/lit/ - Literature

>>23090519
You're not looking so good these days, Ken. Maybe you should cut back on the snacking.

>claims that ''original'' Buddhism believed in the existence of ātman/Self
does this faggot even know ancient Pali, let alone Sanskrit and Greek?

>>18665793
>Is there somewhere that explains the false take on Buddhism you mentioned?

http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

btw i have trouble wrapping my head around this guy's notion of consubstantiality. why does spirit interact with matter, and what (meta-)causal mechanism makes it prefer particular structures like brains???
>>17629936
this is to some extent correct, however despite qualia not being something we can agree about, it has a particular mathematical structure (think for instance colour wheels) which permits us to speak of their existence. of course, that each person literally see the same colours or not is a matter that should be utterly irrelevant in a vulgar qualia realism it should be basically contingent (i've had the thought before that perhaps it is a mistake to think of things like colours as things in themselves, as our perception may change, so there might be extra structure within colours than may first appear that causes such juxtapositions and might provide sufficient reason)
>>17629899
eh, to some extent? you still need to explain the unity of apperception... that's like, the condition for active self-consciousness
>Equivalently, you cannot divide "mind" or "consciousness" so how can something be "more" complex rather than just being larger in a quantitive sense.
yeah true, though doesn't this sound a bit like the normal problem of emergence? it's just that the naive physicalists in comparison *don't even try* by not even adopting a system that holds at least the conditions of presentation

>>15415029
>materialist superficial scum
meanwhile he literally buys and reviews cameras for a living

Are you guys excited for his upcoming book on Platonic retroduction? His previous books on magnetism were a blast, and his essays are phenomenal.

>quantum physics
lmao

"religion is secularized metaphysics"

- Ken Wheeler (pbuh)

discuss

>>14212780
These same ‘buddhists’ fear their precious faith would sink into the grounds of ancient Vedanta like water into the dirt, if they were to come close to even partially admitting Buddhism is absolutely no more anti-Vedic than Jesus was a Jew hater. One might equally and heretically proclaim that Martin Luther was against the Bible, or Christianity in that he but only spoke coarsely against the Catholic Church’s position, which he demonstrated via the Bible, was a commentarial religion too often adversarial to the principles in the Bible itself, such as confessions, relic-worshiping, fetishisms, and, in Luther's time, literally buying Heaven-insurance by donating coin to the Church. It is a well established fact by experts in the religious history of India, that of Gotama's time, circa 500 B.C.E., the meaning of the already old-and-dusty principle Upanishads (much less the Vedas) was long lost and overcovered, as is the case in his admission: ." "I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered" (SN 2.106). The only denial Gotama ever made in the suttas, was that one was never BRAHMABANDHU (born a Brahmin), but rather was one by wisdom, as Brahmin was not a birthright, but a spiritual marker of ones status for sake of wisdom.

Lets gather how “original” Buddhism is or wasn’t from a small section of the pervasively consistent Nikayas: [DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.” [DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!” [It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.” [SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.” [SN 5.5] “The noble path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.” [SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman." "I have seen" says Buddha, "the ancient path, the old road that was taken by the former all-awake Brahmins, that is the path i follow, lost long ago. Just like an overcovered path lost long ago is that which i have discovered" [SN 2.106] "I have not made a new path monks, i have only rediscovered what was lost long ago"

my nigga

>>13820847
This, the meme is just perpetuated by people who haven't actually read both (as myself have and several of the people I've spoken to about this at the Boston /lit/ meetups who agree); as whenever people actually do so they unanimously conclude that Guenon, Parmenides and Shankara were right and that they btfo Whitehead. Whitehead was a fear-ridden as a young schoolboy of Parmenides' observation of the simultaneity of thought and being and went to strenuous leaps of logic and incredible omissions to avoid addressing it The infinite procession of actual occasions that characterizes Whiteheadian existence collapses in on itself forming an eternal ground-zero". In other words, existence is AN event, rather than a series of events. The witness cannot break out of this event, and any attempt to take the processes witnessed as 'object' by the witness as alleged proof of the flux of experience fails to overcome obstacle of the fact that objects are only and always seen through the distinctionless and unchanging locus of the pure awareness that illuminates every thought like light; systems that premise themselves on this flux always end up refuting themselves by contradicting basic epistemology, and Whitehead's is no exception.

>>13773016
This, he simply couldn't contend with the Eleatic doctrine. Guenon exposed the error underlooking the root of his misassumptions as well

What does /lit/ think of Ken Wheeler?

>knows his metaphysics
>calls Einstein and Guenon retards, knows Tesla and Coomaraswamy were superior thinkers
>can't stand brainlets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-OJKECs6_E