/lit/ - Literature

Daily reminder the "doctrine of no-self" is a corruption of Buddhist thought promoted specifically to psychologize self-realization and slowly pervert Buddhism into another meaningless spineless humanist egalitarian nihilist death cult.

Daily reminder the "doctrine" of """no-self""" is a corruption of the original Buddhist teachings on the immortal (unborn, deathless) negativity of the atman promoted by our capitalist hegemons intent on the dilution and secularization of an authentic praxis of escape.

Hey guys, any books on how the "doctrine of no-self" is a bastardization of authentic Buddhist realization perpetuated Jewish hegemons hellbent on turning Buddhism into another wishy washy secular nihilist humanist death cult?

Daily reminder the "doctrine of no-self" is a corruption of Buddhist thought promoted specifically to psychologize self-realization and slowly pervert Buddhism into another meaningless spineless humanist egalitarian nihilist death cult.

Fuck you jannies.

Daily reminder the "doctrine of no-self" is a corruption of Buddhist thought promoted specifically to psychologize self-realization and slowly pervert Buddhism into another meaningless spineless humanist egalitarian nihilist death cult.

Books for this feel?

Daily reminder the "doctrine of no-self" is a corruption of Buddhist thought promoted specifically to psychologize self-realization and slowly pervert Buddhism into another meaningless spineless humanist egalitarian nihilist death cult.

Does sleep refute the atman? If the Self is eternal and self-luminous, why is it snuffed out every night? Doesn't that mean the Seer depends on the Seen, and when there is no object, there is also no perceiver? I've read plenty of arguments that explain why but I'm curious to hear what /lit/ thinks.

>>11513924
>>11513942
>>11514009

absolutely based

>tfw a consciousness thread on /lit/ is filled with stimulating and thought-provoking discussion

good stuff boys im gonna hit the hay hope you niggers have cracked it by then

>>11256418
>… the 'reconciliation' proper to synthesis is not a surpassing or suspension (whether it be 'dialectical') of scission on some higher plane, but a retroactive reversal which means that there never was any scission to begin with - 'synthesis' retroactively annuls this scission. This is how the enigmatic but crucial passage from Hegel's Encyclopaedia must be understood:

>The accomplishing of the infinite purpose consists therefore in sublating the illusion that it has not yet been accomplished. [15]

>One does not accomplish the end by attaining it, but by proving that one has already attained it, even when the way to its realization is hidden from view. While advancing, one was not yet there, but all of a sudden, one has been there all along - 'too soon' changes suddenly into 'too late' without detecting the exact moment of their transformation. The whole affair thus has the structure of the missed encounter: along the way, the truth, which we have not yet attained, pushes us forward like a phantom, promising that it awaits us at the end of the road; but all of a sudden we perceive that we were always already in the truth.

the truth is the dismantling of the illusion that we haven't arrived at the truth, that truth is some substantial entity, item, or proposition outside us, and not this very drive towards truth itself.

Good luck.

>>11243605
based

> ‘the Thing’s thingness does not lie at all in the material of which it consists, but in the void that holds’. What is essential to a Thing is the ‘nothing’ interior to it; its ‘structural stability’ depends upon it enclosing a void that provides an obstacle to it collapsing in on itself. This Heideggerian notion of the Thing is related to Lacan’s notion of ‘extimity’ in which the outside is located inside – i.e. the nothing ‘out there’ is the same as, or related to, the nothing ‘in here’. Further, these philosophical / psychoanalytical notions were seen by Catren as homologous to recent concepts in theoretical/mathematical physics, especially those concerned with understanding the cosmos.

>The thrust of Žižek’s argument is that Fichte successfully conceives this passage … only because he is operating with the Anstoß, an element similar to Lacan’s objet a, an ex-timate object capable of accomplishing the miracle of creatio ex nihilo where ‘nothing’ is counted as something as to its form ... The doctrine of the Anstoß is thus an ‘appearance without anything that appears,’ the very possibility of which Kant dismissed as an ‘absurd conclusion.’ (Bxxvi-xxvii) So once again we see the difference between Fichte and Kant with respect to the Thing-in-itself: whereas the Kantian necessity of thinking the Thing-in-itself carries with it a (disavowed) presupposition of its substantiality, Fichte’s own thought of Anstoß similarly denies knowledge of it as a determinate object yet nevertheless eliminates that presupposition to reveal Anstoß as ‘a positivization of a lack, a stand-in for the void.’