/lit/ - Literature

>>11527273
dependent in my language means also addictive and to be flattering and sly. philology thread?

>>11527273

>on the bus reading Sri Śaṅkarācārya's Brahma Sutra commentary
>I'm at the part right before Śaṅkarācārya' refutes Buddhism by noting that the doctrine of momentariness is nonsensical because its implication is that the antecedent thing would have to cease to exist at the next moment when the subsequent thing is created, meaning that it could not be the cause of the other, which goes against the principle that the cause is necessarily non-momentary by existing in a new form in the effect just as the cause of the clay still exists in the pot; and that the only way for the Buddhists to reconcile this would be to hold that existence proceeds out of non-existence which is impossible and itself would violate the Buddhist tenet that every effect has a cause
>slouch down my seat and yell, "YO, THIS NIGGA FINNA BOUTTA GET DABBED ON"
>my all-pervading self laughs
>a wave in the limitless ocean of myself looks at my jiva-atma and says "You aight, white boy"
>Hear "He cute" from another wave

>>11527273
So then why does Taoism exist? It reaches further than Buddhism even acknowledges.

>>11527273
learned both of the Humeian and Buddhist notions of causality separately but all of a sudden I realize they take the form of a very similar mental structure to make sense of themselves to me.

>>11527314
pratītyasamutpāda =/= momentariness
Nāgārjuna and his followers critiqued it with exactly the same argument as Śaṅkarā
cute greentext though

>>11527273
Of course they did you do doof, they anticipated process philosophy by 2000 years

>>11527384
>pratītyasamutpāda =/= momentariness

Yes, I'm aware. Shankara's point that the copypasta references is that the two (which were both held by late Indian Buddhism but not in certain other schools) are in some ways mutually incompatible and produces contradictions when you consider how they could both be true simultaneously.

>>11527508
Ah.
I would say that it's because momentariness is how we conceive of our experience with time but not necessarily its true state.

>(...) everything that arises due to causes and conditions passes away due to causes and conditions, and what we can see is that there is absolutely nothing that stands outside of causes and conditions - that's what paṭiccasamuppāda is about (...) we have to grant there's a lot of things about the realm of causality that we don't know, for example in the physical world there's so much we know now that we didn't know a century ago or two centuries ago (...) so there can be things that seem magical but we really need to understand is underneath everything is interconnected and there is causal interconnectedness of everything. Nothing is supernatural, so this is what naturalization of the dharma means. Naturalization of the dharma is the major step.
https://youtu.be/mz0MlFOwaek?t=1233
anti-science mystics completely btfo'd

>>11527318
Where do I start if I want to get into taoism?

>>11528650
Juan Gee

>>11527318
>In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

>>11528628
>I only take 2000+ old eastern doctrines seriously if they align with """modern science""""

the absolute state of western Buddhists

>>11528749
>considering anything at odds with science
the absolute state of /lit/

>>11527273
tfw everything is bastardized through translation and we will never know original thought

>>11528771
If it's self consistent enough, we know we got translation correctly though

>>11528679
That has nothing to do with Taoism, in fact it is recommened to be a practitioner of both.

>>11528809
Why would I want another system if getting rid of suffering solves everything?

>>11527273
>they knew about Causality.
Wow..................

>>11528749
>STEMtards hating on praxis

end your life

>>11528951
IT DOESNT IT EXPANDS ON IT

HOLY FUCK DUDE

>>11528769
>>11529054
>Taking (((modern science))) at face value, and not seeing it as the bourgeois politicized and capitalized institution that it really is.

>>11528628
Any mystic worth their salt aren't anti-science. They're anti-**scientism**, which is the belief that the only form of knowledge available to humans is reductionist, empirical knowledge.

>>11530262
>scientism
literally a word invented by humanitiesfags buttblasted that their pet theory is btfo by actual science

>>11529138
Only applies to social sciences and related humanities.

>>11530287
The universe is non-rational, something STEMfags will never accept.

>>11529077
clean your meditation cushion lol

>>11530364
>The universe is not rational
Things can be either random or governed by cause and effect, or somewhere inbetween, and we can quantify randomness.

>>11530638
If something was truly random, there's a chance it could mimick cause and effect through pure randomness. How would someone know the difference?

>>11530960
Appearances is all you can have and you can only guess the nature of underlying process. With every measurement you get better chance of guessing right. You can never be 100% sure about anything in the world and you can argue everything you've experienced up to this point is without cause, but it's highly impropable it's really so.

>>11530334
Not really when you have scientists doing click bait science research like "eating chocolate is healthy for you" or "scientists have figured out what Pluto smells like," along with infotainment videos like TEDx Talks. You also have the science cult of personality and their spokespeople such as Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and their I FUKING LUV SCIENCE XDDD fanboys. When people think of science, they think of interesting facts, which have been stripped away and commodified from the many days of dry tedious work of actual science.

>>11530621
Lol be dumb

>>11530364
> universe is inherently irrational
>quantum physics is 99.999999% accurate and is improving
Are you really so confident that we won't ever get 100%?

>>11532152
>forever scholar
lol

>>11532165
Even if quantum physics ends up being 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% accurate, it will still never provide a full model of reality.

And no, you can't just say "well close enough, who cares about some obscure shit we can't explain, LOL", because then you'd be admitting that your model of reality is insufficient to accurately explain all phenomena. That 0.0000000.....01% of reality unexplainable by quantum physics is just as much an integral part of reality as the rest of the 99.99%, it's not just a """statical outlier."""

Bump. Also, any animé with sanskrit in it?