/lit/ - Literature

>>16491878
> Consciousness is composite
No it is not, I just explained why it is not, you, me and everyone else are completely unable to break down consciousness and analyze it into it’s constituents, because there is a fundamental difference between thoughts or mental ideations and the sentience which apprehends them, (if you dispute otherwise than you are forced to hold that either a) ideations are self-apprehending which Nagarjuna says is impossible, or that b) ideations apprehend one another which results in the aforementioned regress which makes having knowledge of anything impossible). Consciousness observes one’s own mind thinking about consciousness and attempting to break it down. The subject cannot become its own object as Nagarjuna himself insists.
>ergo it is Empty.
there is no reasoning you offered which you could then say “apropos of this, it is empty”, but you just restated as an unsubstantiated assertion something which I already explained is impossible
>We can demonstrate this empirically
No we can’t, and Nagarjuna’s metaphysics don’t allow him to do this without it resulting in major internal contradictions
>You say that you can't break consciousness down, but then you broke consciousness down into parts when said "oh, well, there's actually a SECRET consciousness, the subtle basic primordial awareness".
That’s not breaking down consciousness into it’s parts, that is just stating what our consciousness is. There is no consciousness aside from this basic awareness, the other things which people call consciousness like eye-conciousness is just insentient perceptions being witnessed by consciousness. To define or describe something is not to separate it into multiple parts. Fire is by nature combustion, this does not separate fire into “the part of combustion” and “the part of non-combustion”

Shankara already provided a refutation of the argument that saying ideations are apprehended by sentience leads to an infinite regress, I posted this in another thread already, your sophistry was unable to explain why his reasoning was wrong then, and you are unable to do so even now