[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 158 KB, 487x578, 1613160042139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17562990 No.17562990 [Reply] [Original]

NΛGΛRJVNΛ: In dreams, happiness and suffering depend on the objects of dreams and upon waking these objects are known to not actually exist. Likewise any phenomena which arise in dependence on another dependent phenomena should be known to not exist in the manner of it's appearance

respondent: if you assert that phenomena don't exist inherently then you are asserting they don't exist at all. how can you make distinctions like inferior, middling or better? how can you assert that there are manifestations that arise from causes?

NΛGΛRJVNΛ: When you assert that phenomena exist inherently, you are asserting that they do not originate in dependence on causes and conditions, thus you are the one implying that phenomena do not exist. This is because, without dependence on causes and conditions, you would need independent existence throughout the three times (past, future, present). This deprives existence to things that arise from causes, but also for the uncaused which would have to constantly remanifest at different points in time without having the characertistic of causation that would allow them to subsist from past to present to future.

respondent: If phenomena do not exist inherently, how can you use terms to refer to their own characteristics or characteristics in relation to other phenomena?

NΛGΛRJVNΛ: Although phenomena lack inherent existence, we can still conventionally use these references with the realisation that upon analysis they will turn out to be no more than dream objects despite their apparent existence in ordinary perception. Their existence and appearance are different.

Opponent: I-I... Kneel

>> No.17563045

nagarjuna seems like a bunch of pseudery. why not just read the pali canon?

>> No.17563081

>>17563045
Nagarjuna's main work is just a commentary of the kachannagotta sutta

He makes it easier to read between expedient canonical teachings and the core ideas of conditional dependence and how it relates to liberation

>> No.17563419

>>17562990

respondent: your claim that: “This deprives existence to things that arise from causes, but also for the uncaused which would have to constantly remanifest at different points in time without having the characertistic of causation that would allow them to subsist from past to present to future” is nonsense, because uncaused things due to their independence from causation do not need to remanifest precisely because they are already abiding due to their independence from the causal conditions that govern arising and ceasing. The characteristic of causation is not needed for an uncaused thing to subsist from past to present because an uncaused thing is already free from arising and ceasing by default and so it does not need any additional property to persist.

>> No.17563609

>>17563419
NΛGΛRJVNΛ: such a thing trivially depends on the time it is considered for its apparent existence. If not when does it appear to exist?

>> No.17563633
File: 25 KB, 665x574, 1584426388454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17563633

>>17563419
>an uncaused thing

>> No.17564347

>>17563609
respondent: Surely you are not so foolish so as to equate apparent existence with actual or real existence? The time at which something is being considered having a determining affect upon the appearance of that thing in one’s mind only pertains to our subjective experience of things, it does not provide us with foolproof knowledge of the ontological status of the thing being considered.

>>17563633
respondent: Yes, such as God, Allah, Brahman, the Tao. Buddhists also hold Nirvana to be uncaused but for some reason their imagination fails them when directed elsewhere.

>> No.17564778

>>17564347
>Yes, such as God, Allah, Brahman, the Tao. Buddhists also hold Nirvana to be uncaused but for some reason their imagination fails them when directed elsewhere.
Nirvana is not like the others, because it's not at the base of the Universe.

>> No.17564885

>>17564347
>Buddhists also hold Nirvana to be uncaused but for some reason their imagination fails them when directed elsewhere.
On the contrary, Buddhists hold there being possibly infinite things that are uncaused. We can't possibly interact with them and their existence is identical to their non-existence, so sure, why not, there's infinity squared uncaused things out there. It is only the Abrahamic (and the Autism Vedantan) that hold there as only being one uncaused thing.

>> No.17565091

>>17564778
respondent: That may be so but it doesn't refute the truth here to be recognized which is that certain Buddhists contradict themselves and become hypocrites by posting reaction images implying that uncaused things don't exist (advancing an argument would be too much for them), while also maintaining that Nirvana or the Unconditioned is uncaused.

>>17564885
>On the contrary, Buddhists hold there being possibly infinite things that are uncaused
source?

>> No.17565120

>>17563419

OH NO NO NO NAGARJUNA BROS WE GOT TOO COCKY

>> No.17565255

>>17565091
Literally any Pali Canon sutta on Dependent Origination. The Heart Sutra. Literally anything by Nagarjuna. The Buddha's initial arguments against the idea of something that isn't Dependently Originated is in part epistemological. There's absolutely nothing saying that there aren't things out there that we cannot interact with, and as such that cannot interact with us.

But you can't interact with them, and they can't interact with you, so they effectively don't exist. That's an epistemological statement across all of Buddhism, not an ontological one. There are some Buddhist traditions that hold it as an ontological statement, and that's fair, but you don't have to take it as such. So again, it's not the Buddhists saying "These things don't exist", but rather it's the Abrahamoids saying "these things exist AND there's only one of them".

>> No.17565510

>>17565255
if Buddhism accepts as a possibility that there could be uncaused things that exist, why then does Nagarjuna argue in the text quoted by OP (I assume that this is where its from) against that by saying “This deprives existence to things that arise from causes, but also for the uncaused which would have to constantly remanifest at different points”. That sounds like he is arguing against the notion that an inherently existing uncaused thing could exist and persist over time, it sounds like Nagarjuna is trying to rule that out as illogical.