/lit/ - Literature

>>19368900
Sounds like he was losing a lame flame war on a fanfic thread.

>>19368900
>So what actually is anatta
It's a way of looking at things that leads to awakening.

>>19369058
So Buddhists don't actually metaphysically disagree with Hinduism that we have souls, they just say we should pretend we don't?

>>19369104
Souls don’t matter. Consciousness is beyond individuation. There is no point in your cultivation of soul and honouring of deity if you I the untouchable and the god are all conscious attached and suffering by attachment.

>>19369104
Why assume superifical in the first place?

>>19368900
>So what actually is anatta if it's not annihilation?
Pro-tip: Buddhists have no fucking idea and argue amongst themselves about, it speaks to what a confused mess Buddhism is

Buddhists will argue that
1) None of the aggregates are a self/Self/Atman
2) There is no ‘extra’ soul or self or Self outside of the aggregates, i.e. everything about us is reducible to aggregates
3) The aggregates dont continue into Parinirvana (when an arahant dies), all sensations and consciousness are “completely destroyed” as Walpola Rahula writes on page 41 of ‘What the Buddha Taught’

But then these same foolish Buddhists still maintain all this and try to deny at the same time that our aggregates being forever destroying upon the death of an arahant is somehow not an annihilation of consciousness or of us, despite them admitting that nothing about us continues into Parinirvana, this Parinirvana “it freedom” but they cant explain who attains it and how, or how it has any practical difference from nothingness.

>Modern philosophical schools of Buddhism are all more or less influenced by a spirit of sophistic nihilism. They deal with Nirvāṇa as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract. They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvāṇa is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.

>According to them the soul enjoys in Nirvāṇa neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither annihilated nor non-annihilated. Nirvāṇa is to them a state of which nothing can be said, to which no attributes can be given; it is altogether an abstract, devoid alike of all positive and negative qualities.

>What shall we say of such empty useless speculations, such sickly, dead words, whose fruitless sophistry offers to that natural yearning of the human heart after an eternal rest nothing better than a philosophical myth? It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.

- Ernst Johann Eitel

>>19369532
So you’re saying Buddhism is an image board and nirvana is its waifu?

>>19368900
you cant destroy a being since there is no being in the first place.

a being in buddhism is just craving

>>19369708
>you cant destroy a being since there is no being in the first place
Then who is it that is aware of this conversation, who is aware of thought, who meditates and who gains insight? who suffers? who is attached?
>not you, nobody does so
then Buddhism is useless to me since it doesn’t offer me happiness, clarity or release from any bondage

>>19369708
What gives craving its existence? What experiences craving, if there is no one to perceive it?

>>19369532
Perfect.
>>19369708
Typical Buddhist response: poker face, be as vague and elusive as possible, divert with sophistry one gets tired os asking.

>>19369532
Rekt

>>19369820
If you meet Buddha in the road kill him

So Buddhism is just sophistry?

>>19369532
If you still think in terms of
>aggregates being destroyed
>death of an arhat
>who attains nirvana
, you haven't even began grasping Buddhist metaphysics. Renouncing such fallible concepts is the purpose of Buddhism in the first place.

>>19369857
Pretty much. See >>19369878

>>19369886
I guess Hindus were right about ONE thing: shudras shouldn't be allowed close to philosophy.

>>19369878
>>19369886
No, it's skillful means

>>19369899
Exactly, stay away.

>>19369886
i dont get it. am i not suppose to?

>>19368900
the absence of self isn't the absence of reality
you exist and reality exist, just not in teh wat you think it exist
the self is how the mind arrenge reality, but we cav overcome that and experience reality ina more pure way
that's what anatta means

>>19369104
Yes, they do metaphysically disagree with Hindus that we have souls.

>>19370209
This is just a redefinition

>>19369737
>Then who
that question is already taking the self as a necessity, when in reality the self is just necessary in a conceptual way, nibbana is freedom from the conceptual shackles of the mind, so a question like that has no place on this discussion
if you need to ask "who" then you're not talking about the trascendental reality of nibbana anymore, but of arising phenomena
>then Buddhism is useless to me
yes because you still cling to the most basic mechaics of identity

>>19369737
>Then who is it that is aware of this conversation, who is aware of thought, who meditates and who gains insight? who suffers? who is attached?
a contingent being which inherited karma/cuasation from another contingent being and will give his own karma to another contingent being in the flux of reality

>>19370233
Where do phenomena arise from?

>>19370226
>a redefinition
of what?

>>19370242
phenomena doesn't need to arise form nothing beisdes phenomena itself, since causation is only present on phenomena itself
this was proved not only by buddha but by western philosophers like hume or kant

>>19370246
Of what a self is, you took the basic idea, added some stuff to it, rejected the additions, rejected the term ‘self’ because you rejected the additions, and then posited some mind.
You are, at a given moment, something. This something is the self. You can accept or deny any properties about what that something is, but there is something which exists and this is the self.

>>19370252
Yes, phenomena can arise from other phenomena - I don’t dispute this, though Kant would. I simply ask why phenomena exist.

>>19370257

>You are, at a given moment, something

buddhism don't reject this tho, what buddhism denies is that self can mantain itself eternally, and outside of reality, buddhism denies the Self not a self, in fact a self is called a dhamma/identity in buddhism
so yes, you're at a given moment, something, the only ones deniyng that are advaita fags who think your whole identity is just an illusion and the only thing real is an abstract god without qualities or identity

>>19370262
>I simply ask why phenomena exist.
that question has no answer, since our ways of acquiring knowledge are not designed for such questions, because casuality is party of phenomena, trying to put causation to that which trascends causation is futile

>>19370288
>casuality
causality

>>19370288
I don’t mean ‘why does something exist’. It seems like Buddhism is basically committed to antirealism in regards to phenomena - so why are they experienced? Especially if as has been said in here many times before ‘Everything is nirvana or empty’

>>19369878
>you haven't even began grasping Buddhist metaphysics.
I have read about and grasped Buddhist metaphysics, if you cant even provide an answer to the question though then you are just using pretensions of Buddhist “metaphysics” as a fig leaf to cover up the underlying contradictions
>Renouncing such fallible concepts is the purpose of Buddhism in the first place.
Well, Buddha himself teaches about aggregates and extinguishing them and he teaches about arahants and them dying and Parnirvana being after that so why would he teach about all of this stuff if we are supposed to reject it?
>well, because actually buddha was le ancient wittgenstein who taught us to be skeptics who abandon all positions concepts and views
Except that this is explicitly identified as a heresy of Buddhism in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya

>le buddhist metaphysics
When a Buddhist thinks he is speaking to a normie they will spout a lot of metaphysics, but as soon as they realize they are speaking to someone more knowledgeable about Buddhist metaphysics, someone who can point out the blatant inconsistencies and contradictions, he recoils and shrieks: “I’ve been found out!”. He then proceeds to plan B, namely to claim that Buddhist doesn’t have a metaphysics/that it creates attachment and doesn’t lead to enlightenment so we don’t do metaphysics/that Buddhism doesn’t really hold any views it’s just about enlightenment bro/etc.
Watch that Buddhist Anon proceed to do just that. It’s an infallible script that all Buddhist follow.

>>19369737
>Then who
that's like asking who's the enlightement or the middle ages?you can try to answer, kant, Voltaire, charlemagne, joan de arch, but the question istelf is wrong, becuase any historical period is a complex set of people,
circumstances, concepts and historical events
it's the same with a person, it's a complex sets of things that are constantly changing and being replaced, until each component is replaced and sooner or later a thing made with totally different components exist in the same place, but it's a totally different thing? no, because this new thing only exist thanks to the previous thing,so there is a consistency, just not given by a Self
this kind of ontology is the only way to resolve things like the problem of tehseus ship or the sorites paradox

>>19370325
>so why are they experienced?
again, you're trying to adjunct a cause to a trascendent principle that must by defintion outside of causes, no one can answer that question objectively, since any answer can then be the subject to the same question: "then why(insert your answer) exist?" it creates a loop of abstract futile questions
>committed to antirealism
not at all, buddhism is more in line with the idealist school

>>19370487
advaita are more cringe in that sense, every time someone point out how their notion of pure awarness can't be proven they just resort to "it's in the sacred scriptures bro, we don't need to prove anything to you"

>>19370413
Buddha never intended to answer the big questions of life, especially concerning what remaims after the (conventional) destruction of the (conventional) aggregates, and what the actual nature of nirvana is. Correctly identifing that any philosophizing is limited to concepts abstracted from the world of aggregates, Buddhist metaphysics are content with analysing them and refusing them any innate nature, showing the path to the cessation of suffering. Any attempt to take reasoning beyond the world of aggregates is seen as pointless, futile and unskillfull, since it entangles the mind in endless dialectics and distracts from the goal of attaining nirvana. If you want a system of thought that attempts to cover all of existence, Buddhism is just not the one.

>>19370903
Yes they will go through this whole song and dance about how "illogical" impermanence is, even though they will be dead in a few decades, and what is their defense for permanence? It's god sniffing his own farts.

>>19370971
This is the problem with Buddhism. It posits a moral axiom (end suffering) without any metaphysical system to show that it is a problem towards which any progress can be made - our current materialist understanding suggests suffering will be pretty much constant until life ends, at which point there will be no more suffering. Doesn’t look like we have to do anything here, and anything we do will achieve nothing.

>>19371039
>without any metaphysical system to show that it is a problem towards which any progress can be made
Someone didn't do the reading! Or perhaps only read a curated anthology of pali suttas, which are half encyclopedia entry and half aphorism, not systematized until later in the history of Buddhism. By the Middle Ages the Japanese counted at least eight schools of Buddhism, mostly in correspondence with those of China and India, each with its own variety of soteriology and metaphysics. In Tibet, iirc there are still five major sects

>>19371039
>. It posits a moral axiom (end suffering) without any metaphysical system to show that it is a problem towards which any progress can be made
The metaphysical system is clear: the world in which we experience suffering is composed entirely of self-less aggregates and our mental clinging to them is what causes this distress. By extinguishing our mental attachments we extinguish suffering, but the state that follows this can not be put into concepts, because it transcends the subject-object distinction, that is, the only way we have concepts in the first place. The closest word we have for it is Nibbana (which means extinguishing) and the closest attribute for Nibbana that we can come up with is Emptiness, because it is at least empty of any possible definition.

>>19371039
>>19371072
I am the anon you've been talking to.

>>19369737
>Who suffers
The emotion of suffering believing it belongs to someone.
That's my midwit understanding.

>>19370242
Who cares?
We just know they come and go.

Why bother ask buddhists? Their answers are guaranteed "2deep4u, nigga". It's an useless religion that changes nothing, yet they literally think it's the ultimate gift for humanity or some shit. Look at those faggots in myanmar, thailand, china, or tibet. Do those niggas look like mankind's most sophisticated people? Yeah. Far from it.

>>19372156
>whines about people not being sophisticated enough
>posts on /lit/ - Spillover Election Tourists Discussing the American Culture War

>>19372185
I don't need to know what those retards in Myanmar or Tibet believe in to know their faith is useless. I only need to see the material reality of their society to know that their religion is useless at best, scam at worst. Btw holy shit, is that cat real?

>>19371100
Anon is getting hung up on translations. He's never done any reading on this, so of course he is.

"Suffering" is a bad translation of "dukkha". Dukkha is the negativity resulting from impermanence. It's using the now archaic usage of "suffer" to mean "to endure; to allow" ("thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"). It's breaking your leg, it's being sad about breaking your leg, it's being sad about seeing someone break their leg, it's being sad that someone is out there right now breaking their leg, and so on. All sentient beings (another poorly translated term) can undergo dukkha, but to say that you, or anything, "experiences" dukkha in the same way that someone "experiences" hunger is incorrect. You can experience dukkha and not be aware of it, but you cannot experience hunger and not be aware of it. To experience hunger sensory data needs to be obtained and processed. Again, dukkha isn't pain, it's a state of impermanence that can (and will) result in bad things happening to you. It's not the result of the six senses (sight, sound, taste, touch, hearing, and mind, with mind being used for internal monologue, imagination, memory, and psychic powers). The pain from breaking your leg is a result of dukkha, but you can also break your leg and not feel a thing and are thus still (colloquially) "experiencing" dukkha. If you really need another analogue, you "experience" time, but it's not like you can smell it or whatever.

The bit about "you are subject to dukkha but can be unaware of it" is actually really key to Buddhist thought. For example, it's why memesters tie themselves up in knots and then go say that nothing exists because everything is made of nothing except for the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe that is actually the cow that is made of fire and has 99 teats by virtue of its reflexive self-awareness through its own opacity because like a knife that cuts itself it's translucent thereby allowing it to shine on its own lamp: you're desperately hiding from dukkha and being a gay retard distracts you from it.

I can discuss Buddhist epistemology further if you'd like, but honestly this, like all meme pseud "critiques" of Buddhism, really just comes down to
>moron doesn't bother looking into buddhism
>gets shocked when buddhists don't act like morons who don't know anything about buddhism

>>19372263
>is that cat real?
Sneed to some, Chuck to others.

>>19372371
Most criticism of Buddhism is a failure to understand that it isn't nihilism, which is a problem both India's theists and the west's post-theists have, because if "there's no god (or no x that replaces god in name only)" then "you're a nihilist!"

>>19372371
Yo does that mean if I break Dalai Lama's legs he won't experience pain or shit?

>So what actually is anatta if it's not annihilation?

Detachment of self. Self is temporary.

>>19372156
>Do those niggas look like mankind's most sophisticated people?
yeah the ones involved in the education do seem quite serene and noble

>>19372569
He won’t be attached to the pain

>>19373153
But will he experience pain? And what tf does "not attached to the pain" even mean?

Buddhists live rent free in the Vedist mind, if they can't argue against the noble truth, they try to instead claim it as subordinate. Reminder that the Buddha was of pure IRANIC SCTYTHIAN SUN WORSHIPPER RACE.

>>19373834
Yes.
He can effectively ignore the affect of the pain on him.

>>19368900
Yeah, except he didn't say any of that.

>>19373834
“Monks, when the instructed noble disciple experiences a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.

I read that in actual thai theravada monasteries they are very blunt about it - parinibbana is basically just how an atheist materialist conceives of death. Body stops functioning, no more consciousess, no more rebirth.

Buddha denies annihiliationism because he rejects the premise of the question - that there is a self or being or ego or entity to be destroyed. In buddhist thought there is just aggregates, which stop at parinibbana.

>>19374066
The best dunk on the Vedas I have read is in the Tattvasangraha, in which Shantaraksita muses that contemplating the Vedas all day has dulled the wits of the Brahmins, which is why they argue for it being authorless, free of error, etc. Like Nietzsche in another time and place.

>>19372569
lookup vietnam burning monk

>>19369532
>They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvāṇa is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.
Based and dialecticalpilled.

>>19374393
You didn't read shit

Nothing convinces me that Americans and their kindred have been corn syrup'd beyond the ontological point of no return quite like Buddhism threads. Yes, Buddhism IS 2deep4u, you ARE lost, you ARE doomed to suffer rebirth in Samsara, you do NOT have discernment, and you will seethe eternally.

>>19373153
>>19374081
>>19374245
>>19374439
Oh that's rad. Why don't we make "Burn the Buddhists" challange in tiktok for every buddhist abbots and lamas? Anyone who scream like a bitch should be left burning since they're too attached to the dukkha

>>19374950
based Vajrayana follower

>>19374950
what does this achieve?

>>19369532
>>19374476
>>19369532
>>
>But then these same foolish Buddhists still maintain all this and try to deny at the same time that our aggregates being forever destroying upon the death of an arahant is somehow not an annihilation of consciousness or of us,
consciousness is an aggregate and is destroyed at parinirvana you fucking morons

>>19372569
dude some monks meditate while burning alive, of course a trained monk can shut off pain

>>19372942
there is no self at all in buddhism

>>19375073
>consciousness is an aggregate and is destroyed at parinirvana you fucking morons
so Buddha teaches an ultimate annihilation of everything about ourselves, yes, this is what some Buddhists deny though

>>19375174
annihilationism is explicitly rejected in the scriptures. FUCK i want to grind your skull to powder

>>19375174
>consciousness is everything about our selves
ngmi, see you next lifetime

>>19370971
>Any attempt to take reasoning beyond the world of aggregates is seen as pointless, futile and unskillfull, since it entangles the mind in endless dialectics and distracts from the goal of attaining nirvana
>Questioning anything i'm saying will distract you from doing what I tell you to do

>>19375098
There can't really be a self seperate from everything else.

>>19374393
>Sophistry to avoid answering the question

>>19374881
I won't though.

>>19374881
These threads are usually filled with literally insane mentally ill orthodox Christians and Hindu larpers both terrified Buddhists are stealing their children who do not and will not ever exist.

>>19372569
Distinction between suffering and pain. Literally Buddhism 101, not even, Buddhism 99. Do Americans really just sit around and try to gotcha 2000+ year old wisdom traditions with this keg bro faggot shit?

>>19375098
The key insight of Buddhism is that there is no discrete well-spring from which identity and self flow nor is self a thing-in-itself. It's a stream of different functions that flow together.
From here you can call the concept of "self" an illusion. But you can just as easily call it illumination.
I'll let you decide which of those is preferable but name a Buddhist whose company you could tolerate for more than 10 minutes.

>>19375236
>I've mastered the art of self-deception ergo, nuh-uh
Every time. Seethe you fucking sped worldling, seethe.

>>19375240
>Buddhists are stealing their children who do not and will not ever exist.
Buddhist here.

I am busy stealing Christian and Hindu children. I especially love to kill the ones who don't exist.

the metaphysical principles are pretty irrelevant to the practice, I'm sure there's a sutra concerning this, Diamond Sutra should cover it.

>>19375253
>Seethe
>Self-deception
Says the white Buddhist. Jung had you fuckers pegged.

>>19375255
That's a cop-out. The metaphysical structure of what's being proposed is either consistent, coherent and valid or it is not.

>>19375261
>Jung
>A psychologist alchemist gnostic
>Having anything to say about westernized, diluted eastern traditions
Lmao

>>19375269
>I haven't read Jung
It's ok anon.

>>19368900
The bad type of nihilism but with a lot more words.

>>19375281
Has nothing to do with nihilism, it is the direct opposite. Read Evola.

>>19375281
Retard

>>19375274
Whoa calm down bro! Jung??? You're going too fast lmao

>>19375315
It's entirely nihilism. Buddhism is the antithesis of a well-lived life and utterly bereft of passion, love and the things that make living in this world worth doing. It is the antithesis of life.
>Read Evola
Lol no

>>19375324
cringe worldling

>>19375329
This world is all there is.

>>19375340
Shit cringe worldlings say.

>>19375324
>utterly bereft of passion, love and the things that make living in this world worth doing
Completely wrong. Welcome to Samsara I love you

>>19375324
How did you end up with that conclusion given you don't read? You outlined a very typical surface level misunderstanding that many people have. There wasn't any point in even making that same assertion that has been made countless times by people who refuse to READ or understand any of the practice through experience.

>>19375350
I'm not wrong. Buddhist compassion is really just proselytism.

>>19375354
I've read enough Evola to know there is nothing worth reading the rest.
>You're wrong
Not an argument. Make one.

>>19375359
You keep being wrong, but how? Can this be taught?

>>19375380
>>19375380
>Not responding any more as he doesn't have a counter-point
It's ok.

>>19375388
>It's ok.
That is the essence of the Dharma.

>>19375249
>The key insight of Buddhism is that there is no discrete well-spring from which identity and self flow nor is self a thing-in-itself. It's a stream of different functions that flow together.
>From here you can call the concept of "self" an illusion. But you can just as easily call it illumination.
You could call it God. Read the Gita.

Why Buddhist threads on /his/ are competent (at least a few last ones were), everyone ignores shitposters and even discussion with Advaita adepts is civilized, but on /lit/ it's aggressive and pointless shitfest of buttmads and unfunny jesters?

>>19375441
/his/ is full of pale, bloodless efettes who are proud of being called intellectuals.

>>19375449
/his/ is full of nazis who don't read. Thus the buddhists are cogent because buddhism is essentially fascist (cf: Nepal, Thailand, Tibet).

/lit/ is full of nazis who don't read. Thus the buddhists are pasty white cunts who live in the granny flat out the back of the wog palace your mum's current boyfriend rents with his centrelink (the speed dealing pays for his short wheel base holden converted 1970s car habit)

>>19375464
nah it's more like /lit/ knows what they're talking about. your culture war meme stereotypes are tedious and stale

>>19375472
Think you won it mate? Look forward to hanging you with your managers entrails.

neither board reads. /lit/, at least, assumes that the person who didn't read least is superior.

Buddhism has like all modern religions been sick. In Japan buddhists were competing to be more great yamato cult than the shintoists. Buddhists are currently engaged in racial genocide in Thailand against peaceful muzzers.

t. buddhist. (Fuck you dad).

>>19374881
>Buddhism IS 2deep4u
Yep. Thank God me and my nation is not retarded enough to buy this PajeetxZhang "just shut up and don't question my philosophy" nonsense
>you ARE doomed to suffer rebirth in Samsara
You say this thing called "rebirth" but I don't remember living any lives before I was born. So whatever lives I had before and after literally don't matter to me since I don't have any memory or attachment to those lives or whatever you call it. You, on the other hand, lives under your own fear because you believe that if you don't achieve enlightenment in this live, you will continue suffering in the next life. And I'd love to be "doomed to suffer" this live rather than living like those third-world faggots in China or Myanmar who are today crying for international help for their military junta's rule lmao
>seethe eternally
I thought you retards believe that nothing lasts forever? That's not very wise of you, bro.

>>19375496
What do you believe?

>>19375324
>Buddhism is the antithesis of a well-lived life
How? They are living perfectly content.

>>19375180
>annihilationism is explicitly rejected in the scriptures
And yet Buddhists are unable to explain what remains as unannihilated, how amusing, its almost like Buddha’s teachings contain contradictions
>>19375205
All other aggregates are ostensibly annihilated as well and not just consciousness, and anything outside of these is denied

>>19375485
i understand buddhism better than all of you, i know i do, seethe midwit, it doesn't matter what you call yourself

>>19375496
faggot dudebro gotchas, never read a word of the tradition he's trying to dunk on. eat shit

>>19375508
>i understand buddhism better than all of you
I must decline to stay the night, he answered that all is one with great force.

>sure cunt.

>>19375506
>the tetralemma doesn't make any positive claims about anything, b-buddhism btfo
dumbest pieces of cunt shit on this site

>>19375496
>"just shut up and don't question my philosophy"
Buddha said the exact opposite. He invited his followers to be skeptical of him, to always value to experience over conjecture.

>>19375515
For instance, no cunt in this thread really *knows* toranas inside and out. Guattama would be the first cunt to ask you, "mate, teach me about spark plugs, I've got a case and today and tomorrow."

ITC nobody knows the Toranasutra.

>>19375496
>just shut up and don't question my philosophy" nonsense
Have you read Kalama sutta?

>>19369532
Holy based.

>>19375515
And I'm skeptical of him. Like I said, I don't need to read or understand a retards' way of thinking to know that they're retards. I only need to see the material reality of those retards to know that they ARE retards, no matter how much they tell themselves that they aren't. And from what I can see from the material reality of those buddhist societies and nations, I can pretty sure say that they are retards, especially seeing their followers in this thread who boast their 2deep4u retarded """"philosophy""""

>>19375552
retard

>>19375552
That's okay, it's not for everyone.

>>19375557
retard

>>19375215
You are allowed to question, and also bitch about it when you don't get an answer.

>>19375552
>And I'm skeptical of him.
Yes yoy are free to be skeptical. By why do you have to disparage buddhism?

>>19375505
Pigs are content in shit.

>>19375215
Have you read Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta?

>>19375585
Yes and your point is?

>>19375592
You can assume none of the critics in these threads has done the reading. /lit/ has gotten to be so terrible lately. I'm suffering.

>>19375592
Yes and your point is?

>>19375514
Buddha doesn’t use the tetralemma himself, and the tetralemma is actually cited as a heresy of Buddhism in the Pali Canon. In the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya are listed 6 heretical teachers who teach things presented as heresies of Buddhism, the 6th heretical teacher is Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, who advocates skepticism and the abandoning of views and positions. When asked in there is another world he replies:

“If you ask me whether there is another world, and if I thought there were, I would tell you so. But I do not say so. I do not say that it is thus or thus; I do not say that it is otherwise; I do not say that I deny it; I do not say that I do not deny it; I do not say that there is, there is not, is and is not, neither is nor is not, another world.”

And then he repeats this same answer in response to number of other questions. So, instead of the tetralemma being the reason why Buddha never solved the inherent contradiction of “what continues into Parinirvana if its not an annihilation”, the tetralemma is actually cited in the Pali Canon that the response a heretical teacher would say. So, citing that doesn’t solve the contradiction at hand, not least of all because Buddha rejected it as a heresy.

>>19375572
That's exactly the same as not being allowed to question.

>>19375603
Why does your IP keep changing?

>>19375597
It is worse, no cunt has serviced the spark gap in a torana. If you don't know what I'm saying you don't know the practical zen tradition.

Your mileage may vary.

>>19375592
Have you read Ernst Johann Eitel?

>>19375603
What did you not understand about it?

>>19375249
>The key insight of Buddhism is that there is no discrete well-spring from which identity and self flow nor is self a thing-in-itself. It's a stream of different functions that flow together.
Where is the evidence for this supposed “insight”?

>>19375621
>More sophistry because he hasn't read it either
Why are all of /lit/'s Buddhists such pretentious faggots?

Have you read Ligma? You have to read that before I can answer your question.

>>19375634
So you didnt read it?

>>19375633
Basic neuroscience and the struggle to come up with a definition of consciousness.

>>19375645
I'm not the anon you were replying to.

>>19375652
So?

>>19375659
Bro?

>>19375641
no, but i have read Sugma. have you read that one?

>>19375659
So why would I have read it if it was a different anon that claimed to have read it?
Is this the debating skill of a weeb?

This is the LITERATURE board. You need to READ. You do not have anything worthwhile or original to contribute to a 2500 year old discourse. There will be no "btfo".

>>19375665
No but I've read Gulpin Sutta

>>19375605
Then what's the real answer?

>>19375521
Truely the engine did fire correctly, and thus was the toranasutra.

None of you are up for the bantz. Go back to hindu conduct.

>>19375646
What a reddit-tier post

>Basic neuroscience
Neuroscience hasn’t established what consciousness is or isn’t, they haven’t mapped it out or proven it to be physical or an emergent property instead of something with independent and non-physical existence, so it cannot reasonably be cited as supporting that claim. In any case, you claimed this was an “insight” of Buddhism, what evidence could there possibly be for that before neuroscience was even invented?
>and the struggle to come up with a definition of consciousness.
Only modern scientists do, the Hindu schools all came up with their own definitions which they consider perfectly acceptable.

>>19375672
Have you read Chokonma's publications about the philosophy of self?

>>19375670
Because the question could be applied to you too.

>>19375685

>>19375672
Then surely the highly literate Buddhist like you could easily answer the arguments of lowly literate people in this thread, right?

>>19375678
>Then what's the real answer?
The real answer is that the omnipresent and undivided Atman or Self which shines in all beings is eternally real, immutable and forever liberated, and that “liberation” is not of the Atman but of the non-Atman awakening to the ever-present Supreme that’s already present in every experience and moment without people even realizing it.

>>19375684
>Reddit-spacing
Glass houses.
>Neuroscience hasn’t established what consciousness is or isn’t, they haven’t mapped it out or proven it to be physical or an emergent property instead of something with independent and non-physical existence, so it cannot reasonably be cited as supporting that claim. In any case, you claimed this was an “insight” of Buddhism, what evidence could there possibly be for that before neuroscience was even invented?
I suggest familiarizing yourself with theoretical models of consciousness before responding further. The current discussion is whether consciousness is even consistent and coherent from one moment to the next.
> In any case, you claimed this was an “insight” of Buddhism, what evidence could there possibly be for that before neuroscience was even invented?
There wasn't really evidence of anything before neuroscience was invented. The cartesian dualists were just theorizing too. So was Nietzsche. If you have a point to make then make it rather than going on this womanly merry-go-round so you can "gotcha".
>Only modern scientists do, the Hindu schools all came up with their own definitions which they consider perfectly acceptable.
Hindus consider Hindu definitions correct? Fuck me, that's groundbreaking.

>>19375713
>guenonfag
I should have known. cringe.

>>19375701
I could do that, but I'm not paid to do that.

>>19375713
This. White people should just read Emerson though.

>>19375729
Yep. Advaitins resorted to hindsight to construct their system. They had to wait for Nagarjuna and madhyamaka authors to do the heavy lifting for them and went into hiding until Buddhism was driven out of India by Muslims invaders and subsequently decommissioned by the state. Only then did they come out of the woodwork and claimed that Advaita was their all along (despite no record prior Godapada), that they were refuting monks by the day (in their own dogmatic writings) and that they totally did not plagiarize from Nagarjuna (despite virtually every scholar and Hindu philosopher saying otherwise).

Advaita Vedanta is the literal definition of 'Retroactive Plagiarism'.

>>19375713
>the real anwser is "your just One With Everything Bro"
oh wow. so enlightening and liberating.

>>19375723
Yep. Thank you for confirming your mental incapability.

>>19374950
Based department??

>>19375767
Are you just an atheist that hates everything? What are your positions?

>>19375767
>The spark of consciousness that ties the seeming swirling mass of entropy into the concpt of self is, in itself, divine. This divinity permeates all things and ties everything together as ultimately all is god.
>"your just One With Everything Bro"
Pathetic.

>>19375716
>I suggest familiarizing yourself with theoretical models of consciousness before responding further.
Why? Theoretical models cannot reasonably be cited as evidence to support a claim because they are theoretical and unproven so they are all useless insofar as the possibility supporting your argument
>The current discussion is whether consciousness is even consistent and coherent from one moment to the next.
Consciousness is consistent from one moment to the next, because in each moment there is consciousness along with the objects consciousness is aware of.
> There wasn't really evidence of anything before neuroscience was invented.
So, then Buddhists have never had any evidence for their absurd theories of mind all throughout the ancient and medieval era? Various Sanskrit writers say as much but its nice to hear this admitted by a Buddhist for once
>If you have a point to make then make it rather than going on this womanly merry-go-round so you can "gotcha".
Im asking you for any arguments that can be used to support your claims viz. conciousness self and identity, you had none and defaulted to citing theoretical and unproven modern models so it turns out that you dont have any good evidence, which is what I was seeking to confirm.
>Hindus consider Hindu definitions correct? Fuck me, that's groundbreaking.
The obvious point is that not everyone has struggled to come up with a definition as you wrongly claimed

>>19374950
>we
Not your personal army.

May everyone achieve what he wants. May the Christian achieve heaven, may the Advaitin achieve moksha and may the Buddhists achieve… annihilation. Peace!

>>19375814
Right on.

>>19375800
>Why? Theoretical models cannot reasonably be cited as evidence to support a claim because they are theoretical and unproven so they are all useless insofar as the possibility supporting your argument
So....you're autistic? If you don't see the point in engaging in discourse in the field we're fucking talking about then I have no interest in continuing this line of conversation with you as you're either autistic, stupid or being obtuse.
>Consciousness is consistent from one moment to the next, because in each moment there is consciousness along with the objects consciousness is aware of.
And how do you know this consciousness is the same and not just subject to the memories of the previous consciousness? how do you know what you now call "I" won't cease to be when you to sleep and be replaced with another "I"? This is current discourse.
>So, then Buddhists have never had any evidence for their absurd theories of mind all throughout the ancient and medieval era? Various Sanskrit writers say as much but its nice to hear this admitted by a Buddhist for once.
I'm not a Buddhist. You talk like some sort of new-atheist author.
>Im asking you for any arguments that can be used to support your claims viz. conciousness self and identity, you had none and defaulted to citing theoretical and unproven modern models so it turns out that you dont have any good evidence, which is what I was seeking to confirm.
I have you've "lolnope"d your way through them.
>The obvious point is that not everyone has struggled to come up with a definition as you wrongly claimed
They've struggled to up with models that hod up to modern neuroscience.

>>19375790
>Are you just an atheist that hates everything?
Maybe, yes
>What are your positions?
I honestly like to think that "I am one with Everything bro", but I'm starting to think that the overwhelming majority of philosophical and religious discussions about ontology are a complete waste of time, perpetuated by people who make up words and have ultimately no clear ideas of what they're talking about. They are like cows panicking in quicksand, the more words they write and concepts they try to grasps and develop, the farther they get away from grasping any kind of wisdom and appreciating life.

I am therefore starting to get irritated by people who repeat that "I Am One With Everything Bro" but decorate it with pompous words and concepts, like wow, everything is so supreme and divine and the supreme being is the thing we all come from and return to, cool, what does that teach me? not much. Is this a poetical, aesthetically pleasing idea? Sure, but I've heard it a million time already and at that point i'd rather just listen to music or walk in the forest and listening to bird chirping, which is for me a much more profound experience than hearing "philosophers" drowning in their own bullshit.

>>19376042
>cool, what does that teach me?
Peace and freedom from the anxiety of life.

>>19376042
You might enjoy reading Ernest Becker

>>19375845
>So....you're autistic? If you don't see the point in engaging in discourse in the field
No, the point is that until you cite a specific model or study that supports your view, it doesn’t help you to mention vague “research” and “theories”. It’s not incumbent upon me to study anything to help you in your claim here, it’s incumbent upon you to explain why its justified with specific examples.
>And how do you know this consciousness is the same and not just subject to the memories of the previous consciousness?
Because we dont find any gaps in our awareness but our experience is that of having a continuum of awareness to which is presented everything in succession, that our awareness which knows things ceases to exist isn’t ever found or confirmed to be true in our experience, so right off the bat you are proposing something which doesn’t align with our experience. Furthermore, witnessing change requires the same awareness be present over multiple moments, because if consciousness lasts for a single moment that’s not fast enough to witness change (which takes place over time), and there are too many minute variations going on in every moment involving all the senses like sight, touch, etc for us to keep track of them through memory. When you are walking down the street while talking to someone, there is not enough time in-between tiny variations in sound, the feel of your footsteps, the sound of the other person talking etc to recognize changes based on memory from the previous moment because when your mind is engrossed in pulling up a memory and connecting that to something in the present which it recognizes as connected to that memory, it prevents your mind from focusing on something else just like how you cannot think two different thoughts in the same instant, it would lead to all of your time spent remembering things without any time to think about anything else.
>how do you know what you now call "I" won't cease to be when you to sleep and be replaced with another "I"?
The contrary is indicated by the fact that we effortlessly and naturally know ourselves to be ourselves upon waking, we dont have to remember who we are, thus we experience ourselves as being the same knower as the day before
>I have you've "lolnope"d your way through them.
You didnt give any specific examples but made a vague appeal to authority (of science)
>They've struggled to up with models that hod up to modern neuroscience.
No they haven’t lol, how has the Advaita conception of consciousness as self-disclosing unchanging partless awareness struggled to hold up to anything?

>>19368900
> synonym
> synonym
> synonym
> synonym

Is that eastern wisdom at its finest?

>>19375713
nah advaita vedanta is full of contardictions and loops of logic:

Biggest problem in Advaita is the theory of "Avidya" covering "Brahman", which, according to the theory, resulted into duality/creation. How can Maya overcome Brahman? Then Maya is stronger than Brahman.

Advaitins themselves agreed that avidya covering Brahman is both an illogical theory and also not supported by Scriptures. But inorder to escape the problem of it being illogical, they simply said it's “achintya”, beyond the scope of logic & Material senses.

An German indologist named Paul deussen, who was influenced by Advaita Vedanta, and was also a close friend of Swami Vivekananda, himself says—

"On this question of how ignorance could possibly affect the Brahman, the authors of the Upanisads give us no information."

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who was another but extremely renowned Indologist and was an Advaitin himself, In his work called "Indian Philosophy", volume 2, page no. 577 states—

"How Avidya and Brahman can co-exist, is just the problem for which we don't have any solution.“

Further in the next page he says—

"They (Upanishads) give no information because no information is possible. It is true no explanation is possible of the rise of the bewildering force of Avidyā, creator of false values, which has somehow come into being, in spite of the eternal and inalienable purity of the original self-existent Brahman."

Another problem for the theory of Avidya covering brahman apart from being illogical and not having its mention in Scriptures, is that the opposite has been mentioned in the Scriptures, i.e. Avidya cannot touch Brahman.

>>19377023
Adi Shankaracarya himself in his Bhagavad Gita 7.25 commentary had to admit it—

"That yoga-maya, since it belongs to Me (Krishna), does not obstruct the knowledge of Me who am God, the possessor of maya, just as the magic of any other magician does not cover his knowledge."

Objection— it can be argued that Brahman deliberately invites Avidya, and thus although Scriptures say he cannot be touched by Avidya, it can be argued that Scriptures said from the perspective of forced Avidya, or uninvited Avidya, whereas here it was his own sweet free will, and can do so if he wills. Thus it doesn't contradict Scriptural references, and it also doesn't prove that Maya is stronger than Brahman.
Refutation— The very desire to invite avidya is because Brahman wanted to experience duality, is it not? this desire is in itself a product of Maya. Also, how can the self existing Brahman “Desire” anything as he is described by Advaita as “desireless”, and “self satisfied”? Maya cannot be "invited Maya" at any logic, it is forced only, as most Advaitins hold.

The absence of the theory from Scriptures, i.e. Avidya touching Brahman, irrespective of being uninvited or being invited, is shaking the objection top to bottom, and making it a pure fantasy.

Even if the theory is granted to be true, then logically it still stands ungrounded. Invited Avidya is illogical because for Brahman creating a lifestyle for itself which is painful, getting finitized, helpless, fighting to eat, sleep, mate and defend, sounds pure fantasy.

The lifestyle Jivas go through indicates that there's duality, the way material world works is not entirely out of our own choice but is also set by someone else, We had the desire to imitate God, God provided the facility but partially, and this is exactly what we can see in this world. Advaita's theory is not compatible, No sane would like to put themselves in such troublesome samsara, which the Brahman puts itself into.


this kind of problems of logic appears when you say that everything is alreay dliberated but for some reaosn illusion still exist and still is problematic,

>>19375174
>annihilation of everything about ourselves
only if you think consciousness is everything about our selves, but since consciousness changes all the time, you can't say that, since consciousness lacks any trascendent identity, and you can't prove the opposite

>>19375767
not only that, you're one with everything but at the same time you live in a illusion which is not part of eveyrthing, so there's like two everything, one real and one which is not, but the one who's real even we it is everything as a matter of fact isn't it everything because illusion can't be part of it, but then illusion actually doesn't exist, but at the same time it exist because we're part of that illusion but we really not, so we're already enlightened, but we need advaita monks and temples just because, and there's a a path to liberation even when we're alreay liberated, but we don't even liberated because we never part of the illusion which is maya and we're there but not really

this guys are the ones calling buddhism contradictory, what a bunch of clowns

>>19375797
you just say the same thing, the first sentence is just ten times more pretentious

>>19368900
Atman is personal identity, not soul. Hindus believe that personal identity is attached to the soul as opposed to the body, and that shifting to cosmic identity (Brahman) is what releases you from Samsara. It is personal identity that the Buddha considers a delusion.

>>19375180
they need to believe buddhism is nihilist, there's something about buddhism that triggers them really hard so they're fixated on this bizarre caricature about buddhism they created
Hegel said in his prologue to the phenomenology of spirits that people who think there's an absolute outside of articulation/change and blindly believe in a outside eternal object like a soul or god are so inmerse on their illusion the best thing you can do is just ignore them cos they lack the most basic skills and criteria to think about metaphysics

>>19375506
>contain contradictions
these are not contradictions, it's nonduality, you pleb!!

>>19375605
>“If you ask me whether there is another world, and if I thought there were, I would tell you so. But I do not say so. I do not say that it is thus or thus; I do not say that it is otherwise; I do not say that I deny it; I do not say that I do not deny it; I do not say that there is, there is not, is and is not, neither is nor is not, another world.”

Wow, lots of words to say literally nothing. How wise and oriental.

>>19377023
>nah advaita vedanta is full of contardictions and loops of logic:
Lol, nope, all the stuff you described is wrong and its largely all based on attributing a position to Shankara that he doesn’t even hold. It shows that you have no idea what you’re talking about that you’d even repost it.
>Biggest problem in Advaita is the theory of "Avidya" covering "Brahman", which, according to the theory, resulted into duality/creation. How can Maya overcome Brahman? Then Maya is stronger than Brahman.
Shankara doesn’t say that maya covers or overpowers Brahman in any way, Brahman is totally unaffected by maya. Jivas are beginingless as is maya, so there was never an original “overcoming” or “deluding” of Brahman or any transition related to this. The only sense that maya “covers” maya is in preventing the minds of deluded beings from realizing Brahman, but as these minds are themselves maya and not the Atman, this is just one part or aspect of maya affecting other maya-objects, it’s not an example of maya affecting Brahman/Atman or covering Atman from the Atman. There was never any original “creation” that resulted from anything else, maya is beginningless, it’s not the result of anything else.
>Advaitins themselves agreed that avidya covering Brahman is both an illogical theory and also not supported by Scriptures. But inorder to escape the problem of it being illogical, they simply said it's “achintya”, beyond the scope of logic & Material senses.
No they don’t say this, do you have a source for this in Shankara’s writings? No, you don’t, because he doesn’t say this.
>An German indologist named Paul deussen … says— "On this question of how ignorance could possibly affect the Brahman, the authors of the Upanisads give us no information."
The question ignores that the Upanishads state that Brahman is unchanging and unaffected by the world, something that is unchanging cannot possibly be affected by anything. In any case this has nothing to do with Advaita which says that Brahman is totally unaffected and unchanging.

>>19377029
>>19377029
>>19377023
>Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan … states— "How Avidya and Brahman can co-exist, is just the problem for which we don't have any solution.“
He was a neoVedantin and not a traditional Advaitin, this is not a problem at all for Shankara who maintains that maya is contingent upon Brahman, the unaffected Absolute reality and substratum of all, who out of His own inherent nature, provides a basis for and maintains maya, this maya is not real and co-existing as equally real with Brahman but is instead false (mithya)
>Further in the next page he says—
>"They (Upanishads) give no information because no information is possible. It is true no explanation is possible of the rise of the bewildering force of Avidyā, creator of false values, which has somehow come into being, in spite of the eternal and inalienable purity of the original self-existent Brahman."
The purity of Brahman is unaffected by and hence uncontradicted by the beginningless maya that is contingent upon Brahman’s inherent nature, Advaita says that maya can be explained as being contingent upon Brahman, just that you cannot do something like explain the origin of maya from some other location separated by time and space since time and distance are themselves categories stemming from maya and not something that maya exists *within*.
>Another problem for the theory of Avidya covering brahman apart from being illogical and not having its mention in Scriptures, is that the opposite has been mentioned in the Scriptures, i.e. Avidya cannot touch Brahman.
Advaita and Shankara teaches what the scriptures say, namely that Brahman is untouched by maya/avidya

>Adi Shankaracarya himself in his Bhagavad Gita 7.25 commentary had to admit it—
>"That yoga-maya, since it belongs to Me (Krishna), does not obstruct the knowledge of Me who am God, the possessor of maya, just as the magic of any other magician does not cover his knowledge."
This text above is from Shankara’s commentary on said verse (pic related), the rest below is written by someone else and isnt found in his commentary at all.

>>19377029
>Objection— it can be argued that Brahman deliberately invites Avidya, and thus although Scriptures say he cannot be touched by Avidya, it can be argued that Scriptures said from the perspective of forced Avidya, or uninvited Avidya, whereas here it was his own sweet free will, and can do so if he wills. Thus it doesn't contradict Scriptural references, and it also doesn't prove that Maya is stronger than Brahman.
I’m not sure what side this is even supposed to represent, it’s not written by Shankara and its not arguing for the Advaita position
>Refutation— The very desire to invite avidya is because Brahman wanted to experience duality, is it not?
Brahman has no desires whatsoever, the will Shankara spoke here is of Isvara; which means he is speaking about the will of the conditioned Brahman or is figuratively speaking about the inherent nature of the Nirguna and Supreme Brahman, the Nirguna Brahman has no thoughts, desires or volition that impel It to do anything.
>this desire is in itself a product of Maya.
If he means “desire” literally he is talking about the lower Brahman, the higher Brahman has no desires.
>Also, how can the self existing Brahman “Desire” anything as he is described by Advaita as “desireless”, and “self satisfied”?
It doesn’t, the context of this wording is explained above, its worth remembering he attributes the desires in his writing in that picture to Isvara and not to Brahman.
>Invited Avidya is illogical because for Brahman creating a lifestyle for itself which is painful, getting finitized, helpless, fighting to eat, sleep, mate and defend, sounds pure fantasy.
No, because none of that affects Brahman in the slightest but only the contingent jivas, i.e. this whole argument is based on a basic ignorance (funny) about what Shankara’s positions actually are

>The lifestyle Jivas go through indicates that there's duality,
Only as mithya, not as true real being
>Advaita's theory is not compatible, No sane would like to put themselves in such troublesome samsara, which the Brahman puts itself into.
Brahman doesn’t, this is a strawman of Advaita
>this kind of problems of logic appears when you say that everything is alreay dliberated but for some reaosn illusion still exist and still is problematic,
No, there is no problem with this, because a clear distinction is drawn between the Atman and the subtle body that includes the intellect and mind and which isn’t the Atman, the Atman is forever liberated and unaffected by maya, the subtle body and its manas/buddhi is what is affected by and experiences maya even while the Atman illuminating it is already forever liberated and unaffected by that manas/buddhi.

nihilism - nothing truly matters, defeatist
buddhism - everything truly matters, vitalist

>n-no you're really just a nihilist because you just are ok!!!
may you all find equanimity in this life

>>19377061
>since consciousness changes all the time, you can't say that
I can, because consciousness is completely unchanging, awareness is continually present and the only examples of change that can be cited are those which are revealed to awareness as something different from it. Awareness doesn’t find itself to *be* change, it reveals change as a lamp illumines a chair that is different from the lamp.
>since consciousness lacks any trascendent identity, and you can't prove the opposite
The transcendent nature of consciousness is clearly indicated by how its nature is not affected by anything but it simply remains consciousness whose presence reveals itself and other things regardless of whatever changes happen to the body and mind

>>19377372
>I can,
you can only in the form of a dogmatic statement, not in the form of a logical argument that can be falsified
>because consciousness is completely unchanging, awareness is continually present and the only examples of change that can be cited are those which are revealed to awareness as something different from it. Awareness doesn’t find itself to *be* change, it reveals change as a lamp illumines a chair that is different from the lamp.

and here's the proof, all that is a inocuosu statement, none of that proves that consciousness can exist outsdie of phenomena or change
on the other hand is self evident that consciousness needs ohenomena since each act of consciousness is consciousness of something, even when you think you're conciouss of consciousness itself as osmething outsdie of phenomena you're only concious if the "idea of consciousness" that is created on your mind

>>19377372
>The transcendent nature of consciousness is clearly indicated by how its nature is not affected by anything but it simply remains consciousness whose presence reveals itself and other things regardless of whatever changes happen to the body and mind
that's not really trascendent(something that trascends reality) but trascendental(something that exist in every aspect or reality)
so you can only state that consciousness exist in every aspect of (subjective)reality but not outside of reality itself
also consciousness is not the only trascendental aspect of reality, things like quality, number etc also are trascendental, so consciousness can't be the all encompassing aspect of trasendent reality because is not trascendent and is not unique

>>19377117
>not only that, you're one with everything
Nope, our Self is one with Itself, not one with the various objects
>but at the same time you live in a illusion which is not part of eveyrthing
Nope, the true identity of Atman is already forever liberated, only the body and mind, which isnt us, lives in an illusion
>so there's like two everything, one real and one which is not
the second is not unreal (nothingness) or real (existence) but is the 3rd category of falsity
>but the one who's real even we it is everything as a matter of fact isn't it everything because illusion can't be part of it, but then illusion actually doesn't exist, but at the same time it exist because we're part of that illusion
Very poorly phrased English, the illusion doesn’t have real existence, it is falsity (mithya) and not existence, mithya is not a part of the Brahman who is everything that truly exists (which is just Himself), and nor is it nothingness; so it’s wrong to say “it doesn’t exist but also does”
>but we really not, so we're already enlightened
The Atman is already liberated and free of ignorance, the mind isn’t liberated and the mind entertains wrong notions
>but we need advaita monks and temples just because
Atmans dont need them, the human mind does
>and there's a a path to liberation even when we're alreay liberated
There’s a path for the mind to be liberated from its wrong understanding, the Atman is already liberated
>but we don't even liberated because we never part of the illusion which is maya and we're there but not really
Atman doesn’t need to be liberated because it already is, the mind is in samsara and can be liberated, the mind isn’t “us” but the ignorant habitually identify themselves with it, just as you are doing now. All of the seeming confusions you describe are the result of conflating mind and Atman and not understanding the difference between them.
>this guys are the ones calling buddhism contradictory
Yes, because it is

>>19377633
>The Atman is already liberated and free of ignorance, the mind isn’t liberated and the mind entertains wrong notions
so there's two substances then, making advaita dualistic, eith all the problems that comes witha dualistic ontology

>>19377321
>>19377337
>>19377342
>>19377633

in all your post you fail to actually adress the problem with advaita, why an illusion exist in the first place?
if brahma is perfect and is everything why he fall victim to an illusion? if he's outside the illusion that means the illusion exist outside of him as a different substance, and if the illusion doesn't exist why we should practice a path of enlightement to begin with?
advaita fails to actually engage with these questions, they just change the goal poast, the illusion exist when is ineccesary to explain the path to enlightement and then cease to exist when the presence of brahma needs to be afirmed

>>19375713
>>19377342
>>19377633

Sri Ramanujacharya on his Vedarthasangraha debunks advaita vedanta He asserts the impossibility and untenability of Advaitavedanta based on the following observations:

Paraṃ brahmaivājñaṃ bhramaparigataṃ saṃsarati - The Parabrahman, (somehow) itself becoming devoid of knowledge and getting caught in an illusion, has become subject to transmigration;
Tatparopādhyālīḍhaṃ vivaśaṃ - It has become conditioned by some alien adjunct (Māyā) and hence has become helpless, (and therefore)
Aśubhasyāspadaṃ - It has become the abode of inauspicious (of the interminably sorrowful transmigration; who will be our Saviour, if such be the case?!).

>>19377422
>and here's the proof, all that is a inocuosu statement,
What is “inocuosu”?
>on the other hand is self evident that consciousness needs ohenomena since each act of consciousness is consciousness of something,
That’s not a logical argument but is a dogmatic claim, that anything is “self-evident” is a subjective opinion and not an argument involving logic. In any case the mere fact that something has happened in a certain way doesn’t prove that it always will happen in that way, there are plenty of examples which shows that this isn’t universally true as an axiom (as an example, this axiom would mean that nobody could ever die because the past pattern of them being alive would have to continue to be the case) You have not put forward any argument that proves or disproves anything but just stated what your unproven and subjective belief is.
>>19377440
>so you can only state that consciousness exist in every aspect of (subjective)reality but not outside of reality itself
I view consciousness itself as being identical with reality and not as being outside reality, the world of objects, space and time isn’t reality but is an appearance. “Transcendent” doesn’t invariably mean “beyond reality” as any dictionary will confirm but just has the meaning of “surpassing limits”.
>also consciousness is not the only trascendental aspect of reality, things like quality, number etc also are trascendental
So you are disagreeing with Buddhist nominalism then? In any case they are not invariably present like the Self is though, because they would remain present in dreamless sleep like consciousness does (which is why even in dreamless sleep we can hear and be woken up a loud sound) but they don’t. They arise and fall while consciousness is unceasing and uninterrupted. They are part of the display that appears to the reality of consciousness, they may be more subtle than material objects but they dont constitute the unceasing reality like consciousness does.
>so consciousness can't be the all encompassing aspect of trasendent reality because is not trascendent
Why not?
>and is not unique
Why not? We dont find anything else aside from awareness to posses the quality of sentience/consciousness, it has a unique quality that nothing else we encounter has

>>19368900
middle way and its a question with no answer

>>19377659
>so there's two substances then, making advaita dualistic, eith all the problems that comes witha dualistic ontology
Wrong, because only the Brahman is real and truly existent. Dualism involves positing reality as comprising two or more REAL principles. Advaita doesn’t have the problems of any of the dualist ontologies (if so which ones?) or the problems of the monist ontologies (if so which ones?), its neither monism nor dualism (which are both fake and gay), its the truth is which beyond both of those conceptions.
>>19377705
>in all your post you fail to actually adress the problem with advaita,
There is no problem whatsoever, but there is just you being ignorant of what they teach, and you expounding your confusions that resulted from your ignorance regarding this
>why an illusion exist in the first place?
There is the experience of maya/falsity because it is Brahman’s inherent nature to effortlessly project it
>if brahma is perfect and is everything why he fall victim to an illusion?
He doesn’t, Brahman-Atman is completely unaffected by maya/avidya/samsara, this is basic Advaita 101, try reading a book lol
>if he's outside the illusion that means the illusion exist outside of him as a different substance
No, that does’t mean that the illusion has real existence, because the illusion belongs to the ontological category of “falsity” (mithya) and not “true reality/being/existence”, your question ignores that Advaita separates “existence” “falsity” and “non-existence” as 3 distinct ontological categories, i.e. it’s based on the wrong premise since it implies there is only 2 categories instead of 3 (in which case you are not attacking Advaita anymore but another non-Advaita ontology)
>and if the illusion doesn't exist why we should practice a path of enlightement to begin with?
The illusion is falsity (mithya), not non-exitsence, see above
>advaita fails to actually engage with these questions
They do engage fully with them, its your questions which in fact betray your ignorance of what you are talking about, since your questions rely on the mistaken presupposition that in Advaita there is only two ontologies categories of being vs non-being. You cant even begin to critique Advaita ontology without understanding this distinction or all of your arguments will be directed at your own imagined conception of Advaita which has nothing to do with Advaita as taught by Shankara.
>the illusion exist when is ineccesary to explain the path to enlightement and then cease to exist when the presence of brahma needs to be afirmed
Maya is always affirmed to be the ontological category of falsity (mithya) and not being or non-being, there is never any inconsistency in Shankara’s works about this

>>19377779
>that anything is “self-evident” is a subjective opinion
not at all, self evident things are self evident for everyone, the fact that you can read this proves that awarness is a bridge between a subject(your mind) and an object(my text) i don't need to prove it further, since experience is prove enough of it existence,it's an immanent fact, it doesn't need further logical explaination, awarness as something outside of experience is empirically indemostrable
>I view consciousness itself as being identical with reality
yeah but no one care about what you see, we only care about logical demostrable facts
>“Transcendent” doesn’t invariably mean “beyond reality”
that's beyond the point, you trying to argue semantics to avoid my point, the trascendent/trascendnetal dichotomy is a well know concept on metaphysics, an the basic idea reamins, something being in every aspect of reality doesn't prove that it can exist outside or reality
>So you are disagreeing with Buddhist nominalism then?
buddhism isn't nominalist, but idealist, teh pratikiasamutpada already established that, but hen again, that's besides the point
>In any case they are not invariably present like the Self is though
how can you prove that?
>because they would remain present in dreamless sleep like consciousness does
they remain present, since each dreamless state has a quality, a time of duration, each dreamless state is part of a broader context in the ever changing aspects of your life, it's interdependent, it's not the same as other states of dream, present istelf as contrary to states of vigil, so you can adjunt all kind of qualities to those states, in the same way awarness needs a context to manifest, it's interdependnet with the objects that let awarness manifest, and just as awarnes manifest, quality, difference etc also manifest
>Why not?
because being tarscendental doesn't make it trascendent, and you fail to prove how can it be tarscendent
>Why not? We dont find anything else aside from awareness to posses the quality of sentience/consciousness, it has a unique quality that nothing else we encounter has
because awarness on itself isnt' sentience, it needs objects and qualities, and more important a context, given firstly by a mind that is the one organizing that awarness, which again isn't even the only part of sentience, since other qualities are needed, like qualaity, difference, place etc

>>19377721
>Sri Ramanujacharya on his Vedarthasangraha debunks advaita vedanta
He tried but failed to, his main arguments against the Advaitins are the 7 charges or anupapatti, and the Advaitins replied to and refuted them all (as Grimes details in his book “the seven great untenables”). I have refuted them here on /lit/ before myself as well, anyone who reads and deeply understands Shankaras works can easily do so
>The Parabrahman, (somehow) itself becoming devoid of knowledge and getting caught in an illusion, has become subject to transmigration; It has become conditioned by some alien adjunct (Māyā) and hence has become helpless, (and therefore)
No, this is wrong, Parabrahman in Advaita never loses knowledge, and is not never caught in any illusion and never transmigrates, only the subtle body (which isnt the Atman/Parabrahman) transmigrates.

>>19377862
>Brahman’s inherent nature to effortlessly project it
then why brahma wants to enslave us in samsara?
>Brahman-Atman is completely unaffected by maya/avidya/samsara
then maya must be of another substance, it's the only way for brahma which is a substance itself to not be affected by maya, making advaita a dualistic cosmology
>that does’t mean that the illusion has real existence
then advaita becomes a useless philosophy since we live in this world of "illsuion" and negating their existence just ends up creating solipsisim in which any experfience is irrelevant, then the only way to create any sort of thruth is by dogmatic axioms unfalsiable and devoided of logic
>The illusion is falsity (mithya), not non-exitsence, see above
that just a cheap play onwords, fucntiopnaly they're the same thing, i can still say that mithya presents itself as a substance since encompas all of experiencial reality

>there is never any inconsistency in Shankara’s works
>not being or non-being,
pick one and only one

>>19377942
>He tried but failed to, his main arguments against the Advaitins are the 7 charges or anupapatti, and the Advaitins replied to and refuted them all (as Grimes details in his book “the seven great untenables”). I have refuted them here on /lit/ before myself as well, anyone who reads and deeply understands Shankaras works can easily do so
but still you fail to adress it know, how curious

>>19377862
>Maya is always affirmed to be the ontological category of falsity (mithya) and not being or non-being
>being or non-being
guenofag, if you're gonna call buddhist obtuse and vague, then you lost your privilege to type phrases like this, this just shows advaita is just as obtuse and obscure as buddhism if not more

Can any Buddha fags recommend me a book about the store house consciousness?

>>19377779
>>19377932
>because they would remain present in dreamless sleep like consciousness doe

it' salso important to remark that not only there's multiple qualities prsent in a dreamless sleep, but there's still a body sleeping, so this dreamless dream is totally interdependent to a body and to the qualities of phenomena, so there's no trace of a "pure awarness" present in a dreamless sleep, it's in no way a proof of awarness as something independent of phenomena, let alone categories like quantity, duration, place, number etc

>>19378090
honestly just purge through Yogachara's wikipedia and google the thinkers works followed by PDF and you'll usually find something.

>>19368900
it's so ridiculous how the buddha talks

>>19369532
I thought avoiding metaphysical questions and just stopping the damn suffering was the whole point

Funny how according to the Buddhist perspective achieving paranirvana and putting a bullet through one’s head is functionally the same thing and achieve the same result.
>But but you will not stop suffering if you kys because you will just reincarnate
Wrong. Buddhist don’t believe there is a (You) that reincarnates, so paranirvana and suicide achieve the same result: cessation of consciousness, nothingness, which is non different from what redditor materialists believe, hence the overlap between the two. Why don’t Buddhists speed up their paranirvana processes?

>>19380418
Buddhist scriptures read weird because they were preserved orally for centuries and so are heavily repetitious.

>>19380663
>Funny how according to the Buddhist perspective achieving paranirvana and putting a bullet through one’s head is functionally the same thing and achieve the same result.
it's not the same method and give different result

>>19380329
>>19378090
store house consciousness is pure mahayana crap, so not found in buddhism

>>19380715
>mahayana crap
Nooo praying to the medicine Buddha to heal gout and praying to the green Tara to findtreasure are totally in line with what Shakyamuni taught! Mahayana is real Buddhism and not fan fic at all.

>>19380713
How are they different? What different results?

>>19368900
I have always thought that Buddhism is a nihilistic and meta-individualistic doctrine since it denies the individual and yet the individual is the vehicle for its doctrine.

>>19380740
Parinirvana is bliss. Death is just death

>So what actually is anatta if it's not annihilation?
It can't be described, its beyond language.

>>19381026
If Self is the only thing that survives into Parinirvana, but consciousness is itself just another aggregate which is destroyed, how exactly do Buddhists define self?

>>19368900
Here’s a portion from a prose poem I wrote in which the Buddhist doctrine is outlined and then argued against.

“in quiet darkness and alone I sat without the voice of stranger nor of lover nor of I, yet the voice of the specter of I, with my own voice in me did she begin to speak, as a ghost lacking image, lacking color, in darkness she spake about the thought through the thought to thought of thought.

“you gaze and gaze into the world and each thing is first opaque, yet through your gaze the glare is torn away, for you strip it of its vestment and leave it as nothing but an aggregate, a bundle, lines and lines connecting categories with stray desires, do not be fooled, each is a slave-master.

come and drink of endless waters, eat until your stomach has burst! do not sit! do not sit! blaze ablazed I must roam, ablazed from each gaze. in this way each desire has dominion over you. they are shadows of shadows, each the shade of a greater depth, a greater chasm, a category.


the mind. (what the foolish call by the name of soul.) is an empty pit. and this empty pit has caverns. each cavern is a prison. each prison is an abyss. each abyss is a category. desire ends in emptiness. desire is born from emptiness. it is the abyssal wind.

round and round it seeks for nothing and finds nothing, rest your wind, rest in me, maketh nothing-nothing. maketh the voice of nothing echo-echo in the abyss of categories leaving an illusion of Logos, rest in me and desire, lack of desire, both and neither become one.”

with eightfold array stood the voice in the center, and I beheld in my intellect her spectral dance as the ninth secret, the eight are four fold twice, these are the propositions;being is, being is not, being is both, being is neither, the inverse; not-being is, is not, both and neither.

she in spectral guise, with inner gaze, with my voice spake “I am the eight in one and beyond one, I am empty for i am dark, the profound depth is my dwelling and behold, I curse the image and I curse the music and I curse all that profane the bellowing of my billion billion voices.”

I saw her dance the dance of categories stilled in contemplation eightfold, for each category is one of her eight worlds, I had nearly proclaimed her Voces magicae the essence of my I, but my soul remembered that beyond the vale of death and emptiness dwells the heavens infinite. “
So by this let me give it to you straight, the Buddhists see 4 positions.
BEING IS
BEING IS NOT
BOTH
NEITHER

And these four have another mirrored 4 positions.

NO-BEING IS
NOT-BEING IS NOT
BOTH
NEITHER

and this eightfold division is the 8 spoked wheel of Buddhism, you may confirm, deny both or neither, or the opposite of these even further. So what is the center? What is the middle way? The middle way to Buddhism is to grasp at none of these, saying “this position which is none of the above is the truth”

Cont

>>19381957
and this positing being apophatic, is ultimately allowing all options to exist in potential, not being grasped. This is the meaning of the Buddhist fixation in lack of grasping and on allowing smooth continuance through dwelling in the nature of the world as it is, this is why being qua being and suchness have so much fixation, what Anatta is, is recognizing that all nature including the self, the dharmas and so forth, all laws of this world, only exist when in a relationship to each other, being defined in contrast to each other, as either having existence or having not existence, cold and hot mutually form each other, existence and non-existence define each other, when the Buddhists say “mu” and when they say emptiness, they are not saying non-existence, no rather, they are saying they shall deny the relationships, they will not dwell in the relational world, they will not select being nor non being or any of the others for any type of existent, instead picking the option that is between them, which is not grasping at any option, and this allows all phenomena and experience to be at once be in all 8 categories and beyond all 8 categories, this is the nature of sunyata, dwelling in the infinitude of potential but manifest as the boundless multiplicity of all options/categories. Thus anatta and sunyata are both simply this above doctrine of non-grasping to any of the categories which allows all and none of them to occur at once.

>>19378090
It's a Yogacara doctrine so for those texts see Brunnholzl's three volumes on Asanga's Mahayanasamgraha and its commentaries. BDK America, which uses the Taisho sino-japanese canon, also has a translation of just the MS, and also translations of Xuanzang's Cheng Weishi Lun and the Sandhinirmochana sutra. Thomas Cleary has also translated the latter. Lankavatara also has the alaya in it, see DT Suzuki or Red Pine

>>19381957
rare quality prose on this god forsaken board thank you anon

Bump

>>19380663
putting a bullet through your head is an action roted on aversion to oneself, creating really bad karma
it's the opposite of paranibanna, which is leting go of all form of aversion and craving

>>19380953
buddhism don't denies the individual, buddhist dhamma say that the individual is rooted in the colective, only thank to an "other" there can be a "one"
it's pretty similar to the hegelian ontology or relations, read the chapter on perception and concept, if you wanna know more about that

>>19375713
This

>>19377372
>because consciousness is completely unchanging
not really, consciousness changes all the time, if not how could perceive a ever changing world? consciousness by definition is what let us perceive time, so its exposed to time/change on it's most fundamental level
>awareness is continually present
as long as we're alive, you don't know what happens when you're body that reside in time/space is destroyed, and thus you can't affirm that awarnes can exist beyond it's own body
>Awareness doesn’t find itself to *be* change, it reveals change as a lamp illumines a chair that is different from the lamp.
that's not awarness, that's just the idea of awarness, a mere abstraction, but awarness as an action, as something that actually exist need s phenomena to manifest, it's like saying that love exist beyond all forms of individual love, in a way that's true but only in as an idea, love as something with substance, as somethign that exist,it needs to be contextualized, you need to actually engage in the act of loving something, you are whimsically choosing the idea over the thing, without proving how the idea has more substance over the thing, falling into a petitio principii fallacy, you're already take for granted that the idea is hierarchically superior to the object without proving how


>he transcendent nature of consciousness is clearly indicated by how its nature is not affected by anything but it simply remains consciousness whose presence reveals itself and other things regardless of whatever changes happen to the body and mind
again, you're mixing trascendent with trascendental, something existing in every aspect of your perception of reality doesn't prove that such a thing can exist outside of reality, you can't use the notion that awarness exist as a concept in your mind as an argument for awarness existing outside of phenomena, it lack a logical link of argumentation, it's like the joke of the gnomes stealing sock and making profit, you're missing a very fundamental part of your logical argumentation