/lit/ - Literature

>>This convergence relates to the unfindability of entities when these are analytically sought.
This garbage reasoning is emblematic of the faulty basis on which so much Buddhist 'philosophy' rests, it's foolish to try to deduce metaphysical claims about the nature of ultimate reality based on the epistemology of how our mind operates. Proper metaphysics uses intuitive logic, often starting with first principles and backs this up with supporting examples drawing from common sense, analogy, and our immediate experience, starting with conclusions from epistemology and turning that into a metaphysical model as Buddhists like to do is doing it backwards which leads to retarded conclusions. When Buddhists try to make metaphysical claims based on this stuff they are making the same mistake of reifying the mind that they blithely accuse other eastern philosophy of making. For most people the simple observance of other people and animals as living beings is sufficient to consider them as 'entities', nowhere is any good reason offered why we should not consider them to be living entities, similarly our conscious presence in time as self-aware beings is sufficient to regard ourselves as entities, Buddhism doesn't have any compelling arguments against this which don't ultimately involve either circular reasoning (if you think you're an entity that's bad and comes from ignorance according to Buddhist precept #1342) or makes the "if the eye cannot see itself therefor the eye cannot into being real" fallacy.
>Thus, the ultimate nature of matter is sought through a reductive process and the macroscopic world of particles. Yet, when the nature of these particles is further examined, we find ultimately their very existence as objects is called into question.
No that's wrong, scientists don't doubt the existence of objects at all, they just say that the sub-atomic particles making up the atoms in that exist in an indeterminate state in a sort of 'quantum foam', that doesn't mean that their assemblage into objects is not empirically valid or that it's not real. Quantum Physics cannot be used to support any sort of claims about emptiness or sunyata because QM says that underlying everything is the quantum foam and not emptiness or empty space or what have you. Our supposed inability to define objects as entities because the sub-atomic particles making it up don't always at every moment exist qua particles cannot be garned to support the metaphysical conclusion of emptiness because scientists say that in there state of indeterminacy sub-atomic particles exist as a quantum foam that's practically the same as the aether, the very same aether (or akasha) that Nagarjuna attempts but fails to debunk because of how his attempted refutation of it is premised on his denial of real entities having extension which he never satisfactorily proves to begin with and so his argument against akasha falls apart.

>>13411139
>not realizing Guénon was right about everything