No.20082397 >>20082304 >carefully distinguishing his own Advaita Vedanta from it. Why would he need to be so careful? Shouldn't it be obvious that he isn't a Buddhist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:23:11 2022 No.20082408 >>20082097 No answer. I'm not impressed, and even if Hindon'ts can't appreciate Shankara, that only shows they're retards.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:30:23 2022 No.20082442

>>20082034
>Is Shankara a pantheist?
No he is not, Ramanuja, Vallabha and Abhinavagupta are pantheists, albeit with their own particular idiosyncrasies. There isn't any western label that Advaita is neatly encapsulated by. It's not pantheism or monism because maya/samsara isn't identical with the transcendent Brahman that is projecting it, it's not dualism because all multiplicity and distinctions are regarded as illusory superimpositions upon the one non-dual reality of Brahman instead of being regarded as also real. In some ways it's similar to Panentheism, which similarly recognizes a transcendent God pervading a universe with energy, but in Panentheism there is still a kind of subtle duality retained where the universe truly exists as other than God but this is rejected in Advaita.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:34:15 2022 No.20082466

>>20082397
>Why would he need to be so careful?
Because the two systems propound the reality of consciousness over the non-conscious, so to someone who was unintelligent or not paying close attention they might seem similar, but when you get down to the actual details they disagree on most matters
>Shouldn't it be obvious that he isn't a Buddhist?
It should, but a careful thinker anticipates and provides answers to possible objections, even those voiced by the confused etc, which is what he is doing there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:34:25 2022 No.20082468 >>20082442 >illusory superimpositions upon the one non-dual reality that's dualism though, you calling the real thing non-dual does nothing to explain the non-real things

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:36:31 2022 No.20082486

>>20082466
>careful thinker anticipates and provides answers to possible objections
Are you telling me he was in a dialectic with this rivalrous Buddhist position and had to develop his own views such that they would negate criticisms put forth by an opponent, whether that opponent was a Buddhist or a Hindu who thought his system sounded Buddhist?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 21:46:55 2022 No.20082549 File: 1.57 MB, 907x5051, 1640120231282.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20082304 I'm sorry but this has been refuted by guenonfag, /lit/'s cryptobuddhism expert.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 22:13:55 2022 No.20082649 >>20082408 >>20082549 Thanks, I'll look into it.

Anonymous Thu Mar 17 22:42:40 2022 No.20082730

>>20082468
> that's dualism though
Wrong, dualism means there are two or more co-realities or a reality made of two or more co-principles, or that reality is structured by internal differences.
Advaita is doing none of these, Reality in Advaita isn’t made of two things, or structured by two things, reality is the undivided Brahman alone, maya isn’t reality or a part of reality but is the projected magic or energy of Brahman, it’s mithya or false and not real. Full-on dualists like Madhva make Isvara, jagat and jiva into three co-eternal realities. Monists like Ramanuja, Abhinavagupta etc accept a soft dualism of reality being structured by real internal differences, all ‘unity-in-multiplicty’ is a soft dualism, for it doesn’t eradicate all differences but it laminates differences as forever inhering in and being forever present in a unity, never being effaced. The only way to arrive at an overcoming of all multiplicity and difference is if underlying everything is a sole undivided reality that doesn’t share its reality with anything else, and then all the overlaying false layers of non-reality are removed, sublated, transcended until you are left with the sole undivided non-dual reality itself on its lonesome.
>you calling the real thing non-dual does nothing to explain the non-real things
The non-real things are explained as being false maya that is projected by Brahman.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 23:28:18 2022 No.20082892 >>20082730 Why is a real thing projecting fake things? Just to mess with you? But since you're actually brahman, you're just messing with yourself?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 23:36:36 2022 No.20082927 >>20082040 >while looking for secret hidden teachings of the orient, didn't bother to ask Hindus what they actually believe. Imagine believing this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 17 23:49:36 2022 No.20082961 >>20082927 Well it's more like this >your source on a foreign country, it's and culture and religion, in a pre-internet world, is an educated immigrant who wants to impress you

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 03:26:41 2022 No.20083486

>>20076997
We know so little about the historical Buddha or what he actually said he might as well be an amalgamation of several sramanas. Absolutely all extant and well-documented branches of Buddhism belong to the same side of the original schism that split up pre-sectarian Buddhism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 03:34:47 2022 No.20083499 >>20082392 Cut him so slack, the original Buddhism was probably Upanishads-influenced as well. Or a kind of schism from Jainism.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 06:29:53 2022 No.20083833

>>20083499
The historical Buddha probably taught something similar to the Upanishads and even Samkhya philosophy, and only became Reddit tier later due to misunderstanding. These teach that every phenomena including your mind and senses are not the self, but then there is the a true Self.
Ironically however since in the Mahayana tradition any Anon could produce a sutra and attribute it to the Buddha there is one (Mahalaranirvana Sutra) that actually teaches exactly this, that in the end, there is a true Self, to the dismay of the more Redditor/NPC kind of Buddhist (madhyamaka). Likewise a Tibetan school (zhentong) teaches the Self also. There are cracks in the Buddhist wall and the Self always shines forth in the end.
Recommended reading: Ananda Coomaraswamy (Hinduism and Buddhism).

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 07:46:37 2022 No.20083978

>>20082892
>Why is a real thing projecting fake things? Just to mess with you?
Not because of any extraneous reason, but because it's the nature of Brahman to do so
>But since you're actually brahman, you're just messing with yourself?
No, because ultimately I don't identify myself with the psycho-physical aggregate or mind that is being messed with; consciousness or Atman is unaffected and only the mind is affected, which isn't me because I am the Atman alone and not the mind or body.

>>20083833
Coomaraswamy also has written essays about this very topic, some of which can be read online such as here

>Original Buddhism & the Atman By Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ORSdqJ-1LmVMgAHwYiRt0SwqeHIiRM6F/view

>Original Buddhism & its Origins By Dr. A.K. Coomaraswamy
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lZZwozWViHtwolDHzM8GB1qgWfKbLkOh/view

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 08:18:33 2022 No.20084032

I don’t discount the possibility that those who firmly identify with the more radical interpretation of anatta by the likes of Nagarjuna might actually, existentially be be no more than the sum of their psychosomatic aggregates, lacking a true self (something like the hylics in Gnosticism), so it is true *for them*. These people are to be avoided as they are demonic (asuric) in nature, and will drag you down with them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 08:52:57 2022 No.20084097 >>20083978 >im not my mind, i'm my consciousness not even Yogacara makes this error

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 08:58:17 2022 No.20084106

>>20083833
You can't really call other systems NPC if yours consists of believing life is an illusion and we are just being piloted by Brahman as atman. But yes there are schools of Buddhism which affirm a sort of "great Self" but these do equate it with sunyata in any case.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:01:33 2022 No.20084114 >>20081908 I love Spengler but you know he was wrong equating Buddhism proper w stoicism and socialism just to fit the scheme, cmon now

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:03:55 2022 No.20084118 >>20077201 bbaaaaaaased

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:04:34 2022 No.20084120 >>20084097 It's not an error

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:05:21 2022 No.20084125 >>20084120 Why would consciousness be real if the mind isn't?

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:05:42 2022 No.20084129

>>20077294
>Anatman or nairatmya is inseparable from the doctrine of all dharmas or elements of experience as being momentary—hence they are identityless. This is in the nikayas and is picked up with greater emphasis by Mahayanists, who are going to attack the reification of these dharmas by the Sarvastivadins, just as if they were as soluble as the skandhas/aggregates, and the exegetical method they use (sunyata) later evolves into its own formal school.
I don't understand what you're saying

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:06:43 2022 No.20084131 >>20077868 >Reading this shit set me back at least a year in my search for enlightenment. Repent

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:11:01 2022 No.20084143

>>20084129
Saying "that is not self" with regard to objects of experience is another way to convey their impermanence, because a self was understood to the audience as something which is permanent. Since a self is not found anywhere in experience it is eliminated as a baseless, ensnaring view which is not efficacious to Buddhist soteriology, and the identitylessness of phenomena is upheld

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:13:34 2022 No.20084151

>>20084125
>Why would consciousness be real if the mind isn't?
Doctrinally, this is because consciousness is the Atman-Brahman which is the source of maya, obviously.

Logically, being aware of something false presupposes a real awareness or consciousness being present, thereby allowing there to be knowledge of falsity. Something that had no reality all the way down could not even be conscious of things happening.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:19:09 2022 No.20084162

>>20084151
If consciousness is the source of illusion, as it is in both Yogacara and Advaita Vedanta, how does your system get rid of illusion, if it is the nature of true reality (brahman-atman) to emit illusion? For the Yogacarins, consciousness and all its discursive thought which is apprended ceases upon its purification, leaving only the stainless absolute, which is described as void any predicates or discursiveness. But for you, consciousness is that absolute brahman, and it is the nature of brahman to deceive you, so you literally can't undo it if it is the nature of things (if you could, it would be incoherent to claim there were natures at all). Must you pray to brahman to stop flexing on you?

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 09:58:26 2022 No.20084272

>>20084162
>If consciousness is the source of illusion, as it is in both Yogacara and Advaita Vedanta, how does your system get rid of illusion, if it is the nature of true reality (brahman-atman) to emit illusion?
The answer to this is that ultimate reality is self-disclosing, it doesn't have to be attained or produced as though it were something different from oneself, one just has to remove the mental obscurations that the mind places in front of it like clouds in front of the sun, this removal of mental obscurations or false understanding comes about through the aspirant being instructed in the Upanishadic texts by a qualified teacher. Being instructed in the lessons of the Upanishads can eliminate the false understanding of the aspirant, because the Upanishads use parables, symbolism, direct statements etc to reveal the nature of things and point out pervasive misunderstandings that people have about themselves and the world. Studying the Upanishads and subsequent reflection removes these wrong conceptions.

>For the Yogacarins, consciousness and all its discursive thought which is apprended ceases upon its purification, leaving only the stainless absolute, which is described as void any predicates or discursiveness.
Incorrect, in the Yogachara of Asanga and Vasubandhu, Parinispanna is eternal unchanging non-dual consciousness and remains so after liberation and is identical with Nirvana or the Absolute. You may be confusing between Asanga/Vasubandhu vs Dharmakirti/Dinnaga, they are two different stages of Yogachara that actually propound different metaphysics. Saying the consciousness ends leaving only the Absolute is meaningless unless we have some way to experience it or be that Absolute, i.e. if we remain as cognizant of it or if we ourselves are that. If you just say "everything ends, leaving X which you have no relation to or way of knowing" that's no different than an extinction, practically speaking that is.

There are three ontological levels in Asanga/Vasubandhu:

Parikalpita - imaginary "objects of conciousness" like rocks - totally unreal
Paratantra - the alaya-vijnana and it's dependencies - governed by co-dependent origination
Parinispanna - eternal unchanging consciousness beyond space and time, is the basis of the other two.

>But for you, consciousness is that absolute brahman, and it is the nature of brahman to deceive you, so you literally can't undo it if it is the nature of things
It's just the nature of Brahman to project maya, maya contains deceiving as well as enlightening things within itself (e.g. the Upanishads). The same function that projects maya also in the very same function projects minds that allow us to overcome ignorance and be liberated, a path to liberation is projected and allowed as well; so it's not as though there is a singular directive for Brahman to deceive us, because Brahman also projects means for us to be enlightened, so it's not impossible to undo one's ignorance in fact.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:11:25 2022 No.20084307

>>20084272
>The same function that projects maya also in the very same function projects minds that allow us to overcome ignorance and be liberated
You have the same problem all theologians of a distinct godhood have—that you are inexplicably being treated as a lab rat by God. Will you grab the cheese at the end of the maze, or will you meander until you starve? Why would something have the nature of being both true and false, this God who spits out both revelation and deceit, unless it were some sort of relativistic... empty... notion... dependent upon the observer to reify it in accordance with his tendencies, meaningful to him but arbitrary to others?

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:28:06 2022 No.20084362

>>20084307
>You have the same problem all theologians of a distinct godhood have—that you are inexplicably being treated as a lab rat by God.
No, since as the Atman-Brahman I am totally unaffected, I am not the mind or body, even the mind that is typing this right now is but an attendant of the Atman, attesting to its presence while remaining different from it. The mind-body complex of all beings in fact is a display projected by the inherent power of the Atman-Brahman. This thought wouldn't have occurred to you unless you were identifying yourself with the body and mind and believed this to be normal, despite both Buddhism and Vedanta of all varieties cautioning you to not do that, how amusing.
>Will you grab the cheese at the end of the maze, or will you meander until you starve?
There is no starving but transmigration continues indefinitely until liberation, failure in one life just leads to another one, same as in most systems with rebirth.
>Why would something have the nature of being both true and false, this God who spits out both revelation and deceit,\
Brahman doesn't have the nature of being both true and false, and neither does maya. Brahman is entirely true, maya is entirely false. Maya despite being false, uses false things as tools to point people in the direction of true reality. False doesn't entail being without practical efficiency.
>unless it were some sort of relativistic... empty... notion... dependent upon the observer to reify it in accordance with his tendencies, meaningful to him but arbitrary to others?
What is even the point of this now? You are just grasping at straws

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:32:14 2022 No.20084374 >>20084362 >Brahman is entirely true, maya is entirely false. Ok so you are a dualist. Just give it a rest already. Err, I mean Brahman should withdraw his atman from your jiva so you can power down for a spell.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:39:31 2022 No.20084400

>>20084374
>Ok so you are a dualist.
Have we already arrived at the point when you run out of interesting things to say and move on to the <90 IQ takes? No it's not dualist, because there is only one undivided reality admitted as existing, while all else is false. That doesn't leave any room for dualism, which requires distinctions that actually *exist* on both ends, instead of one side only """existing""" conventionally or nominally while being negated in the final analysis.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:47:46 2022 No.20084423 >>20080674 he says its not for everyone. i doubt he cares either way

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:53:00 2022 No.20084437 instead of saying " x doesn't exist. neither does not x." why not say you're unsure about the existence of x

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 10:55:09 2022 No.20084445

>>20084400
>there is only one undivided reality admitted as existing, while all else is false
If it is the nature of reality to create falsehoods, and all we experience are these falsehoods, then your notion reality is actually imaginary. You devaluate everything which is actually real for something unreal, and claim to have done the opposite.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 11:05:28 2022 No.20084478

>>20084445
>If it is the nature of reality to create falsehoods, and all we experience are these falsehoods,
Wrong, we experience both at the same time, the Self or Atman is reflexively known in a general way by everyone at every moment, including at the same time as the false maya, that is why we have immediate awareness or knowledge of ourselves as being present as the witness of each and every moment. This is why when you remember a particular experience of seeing a certain famous painting in a museum or a unique arrangement of clouds, not only do you remember of the details of the painting, but you also remember the first-hand perspective of having it appear, *for you*, in your experience, this latter argument is actually used by Dharmakirti to argue that awareness has reflexive, immediate access to itself. Chandrakirti and Shantidevi both try to refute this argument, but Evan Thompson has pointed out in books and essays how their refutation fails because of the faulty reasoning that both Chandrakirti and Shantidevi uses.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 11:08:37 2022 No.20084494

>>20084478
Memory doesn't even work that way. You call up some impressions of a thing that you have and make them present again in your imagination. That does't prove your ontological claims, if anything it drives home the notion of consciousness as a container of latent tendencies. If your self were so permanent you should still be at that museum even now, not recalling a flanderized version of your going there.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 11:41:52 2022 No.20084633

>>20084494
>Memory doesn't even work that way. You call up some impressions of a thing that you have and make them present again in your imagination.
Wrong, since the only impressions you have ever had of a particular thing was acquired in the very moment of that thing presenting itself to your awareness, the only extent to which you are able to remember your impressions of something, is the extent to which they have occurred 'for you'. There are no memories of impressions found anywhere without that memory being inseparable from the simultaneous memory of one having experienced that impression at the moment when it occured, which is the memory of being reflexively self-aware of one's self or awareness at the moment of the impression. To assert otherwise would be to absurdly and foolishly claim that we can acquire detailed visual impressions of say a famous painting that we recall weeks later, all without us being aware of us seeing the painting at the moment of receiving the original impression of it, like we were temporarily rendered into insentient NPCS while seeing painting, only to be made sentient again later. I can see why a Buddhist might find this tenable, but to any non-Buddhists who are not already swayed by a sunk-cost fallacy, it's just not serious at all.
>That does't prove your ontological claims
I didn't say that it does prove my claims, it's phenomenological evidence that can be cited in support of my claims, phenomenological evidence which contradicts the other-illuminationist position of Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Santideva and Tsongkhapa.
>If your self were so permanent you should still be at that museum even now,
Why? Just because the mind has a changing experience, doesn't necessitate that the permanent Self has to relive or be stuck in that experience forever, the mind changing is what accounts for all changing experience, no change or impermanence in the Self is needed, the Self doesn't change in accordance with each experience, that's what the mind does, i.e. there is no difference in the Self between one experience and another.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:02:14 2022 No.20084699

>>20084633
>Wrong, since the only impressions you have ever had of a particular thing was acquired in the very moment of that thing presenting itself to your awareness
Your "memory" is a constant act of re-acquiring this thing. You don't have it in front of you anymore. You are conjuring it back up in a turtles-all-the-way down fashion. Even if we could go back to your first impression of the thing, you'd still be working from a copy of that first impression to create your repeated impression, and the process starts all over again. You are calling this "being reflexively self-aware of one's self" which is some sort of turgid scholastic parody of language rather than anything to do with memory. Projecting a self into memory is no more accurate than the projection of the painting, which as noted is just a decaying impression called up over and over again with varying emphases

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:20:31 2022 No.20084757 >>20080674 This is the problem of westoid. All things should have an end game. Thats why westoid will never accept dharma

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:36:51 2022 No.20084828

>>20077201
Seriously, you are either evil person or an ignorant, no inbetween. Theres full of dishonesty in your post. Firstly. How dare you to assume what Buddha himself knew. This is why christian are disgusting. They act like they knew what God want out of them out of sheer ignorance. They impose their will acting like its their right to do so. Buddha never says anything about whether he know that soul os exist or not. He just describe that what you percieve as an eternal soul after checking its quality is not apt to be called as an eternal soul, as it is subject to change. Did he knew that his depiction of anatman is true or not? Of course he knew, a buddhist need saddha or faith to you christcuck out there, but not blind faith like you sheep that needs a fucking herder to bring you to "salvation". Saddha also include a firm recognition on the dhamma on basis that we truly see it and know that its true. Nothing hidden, all out to see. So nigger stfu. NIHILIST? YOU NIGGER IF HES A NIHILIST HE AINT GONNA TEACH DHAMMA, HE COULD STOP AND BE A PACCEKA BUDDHA AND MOVE ON, HE HAS ENOUGH COMPASSION TO YOU CRETINS TO TEACH DHAMMA, I SWEAR ANYTIME A WESTOID TALK ABOT DHAMMA, I PRAY FOR YAMANTAKA TO DRAG YOUR SORRY SOUL TO OBLIVION.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:38:17 2022 No.20084835

>>20084699
>Your "memory" is a constant act of re-acquiring this thing.
That doesn't refute the central premise of the argument since memories cannot be acquired as a memory for you to draw upon to begin with unless you are aware of yourself acquiring the impression of the painting at the moment it occurs, since our memories only refer to things that we have personally experienced. Whether or not this memory is later rearranged or imperfectly remembered doesn't change this simple fact, if you have no awareness of yourself doing something then it won't be integrated as a memory.
>You are calling this "being reflexively self-aware of one's self"
No, I'm not calling remembering memories or re-acquiring them itself being reflexively self-aware. Reflexive self-awareness means that consciousness is immediate, self-revealing, that foundational consciousness does not require a second awareness or another means of knowledge to be known by us, and that no second thing mediates its access to itself. Memory itself is not reflexively self-aware, but the fact that we can only recall memories of instances and events that we were aware of ourselves experiencing at the very time they occurred is evidence in favor of reflexive self-awareness, it's certainly evidence contradicting the 'other-illuminationist' model held to by Nagarjuna et al.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:40:50 2022 No.20084848 >>20083833 >I know what the Buddha thaught and not the generations of philosophers that literally followed in his steps Fuck off

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:45:56 2022 No.20084872

>>20082392
Funny enough the Buddha was bald and not of the fairest caste because he was called a dark bald nigger by a brahmin who hated him for his reclusion. Also a King came to visit the Buddha but it is written that he had to ask which one of these monks is the Buddha?
Source
https://www.newmandala.org/the-buddha-was-bald/

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:46:26 2022 No.20084875

>>20084835
>the fact that we can only recall memories of instances and events that we were aware of ourselves experiencing at the very time they occurred is evidence in favor of reflexive self-awareness
No, you can very easily misremember things or have a distorted impression. And this should not happen if comsciousness functions so permanently and absolutely as non-dual with the ultimate reality of brahman unaffected by maya. But it does!

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:52:28 2022 No.20084901

>>20077824
>No doubt someone will respond that rich people arent happy,

im not a huge buddhist, hinduist, or jainist, but im pretty sure they all spoke to this trap

youll be content *physically*, but there really are things money cant buy. Notch was constantly sadposting about how money doesnt buy you friends. Elon Musk and Bill Gates couldnt save their relationships (and are huge manchildren). Steve Jobs couldnt save himself from cancer.

it is less about ~be happy in poverty~ - even the Buddha spoke out against the super-ascetics and part of his rejection of poverty was because he took some rice from a kid who saw he was starving to death while trying to follow it - and more that excess wont do anything to curb your low points when the good times pass.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:57:22 2022 No.20084917

>>20084875
>>the fact that we can only recall memories of instances and events that we were aware of ourselves experiencing at the very time they occurred is evidence in favor of reflexive self-awareness
>No, you can very easily misremember things or have a distorted impression.
That's a red herring, people don't have real memories of something that didn't happen to them, those are false memories or delusions, which are not even genuine memories. The claim that delusions seeming to be real memories can sometimes occur doesn't contradict the truth that we only ever actually have true or genuine memories of things which we ourselves personally experienced and were aware of ourselves experiencing at that time that it occurred, there are no examples whatsoever to the contrary.

> And this should not happen if comsciousness functions so permanently and absolutely as non-dual with the ultimate reality of brahman unaffected by maya. But it does!
That would only be true if consciousness performed the function of memory, but consciousness/awareness doesn't actually perform the function of memory, memory is an act or function that is performed by the unconscious mind/intellect and not consciousness; this is why our memory of something can be an immediate object of our awareness in a manner analogous to seeing external objects with the eye, because the Self or awareness is different from the mind/intellect.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 12:58:33 2022 No.20084919
File: 56 KB, 800x471, cam-photo-monk-fresh-news.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20084828
What in the foul defilements did you just say about me, you little chandala? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Palo Alto Arahants, and I've been involved in numerous secret meditation retreats on Sonoma country clubs, and I have over 300 confirmed donors. I am trained in alms recieving and I'm the top faster in the entire California bay area. You are nothing to me but just another aggregate of emptiness. I will meditatively negate you the FUCKING FUCK out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Jews and Psychics across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the samsara, maggot. The storm that extinguishes out the pathetic little thing you call your self. You're fucking bad karma, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can read your mind in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my VR headset. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed pacifism, but I have access to the entire produce section of the Sri Aurobindo vegan Co-Op and I will use it to its full extent to erase the memory of your miserable ass off the face of the California CDN network you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking left on read, kiddo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 13:08:58 2022 No.20084959 >>20084872 And they hated because he told the "huh?"

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 13:09:07 2022 No.20084960

>>20084917
>people don't have real memories of something that didn't happen to them
There are no "real" memories; memories are recreated from sense impressions every time. If that's your threshold for real it is no wonder you're able to believe you can segregate out the mind from consciousness and claim one side gets to deal with all the icky transcient aspects of experience while the other side is literally God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 13:14:02 2022 No.20084983 >>20083978 So guenonfag has now a new god eh?

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 13:32:16 2022 No.20085054

>>20084960
>There are no "real" memories; memories are recreated from sense impressions every time.
Wrong, empirically real memories stem from actual events that occurred which we personally experienced, while false memories do not stem from or denote any actual event that took place for us. What makes a memory empirically real is not the degree of perfection or imperfection in recreating or recalling a past event for us, what makes a memory real or true is whether it refers to something we actually empirically experienced, i.e. whether or not it's a memory of an empirically real event. Even if a memory misses some elements of a past event like the music that was present at a party and is hence an imperfect representation or recreation of it, what makes it an actual or true memory is if the seed event in real time that is now being recreated as that memory was one that actually happened to us, i.e. did we actually go to that party or not, regardless of the music.

If now to preserve intact your goofy understanding of consciousness you are resorting to denying any difference between memories of things which didn't happen and which did, then you should consider yourself self-refuted.

> If that's your threshold for real it is no wonder you're able to believe you can segregate out the mind from consciousness and claim one side gets to deal with all the icky transcient aspects of experience while the other side is literally God.
Buddha talks about the same thing in the Bahuna Sutta, much to the anguish and dismay of hylics:

"Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, Bahuna, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling... Freed, dissociated, & released from perception... Freed, dissociated, & released from fabrications... Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness... Freed, dissociated, & released from birth... Freed, dissociated, & released from aging... Freed, dissociated, & released from death... Freed, dissociated, & released from stress... Freed, dissociated, & released from defilement, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness.

"Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata — freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things — dwells with unrestricted awareness."

AN 10.81 PTS: A v 151
Bahuna Sutta: To Bahuna
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.081.than.html

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 13:52:05 2022 No.20085127

>>20085054
>Wrong, empirically real memories stem from actual events that occurred which we personally experienced, while false memories do not stem from or denote any actual event that took place for us.
But that's all maya anyway. None of it was real, so how could a mental construction of it be real?

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 14:04:10 2022 No.20085165
File: 374 KB, 1200x1038, rasa-dance.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20082892
>But since you're actually brahman, you're just messing with yourself?
Unironically I think Alan Watts' explanation for this is the best; Brahman is engaged in 'divine play' ("lila" in Hinduism). Brahman loses himself in himself for the luls. Brahman enjoys the endless kaleidoscope of experiences. For the same reason that video games are no longer fun when you have cheat codes, or that movies and plays are the most exciting when you forget you're watching them; Brahman intentionally loses himself in the divine illusion of play to live an endless variety of lives, and feel that they are meaningful. Alan Watts has a lecture where he basically says: imagine if, every night, you could dream any dream you wanted. You could dream and entire lifetime every night. You would start dreaming crazy, pampered, rich lives, but eventually even these would get boring. Then you would start dreaming average lives, or lives of suffering, etc, and eventually you would dream of the very life you're living.
It would get boring contemplating the same thing over and over again. It would get boring to know at all times that you are Brahman, supreme, incapable of nothing, able to project anything at will. Wouldn't you, as Brahman, just want to live an endless variety of 'lives', and reach the highest highs and lowest lows of all possible experience, in all possible worlds, etc etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 14:29:49 2022 No.20085245 >>20085165 I don't know which is more nihilistic, saying nothing is real, or saying there is a real thing but it's not here in the world anyway. Pragmatically, they are of the same consequence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 14:40:24 2022 No.20085268 >>20085245 Nope. Nihilism by definition posits that nothing exists. If there is at least one (1) real thing, you can call it whatever you want, but not nihilism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 14:43:20 2022 No.20085283 >>20085268 >the one real thing is nowhere to be found but I'm not a nihilist because I believe in it ok

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 14:49:44 2022 No.20085308

>>20085245
>saying there is a real thing but it's not here in the world anyway
It's not in the world of conventional reality, but it might exist on an ultimate level. This is where faith had it's place in Buddhism, you trust Buddha about the serenity of Nirvana, because the suffering of Samsara is readily available for you to experience. There is no nihilism in Buddhism, you are your own being trying to make the best out of your situation, not an automata puppeted by Brahman in some kind of magic trick maya.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 14:59:47 2022 No.20085354

>>20076997
The doctrine of no-self always struck me as an inconsistency in buddhist doctrine. For the idea of reincarnation to be consistent there needs to be some form of karmic debt that is attached to a persistent entity-essence across lives. Hinduism doesn't have this problem as it posits a persistent self as "form", even if the "contents" of this self are rearranged with each rebirth. If however according to buddhism the self is an illusion and consists of a transitory bundle of sensations, perceptions, attachments and so on, how does the karmic debt pass on with each transmigration?

I'm aware that some buddhists posit Vijñāna (or consciousness) as the continuous mind-stream upon which different reincarnated transient sensory configurations are projected as distinct selves, but isn't consciousness another word for soul? Nothing without consciousness bears a soul, such objects are said to be inanimate and lacking in sentience. Sentience is a precondition for ensoulment.

Of course there is no one unified dogma for buddhism but only various schools of thought. These schools each share certain fundamental principles but vary in their interpretations. So it is somewhat futile to search for a definite answer. Various schools have an answer to this question. And Buddha is not to be taken as an infallible source, but a teacher and a guide, an example which can be followed and emulated. Buddhism invites speculation and theorization. The whole goal of buddhism is partly to "figure it out for yourself" as "figuring it out for yourself" and freeing yourself is the end goal of the religion.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:04:08 2022 No.20085370

>>20085354
>Various schools have an answer to this question
Then the question becomes how to sort through the undecidability of which of these answers is the "right" one if there is no mechanism to differentiate between the truth values of either. It becomes a selection problem. Again the whole emphasis on figuring it out for yourself, especially in zen, stresses the importance of avoiding scriptural dogma as a source of final truth. Only through meditative reflection and the study of one's own mind can the truth be found.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:14:00 2022 No.20085399

>>20085354
>For the idea of reincarnation to be consistent there needs to be some form of karmic debt that is attached to a persistent entity-essence across lives
If there were some totally persistent entity-essence which karma adhered to, it would be unable to transmigrate, so that's where conditioned existence and momentariness come into play, that there's a (You) as long as the conditions are lit for it to appear. If there were this permanent essence it could not experience these change or be an agent in anything that happens. Even when the alayavijñana comes into play in Yogacara as the matrix of seeds, the metaphor, as in the Lankavatara for instance, is the waves of the ocean, so what is meant is that its entire presence is really just a disturbance upon a clear body which would otherwise reflect. And so that is what rebirths or transmigrations really are, they are disturbances of what is really there, not what is really there going to and fro itself

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:28:16 2022 No.20085452

>>20085399
Thanks for that. I can think of it this way. To the extent that there an entrenchment of self-identification or egocentrism it is a regression and pulls one back into samsara. Karmic burden IS the self, constitutes the self and its desires and therefore creates the delusion of self-identification.

Nirvana is the withering away of this karmic solidification of the self which identifies with the three marks of existence and therefore constitutes delusion (Moha). To the extent that one stays on the path of dharma, the illusion dissipates.

To use a somewhat strained physics metaphor, identification with the self is an interference pattern, a kink in the continuum that gives the appearance of permanence. The dharma is the superposition of all possible selves, but it is a transcendent hyperobject that has no self. Identification of the self freezes under the weight of karma, it is slowed down. Once free of karma, that self blurs as it were and approaches the speed of light, becoming one with everything as it becomes nothing. That is what Nirvana is. It links to the concept of Brahma in that the extinction of the self is to identify with transcendent reality .

Nirvana is what happens when one drills into the other side of the boundary between subject and object, when the Thing in Itself no longer viewed as an external other. Hence why I disagree with the idea that the ultimate goal of buddhism is extinction and self-annihilation .

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:47:48 2022 No.20085513 >>20081012 touch grass incel

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:51:20 2022 No.20085520 >>20082031 pretty disingenous post, because olivelle in that very same page says the early upanishads are chronologically prior to buddhism without a doubt.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:56:08 2022 No.20085536 >>20085283 Yes, it’s not that complicated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 15:59:04 2022 No.20085545 >>20082442 Not really, Ramanuja is a panentheist. Abhinavagupta is a monist, though a realist and believes in an emanationism very similar to Neoplatonism.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 16:21:07 2022 No.20085628

Buddhoid, to wit: negroid -- to wit: kikoid (to wit: homoid) --, """"""""""philosophy"""""""""" is, for all intents and purposes, no different then radical post-modern deconstructionism. One should embrace that and finally become a tranny. Why beat around the bush so much?

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 16:28:05 2022 No.20085654

>>20085452
>Hence why I disagree with the idea that the ultimate goal of buddhism is extinction and self-annihilation .
Not sure I wholly agree with your exposition, but would add that extinction/self-annihilation are notorious misreadings, so if you've avoided those you are on track. What is supposed to get eliminated is ignorance and clinging and so forth, not anything that actually exists but the delusions around what doesn't. So those who didn't do the reading insist the Buddhist wants to destroy x or y, but x or y were never the problem, it's beliefs about x or y that lead to misery which are the target. So to destroy a false view of a thing is taken for the destruction of that thing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 16:29:10 2022 No.20085661 >>20085536 >denies entire world, save something which isn't even there >not a nihilist quite the gymnast aren't we

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 16:32:25 2022 No.20085672 File: 468 KB, 965x1311, ___AntiBuddhaWarning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is this the guy?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 16:45:52 2022 No.20085742 >>20085661 >which isn't even there In the phenomenal world, yes. You assume that that is all there is, but that is your assumption.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:03:27 2022 No.20085804

>>20085127
>But that's all maya anyway.
That's not a good reason to consider memories of things that actually happened to us to be the same as delusions of things that never happened. Even within maya, empirically-real events are still taking place as conventional experiences and are to be strictly distinguished from delusive ideas of non-existent events which never took place as empirically experienced to begin with and hence are not even real conventionally. If you can't even distinguish things and events which are conventionally-true or empirically-real from completely non-existent things that never occurred and never will, then you'll no longer have any sort of epistemic basis anymore to do basic logic, think about spiritual matters or even make simple decisions about day to day matters because nothing would follow from anything else as a necessity or consequence if all is the same as nothingness. It's inconsistent to accept logic as having any level of conventionally validity despite it being within maya while also asserting as you did that one shouldn't accept the difference between conventionally-real and non-existent events, if you recognize logic as having any validity which you are doing implicitly by trying to write response in a thread, following the same principle would dictate that we accept that there is a difference between conventionally-real events versus complete nothingness/unreality. Just because neither are the Absolute or total Reality doesn't entail that they are automatically completely identical

Moreover, however you want to classify them metaphysically is ultimate irrelevant to and doesn't change the phenomenological point that we only have *genuine* memories of empirical encounters of which we were aware of ourselves experiencing at that very time, regardless of where you rank them ontologically; which is one of the many pieces of evidence that indicates awareness is reflexive.

>None of it was real, so how could a mental construction of it be real?
When I am saying "real dream" or "real event" I am of course speaking of the conditional reality of conventional existence and not the absolute Reality which is Brahman, this is not bad or inconsistent with anything else that Advaita says, logic works on the level of conventional existence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:06:14 2022 No.20085809 File: 24 KB, 400x400, 02a2619e1ce8c9c95682cfd3b5c4eb0b_400x400[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >buddhists on the 4chins

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:14:12 2022 No.20085841

>>20085308
>There is no nihilism in Buddhism, you are your own being
Except for how the only sense of "own being" admitted is a false appearance created by a flux of unintelligent aggregates
> you are your own being trying to make the best out of your situation, not an automata puppeted by Brahman in some kind of magic trick maya.
In Advaita you are not what is puppeted by Brahman, you *are* Brahman, so that's a strawman. Applying the exact same strawman to Buddhism would entail saying "Buddhism teaches that you *are* the aggregates" even though Buddhism actually teaches deidentification with the aggregates and says you are not them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:16:46 2022 No.20085852 >>20085742 And it is your assumption that there is an unapparent true reality which negates this one and is to be valued above it

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:22:40 2022 No.20085875

>>20085804
>one of the many pieces of evidence that indicates awareness is reflexive
On the contrary, that we have these genuine memories of empirical encounters suggests that your revelation-based doctrine of eternal reflexive awareness cannot be shown or even allow these memories at all. Our memories are not of the pure being that they ought to be of if the atman is brahman, they are all of being somewhere or being something, that is to say they are dependent upon a whole host of sensory and emotional factors which could not operate upon a permanent observer, who could not possibly alternate between the pains and pleasures associated with memory making in the first place lest he change in state and give up his permanence

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:25:51 2022 No.20085886

>>20085654
Well a metaphor you see in some readings is that nirvana is equivalent to "blowing out" or the elimination of karmic residue. By getting to zero with one's self-concept, one unlocks enlightenment.

I'm also just free-wheeling here and kinda just saying whatever comes to mind.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:30:27 2022 No.20085911

>>20085886
Case in point, from the Pali sutra:
>And what, monks, is the Nibbana element with residue remaining? Here, a monk is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, who has lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached his own goal, utterly destroyed the fetters of existence, one completely liberated through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable, still feels pleasure and pain. It is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana element with residue remaining.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:30:27 2022 No.20085912

>>20085804
>empirically-real events
According to Shankara, there are no such thing as "real events". The only thing that exists is Atman's eternal self-awareness of itself. Nothing ever happens, because there is nothing to happen to. Your memories, by virtue of not being Atman, are not real. They are made of nothing.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:36:52 2022 No.20085940

>>20085545
>Ramanuja is a panentheist.
How so, can you please elaborate for me or cite specific passages where he says so? The sources that I have read say that absolutely everything in the cosmos forms the body of Brahman for Ramanuja, even insentient objects. Just because Ramanuja views Brahman as having a center of sentience and willpower that stands in relation to the insentient objects and individual souls as the individual soul stands in relation to the insentient body doesn't itself negate in the final analysis that Brahman is still non-different from the insentient objects for Ramanuja. Like this source for example implies that Ramanuja is a devotional pantheist or monist, is it wrong or do we just understand different things by "panentheism"?

>In the writings of Rāmānuja, the doctrine is used to interpret monistic passages of the Vedas in a manner that affirms both the unity of the thing designated, via the coreferentiality of the various terms, while affirming that the various terms bring to the sentence an emphasis on distinct properties of the unitary thing so identified. ... Rāmānuja understands the indexicals “that” and “thou” as signifying an underlying unity, while containing distinct qualitative content. Hence, “that” in this context, brings to fore the quality of the underlying substantial unity of all individuals in Brahman, while “thou” emphasize that we, as individuals, are qualities or distinctions in this underlying unity (Śrī Bhāṣya, I.i.1. “Great Siddhānta” pp.129-39).
https://iep.utm.edu/ramanuja/#H2

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:50:18 2022 No.20085987 >>20085809 I love Buddhism. I hate 4chan b*ddhists. All they have to do is read, but they can't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:52:33 2022 No.20085995 >>20085852 Yes!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:55:01 2022 No.20086003 >>20085661 >quite the gymnast I’m a dancer dancing on air I’m a runner in the night I’m a dreamer but that’s alright I’m hungry for heaven Oh woah woah

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 17:59:15 2022 No.20086023 File: 172 KB, 1080x1080, 1626487930456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20086003 You've posted Dio in other threads haven't you

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:01:29 2022 No.20086032

>>20084828
because what the Buddha proclaims isn't nearly as complicated as Buddhists try to make it out to be, he accurately called out logic for the meme that it is, and became a nihilist--someone who believes everything is zero
which, is what buddhists believe, that reality is zero
a good buddhist doesn't believe that though, he doesn't believe anything

you haven't read what I've written, not well at least, you seem to be projecting a lot of personal baggage onto me
I'm not saying what the buddha believes, I'm accurately stating what the Buddha did to come to his conclusion
I don't mean to shit over your entire philosophical world-building and culture, but Buddhism refuses to accept Love and God as the supreme motivators of our being.

It's pretty funny, the Buddha implicitly accepts God as being real, because despite being a nihilist, he moves forward moved by his own heart (which contains the law of God).
He does Good, despite not having a reason to, only to follow his heart. Ultimately, even the Buddha recognized God at the end. Whether he knew or not, he believed in ultimate Good.

We all need someone to mend our souls, because we are all thoroughly cursed with selfishness, Christ is God shining his infinite love and light to His creation.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:10:15 2022 No.20086067

>>20081109
despite not having any reason to do anything, the Buddha still has a heart that motivates him to help others
he implicitly accepts that there are certain things a person intrinsically knows, which is the desire to help, the love for love, the love for God
despite his helpless situation, he still moves to help others, how? that is only possible through God, because if we take the Buddha's logic, or rather lack of it, we should not move or not move or neither, there is no movement in the Buddhist mind. It's still. Like he describes, nirvana is like a flame going out. Yet for some reason, he still does, he still moves, he still IS, whether he agrees or not or neither.
The Buddha ultimately gave in to Good (God), which is the intrinsic law of Love written on our hearts by the paradoxical unknowable mover of the world, the Light and Love of the world, knowable only through Faith.
Maybe the Buddha showed us not the path to Nirvana, but to God, by being the ultimately reasonable man, he showed personally how worthless logic is.
If that is the case, thanks Buddhabro, you're a real one

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:17:00 2022 No.20086103 [DELETED]

>>20085875
>these genuine memories of empirical encounters suggests that your revelation-based doctrine of eternal reflexive awareness cannot be shown or even allow these memories at all. Our memories are not of the pure being that they ought to be of if the atman is brahman, they are all of being somewhere or being something, that is to say they are dependent upon a whole host of sensory and emotional factors which could not operate upon a permanent observer,
Our memory is not of the effortless pure being of the Self on its own beyond any connection to phenomena and waking/dream/etc because that is for the Self alone to experience and not for the mind to experience; the mind only has memories of what it knew through mental acts and the sense organs but the Self isn't known through mental acts or the sense-organs and so the primordially-present presence of the pristine Self is naturally not going to be an object of memory when the mind doesn't have direct access to It and hence doesn't have direct access to what it's like to be the Self. So, the mind doesn't have memory of the pure being of reflexive awareness because what's it's like to experience or to be pure awareness is not accessible by the mind's means of knowing things, and so the mind naturally has memory of the experiences that the mind has like thinking or interacting with the body instead of memory of pure being. Despite this, our awareness or Self being reflexive still has consequences for how the mind functions, since every memory of a genuine event that was empirically experienced by us in the past includes the memory of us having knowledge of it in the same memory, without which, the knowledge of the event alone would be totally inexplicable and absurd, to say nothing of the fact that there are no demonstrable instances of this.

> who could not possibly alternate between the pains and pleasures associated with memory making in the first place lest he change in state and give up his permanence
The mind changes in states while the awareness of the Self remains immutably permanent, passively providing illumination for the mind to function like a man requires illumination to go about activities. There is no logical necessity that the awareness revealing a changing mind would have to itself further change when all that awareness is doing is just being present and reflexively self-aware of itself in every instance, that doesn't require you to change.
and o the mind can only have memories of things it knew. The mind can acquire a discursive knowledge of taking place, one can even say the intellect functions on a higher level than this through directly intuiting symbolism, neither of these are the same as the Self reflexive self-awareness so

without any relation with phenomena because not only is the pure being of awareness normally hidden to or not noticed by the spiritually ignorant, but it's also extremely simple, without interstices, complexities, differentiations etc,

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:26:41 2022 No.20086149

reposting because it contained extra text that I accidentally didn't delete, no need to @ me

>>20085875
>these genuine memories of empirical encounters suggests that your revelation-based doctrine of eternal reflexive awareness cannot be shown or even allow these memories at all. Our memories are not of the pure being that they ought to be of if the atman is brahman, they are all of being somewhere or being something, that is to say they are dependent upon a whole host of sensory and emotional factors which could not operate upon a permanent observer,
Our memory is not of the effortless pure being of the Self on its own beyond any connection to phenomena and waking/dream/etc because that is for the Self alone to experience and not for the mind to experience; the mind only has memories of what it knew through mental acts and the sense organs but the Self isn't known through mental acts or the sense-organs and so the primordially-present presence of the pristine Self is naturally not going to be an object of memory when the mind doesn't have direct access to It and hence doesn't have direct access to what it's like to be the Self. So, the mind doesn't have memory of the pure being of reflexive awareness because what's it's like to experience or to be pure awareness is not accessible by the mind's means of knowing things, and so the mind naturally has memory of the experiences that the mind has like thinking or interacting with the body instead of memory of pure being. Despite this, our awareness or Self being reflexive still has consequences for how the mind functions, since every memory of a genuine event that was experienced by us in the past includes the memory of us having knowledge of it in the same memory, without which, the knowledge of the event alone would be totally inexplicable and absurd, to say nothing of the fact that there are no demonstrable instances of this.

> who could not possibly alternate between the pains and pleasures associated with memory making in the first place lest he change in state and give up his permanence
The mind changes in states while the awareness of the Self remains immutably permanent, passively providing illumination for the mind to function like a man requires illumination to go about activities. There is no logical necessity that the awareness revealing a changing mind would have to itself further change when all that awareness is doing is just being effortlessly present and reflexively self-aware of itself in every instance, that doesn't require you to change. The Self is not actually engaging in a subject-object relation with what the mind is doing, so the mind or its objects changing doesn't require that the non-dual awareness illumining that mind also change.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:38:46 2022 No.20086219

>>20086149
>the mind doesn't have memory of the pure being of reflexive awareness because what's it's like to experience or to be pure awareness is not accessible by the mind's means of knowing things
So memories are not evidence of your ontology after all, and I uphold as I have all above ITT, that your views would make all memories false and potentially even impossible to have

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:39:37 2022 No.20086228

>>20085912
>According to Shankara, there are no such thing as "real events".
Wrong, he recognizes that there are such things as conventionally-real waking experiences despite these ultimately being metaphysically false and non-absolute. Them being ultimately false and not absolute is precisely what makes these conventional experiences conventional to begin with. He strictly distinguishes these empirically-real events from dreams, complete nothingness and false ideas/beliefs of conventionally-real events happening that never did take place in experience. Shankara actually strongly criticizes latter Yogachains like Dharmakirti/Dinnaga for putting dreams and waking experiences on the same level and that ties into some of his refutations of them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:42:16 2022 No.20086242 File: 63 KB, 521x937, FDYr7nKXIAwbvaO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20085628

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:48:45 2022 No.20086278 >>20086228 >conventionally-real waking experiences >ultimately being metaphysically false So by Shankara's own definition they aren't real. I don't know why you typed all of this out to just repeat what I already said.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 18:58:01 2022 No.20086322

>>20086219
>So memories are not evidence of your ontology after all,
Advaita doesn't care about providing evidence to prove its ontology because its ontology is supernaturally revealed through the Upanishads and comes from above, Advaitins just provide arguments that shows that this ontology doesn't violate any logical principles. It would be absurd to try to provide proof of abstract metaphysical matters that are beyond all possible scientific measurement and empirical verification. However, we or the mind in conjunction with the awareness illuminating it, still have access to memory of conventional experiences and have firsthand experience of what memory is like. And the fact that reflexive self-awareness is invariably present in all memories based on genuine events is firsthand epistemic evidence that awareness is reflexive. Not only do we have epistemic evidence of it but the alternative is logically untenable by virtue of leading to a regress as well, since if all awareness or mental-instance needs confirmation by another, the confirmation itself is never confirmed until you arrive at something self-confirming (like reflexive awareness) and so all knowledge of anything whatsoever is forever delayed and we would have no knowledge.
>and I uphold as I have all above ITT, that your views would make all memories false and potentially even impossible to have
I've replied in detail point by point to all your arguments and explained why each was wrong, you haven't addressed 95+% of what I wrote where I refuted your arguments.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 19:01:49 2022 No.20086338 File: 68 KB, 701x438, C6DC0F90-7156-4EBC-B6DF-2708A40FCDA1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20086023 There’s a truth that’s hard as steel Life’s a never-ending wheel

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 19:07:11 2022 No.20086362

>>20086322
>you haven't addressed 95+% of what I wrote where I refuted your arguments.
As you, say, Advaitans don't care about providing evidence. So when you argue in these threads over the years that a given position, Buddhist or otherwise, must be wrong because of an argument which you ground in your exegesis of the Upanishads, it doesn't matter. It's only marginally more thoughtful than the Christians who wander into these threads and say it's all satanic. You've got the wrong door. You've pooed in the wrong loo. It's not a valid form of argument or logical to your audience.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 19:07:33 2022 No.20086366

>>20086278
>So by Shankara's own definition they aren't real.
He means that they are not "Real" as in "Absolute Reality" as in "Eternal, unchanging, unconditioned", not that they are not experienced. What is experienced in the world is just conventionally-real, which is not realness unqualified.
>I don't know why you typed all of this out to just repeat what I already said.
Because Advaita's classifying of things as 3 levels of "Absolute reality vs. conventionally real/ultimately false appearance (same thing) vs nothingness" doesn't invalidate any of the points or arguments I made, or anything else that Advaita says. All empirical experience and logic itself takes place on the level of conventional experience that is only conventionally real and ultimately false, so there is nothing inconsistent in taking knowledge from maya-experiences and making inferences based on them or to cite them in logical reasoning. Everything has its own proper place in the grand scheme of things.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 19:21:13 2022 No.20086420

>>20086362
>As you, say, Advaitans don't care about providing evidence. So when you argue in these threads over the years that a given position, Buddhist or otherwise, must be wrong because of an argument which you ground in your exegesis of the Upanishads, it doesn't matter.
That's not what I'm arguing you clown, were you paying attention? You may have forgotten this already but in this thread I originally started talking about how Chandrakirti and Shantidevi both fail to refute Dharmakirti's memory argument for reflexive awareness. Even though Shankara refuted him, Dharmakirti's argument still harms Nagarjuna's, Chandrakirti's etc position and is evidence is favor of those who accept different types of reflexive awareness like Advaitins and Yogacharins, this argument has to do with phenomenological or empirical evidence of how memory takes place and has nothing to do with the Upanishads. Later on you tried to argue that an unchanging Self cannot allow for changing experiences and I gave a phenomenological account of how that takes place that answered your objections, that you didn't try to subsequently refute or demonstrate problems in. None of this has to do with proof of ontological claims about ultimate reality but is largely the domain of phenomenology and logic. If I had to guess I would say the sudden asking for "proof" of ontological claims in the middle of a phenomenological discussion of different theories of awareness and their consequences was an excuse to change the subject when the contradictions in the Buddhist position was starting to dawn on you more and more.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 19:27:23 2022 No.20086442

>>20086420
>I originally started talking about how Chandrakirti and Shantidevi both fail to refute Dharmakirti's memory argument for reflexive awareness. Even though Shankara refuted him
But you don't have a horse in that race so who cares? You want me to pick a particular Buddhist you already believe was refused based on Upanishadic logic? What if I don't acknowledge the Upanishads as authoritative? What if there are no contradictions if you drop your revelationary text? You've been participating in a very different debate apparently, because much of what you've put forth has by your admission been Shankara says this Vedas say that, and without these the various constructs you've put forth disappear, like the reflexive self awareness that floats outside of mind and experience and never touches them because it can't because it's the atman that is brahman, and brahman mayas his maya without being maya'd himself. Really compelling

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 19:46:09 2022 No.20086504

>>20085940
Big difference in pantheism, monism, and panentheism as I am sure you know. Ramanuja or the Shri Vaishnava tradition don't say that Vishnu = Universe, they say that the universe is the body of Vishnu but at the same time Vishnu transcends the universe.

Narayana is both immanent as well as transcendent. You can call it qualified non-dualism or panentheism, it's the same thing though.

For a source, just read Ramanuja's commentary on the Antaryami Brahmana portion of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad. I'm lazy to find it rn

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 18 21:13:56 2022 No.20086873 >>20085283 >the one real thing is nowhere to be found What do you mean "nowhere to be found"? You are it. Tat tvam asi. You are the real thing. It is you. You are it. You can find it. This is standard advaita vedanta.

Anonymous Fri Mar 18 22:57:26 2022 No.20087204

So Buddhism is really Closed Individualist, as opposed to the Open Individualist, non-materialist physicalist Advaita Vedanta?

The consensus view would be that Buddhism is Empty Individualist and materialist-physicalist. I suppose Open Individualist Buddhism would have been based.

Anonymous Sat Mar 19 09:28:55 2022 No.20088678

>>20086504
>just read Ramanuja's commentary on the Antaryami Brahmana portion of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad
All the sources I find say that Ramanuja never wrote a single Upanishad commentary. His standalone prose work Vedartha Sangraha lays out how he interprets the Upanishads but he never wrote a commentary on them AFAIK. Are you perhaps thinking about a passage in another one of his works like Sri Bhasya wherein he cites that Upanishadic passage and discusses it?

>>20086442
>You want me to pick a particular Buddhist you already believe was refused based on Upanishadic logic? What if I don't acknowledge the Upanishads as authoritative?
All of that is irrelevant, because the critique of Chandrakirit and Shantidevi's argument is made on phenomenological grounds that have nothing to do with the Upanishads, which should be made clear by the fact that the Buddhist thinker Dharmakirti (who doesn't accept Upanishads) argued against their position.
>What if there are no contradictions if you drop your revelationary text?
There still is contradictions either way, Dharmakirti's memory argument for reflexive awareness in an argument against Nagarjuna,s Chandrakirti's and Shantidevi's position just as much in a universe where the Upanishads exist as it is in a universe where the Upanishads and Hinduism don't exist. Perhaps because you have no rebuttal you keep dishonestly pretending that the argument in question requires the Upanishads.

If you would like to read Evan Thompson's treatment of the topic of Dharmakirti critiquing the Madhyamaka conception of awareness you can read it here, he doesn't mention the Upanishads in the essay so that should help you stay focused on the topic instead of getting sidetracked by devoting all your attention to whining about the Upanishads

https://evanthompsondotme.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/evan-thompson-commentary-on-j-garfield.pdf

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]