/lit/ - Literature

post your favorite dhamma talks and books

>>18384342
the problem with shankara's text is that Buddhism isn’t actually adhering to or at least not speaking of a proper Buddhist teaching but rather what seems to be the Advaitin conception of what Buddhism is.
Like non-self for example the Advaitin uses the need of a witness to witness things as the existence of an Atman and the continuation of memory as evidence of something unchanging. Which doesn’t really make sense as a witness does not need to be eternal as the Buddhist points out and neither are memories since they change. The Advaitin asserts if this were so there would be no connect as scenes and people which doesn’t really make any sense since Buddhist momentariness doesn’t dictate things completely change every moment as is obvious by looking at say a chair in front of you which is momentary but maintains a continuity.
Then goes into the trying to find a base for phenomena delving into atoms and whatever. But here the Advaitin doesn’t meet the Buddhist argument of how even if there were a base particle it could be analysed to be shown that it has parts and refuted with emptiness. So the Advaitin only addresses arguments on the conventional level here which Sravaka schools employ and these school admit to the existence of atoms so he really isn’t making any point. Then he asserts the base must’ve Brahman with no reasoning.
The Advaitin proceeds argues Atman exists because people feel it? People also feel phantom limbs that are clearly not there... not the best way to demonstrate something.
He argues Tathāgatagarbha is like Atman but it’s just the union of emptiness and appearance making it probably the opposite of what an Atman is.
Buddhist also teaches the misperception of reality namely perceiving it as substantial not that there is nothing at all. Something the Advaitin seems to be confused about throughout the dialogue and says Buddhism doesn’t teach Ignorance as the base of suffering when it does...
The other part where he says impermanence is only relative to permanence is also something brought up in Madhyamaka where both of the extremes are rejected so the Advaitin again only tried to argue from the relative side of things.

>>11443619
human instrumentality is already acquired and careening headlong, geometrically into NeoSino-California techno intercolonization of any and all stack-hierarchical or distribution-networked order/structure phenomena in all conceivable and unimagined (though already perfectly actualized) corners and brances of human discourse, action, movement, industry, function, occupation, enterprise, communication, force, introspection, gnosis, etc, etc, etc

graphene and bucky balls will be the building blocks of the next stage of man or, if you like, the first stage of post-man

>Well /lit/ what do you think ?

Much like >>7897657, this concept really hit me when I was on drugs, and the revelation maintained coherency after they wore off.

Maybe all druggies realize this, but I was tossed into a psychosis, and during the time it struck me how horrifying it is that every nightmarish moment of my life is carved into the universe for all to see, forever. No matter how high I rise, my trajectory leads me to drug use and poverty at some point.

However, I also came around to >>7898225's line of thinking, but I was raised Atheist. I came to believe in a monist, materialist panpsychism; one particle; one infinite, universal body; one mind.

It became a big deal that any part of me - the entire universe - had ever felt pain. Yet, I was enraptured with the fact that every pleasure would be mine - I would one day have all power.

And not only that - my most arbitrary fantasies will come true some day.