/lit/ - Literature

>>14512165
>REMINDER THAT HINDUISTS, GUENON, ABRAHAMICS AND EVERYONE ELSE= BTFO BY SCIENCE AND BUDDHISM
How do you expect anyone to read your shit when you put this underneath

>>14512184
I'm about to read it for my "research project" on the strange specimens of this e-circus.

>>14512165
There are particles that cannot be examined/analysed by science, so what do buddhists do? They analyse them by meditating "on the nature of mind"?
Op, are you delusional?

>>14512165
>Yet, when the nature of these particles is further examined, we find that ultimatepy their very existence as objects is called into question.
their existence as particles in called into question but not their existence in whatever form including non-particle forms like a quantum foam etc before being observed, this supports doctrines like akasha, purusha, brahman etc moreso than sunyata

>>14512165
Okay, here it is.
>Hinduism
Hinduism's nothingness principle is found in Advaita Vedanta. Quite literally, reality is 'not two', that is to say there is no seperation. No inherent existence behind discrete objects.
>Guenon
Guenon was very much into Advaita Vedanta. See above.
>Abrahamics
In the abrahmic religions all things lend their existence to God, who is timeless, boundless and transcendent. Do you not see how this relates to sunyata?
Finally, buddhism is very much against dogma and fixed thought. Yet your idea that buddhist thought is there to discredit or negate other ideas is misguided.
Surely you have heard of the great perfection. Everything has its place, including your lame ass post.

The instability of Creation is due to being extracted ex nihilio. It is Formless itself, so can only hold imitate Being, imperfectly. Thus, empirical observation has no bearing on the eternal.

>>14512254
Can you elaborate on this?

>>14512201
Epic pwnage

>>14512305
I'd have to direct you to Augustine for a better explanation.

>>14512254
So you should just believe what you want instead of what you can actually detect?

>>14512586
>only empircism is valid
Empirical detection is the lower order of knowledge and can detect only the material. To affirm only the physical on the basis of empiricism presupposes empircism and is thus circular knowledge.
I know that I exist by rational means alone, my existence being the fundamental agent of knowing, preceding my knowledge of senses at all, thus indicating that knowledge per rational means is on a superior and prior level to empirical knowledge.

>>14512220
>taking the concept of “existence” for granted despite it not even being a scientifically testable notion

>>14512165
The logic that Nagarjuna uses in an attempt to show the truth of emptiness and related Madhyamaka teachings was completely taken apart and destroyed by the Buddhist professor Richard Robinson in pic related. The is absolutely no reason to take 'emptiness' or 'sunyata' seriously unless you want to believe in it for religious/dogmatic reasons (as opposed to entertaining pretensions of it being supported by logic)

>>14512693
Ecistence is itself impermanent. Verifiable but impermanent and nothing.

>>14512252
>In the abrahmic religions all things lend their existence to God, who is timeless, boundless and transcendent. Do you not see how this relates to sunyata?
No, not at all.

It should be illegal to imply "all religions are the same bro".

>>14512713
all logicians are awful at talking about reality

>>14513278
Well, do you see it or not, how God and emptiness relate? I'm not asking for you to agree.
Did I say that all religions are the same? No. I'm saying that God is the same, no matter the religion. Big difference.
Each religion will choose different aspects to worship, but in the end they are all spiritual. And emptiness is a babby's first existentiel crisis tier realization.
Hell, the Bible even has an entire book about impermanence, see Ecclesiastes

>>14513299
> the Bible even has an entire book about impermanence, see Ecclesiastes

Yeah but it's not the same thing when you have heaven and hell and purgatory and ten commandments. It's just objectively completely different from something like Buddhism despite some vague similarities with impermanence.

>>14512713
I can't believe this nagarjuna retard manged to create a whole religion. chinks are trully brainlets

>>14513324
Did not God speak heaven, hell, purgatory and the ten commandments out of the Abyss?

>>14512165
All religions always taught the same thing esoterically pleb

http://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-the-holofractal-universe

/thread git gud

>>14512165
Even Arthur Schopenhauer said that liberation via union with Brahman and Nirvana were the same thing.
Thats also why Nietzsche hated Buddhism and Hinduism, because it literally dosent matter weather you call it "Emptiness" or "Brahman", either way you are trying to escape the suffering of life.

Stop being a retard, Guenon is a bit of a meme but there have been other Philosophers who have said literally the same things as him, and said them better

>>14513428
and I can't believe pajeets managed to plagiarized 90% of his writings

Buddhism is just fancy atheism.

>>14513549
found the brainlet

>>14513549
The Buddha believed in the Pantheon of Hindu Gods, although obviously western Atheists have appropriated the parts of Buddhism they like and removed the parts they dont like

>>14513578
[citation needed]

>>14513592
t. hasn't read the Pali Canon

Why even talk about Buddhism if you dont know shit about it

>>14513606
>The Buddha believed in the Pantheon of Hindu Gods
[citation needed]

>>14513607
The Pali Canon you braindead nigger materialist nigger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_deities

>>14513592
>>14513606
The Tibetan Book of the Dead and also Tibetan ceremonies I have watched specifically refer to "Gods" also.

The Ineffable is not even emptiness, not all things, not one thing, not generic everything, not the first or last, not inbetween, not within or around, neither above or below, we cannot even say that it is or isn't, or that any of this is actually true.

“Then if the one has no participation in time whatsoever, it neither has become nor became nor was in the past, it has neither become nor is it becoming nor is it in the present, and it will neither become nor be made to become nor will it be in the future.” “Very true.”
“Can it then partake of being in any other way than in the past, present, or future?”
“It cannot.”
“Then the one has no share in being at all.”
“Apparently not.”
“Then the one is not at all.”
”Evidently not.”
”Then it has no being even so as to be one, for if it were one, it would be and would partake of being; but apparently one neither is nor is one, if this argument is to be trusted.” “That seems to be true.”
“But can that which does not exist have anything pertaining or belonging to it?”
“Of course not.”
“Then the one has no name, nor is there any description or knowledge or perception or opinion of it.” “Evidently not.”
“And it is neither named nor described nor thought of nor known, nor does any existing thing perceive it.”

>>14513632
That's just Hinduism showing its ugly rear through Buddhism.

>>14513653
>Nooooo all the Eastern Buddhists are wrong about Devas being real. Let me, a western Atheist Materialist tell you what the Buddha really thought.
>The Pali canon? No ive never read it, it sounds like some Hindu forgery
>Tibetan book of the dead? nah that was written by superstitious shitskins, nothing to do with my Atheist Buddha daddy

fucking cringe

>>14513670
Buddhism is essentially meditation. Whatever insights you will have is up to you.

>>14513678
lol.

>>14513678
And I thought the Perennialists were the ones watering down Buddhist Tradition... Atheicucks are even worse

>>14513678
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you were thinking more about Zen Buddhism. In any case, "Whatever insights you will have is up to you" is a pretty damn laughable statement.
Maybe you would benefit from studying the concept of grace from Christianity, for I do believe that "grace is given freely and you have no part in it" is an idea very compatible with buddhism.

>>14513299
Stop with this nonsense. God of the bible is a trinity, he is personal, he Wills things according to a plan and will eventually remake the universe, there is heaven/hell and creation. The biblical world is not a mere superimposition on YHWH.

I don't get this need to try and smooth out all the edges of every religion/philosophy in order to make them all the same. Surely it is caused by some sort of testosterone deficiency?

>>14513607
>>14513653
>>14513678

>>14513607
>>14513653
>>14513678
kill yourself

>>14513733
Okay, maybe a schizopost will help you see what I'm seeing:
He spoke to the dark, let there be light. Never was there light, only ever darkness. But the light appeared in the darkness.
Why must Christ live, and die? Just like the spoken word, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.
Before all beginnings, after all endings, I am.

>>14512713
>Nagarjuna argues x
>response: this is contradicted by all schools and/or random pajeet philosopher
So this is the power of the Advaita dialectic, huh?

>>14513733
This.
It is one thing to say that all scripture points to a unifying idea.
It's another to claim that the idea which the believers have of that hypothetical truth is the same. The Christian [interpretation] about a passage is not the same interpretation as the Jewish one.
All prophets might have entered the same darkness and beheld the same dawning distant sun. But this experience would be warped by the individual Soul, interpreted by his tradition and beliefs.

>>14513991
appeal to authority

>>14513991
>So this is the power of the Advaita dialectic, huh?
That article exposing the holes in Nagarjuna's logic was written by a practicing Buddhist, not an Advaitin. The point of it is that Nagarjuna presumes to show the inherent contradictions of his opponents view using logic that's acceptable to them, i.e. using their own reasoning to reveal the logically incoherent nature of their ideas; it's from this that Nagarjuna justifies his position that it's correct to 'not have any view' because all the 'views' or metaphysical positions whichs someone could instead adopt are allegedly illogical according to Nagarjuna. The problem with this is that as professor Robinson points out Nagarjuna doesn't really refute his opponents views, he uses inconsistent logic and pigeonholes them such that his opponents wouldn't accept the arguments he puts forward; and so Nagarjuna doesn't really refute all opposing views; hence there is no support for his position that it's correct to 'not have any view' and there is no longer any basis for saying all the other positions involving constructive metaphysics are wrong, instead of producing any real insight Nagarjuna's work instead becomes a baseless justification for turning oneself into an NPC.

>>14513549
Even atheists think they will live forever, they just say they won't. But the reality of it is scary for them and so they avoid it and live their lives assuming it will always last. In that sense atheists are closer to Catholics. A Buddha is someone who has accepted death completely, Buddhists aren't necessarily Buddhas so they will tend to be like most ordinary folks.

>>14512252
>Guenon was very much into Advaita Vedanta.

Guenon's studies of Hinduism wee based on secondary and tertiary sources, many of them by occultists with little knowledge of the subject.

guenonfag why don't you try having a conversation with >>14515720 and even agreeing to disagree, rather than sperging out and going "LMAO Guenon was a mathematician" again

this is a good opportunity for you to practice equanimity and grace

>>14515736
Guenon was basically an occultist. He hung out with guys like Papus, although he was a bit freaked out by the hard-core occultism and drifted into mainstream freemasonry, and finally religious mysticism.

>>14515720
>Guenon's studies of Hinduism wee based on secondary and tertiary sources, many of them by occultists with little knowledge of the subject
Can I ask what is your basis for claiming this? Guenon could read Sanskrit and displayed a deep knowledge of Advaita, he quotes from both Shankara's commentaries and non-commentary works in his books, which shows presumably that he read the Sanskrit originals of Shankara's works. I'm well aware that he was involved with various occultist groups early in life but have never seen any information suggesting that he was specifically studying Hinduiam via an occultist or other secondary sources as opposed to reading the primary sources in their language. In any case nobody has pointed to anything he wrote about Hinduism that is wrong.

>>14512165
>SCIENCE AND BUDDHISM

buddha thought the earth was flat

>>14515860
Here is a quote rom about as mainstream a source as you can get, wikipedia:
>[Guenon's] first book, Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines, was published in 1921. The book was first proposed as a thesis, but the thesis was rejected by Indologist Sylvain Lévi.

It wasn't considered an accurate enough book to be a thesis, it was basically a bunch of vague generalisations rather than anything to do with Hinduism except in the most general way.

>...his purpose was not to describe all aspects of Hinduism, but to give the necessary intellectual foundation for a proper understanding of its spirit.

LOL He did not "describe all aspects: because he could not do so!

>>14512165
Even if this is true that there is a convergence it is not the case that Buddhism is “validated” by science. To opt for Buddhism because it is the “most scientific” is misguided because even if science recognized the indefinability of objects such a conclusion is presupposed by a position of an absolute subject. I am reminded of when people pick Christianity because of Pascal’s wager, essentially circumnavigating the crucial element of faith in the name of probability.

Why so many McMindful low t whites hate Guenon?

>>14512713
here he is, folks

>>14516099
Guenon heavily criticizes some of the views of academia and the orientalists in that book. That the book was rejected by that one Indologist is not proof in itself that anything Guenon wrote in the book was wrong.

>series of vague generalizations
I'm not sure why you wrote this, he has chapters in the book on each of the darshanas, on caste, orthodoxy, etc.

You still haven't shown that he relied on occultist sources for his studies of Hinduism as you originally alleged, nor have you shown anything that he wrote about Hinduism which is incorrect.

>>14516337
Okay. I am calm.

>That the book was rejected by that one Indologist is not proof in itself that anything Guenon wrote in the book was wrong.

It's proof that Guenon didn't know shit.

>>14516155
Because he btfos Anglos, materialists, atheists, scientism, logico-positivists and process philosophy in his books. The Buddhists who post on /lit/ typically can accurately be described by or they heavily align with a minemum of 3 to 4 of these labels

>>14516367
It's proof that you're an academia sycophant

>>14516367
>It's proof that Guenon didn't know shit.
No it's not lol. Being an Indologist in the 1920's doesn't make one an infallible authority on what's Hinduism and proper writing about it

>>14516414
>being an expert in a field doesn't make you an expert

>>14516885
The writings of the Indologists of that era are often heavily criticized for various reasons in the writings of Indologists from this era, but again, an academic title does not confer the status of being an infallible authority

>"Guenon is considered naive by scholars, that means he's bad"
>"No, all scholarship is bad therefore Guenon is good"

Neither extreme is necessary. Guenon's thesis certainly didn't meet the standards of historical critical scholarship of the time and Guenonians are known as fringe occultists in contemporary academia. Traditionalists are often right when they say that academia is spiritless but they would be silly to say that there are no talented philologists or diligent historians working in academia, let alone to say that no scholars are religious themselves.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Obviously someone extremely dedicated to Guenon who thinks he's right about nearly everything is going to have a high opinion of his interpretations.

>>14516947
>"Guenon is considered naive by scholars, that means he's bad"

It doesn't mean he's bad but it at least means he isn't taken seriously and is just an oddity.

>>14517311
No one has disputed that academics consider him to be an oddity, people were only asking for proof of the original assertion that he "didnt know anything about Hinduism" or that anything he wrote in his books about Hinduism was wrong, which was never provided.

>>14512305
So I was just reading the Confessions and saw this and rememebred your post. Augustines notion of evil as privation of good is codepedent on his metaphysics of Being and Becoming. The Good is in perfection which requires Form. Existence exists in that is subsists on the Form of Being, but is itself from Nothing so has no internal Form itself, hence it is corruptible and instable, causing rhe distinction of Being and Becoming.

>>14512305
>>14518034
Cant believe I forgot to include the pic. sorry its sideways, cant figure oit now to upload a rightways pic onto 4channel

>>14518034
isn't that basically what Plotinus had already said

>>14518061
Plotinus didnt propose Creation ex nihilo. He saw it as emmenant. Subtle difference

>>14512205
Meditating on the emptiness of phenomena, midwit

>>14512165
I met a Buddhist girl who was a graduate student of physics at a top university, said that her interest in physics partly stemmed from its complementary relationship with Buddhism. Thought that was interesting. She was cute too. One of the only people who thought it was cool that I was a philosophy major

>>14516393
>Anglos, materialists, atheists, scientism, logico-positivists
>The Buddhists who post on /lit/ typically can accurately be described by or they heavily align with a minemum of 3 to 4 of these labels


wat

>>14512165
Based

>>14518046
Try rotating it to the right on your phone.

>>14518683

>Guénon's initial evaluation of Buddhism was plagued by an astonishing lack of understanding. This evaluation was suppressed in the English edition of Orient et Occident(Paris, 1924); Guénon later modified it in part, by making some concessions to a "Brahmanic" version of Buddhism, which is truly a Buddhism evirated of the specific and valid elements it possessed at its inception. These specific elements concerned an autonomous way of realization. In this realization, the action of a qualified individual who strives to attain the Unconditioned, even by means of violent efforts is the necessary counterpart of the descent of a force from above, which does not need "initiatory bureaucracies." What Guénon had to say in an unfortunate essay concerning "The Need for a Traditional Exotericism," must also be rejected, since it offers dangerous incentives and alibis to a reactionary and petty-bourgeois conformism. The pedantic representatives of Guénonian scholasticism should rather strive to reach a deeper understanding of the true meaning of the Way of the Left Hand, which is not any less traditional than the Way of Right Hand, and which has the advantage of emphasizing the transcendent dimension proper of every truly initiatory realization and aspiration.

My family are traditional 'buddhists' and i find the idea of buddhism very interesting but I find buddhism to be very difficult as a believer in the entity as described by the ontological argument.
How compatible are these two? How does Buddhism relate to the ultimate?

Why does Buddhism make trad LARPers seethe so much?

>>14518790
Because it destroys their poorly thought worldview.

>>14518790
Schizoposters are always obsessive and can't handle any criticism or devaluation of the thing they are obsessed with. It's their main giveaway.

Indians need to be barred from posting on 4chan. Full on, you guys suck.

>>14519279
literally every "person" in this thread is a pasty-ass white boy and you know it

>literally every "person" in this thread is a pasty-ass white boy and you know it

>>14519303
extremely unlikely

>>14519279
Tibet is not India.
>>14519303
I am a beautiful woman.

>>14512165
Tired of pain and suffering ?
Just sit very still and pretend you're a rock the whole day bro !

>>14519420
It's not about being tired of it. It's about realizing all existence is pain.

>>14519425
If there is a god he must suffer tremendously.

>>14519425
It's a cope for people who find a disassociated lobotomization preferable to living life

>>14519474
What to you, is "living life"?

>>14519466
And that's a Good Thing

Seriously though, fuck him

>>14519474
Even putting a bad spin on it like that, it sounds great to me and I hope to achieve it

I'm going to try and have as much fun before I die. And when I do that will be the end of me. I don't even care.

>>14519515
Based. Don't let pseuds and retards who are in fact envious of people who can effectively do this into deluding you into wasting your one and only life

>>14519515
never gonna make it

>>14512252

Not all Hindus are monists. It is a highly diverse and multivalent religion

>>14519515
Believe me. I want fun too but you have to be smart about it.

>>14519487
Don't speak that way of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He gave his only sons on the cross.

>>14519601
And I'm buying a stairway to heaven

>>14512165
Buddhism and transmission line theory is all you need

Guenon on the consumption of male semen, the Gnostic "Sacrament" or "Amrita".

>The young and the inexperienced will no doubt be misled and confused by some of the materials invoked in the preparation and some of the details concerning the milking and will be led astray to ruin, but we nevertheless advise to initiate them into the transubstantiatic "lesser circle" as soon as may be reasonably possible. If a full consumption of the Sacrament does not appear to be feasible, a simple anointing of the lips will suffice.

>>14519990
The Lama himself said something like Buddhism is modern science but done centuries early.

>>14515823
>hard-core occultism
What's that

>>14513725
>Maybe you would benefit from studying the concept of grace from Christianity, for I do believe that "grace is given freely and you have no part in it"
What does it mean

>>14520239
>Buddhism is modern science
no

>>14520546
What he said is something like "science discovers today what Buddhists already knew centuries ago." He said it in a recent interview.

>>14518106
how is scientific phenomena empty at all if it's full of energy and quarks and shit

>>14512165

That something can, or cannot, be reduced to particles is irrelevant to it being, or not being, by said particles. For example, this tremendously idiotic thread can be reduced to particles in my screen, but your idiocy will persist after I turn it off, unfortunately.

>>14520657
You're saying the opposite of what the Lama is getting at. At its base, it (particle) is found conclusively to be nothing. Perhaps the Buddha path is not for you.

>>14513678
xd

>>14520664
>(particle) is found conclusively to be nothing
that doesn't sound scientific at all

>>14520239
>>14520549
These are two completely different things, your second post might be correct in the theoretical and abstract though. Science is an attempt at objectivity and essentially taking a third person perspective. Whereas Buddhism is wholly existential and phenomenological. Science will never get at feelings and perceptions.

Scientists may say that they agree on impermanence or no-self etc but there is a reason why the worlds scientists are not becoming stream-enterers from their research and test tubes.

>>14520771
Here is what he said, in full context.

https://youtu.be/oqRGU-GoqQc

>>14520771
>there is a reason why the worlds scientists are not becoming stream-enterers from their research and test tubes.
cause it doesn't exist?

>>14520771
>Science will never get at feelings and perceptions.
science already has gotten at them a century ago

>>14520776
Thanks.
>>14520787
cringe
>>14520796
x

>>14518106
There's no emptiness in phenomena, there is a fullness. Though there are two beings; that of this world and that of God. The emergent mechanisms of this world have no soul, and cannot experience a thing, and their mechanical mimicry of humanity and spirituality leads to them repeating the nothingness that is them.
However, this only means that they only truly exist in the perception of real beings, such as me. So why do these NPCs move in the narrative I render?

>>14520810
>>14520796
Perception, sure. Ha, we could use the quantum eraser tests to see if NPCs truly exist or if they are just brainlet materialists and reductionists coping.

Experience itself is either impossible or too difficult to quantify. We can zoom in on organs that are linked to experience, but that's about it.

>>14521114
>that of God
No such thing.

Read Nagarjuna.

>>14521238
>no such thing
>thing
I agree, but God's existence is a truism. What God is is not so apparent.

how is buddhism goal different to nuking the earth if you don't believe in reincarnation?

>>14521238
Nagarjuna doesn't have any good arguments against God

>not being a lokayatist

>>14521970
He argues almost entirely against svabhava. God lacking svabhava would be quite silly.

>>14521238
Nagarjuna retroactively refuted himself

>>14522192
We all do once emptiness is realized, that was his entire point.

>>14512165
Those who know, know. Let the cringe idiots expend their will where they will.

>>14512165
I didn't know that Buddhists enjoy smith charts! They must be very good at impedance matching.

>>14522124
He mostly argues against phenomenal objects having svabhava, his arguments don't really apply to or offer any serious challenge to teachings like the transcendent Brahman of the Upanishads or the One of Neoplatonism, at most you can only extend them to argue against an anthropomorphized Isvara/Brahmā type creator deity who is subjection to delimitation and attachment/misery, but not against an ineffable and immutable eternal God.

>>14521395
This aeon is destined to end in a cataclysm of fire anyways according to the texts.

Science: "Hey so we were developing this theoretical model that says that atoms in this configuration, with that temperature, consistently form crystals with a specific lattice type in very regular ways. It seems to be confirmed by multiple experiments, so we are gonna call this a theory, or a predictive model of reality".

Philosophers/Buddhists/Sophists alike: "Hah nice try but you can't even prove existence exists because if I meditate and think about shit it invalidates all of your models that can be observed by anyone following the same steps as you. BTFO scienshits".
Whether existence is real or not, whatever models sciences comes up with are reproducible by any people following the same steps. It is the only form of knowledge that can be reliably accessed by anyone, and trusted by anyone.

All of this mental masturbation you're doing above is you asking someone to believe whatever shit you thought of, with absolutely zero evidence.

Yet you try to equate dogmatic shit like "nirvannah is the release of all suffering and there are buddhist monks that can go 9 years without blinking or eating or breathing... y-you just haven't medidated enough to do it haha you uninlightned" with scientific theories.

One must understand from this that this board has no idea how the basic premises of science work. I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you'll conjure up to try and refute this, but by all means do try.

>>14512165
>Buddhism and science have the same grasp on reality.
Show me a Buddhist that, with no scientific education, can develop a new drug to cure diseases, build a functioning airplane, create some product that increases yields in crops, etc.

>"No, man, you don't need to cure disease, fly or solve hunger. Suffering is always part of life, just medidate until it doesn't hurt you".

It truly is just like science I can't understand why I didn't see it before.

>>14522687
Object is a metaphysical idea. There are no natural borders/distinctions/limits in matter, it is a single continuous whole.

>>14522687
A scientist advocating by strawmanning. hmmm....

>>14522967
>>14522992

I can still predict how this "metaphysical borderless" matter operates enough to come up with technologies while you guys can't, unless you also use science.

Care to explain why?

>>14523023
>I can still predict how this "metaphysical borderless" matter operates enough to come up with technologies while you guys can't
prove it

>>14523032

You are currently typing on one of the proofs. You are using a machine that operates using scientific knowledge attained on the behavior of semiconductors, being transmitted by wires and optic fiber also described by physical models.

It doesn't matter if it is all an illusion, or even if it is all in my head. Within this illusion, within this head, science is the only knowledge that allows the technologies above to exist.

What now?

>>14523057
>You are using a machine that operates using scientific knowledge attained on the behavior of semiconductors, being transmitted by wires and optic fiber also described by physical models.
prove it

>>14523156

It's a manner of speak more than anything. You could be using a bot to send messages or any other such thing instead of literally typing.
What I mean to say is that for these letters to come up in the screen I am looking at, semiconductors are sending electrical signals at very predictable, finely tuned rates that were only attainable due to our knowledge on how matter operates. Knowledge that was attained through science.

You seem to want to get me cornered on a "you can't prove that I/you/existence exists" place, but again, that is irrelevant. The only predictable knowledge of whatever this reality is, that can be attained by me or anyone within this illusion (even if we are all one or whatever other nonsense), is through science.

And just to be clear, by science I don't mean some kind of abstract entity or people. I mean science as a set of steps that any person can take to make predictions about phenomena with a progressively decreasing degrees of uncertainty.

>>14523201
>that is irrelevant
not really

>>14523213
Can you ever post a reply that has more than two words, and perhaps by some miracle contains an argument as well? It would make this so much more interesting.

And it is irrelevant in the sense that even if this is an illusion, science still seems to allow for predictable behaviors within the illusion while all other schools of thought can't do the same.

>>14523227
>even if this is an illusion, science makes illusion coherent which somehow makes it more useful

>>14520549
Wow cant wait for modern science to confirm astral projection, because if we are on the buddhist circlejerk train that is a station we will have to stop at.

>>14523023
>enough to come up with technologies while you guys can't, unless you also use science.

What if you get destroyed after death unless you know yourself, i.e. become THE technology?

>>14523156
prove you can prove anything

>>14523656
Didn't the US government outright fund studying of astral projection? Also what do you think dreams are?

>>14523890
i never said you could

>>14522687
>All of this mental masturbation you're doing above is you asking someone to believe whatever shit you thought of, with absolutely zero evidence.

You can't even read a one paragraph excerpt from the Lama correctly. He eas saying the opposite- that at its base, particles are found to be nothing. If anything, it is Guenonists, Abrahamics, etc. who fall into the trap you're mentioning.

>believe this even though you can'g see it and it makes zero sense. You gotta believe

>>14522687
based

>>14522967
literally false according to modern science

>>14513485
>Blavatsky was correct in her assessment that the first race of humans were ethereal beings which she called the Polarians, it was not speculation it is provable science. The Hutchison effect and Philadelphia experiment demonstrate how matter transmutates when you make it vibrate at different frequencies. The reason there were giants in the ancient world is because they were vibrating at higher frequencies than we do with a weaker magnetic field making them less dense and therefore more ethereal in nature.
what the fuck

Apparently no one can read. The Lama isn't saying Buddhism surpased modern science or science isn't important but rather that modern science confirms Buddhism's non-dualist viewpoint and "emptiness" rather than that of the Abrahamic religions for example.

>>14513485
>>14524034
if everybody was bigger in the past, how did they even know they were giants if they had nobody else to compare?

>>14524072
>science confirms Buddhism's non-dualist viewpoint
lmao, it's literally a start-point axiom of science, it would be hard not to "confirm" it if it's what you take as your starting point

>>14524135
I don't think it's saying everyone was bigger, just that giants existed alongside humans.

This is how the west falls. With it's youth now becoming adherants of nigger 'science' while ignoring that initial mode of thinking that started with the Greeks. Namely that all phenomena in our reality has observable causes.

>>14524473
>that all phenomena in our reality has observable causes.
name one (1)

>>14524516
I can name a million. This is what science is.
Here's an example - that heat is the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms. Or another one - the sun rises in the east and settles in the west because of the fact that the earth is a sphere that rotates around the the sun. Etc, etc.
I'm guessing the point you're trying to get to is "yes, but what is the cause of all of it ?" And the answer, you know of course, is that we don't have all the answers yet. Nor will we likely ever have. But it doesn't matter. Because science allows us to manipulate the things that do matter.

>>14524618
Buddhism doesn't contradict any of that.

>>14524135
Ancient people= aryan volks

(Base and redpilled)

>>14524790
But of course, you can prove all of their theories by simply meditating. Of course this might take a lifetime (several lifetimes) to achieve. What do you possibly have to lose.

Is Buddhism the one where matter = consciousness?

>>14525510
That's a bit of a simplification. The five psycho-physical aggregates create reality.

>>14522212
damn I just realized nagarjuna and pic related were the same.

>>14522687
>it seems to be confirmed by evidence
>so we are gonna call this a 'theory'

>>14522687
Yes every one has access to particle accelerator

>>14512165
>When your head's capacitance impedes your enlightenment

Several posters in this thread not getting it severely. Think about how your mind operates for a second. In order for you to recognize material objects, conceptual devices, and language itself as such requires your sense organs to process information from the abstract objective form into a subjective form that the limited human mind can grasp. This subjective form is the observable or the 'Real' that many are praising as immutable thanks to its reliable reproduction across space and time. However, this 'Real' falls apart the closer you zoom in. You get to the microscopic level and difference becomes imperceptible to humans. Then you get to atomic, and then the quantum where you run into difficulty because quantum entanglement means that the tiniest components of that 'Real' objective thing you thought 'verifiably existed' dont have an existence in themselves, they are distributed and entangled with other quanta irregardless of spacetime and when an observer is present their position changes. This is the Tao, and what Buddhists mean by the emptiness of phenomena. What your meatspace sense organs interpret as 'things in themselves' are simply surface level aggregates of componenet parts, emergent from an imperceptible process of interactions between quarks, strings, and quanta via spooky action. It is constant change which results in what we perceive as unity, it is difference engendered by repetition. Sure this contingency is a useful one and by all means we should explore it to its fullest extent. Yet these innumerable contingent phenomena are, at the deepest level, empty. The holes in the cavern sing notes when the wind passes through them. Who is singing, the holes or the wind?

>>14526910
>The holes in the cavern sing notes when the wind passes through them. Who is singing, the holes or the wind?
the cave

>>14512165

Gautama, Siddhārtha. Dislike him. An insufferable pedant, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about remembering past lives seriously.
Majjhima Nikāya. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Yājñavalkya's "Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad"
Dīgha Nikāya. Dislike it intensely.
Dhammapada. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

Is buddhist literature worth reading?
I tried reading some texts they had at my universities library and it was just endless repetitive sentences trying to illustrate something or humans/gods exalting the Buddha.
I'm looking at buying In The Buddha's words and the Dhammapada right now since they seem good.

>>14527169
eat shit bitch

>>14526910
Where does atma factor in all this

>>14513678
No amount of meditation will give you enlightenment dum dum

>>14526910

See:

>>14520657

The pixels of my screen paint idiotic comments when electricity passes through them. However, the idiot is neither the pixels nor the electricity, nor any and all combinations thereof, it is you.

>>14526910
Insha'Buddha

>>14527202
Pali Canon

>>14512165
This is identical to Process And Reality by Whitehead

bump

>>14515529
if by live forever you mean "we are star stuff" then sure. otherwise as an atheist i'm quite comfortable with my inevitable death.

>>14513678

>>14528416

Philosophy is neither arbitrary nor restless, and its "need" is ultimately immortality.

>>14526910
Good post breaking it down.

>>14526910
How is this spirituality/religion?

>>14529029
And why are not the scientists doing all this research apparently understanding the Tao/emptiness not becoming enlightened?

>>14526910
sounds like entry level reddit atheism

>>14529029
It's not, that's why it attracts all the crypto-materialists like flies to a rotting corpse

>>14529090
>everything I don't like is Reddit
>uhh you should pray to my dead zombie yid on a cross

>>14529144
cope

>>14529182
Abrahams God isn't real just because you want him to be.

>

>>14526484
TFW no other Smith-chart chads in this thread

>>14529092
>that image

Kek

>>14520546
Yes.

>>14512165
what does a smith chart have to do with buddhism?

>>14534358
Maybe I got it: reaching nirvana (normalized impedance) is removing the reactance in our heads. Reactance is nothing but our desires and extra impedance are our excessive material possessions and we need to get rid of them to truly connect with the Nirvana/Transmission line.

Or it just looks cool there, idk.

>>14534373
so nirvana is just becoming a superconductor for consciousness? they should have explained it like that in buddhism school...

>>14534377
No, it's merging with the other conductors impedance wise. I know more about Smith Charts than buddhism though

>>14534373
>>14534377
>>14534401
(((science))) have a way of making everything fucking boring and gay

>>14534417
>t.

>>14512165
How to go to Heaven explained in 7 minutes
https://youtu.be/WDEBz25lGdY

>>14534417
"""(((science)))""" dorks toiling with a spectrum analyzer and smith charts are a big reason the internet and computers work anon. Just know that there are positive and negative complex/imaginary components to your existence and you're embarrassing yourself.

>>14535228
>DUDE JSUT BELIVE IN JEBUS TO GET INTO HEAVEN HEHE XDXD
>BRO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ACT WITH MORALITY AND VIRTUE, JUST BELIEB LOL
Protestantism is a fucking joke.

>Husserl saw a similarity between the Socratic good life lived under the maxim "Know yourself" and the Buddhist philosophy, he argues that they both have the same attitude, which is a combination of the pure theoretical attitude of the sciences and the pragmatic attitudes of everyday life. This third attitude is based on "a praxis whose aim is to elevate humankind through universal scientific reason."
based

>>14535299
shut up nerd go play with your test tubes while i go bang hotties and realize the absolute

>>14535311
Life is a joke.

>>14512165
>I can't see X
>that means it isn't there!
seems legit anon

>>14535311
>>BRO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO ACT WITH MORALITY AND VIRTUE
That is the only good part about Protestantism. Religions with a moral liberation ontology are cringe. Morality and ethics is for society, not liberation.

But anyway this is pretty much where the good parts in Protestantism ends. And obviously it is a false religion that will only keep people stuck in duality and therefore samsara.

>>14535817
That's not what he said.

>>14534588
He's not wrong.

>>14512165
Why the fuck is that Smith chart behind wojac? His brain doesn't pick up RF, does it?

>>14535419
Based.

>>14512165
>>14536275
gift

* http://bodhi.sofiatopia.org/table.htm
* http://www.lulu.com/shop/wim-van-den-dungen/the-yoga-s%C5%ABtra-of-pata%C3%B1jali-translations-and-commentary/paperback/product-24287611.html
* http://www.sofiatopia.org/
* http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/criticosynthesis.htm