/lit/ - Literature

>>20638550
The bible also talks about Sheol, the place where you go after you die. Are you seriously trying to start a discussion using the bible and evidence? Lmao

That only works if there is a soul to be obliterated. By attempting to destroy something that doesn't exist, you're perpetuating the cycle of desire.

>>20638600
how can I perpetuate anything from one body to another if I dont exist or have anything like an unchanging soul that just switches bodies?

>>20638550
>i don't believe in Yahweh but I believe he will torment my soul for eternity for being atheist
do christers even know how to read or are they chinese room style automata?

>>20638612
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism
buddhacope

>>20638629
Centuries of evidence prove yours is the easiest religion to troll. I'm afraid you're the one who has to cope, with the whole "live forever as a reanimated body but only after you die" thing.

>>20638647
seethe

>>20638647
I’m really not seeing the issue here.

>will be separated from God and tortured if I don’t be faithful so I can go to heaven and worship him and be happy
>I can just detach from all desire and be content in heaven or hell
Uhh christbros??

>>20638703
NOO YOU CANT DO THIS

>>20638659
>>20638669
>uhh no I'm not miserable
>i just want to DIE and then live forever in another world with another religion's volcano demon
>you're the one coping and seething by not praying for earthly life to be abolished
you do you, christer

>>20638611
>unchanging soul
> from one body to another

that's a contradiction in terms, if you have an unchanging soul, then it can't "move" from one body to the next, since that implies a sort of change
you don't need something existing outside of change to jsutify identity or consistency, in fact, that type of metaphysics end up with tons of rpoblmes, plato itself expsoed some of them in the gorgias, with the argument of the third man
aristotle also elaborated on how being can still exist in a changing world, with his notion of being in act and being in potence,a seed is not a tree in act, but is a tree in potence, since the "being" of the seed already contains the essence of a tree, even when it's not one, the same thing happens with humans in the buddhist karminc theory, i'm not the perosn that will be "my next life" but i'm creating the conditions for their existence, just as someone before me created the conditions for my existence(and of course that also applies to my own life, i'm also creating the conditions of my future mental compositions with my acts)
tldr: what perpetuate the cycle of life is karma

>>20639662
that might be so, let's assume I fully accept your position. It still does not answer why I should care about nirvana if I create the conditions for a new person. I (the old person who died) will be dead and extinguished either way

What's with all the Buddhist criticism lately? Why don't Christcucks, Mohammadians, and self-hating atheists just stay in their own thread without criticizing dharmic faiths using their own limited ethical standards?

Threads like this present a greater issue for Buddhists and Hindus on /lit/. This greater issue these bait threads themselves, but more significantly the Buddhist and Hindu brothers who fall for the bait threads and offer answers and return insults in anger and vain; these Christians want to force you to stay attached to the world, it's just yet another distraction from our dharma. I urge the exercise of avoiding such obvious bait threads as these, and cool-headed, reasonable replies to threads that bring up genuine criticisms.

Time and time again we've explained that Buddhism rejects annihilationism, and we've time and time again explained and provided educated answers to the Christians/Moslems/Atheists who have incorrect "interpretations" of our beliefs, due largely to their own ego, their own system of thought, and most of all their ignorance. So at this point, they are WILLING to be incorrect, and they choose to continue to be incorrect. It is a fault not just in their ignorance, but most of all it is a fault in their intentions. They simply want a rise out of you, since they value entertainment over dialogue. I'd even say they worship entertainment over their own God, despite what they think they worship.

>>20640812
*
This greater issue ISN'T these bait threads themselves

>>20640812
listen man no matter how much you talk like a redditor you still cannot explain why someone would care for nirvana if the life that he creates through his karma is not his own. You have yourself, your karma and a new person created through your karma. The old person dies and disappears, no cultivation and meditation needed

>>20640824
You're basically saying that because the people we reincarnated from and will reincarnate into are all different from us in the present, we (us in the present) should not care about them (us in the past and future). Ultimately, the goal is to reincarnation, so the idea that you don't need to worry about your future lives is actually the ultimate goal here. But you're getting the wrong implications from that conclusion. Just know this is only my view. First of all, the life a person creates through his karma IS his own. A person is their self, but also their ability to create the self. As you are alive, your self and form are constantly changing, so you cannot point to yourself in the past and say "this is me", but then point to everyone alive in your the past life and say "this is not me", because in both cases the past individual you point to has a different self and form to you now. So logically, either you come from a constantly-lengthening chain of past selves that necessarily extends past your birth, or there is no self in the past that you can point to. No layman can honestly say they actually believe in the latter aforementioned proposition.

When you die, your self dies as well; all your memories, your personality, everything that is the conventional idea of the self dies. Your ability to create the self dies as well. But, another life form will soon come after you, and this lifeform has the exact same ability to create the self as you did. Since there is no unchanging self you can reliably point to as the unchanging you, you can only point to the ability to create the self as the unchanging you. This means that any lifeform with the ability to create the self is a potential form you could have taken, and could take in the future.

Following the dharma because it decreases the overall suffering in the world and the overall suffering you experience in this life and the overall suffering you will experience over all lives. Meditation is important as it trains the mind, bringing in numerous benefits, and eventually would lead to the obliteration of the self and freedom from samsara and suffering.

>>20640881
>First paragraph
*Ultimately, the goal is to be freed from reincarnation ...
>Third paragraph
*The dharma should be followed ...

I gotta spellcheck my posts

Well the Buddha was born into hell realms numerous times and he was still reborn afterwards

>>20640812
>What's with all the Buddhist criticism lately?
butthurt abrahimics

>>20640747
>why I should care about nirvana
the problem with that question is that enterly subjective, nirvana is not part of a categorical imperative, is not someting you should care about or should practice, is something you do because you want to do it, buddhism is primarly about choice, is really close to the existencialist western philosophies, thus at the end of the day, that's a question only you can answer
but in more general terms, nirvana is the end result of a ethical and gnoseological practice, overcoming suffering, so it's not so much why should i want nirvana, but:"i understand my psychological composition it's in a state of suffering, i understand that such suffering is a signal that i need to overcome it, just as pain is a signal that some part of me is being damaged, so i search trought practice how develop ways to overcome such suffering, nirvana is a state in which with enough inner knowledge of my mental compositions i realize how to overcome the main aspects of my neurosis, how to heal myself" so in the end nirvana is just the solution of the neurotic state, kierkegard, wittgenstein, hegel and many more philosopher and thinkers developed systems that a buddhist could call, paths to nirvana
>I (the old person who died) will be dead and extinguished either way
no, this still implies a substance that doesn't exist, the "i(the old person who died)" never existed, that means that there's never a precise moment in which you exist and a moment in which you dont, thinking that you'll be extingushed when you die is part of the delusion of samsara, it's like leting your arm be amputated for a burguer, maybe you're hungry, but you know the arm will be more useful in the long run, so no one on his sane midn will accept that deal, but someone completly absorted in feeling of hunger may take that deal, that's what samsara does, it make syou think your ego is all of you, that you'll not experience the suffering you're creating for yourself thru your actions
>ill be dead and extinguished either way
nothing is ever extinguished, everything is changing, everything is a process that creates the conditions to a new process
that like saying to an alcoholic that he can drink because tomorrow it will be a different day, habits don't care about the present moment, but the mental constructions you're building to last and create systems of response

so the whole question is not really well
formulated since it takes for granted things that buddhism just doesn't take as true

>>20640927
>>20640927

alright so from what I'm understanding here there is no self that I would call myself so I dont really have to care about anything as I dont actually exist. Thanks for the free nirvana bro

>>20640881
>When you die, your self dies as well; all your memories, your personality, everything that is the conventional idea of the self dies. Your ability to create the self dies as well.

What is the relationship between me and this new lifeform? I cease to exist, how can I create anything? Furthermore from a buddhist viewpoint I dont even exist, its just an illusion. So who attains nirvana and gets freed from rebirth?

>>20640927
>buddhism is primarly about choice
Has not heard the Lion's roar.

>>20641146
>there is no self that I would call myself
there's no absolute self, but there's a relative self, one which is composite and interdependent, that one you could call it yourself
>so I dont really have to care about anything
no, you don't as i said before, there's no categoricla imperatives in buddhism, you do things because they produce results, nothing is forcing you to search for freedom, that would be a contradiction in terms, you're free to do wathever you want, i feel like you want religion to tell you what to do and what to think
>as I dont actually exist
i never said that, you don't exist the way you think you exist, as a thing "existing" outside your own existence, you exist as an interdependent thing with everything else, you exist because everything else also exist

>>20641169
>What is the relationship between me and this new lifeform?
karma
>I cease to exist,
no, you don't, that's the point, you never cease to exist

>how can I create anything?
with karma

>Furthermore from a buddhist viewpoint I dont even exist,
again, no, the whole point is that you keep existing

>ts just an illusion
that's hinduism, buddhism don't see existence as an illusion, but a delusion, that is, the world exist but you don't perceive it the right way
>So who attains nirvana and gets freed from rebirth?
"someone" getting "something" is a construct that needs the dichotomy of subject and object, that dichotomy is part of the delusion of samsata, nirvana means being free from that, so the question in this context doesn't make any sense if "someone gets" nirvana, then nirvana is not yet reached, nirvana is a state of being in which, someone needing something, is overcome,in the most metaphysical sense, is the overcoming of becoming itself

>>20641237
> nirvana is a state of being in which, someone needing something, is overcome,in the most metaphysical sense, is the overcoming of becoming itself

So why do I need to cultivate the 8 percepts of buddhism? Why do I need to meditate? All of this is becoming. In this way buddhism as a religion is self defeating.
Furthermore why was Buddha even on the earth after attaining nirvana, surely he overcame becoming itself? Why didnt he just lay down and die since there was no more becoming.

>>20641261
>>So why do I need to cultivate the 8 percepts of buddhism?
they are tools to reach nirvana
>>20641261
>Why do I need to meditate?
it is a tool to reach nirvana
>>20641261
>All of this is becoming.
budha never said the path is nirvana
>>20641261
>In this way buddhism as a religion is self defeating.
false, since nirvana is reached at the end
>>20641261
>Furthermore why was Buddha even on the earth after attaining nirvana,
because he didnt die
>>20641261
>surely he overcame becoming itself?
he did yeah
>>20641261
>Why didnt he just lay down and die since there was no more becoming.
well he did in the end, and it's completely fine to teach buddhism between nirvana and death

fully enlightened people can commit suicide in buddhism, it's not a problem

>>20641323
desire for nirvana is still becoming, as long as you work towards nirvana you cannot reach nirvana, its over bro

>>20641261
>So why do I need to cultivate the 8 percepts of buddhism? Why do I need to meditate?
to create the conditions to achieve nirvana
>All of this is becoming. In this way buddhism as a religion is self defeating
how so? nirvana is not just something outside of becoming, is the overcoming of becoming
>Furthermore why was Buddha even on the earth after attaining nirvana
nirvana doesn't transport you to another dimension
>Why didnt he just lay down and die since there was no more becoming.
laying down or teaching dharma are not different in that sense, laying down and being free of becoming ae not the same thing, if you're laying down, that's still becoming, your becoming someone who's laying down

>>20641323
>budha never said the path is nirvana
this is a good point

>>20641331
that was already answere don this thread
>>20627029

>>20641169
>What is the relationship between me and this new lifeform
There is no "relationship", you are both. Of course, not at the same time. The nature of your new form is determined by karma.
>Furthermore from a buddhist viewpoint I dont even exist, its just an illusion.
That's false. You do exist. Your self exists, and your ability to create the self exists, but an eternal unchanging self does not exist. Your self is fleeting and constantly changing.

>Who attains nirvana?
You do. The way I see it, liberation of the mind means that your self necessarily no longer changes and stays constant. So once you die, you do not reincarnate, since you truly die. No life form will be born with your unchanging self.

>>20641169
your basal desiring 'self', your subtle body that autonomically craves matter and existence when daylight consciousness is blotted out. the dream state is a rehearsal of death. the thing in me that is more me than myself. you ever seen stalker? the horror of being betrayed by your deepest self, that you are something morbid and grotesque inside? that is tanha. it isn't that fucking hard dude. read a book

>>20641331
I wish you niggers would read books. that delusion is the condition of enlightenment in no way contradicts enlightenment, or the strategic use of delusion to achieve enlightenment. suffering is a lock that coincides as its own key

>>20641722
>you ever seen stalker? the horror of being betrayed by your deepest self
dude never thought about stalker that way, bu you're absolutely right, that's a great way to put it

>>20641323
So now I’ve reached enlightenment I can kill myself?

>>20642841
if you really reached enlightemente you wouldn't feel the "need" to kill yourself, suicide is a form of self aversion, and aversion is one of the 3 aspects of dukkha

>>20638600
>That only works if there is a soul to be obliterated
Pretty much this.

>>20641708
Hahahahahahaha believing what those hallucinating schizos said about reincarnation and “souls” as if any of that shit is real. Hindus and Buddhists are disturbed and misguided don’t listen to them, they are full of shit and arrogant don’t believe any of that doctrine.

>>20642841
>>20641343
There is no nirvana.

>>20641708
>There is no "relationship", you are both. Of course, not at the same time. The nature of your new form is determined by karma.
Schizo talk disregarded
>That's false. You do exist. Your self exists, and your ability to create the self exists, but an eternal unchanging self does not exist. Your self is fleeting and constantly changing.
No self you’re just a “machine” like it or not nothing special very mundane
>You do. The way I see it, liberation of the mind means that your self necessarily no longer changes and stays constant. So once you die, you do not reincarnate, since you truly die. No life form will be born with your unchanging self.
No nirvana nothing there to be transformed or attain

>>20643303
by that logic a Buddhist who has reached enlightenment wouldn’t do anything ever

>>20643507
>Hindus and Buddhists are disturbed and misguided don’t listen to them, they are full of shit and arrogant don’t believe any of that doctrine.
I don't really care if they believe in my doctrine or not, I'm more concerned if its possible for ME to believe in it. Is there anything wrong, to you, with my explanation of reincarnation?

Another Buddhist thread where no one has any knowledge of Buddhism? Color me surprised!

>>20643523
>No schizo disregarded
So you don't have any counter-arguments? That means you necessarily agree with what I'm saying, and that you find its logic consistent
>No self you’re just a “machine” like it or not nothing special very mundane
The point of my sentence was explaining my interpretation of the actual Buddhist view on the self. Anon said 'according to the Buddhist view I don't even exist' which was wrong, the Buddhist view does not say that.
>No nirvana nothing there to be transformed or attain
Nirvana isn't a transformation. Stop thinking of Buddhist ideas through a Abrahamic/western perspective of perfection, as in a state you "ascend" to. Nirvana not a thing you obtain. Or, if you really want to be pedantic, Nirvana is a state of mind you can become, but it itself is not an object you can obtain of itself, it is not metaphysically like a cup you can grab. Nirvana is the lack of things, metaphysically like the lack of cups in a room. Nirvana the lack of cravings.

>>20643527
they wouldn't do anything that involves craving or aversion

>>20643572
Then stop trying to proselytize others and forget Buddhism and whatever forever can you?

>>20638550
Matthew 10:28
so technically Buddhists WILL be destroyed (unless they bow to Christ)
>>20640812
>has to jump through a billion hoops and lifetimes to achieve nirvana
vs
>simply accept Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life
hmmmm

>>20643303
inb4 death due to starvation, no cravings of course?

>>20638550
There are two types of non-being. One is transcendent of being and the other is below being. Nirvana is not the same as the kind that is below being.

>>20643815
I'm not proselytizing, I'm answering the questions you yourself asked. Proselytizing would be if I answered questions I made up and then I try to convince you to believe in the presuppositions of those questions I just asked. That's what Christian missionaries do, that's what Muslims do, thats what Jews do, and that's definitely what atheists do as well. Its almost comical for you to accuse that of me. I'll recite a verse from the Dhammapada:

>By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone. By oneself is one made pure
>Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one can purify another

"No one can purify another" is a complete rejection of proselytizing. Buddhists can't even proselytize even if they wanted to, because there is no such thing as "converting" to Buddhism within the Buddhist faith.

That's the problem with the western view, it's so limited that people like yourself cannot properly understand dharmic religions. In order to proselytize others into a religious system, that religion must have a system for conversion: that is, it is possible to be a follower of the religion without strictly following its moral values. Look at other religions: in Christianity, if you believe in Christ and God, you are a Christian. Even if you sin, you are still a Christian, you're just a sinful Christian. In Islam, all you need to become a muslim is to recite a bunch of verses. That's it, and once you've done that you cannot leave the faith, or else you'll be killed for apostasy. You can do evil as a muslim, but you will still be a muslim. In order to become a Jew, you must accept the Covenant and circumcise yourself. Even if you go against Jewish morals you are still a Jew. In order to be atheist you simply need to reject theism. No matter what ethics you believe as an atheist, you are still an atheist

But in order to be a Buddhist you simply have to accept the Buddha's words, to believe them to be correct and then to act them out. The identity of Buddhists are that they accept and follow the Buddha's teachings: they accept the noble truths, and they accept Buddha's foundational metaphysical definitions. The implications of these definitions vary, but they are not what defines a Buddhist as a Buddhist. A Buddhist may or may not choose to escape samsara, and a Buddhist prioritize abstaining from evil than from participating in evil, and they prioritize participating in good over abstaining from good, because that's what Buddha said he did himself and he got results, and we want those results for ourselves.

A Buddhist isn't a Buddhist because of the path he is on, but rather he is a Buddhist because of the end that he's pursuing, and this end has many definitions, but we accept the Buddha's definition of the end to pursue. It's an active effort to be a Buddhist. This is unlike Western religions and "areligions", where you can be and not be part of a faith passively.

>>20638600
then what is it that is annihalated upon reaching nirvana?
>thingss that we say aren't a soul but basically just mean a soul

>>20638550
>I like religion for its metaphysics.

Okay retard.

>>20643935
eating to fulfill a biological need is not the same as eating to stop a neurotic drive
you're not craving fro food when you realsie that your body needs food and in order to not harm it(since that's aversion to your own body and thus a drive of becoming) you eat

>>20644280

>>20641708
>>20643572
Cravings are annihilated

>>20644280
>then what is it that is annihalated upon reaching nirvana?
the karmic tendencies, and as tendencies is not so much annihilation, but the end of the causes that keep them being produced, you're not even destroying karma, you're just creating a type of karma that doesn't create more karma, there's nothing being annihilated, just a change on tendencies

>>20644328
this

>>20643838
>aaaa save me from the world you made sky rabbi
hmm indeed... truly what did he mean by this? Why did your all powerful god create the world as a cosmic prison and set his son up as warden? Did he need a summer job or something? Are we banished here just so Jesus has something to put on his resume? At least the Buddhist attempts at a non-stupid explanation for why we experience any misery, suffering, distress etc. and taught methods to overcome it, none of which involve begging God to stop hurting you because you promise to be obedient.

>>20644268
>"No one can purify another" is a complete rejection of proselytizing. Buddhists can't even proselytize even if they wanted to, because there is no such thing as "converting" to Buddhism within the Buddhist faith.
not him, not quite right either. I think you're being a little obtuse. What this means is that no one can liberate another person, one can only point the way and offer instruction as a spiritual friend. Buddhism is 1. absolutely a proselytizing religion, which is why (You) have heard of it and it is dead in its own homeland but not in those of the people you heard of it from, and 2. not without formalities one may participate in such as joining the sangha, taking the precepts, abhiseka, etc. One can certainly "convert" and nearly every discourse in the nikayas ends with, to paraphrase ever so slightly: "oh how brilliant sirs, from this day I shall do the needful and take refuge in this teacher, this teaching, and this community"

>>20644381
> At least the Buddhist attempts at a non-stupid explanation for why we experience any misery, suffering, distress etc. and taught methods to overcome it, none of which involve begging God to stop hurting you because you promise to be obedient.
The Buddhist explanation is a contingent cycle or process of ignorance (samsara) that is itself purportedly generated by other contingent parts of the same process, and this is originally taking place for no reason whatsoever! But this is a actually the stupidest answer of all since contingency by nature cannot account for itself as it involves a regress such that the contingent things in the totality of contingent stuff will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first place.

>>20644453
>will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first place.
that's only the case if you follow a substance based ontology, that is, a onotlogy that already presupouse "a thing on itself",which David Hume already proven incorrect on his treatise on human nature, casuation is not made thanks to a first thing that gives being to things, but by the subject that take adjust phenomen into his forms of causation
buddhism follows a process based ontology, so it doesn't have this type of problem

>>20644453
>But this is a actually the stupidest answer of all since contingency by nature cannot account for itself as it involves a regress such that the contingent things in the totality of contingent stuff will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first place.
you're describing dependent co-arising, idiot

your metaphysics:
>ooh lets imagine something that caused all others ooh
>where is this something?
>uhh...nowhere, it is limitless
>ok...so how are the caused divisible from it, since nothing else exists but the "cause"
>uhh...it dwells in space, right?
>but how could the entity be indivisible and be separated from space as a separate entity

you cant point to anything to that is just "a cause" or something without dependency. dependent co-arising.

>>20644453
>ll since contingency by nature cannot account for itself as it involves a regress
nothing in buddhism is contingent, everything is neccesary, see indra's net, everything is connected with everything else and everything is a particular shard of eternity that rfelect all the other shards, everything has being and his the cause for the being in all other things

>>20644417
We have different interpretations of the word "proselytizing". Arguing that you're right, and trying to convince others isn't proselytizing, it is as you say "offering instruction". To offer instruction isn't to proselytize, since you always have the option to simply disagree with the instruction as you wish. You can opt-out of Buddhism and Hinduism whenever you wish, at any stage of your journey. You cannot do that in Abrahamic religions, and this is what defines those religions. Proselytizing involves offering instruction, it involves telling others what you think, with the intent that they should also hold the same view since you believe your own view to be correct, but proselytizing goes further than just that. It also fundamentally involves converting, a "signing of the contract" if you will, it involves making a covenant with God through that religion. You cannot "opt-out" of the contract, you do not have autonomy in that regard, and in their frameworks you should be punished accordingly. And in their frameworks they should force others to follow their own religion as it's ultimately for the best for them, for their own sakes, as according to their own religion. You often see this "our truth must be valued over their self-perceived wellbeing" mentality in atheists as well, who try their best to destroy others for the sake of "the objective truth". Though unlike abrahamic religions, this commonly-found mentality of atheists isn't an actual inherent quality of the belief of atheism.

There is no "covenant" system in Buddhism. Sure you have the dharma, you have the obligation to follow the dharma and therefore one *should* follow it, but you cannot force others to follow the dharma as ultimately it is only by oneself that the dharma can be followed. So we cannot equate the Buddhist and Hindu methods of teaching with the Abrahamic methods of proselytizing. A Hindu certainly can proselytize, though this is to his own moral detriment as a Hindu, unlike how Abrahamic believers can proselytize to their own benefit. Buddhists cannot proselytize at all, as that violates what Buddha taught us, and it violates his very image as a teacher. He never went around forcing others to either accept his view due to his authority as "the chosen one" or to perish (as done in Judaism and in Islam, though to be fair it was not done by Christ himself but rather his subsequent followers. Though Christ certainly allowed for this as he himself personally gave the church authority over the Earth, atleast according to Catholics). Buddha gave his teachings and gave us the choice to accept it or to deny it. That is not proselytizing.

>>20643631
Which is literally everything and anything

>>20644476
> that's only the case if you follow a substance based ontology
Incorrect, it’s true universally, there is no logically coherent ontology that would permit for such a contradiction unless you just toss out all logic in which case you are in the realm of fiction or aesthetics but not philosophy or ontology any more.
>that is, a onotlogy that already presupouse "a thing on itself",which David Hume already proven incorrect
No, he didn’t, what a laughable claim.
> casuation is not made thanks to a first thing that gives being to things, but by the subject that take adjust phenomen into his forms of causation
“Take adjust phenomen into his forms of causation” makes no sense whatsoever you stupid ESL retard. Regardless, that’s already presupposing an existing subject who is able to do that thing which isn’t answering the question or resolving the issue, since in positing that subject you are already presupposing something contingent which cannot be accounted for via recourse to other contingency without a regress that sinks the whole enterprise as illogical and foolish.
buddhism follows a process based ontology, so it doesn't have this type of problem

>>20644326
> you're not craving fro food when you realsie that your body needs food
Lol yes you are
>and in order to not harm it(since that's aversion to your own body and thus a drive of becoming) you eat
still a desire for food or aversion to starving however you pilpul it

>>20643838
Not everyone is retarded enough for christianity, a pop with a higher IQ needs a higher level of cope

>>20644587
Body has it’s own needs, desires are

>>20644544
Agree Buddhism isn't covenant theology but it is confusing to redefine prosleytizing as 'missionary activity specific to Abrahamic religions' since it is tremendously obvious that Buddhism has and does engage in missionary activity, any idiosyncratic and technical definitions aside.

>>20644495
> you're describing dependent co-arising, idiot
“co-arising” in that sense is a logical contradiction, listing it as a dogmatic principle does nothing to remove the inherent contradiction.

If A and B are non-eternal and A depends on B existing to arise, and if B depends on A existing to arise, then neither will ever arise because the conditions permitting them to exist will never be fulfilled. As they are non-eternal they cant be considered to have a beginningless default state that can generate the other; the default is non-existence but they cant emerge from this it requires a logical impossibility.

>>20644580
>unless you just toss out all logic in which case you are in the realm of fiction or aesthetics but not philosophy or ontology any more.
Which is what theists do. They say everything has a cause, therefore there is an uncaused cause. No logical connection exists between the two statements. It is entirely the force of imagination.

>>20644603
>these desire and aversions I can’t let go of I’ll call needs
Kek no
if you eat food you are def acting out of desire/aversion, calling it more important than other desires/aversions doesn’t change the fact
A enlightened person simply wouldn’t have a reason to keep eating would he? it’s just a body and can die why are you so attached to the needs of your body?

>>20644453
>The Buddhist explanation is a contingent cycle
nothing is contingent in buddhism, everything has dhamma, everything is a dhamma

>and this is originally taking place for no reason whatsoever!
the opposite would be to propose a first uncaused cause, which is a contradiction in terms, also such an uncaused cause has already broke the chain of causation by merely existing
in buddhism each dhamma/cause/phenomena has in itself the rational principle to the next cause, like the being in potence and being in act from aristotelian metaphysics, a chair is not a tree, but a tree is needed i order to make a chair, just like ashes are not a chair, but if you set a chair on fire you'll get ashes, in this system "being" still can be explained, change and motion can also be explained, and you don't break the chain of causation like you do when you propouse a first uncaused cause
not to mention some other problems a trascendental principles bring to the table like: what is connecting the trascendental and phenomenical worlds? and what conects that conection with each part of the substances? you see, when you propouse substances then you need to create even ore substances to explain how you conect them, thus you end up with an infinite numbers of substances
all those metaphysical problems arise when you try to articulate being as something completly outside pf phenomena

>as it involves a regress such that the contingent things in the totality of contingent stuff will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first plac
this is Shankara's mediocre critic of buddhism, which fails from the start since Shankara just makes a petitio principii fallacy, he already takes for granted that his advaita principles are true, he deson't critic buddhism using the inner logic of buddhist thought but using his advaita axioms, you can see that clearly when he completly confuses the pratikisamutpada, thinking it is a ontology system when in reality is an epistemological system

>>20638550
Do you realise that India is not remotely in the Middle East? Indians never heard of the god of Abraham.

>>20644610
>then neither will ever arise because the conditions permitting them to exist will never be fulfilled
False conclusion: they can't arise as substantially but they can arise only together, denying them the status of substances. That's the point that the concept is trying to show. the arising is the act of positing a difference, see diamond sutra: "we call it so, because it is not so".

>>20644618
You’re right we Buddhists are retards

>>20644626
>>20644619
Look at my nonduality bro! Look at my kundalini bro! Look at my meditation bro! Look bro my third eye bro! Look bro I’m free of greed and ignorance I'm enlightened bro!

>>20644618
>>20644587

>if you eat food you are def acting out of desire/aversion

no, the act of eating food has chanda/intent, which is perfetly normal, not eating to destroy your body would be an act of aversion, and only thinking about eating because you have neurotic impulses would be an act of craving

>>20644580
>Incorrect, it’s true universally,
not an argument
>No, he didn’t, what a laughable claim.
also not an argument

>that’s already presupposing an existing subject who is able to do that thing which isn’t answering the question or resolving the issue
presuposing a subject isn't the same as presuposing a cause
>positing that subject you are already presupposing something contingent
how so? nothing in a subject brings the notion of contingency into the equation, there's nothing contingent in a subject, in fact is the opposite, a subject is a neccesary part of experience

>>20644453
>Since contingency by nature cannot account for itself as it involves a regress such that the contingent things in the totality of contingent stuff will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first place.
Despite what other anons say, this is correct, it's the idea that there is no discoverable beginning of the universe as according to Buddha.
Where you mislead yourself is that you've convinced yourself that this is "a stupid answer". Why is this a "stupid" answer? It's an observation made of the universe as it is. As you've said, this is happening for "no reason", but you implicitly assume that this reason can even be logically deduced without any axiom in the first place. You cannot make a non-axiomatic statement about the reason behind why reality is the way it is, that does not presuppose anything. You cannot give a perfect reason why the universe is intelligible, you can only make the perfect observation that it IS intelligence, and of course the ability of observation itself is logically presupposed to exist by the agent that observes and then rationalizes. In Buddhism, such unanswerable questions, such as what is the ultimate nature reality (this question itself presupposes there IS a nature to reality, which is a deduction from our observation we have made that reality is intelligible, but observation itself is presupposed to exist) are left as they are. All answers are equally valid since there is no non-presupposed validity to weigh them against. But of course pure skepticism is incorrect, because we all have the same presupposed method of validating answers in general, which is why religion and philosophy between individuals are even possible in the first place and are to be pursued. These universal presuppositions are ultimately pragmatic in nature: "There is", "There is an 'is'", "There is that which says 'there is'". "There is 'that which is' and 'that which isn't'". "There is 'I' and there is 'not I'". "There can be and there is change over certain 'that which is' statements and 'that which isn't' statements". And Ill just skip straight to the important one: "the most valid form of validating propositions is what I presuppose it to be, and I presuppose it based on my uncontrollable criteria, and this criteria is whether or not it solves whatever questions or problems or goals I have, that I want solved".

>>20644664
And here I though it was only christian’s who used pilpul, appears buddhists also do
And No matter how much you try to twist words around it doesn’t change the fact a person is acting out of desire/aversion when they CHOOSE to eat, if there was no desire or adverse on there would be no need to eat
Inb4 but I don’t want to harm the body
Kek exactly

>>20644580
>No, he didn’t, what a laughable claim.
yes he did bro
https://youtu.be/ahrcHnffPqQ

>>20644510
> nothing in buddhism is contingent
Wrong, everything in Buddhism in contingent you clown, that’s what being ‘empty’ means, empty things are empty because they exist in dependence on something else i.e. their causes and conditions; to exist or be in dependence upon something else is to BE CONTINGENT UPON IT!!!!’ Since Buddhists say all is empty i.e. nothing is independent and all depends on another they are saying everything is contingent on something else in some way.

>everything is neccesary, see indra's net, everything is connected with everything else and everything is a particular shard of eternity that rfelect all the other shards, everything has being and his the cause for the being in all other things
This isn’t posited by the Madhyamaka school but it comes from a few anonymously-composed apocryphal sutras. It’s contradictory to say that multiple things cause or generate each-other regardless of whether you combine it with other Buddhist notions like sunyata or not because it involves implicitly giving one party the power of generation before it itself has been generated. But an ungenerated thing cannot generate anything.

>>20644699
>is acting out of desire
>if there was no desire

theres no problem with desire tho, the problem is wth craving, which is a total different thing
desire/chanda/intent is neccesary,but craving is optional
just like pain is inevitable in existence but suffering is optional

>>20644606
I define proselytizing as the four things, from the POV of the proselytizer:
1. Offering instruction to another person about themselves
2. The successful action of making that other person sign a permanent contract (that I myself have signed) with me on behalf of or with the object or being itself which is central to that person, myself, my instruction, and my goals.
3. This contract is a contract as it is the declaration of intent to follow a certain goal as according to instruction
4. This contract, if broken, will then cause intentional punishment/revenge on that person by either myself or those like myself, or by the being/object that they have pledged to

It is precisely this punishment, that comes when a person who has promised to follow instruction then decides to not follow it, that defines what it means to "proselytize". You can see 1,2, and 3 being done by Hindu and Buddhist missionaries but you'll NEVER see a proper Buddhist tell others that they will be punished by something if they do not follow Buddhism, or if they fail to follow the eightfold path, or anything like that. A proselytizing Buddhist is not a Buddhist at all.
Missionary activity itself is not proselytizing, but Abrahamic missionary activities definitely and largely tends to involve proselytizing.

>>20644726
Okay then, so back to the original statement that it’s fine to kill one’s self when you like

>>20644739
Ah what the fuck am I saying, Im embarassing myself, of course there are proselytizing Buddhists, there's hell and there's punishments as bad karma results in bad karma. I just decided to pull these 4 clauses out of my ass to try to define proselytizing in a way where non-Buddhists all do it and Buddhists do not.
>>20644606
You're right, my mistake

>>20644741
>so back to the original statement
not really, because that doesn't makle killing yourself something not caused from aversion

>>20644716
>that’s what being ‘empty’ means
no, empty means that nothing is a thing on itself, everything is empty of substance, not empty of meaning, identity or functionallity, everything is a dhamma, eveyrthing has an identity that let it interact and be inetrdependent with everything else, and that identity is neccesary

>’ Since Buddhists say all is empty i.e. nothing is independent and all depends on another they are saying everything is contingent on something else in some way.
no because everythign gains it's necessity from the interdependency, a wooden chair needs to be made from wood, that's not contingent but neccesary, and all the thing that can be caused from the chair depends on the chair, a neccesary material to them,
the negation of a thing that creates the next one is a determinated negation, a neccesary negation, you're taking for granted that identity must be given by a first principle, a thing on itself, but identity is actually granted by the proccess of negative determination, the fact that the only logical and certain thing that you can say about a thinkg is that is not any other thing, by negating all the rest of phenomena(the things in the world) you affirm that particular thing "omnis affirmatio est negatio"

>But an ungenerated thing cannot generate anything.
there's no ungenerated thing

>>20644612
> Which is what theists do. They say everything has a cause, therefore there is an uncaused cause. No logical connection exists between the two statements. It is entirely the force of imagination.
Show me any work of classical theism where this is the reasoning used verbatim and on which page of which work

pro-tip you can’t because its a retarded strawman

>>20644768
Yes really cos theres no problem with desire, the problem is with craving, which is a total different thing
desire/chanda/intent is neccesary,but craving is optional

>>20644843
yes and how that makes suicide an act not caused by aversion?

>>20644838
Yeah, I agree, the Five Ways is pretty dumb, but then Aquinas didn't make them because they were smart, or even sensible, he made them to make Christians in the Ottoman Empire not feel like dumbasses when Muslims make fun of the Trinity.

>>20644838
>you can’t because its a retarded strawman
alright well show me the theists who do not believe a supreme God is the uncaused cause, prime mover, etc. No Spinoza, no Indians, no heathen Greeks since they are out of scope here. We were comparing Christianity.

>>20644864
Same way as it does eating

>>20644838
>Show me any work of classical theism where this is the reasoning used verbatim and on which page of which work
Genesis 1:1
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Revelation 22:13
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end"

>>20644580
>but not philosophy or ontology any more.
most modern philosophies are based on a process oriented ontology, and yes, process ontology is actually more logically consitent than subtsance based ontologies, see>>20644619
substance based ontologies can't resolve the problem of causation or the problem of the third man

>>20644948
eating is a state created by a biological impulse, not by aversion, there's no natural, biological impulso to commit suicide

>>20644975
Lmao now you are justifying things based on biological impulse… lmao guess rape and shitting on the street when you feel like it are fine
Just be honest, you are trying to fit your adopted belief into your morality/beliefs not vice versa

>>20644864
enlightened people can commit suicide without being an offense of anything, and they do it due to seeing how it is sterile to endure the fruit of karmic deeds and also since they know they wont be reborn

>>20645001
>Lmao now you are justifying things based on biological impulse
no, i'm saying that hunger, just like pain will arise in the mind, you have no control over it, since it's a biological impulse, and an enlightened being has no reason not to eat/react to that impulse, since that would be an act of aversion towards his own body, eating when you're hungry is not an act of craving, since you're not doing something that you think will complete "you/your atman" but you're eating in order to not kill your body, but if you can't eat you wouldn't experience suffering(you would experience pain) since you're not letting yourself die because of inner aversion but because things outsdie of your control prevented you from it

>rape
that's not a biological impusle, rape is an entirely subjective construct

>>20644453
>The Buddhist explanation is a contingent cycle or process of ignorance (samsara) that is itself purportedly generated by other contingent parts of the same process, and this is originally taking place for no reason whatsoever! But this is a actually the stupidest answer of all since contingency by nature cannot account for itself as it involves a regress such that the contingent things in the totality of contingent stuff will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first place.
all of this is false. the buddha never said contingent, he said conditioned. and he never said there is a point in time where something was not conditioned then conditioned, ie he never said there was a fall from a primordial heaven, contrary to judaic bugmen. The buddha never talked about why there is samsara rather than nothing. The only thing the buddha talks about is why samsara keeps on going.
The buddha doesnt give a shit about why samsara was created in the first place, because his goal is to end suffering and knowing why samsara was created int he first place is utterly useless to reach this goal.

go back to jerking over your retarded atheist turned muslism guénon crap

>>20644619
> nothing is contingent in buddhism, everything has dhamma, everything is a dhamma
Incorrect, according to Buddhists everything is contingent because everything exists in dependence on its causes and conditions (and are thus empty of own-being) and there is nothing that is not contingent on something else. Something can either be independent or contingent and Buddhists deny that anything has independent existence/being; thus all is contingent for them; this is why all dharmas are considered empty, i.e. they are all empty BECAUSE they are all contingent on their causes and conditions.

>and this is originally taking place for no reason whatsoever!
>the opposite would be to propose a first uncaused cause, which is a contradiction in terms
No it’s not, because nothing about the definition of “causer” means “itself caused”; it can only be a contradiction in terms if the terms are mutually exclusive meanings but they are not in this case. You are confusing your unsubstantiated Buddhist dogmas (there cannot be an uncaused causer!!!) with a real contradiction in terms.

>also such an uncaused cause has already broke the chain of causation by merely existing
No it hasn’t, lol; at most it means the unbroken chain has a beginning. Also, there is not even any necessary requirement for a beginning in time, but you can instead ground the chain of causation by having it be resting or anchored upon something above it that is atemporally acting as such a support from/for all eternity or from outside time.

>in buddhism each dhamma/cause/phenomena has in itself the rational principle to the next cause, like the being in potence and being in act from aristotelian metaphysics, a chair is not a tree, but a tree is needed i order to make a chair, just like ashes are not a chair, but if you set a chair on fire you'll get ashes, in this system "being" still can be explained, change and motion can also be explained, and you don't break the chain of causation like you do when you propouse a first uncaused cause
What exactly do you think is a “chain of causation” and what do you think “breaking it” means? Positing a beginning to a chain is not the same as breaking it, the end-point of a chain is not the breaking or damaging of it but insofar as all our practical examples go a beginning or end to a chain is a feature of it from the very beginning by default and not a ‘break’

>>20644619
>not to mention some other problems a trascendental principles bring to the table like: what is connecting the trascendental and phenomenical worlds?
Easy, the power of the principle, or its energy, or its disposition, or its nature, or its activity

>and what conects that conection with each part of the substances?
they all spring from it directly

>you see, when you propouse substances then you need to create even ore substances to explain how you conect them, thus you end up with an infinite numbers of substances
Incorrect, because there is no logical requirement whatsoever that the power or energy or nature or activity or projection etc of the One or God has to be explained as being a substance in addition to the first substance of the One or God. Not every ontology that posits a non-contingent basis of all contingency is a substance ontology, that’s just a stupid sophistic trick you like to employ where you pretend that all systems of thought that dont make the same mistakes as Buddhist are all substance ontologies, and them you go “HURR DURR WELL WHAT ABOUT CONNECTING MUH DIFFERENT SUBSTANCES I GUESS WE HAVE TO ACCEPT BUDDHISM INSTEAD” but this is a completely false dichotomy because not all ontologies are either 1) Buddhism/anti-foundationalism or 2) substance ontologies but some philosophies and doctrines reject the claims of both Buddhism and substance ontologies. Shameless sophism.

>as it involves a regress such that the contingent things in the totality of contingent stuff will never have being to begin or arise or cause others to arise in the first place

>this is Shankara's mediocre critic of buddhism, which fails from the start since Shankara just makes a petitio principii fallacy, he already takes for granted that his advaita principles are true
That’s wrong, since this one specific criticism of Buddhism doesn’t involve making any claims or presuppositions about Advaita doctrines but is just evaluating the Buddhist doctrine on its face and finding it to be logically incoherent without even mentioning Advaita in the argument. Advaita or Shankara has nothing to do with that, it’s equally true regardless of who points it out and the same point was made by early modern missionaries like Ippolito Desideri who traveled to Tibet and learned the language and pointed out the inconsistencies in Buddhism to the Tibetans in texts that he wrote in Tibetan

>>20644619
>he deson't critic buddhism using the inner logic of buddhist thought but using his advaita axioms
Pointing out that contingency turns into an illogical and absurd regress that cannot account for or ground itself unless grounded in non-contingency is basic logic, again that has nothing to do with Advaita as the important philosophers in both east and west have noted this truth (Aristote, Aquinas, Leibniz, various Muslim thinkers etc) and its not some special Advaita dogma

>you can see that clearly when he completly confuses the pratikisamutpada, thinking it is a ontology system when in reality is an epistemological system
He makes that critique in the context of responding to Buddhists saying that the existence of the skandhas can be accounted because of pratityasamutpada, i.e. taking it as the ontological causal basis or origin of being alive in samsara. When you say this (as Buddhists then and now often still do) you are turning it into something ontological by accounting for the existence of the Skandhas via them; i.e. it’s self-contradictory and foolish to say that you don’t need a final God or uncaused origin/basis of everything because of pratityasamutpada accounting for it instead but at the same time its only epistemic and not ontological; those two claims are a flagrant contradiction and you often see Buddhists switching between them without realizing they are contradicting themselves.

>>20644716
>because they exist in dependence on something else
not on something else, but on everything else, that's why everythin gis necessary, if you take anything out, the whole thing cease to be what it is, every part of existence is necessary

>>20645109
Hunger rises in the mind just as the desire for sex, you have no control over it, and an enlightened being has no reason not to have sex/react to that impulse, since that would be an act of aversion towards his own body
> eating when you're hungry is not an act of craving,
Lmao yes it is
Dude if this is Buddhism it’s just as much retarded cope and pilpul as christcuckery

>>20645343
>the desire for sex
the desire for sex is not the same thing as the desire to rape
>an enlightened being has no reason not to have sex/react to that impulse
an enlightened being can have sex
>Lmao yes it is
no is not, craving/tanha is a desired based on neurosis, wanting to eat something in particular, wanting to eat as a coping mechanism, wanting to eat because you're depressed, that's craving for eating, eating not to die is just acting with non-aversion towards yourself

>>20645224
>ncorrect, according to Buddhists everything is contingent
no, everything is conditioned, not contingent
>No it’s not, because nothing about the definition of “causer” means “itself caused”
if the cause is not itself a cause how he can interact in the world of cause and effect? if the causer is not a cause he's out of the chain of causation

>at most it means the unbroken chain has a beginning
if the chain has a beggining then the whole system of cause and effect hs no longer has concsitency, a new chain could appear anytime, since there's no logic to how cause can happen, since each cause is at the same time an effect


>but you can instead ground the chain of causation by having it be resting or anchored upon something above it that is atemporally acting as such a support from/for all eternity or from outside time.
that would again be a contradiction in terms, since an unchanging thing would "produce change"

>chain is not the breaking or damaging of it b
ye sit is, because there's a cause that's no longer also an effect, thus the chain is no longer a chain, one of it's parts is no longe ra link, so the chian of causation no longer has logical validity, if a cause can be uncaused, then all causes can be uncaused, a new chain can appear, the chain itself can end at any moment, posing a first link that is not like the rest of the links(uncause) means is no longer a chain, what's even worst, it never was a chain, causation thus can't be explained anymore
>>20645227
>or its nature,
this is a really cheap way of trying to solve the problem, since it no longers provide an explanation or even an answer, and just relly on dogma, what is worse, now you can't refute any buddhist point, since we can just use the same answer "it's in the nature of the dharma to be that way", you think that buddhist dharma leads to infinite regress? well is is reality's nature to be that way

>they all spring from it directly
that can't be the case becaus ethat would imply that we have direct access to the trascendnetal world, which again, that would no longer made it trascendental but phenomenical,by deffinition some sort of mediaton must be happening
>hat the power or energy or nature or activity or projection etc of the One or God has to be explained as being a substance
what is it if not a substance? what this thing on itself could be if ot a substance? and how you can still need a first cause if you're no longer using a thing on itself?

>That’s wrong, since this one specific criticism of Buddhism doesn’t involve making any claims or presuppositions about Advaita
yes it does, because it presupouse a thing onitself, a first cause that can't be proven and is not self evident, so it s a petitio principii fallacy, Shankara is asking that a first cause be taken as a logical necessity to make his point valid, also he later ask a pretty specific notion of change that involves annihilation, which also is a petitio principii fallcy

>>20645235
>Pointing out that contingency turns into an illogical and absurd regress that cannot account for or ground itself unless grounded in non-contingency is basic logic,
ywa it ia, because Shankara just like you are confusing conditioned with contingent, just as giving causation a substantial ontology, which can't be proved, thus a petitio principii fallacy, you're asking to be taken as fact something that can't be proven

>He makes that critique in the context of responding to Buddhists saying that the existence of the skandhas can be accounted because of pratityasamutpada
no, he really thik that the pratikiasamutpada is a ontological system, which no buddhist believe it is

>>20645378
The fact you can’t see you are coping so hard, constantly changing positions, resorting to redefinitions, shows your position is as BS as every other cope religion
>hunger isn’t a desire cos you need it to live
Lmao that’s the equivalent to christcucks circular logic
you are desiring to eat in order to desire to keep living retard

>>20645604
>>hunger isn’t a desire
inever said hunger is not a desire, i said hunger is not craving, hunger is a biological impulse how you act on it is what defiens if is chanda or tanha

>>20645227
>Not every ontology that posits a non-contingent basis of all contingency is a substance ontology
name some of them then

>>20638550
>Uhh buddhist bros?
This is what happens when Eurofag Orientalists' first contact was with retard Theravadans. ANATTA/ANATMAN /=/ NO SOUL. Remaining silent when questioned on personal immortality didn't assent to any such thing either -- the only name he gave his thought was Brahmakaya, in the very few instances he was compelled to name it anything at all. The state of becoming sick of the world and wishing its end is also described, this annihilation urge to "just end Me" as being deficient understanding. There just isn't any excuse for heterodox nonsense like what passes for meme-Buddhism in Western circles

>>20644626
> False conclusion: they can't arise as substantially but they can arise only together, denying them the status of substances
That’s a non-sequitur response that doesn’t resolve the underlying contradiction in what is being posited. Two “non-substantial” things still cannot co-arise in dependence on each other as the same logical impossibility is involved either way.

>>20638550
all semitic religions worship satan

>>20644680
> >Incorrect, it’s true universally,
>not an argument
>No, he didn’t, what a laughable claim.
>also not an argument
You never offered arguments for any of those points to begin with, why would they deserve an argument in response when they are unsubstantiated?

>that’s already presupposing an existing subject who is able to do that thing which isn’t answering the question or resolving the issue
>presuposing a subject isn't the same as presuposing a cause
It’s presupposing something as already existing and thus able to interact with phenomena/objects/ignorance; but this is ignoring that said’s subjects existence (as a contingent fact) can only be accounted for in the first place via reference to either other contingency (which is absurd, illogical and results in a regress) or via contingent facts that ultimately lead to or are based on some non-contingent thing, which is the ultimate source, basis or cause of everything that is contingent.

>positing that subject you are already presupposing something contingent
>how so? nothing in a subject brings the notion of contingency into the equation, there's nothing contingent in a subject, in fact is the opposite, a subject is a neccesary part of experience
“Contingent” means to be dependent on something else so if the subject isnt dependent on anything else (i.e. contingent) according to you then it has independent existence or svabhava, and Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka are refuted. You cant even remain consistent in your arguments.

>>20645735everyone knows that Hume already proven objective causation as false, and a quick search can show you the difference between a substance and a process based ontology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_influences_on_Advaita_Vedanta#:~:text=Advaita%20Ved%C4%81nta%20holds%20the%20premise,self)%20is%20self%20evident%22.

>>20645735
>can only be accounted for in the first place via reference to either other contingency (which is absurd, illogical and results in a regress)
again, in order for this to be true you need a thing on itself that works as a first cause, but it's the subject the one who create the causes/order the world of phenomena
taking for granted that a subject presupouse a cause, but is only thanks to sujectivity that you can perceive causes, a petitio principii fallacy, you're asking us to take for granted that a cause is needed to explain how a subject presupouse a cause

>“Contingent
contingent means that is not neccesary, which isn't the case for subjectivity, since every aspect of experience needs subjectivity, sujbectivity is "neccesary" for conciousness to happen

>>20645620
>pilpul
Like arguing with christcucks

>>20644610
>the conditions permitting them to exist will never be fulfilled.
that condition can only be possible if a thing on itself is posed, a thing can arise thank sto the movement/change of a previous thing a chair can be made thanks to a tree,and a tree can exist thanks to a seed from a previous tree

>>20644688
Guenonfag completly BTFO once again

>>20644688
> Despite what other anons say, this is correct, it's the idea that there is no discoverable beginning of the universe as according to Buddha.
>Where you mislead yourself is that you've convinced yourself that this is "a stupid answer".
Wrong, I am fine with beginningless time and/or beginningless universe(s); if and only if they be accounted for via something that can coherently ground them or account for them, but to say that they ground themselves or fully account for themselves via samsara just samsara-ing without beginning and without being dependent on anything is logically incoherent and thus unacceptable to me. This is why Aristotle, who accepts an uncaused eternal universe, still posits a non-contingent unmoved mover or movers as logically necessary because even if the universe hypothetically has no beginning there are still contingent things about it that cannot be explained on the basis of other contingent things without a regress.
>Why is this a "stupid" answer? It's an observation made of the universe as it is.
No, it’s a statement about the observational limits of humans but that doesn’t demonstrate anything about the wider universe writ large
>As you've said, this is happening for "no reason", but you implicitly assume that this reason can even be logically deduced without any axiom in the first place.
No I didnt and I actually disagree with this perspective

>>20645839
see
>>20645843

>>20645843
>is logically incoherent and thus unacceptable to me
how is that logically incoherent?

>>20644714
>yes he did bro
No, he didn’t, he basically said “yeah causation is just in your mind bro trust me but I cant prove it”, I can make up whatever claim about things not being real too and that doesn’t make my theory proven.

If he had an argument that proved it then you would have posted it on 4channel….. oh wait he doesn’t.

>>20645224
>at most it means the unbroken chain has a beginning
but that "beggining" is not a link of the chain, since it's a total different thing(it's not part of the cause and effect links) so it can't be "linked" to the chain, so once again the chain is already broken from the start, that's why a "first cause" metaphysics is logically incoherent, instead of that posing that each thing gains it's meaning from the relationship with all other thing and the dinamic negation that explains it's movements is a much more consistent ontology and more logically solid

>>20645871
>“yeah causation is just in your mind bro trust me but I cant prove it”,
but that's the point, you can't prove that causation isn't on the mind, and you can certainly pove that the mind creates causation, things like language exist thanks to the mind using a cause and effect system, you can mix all kind of words and sentences and make new meanings out of them, without the need of an external force, the fact that you can read this sentence is prove that you can derive meaning out of objects(letters)

the fact that you can understand things a certain way and another person can interpret the same thing in a different way already is prof that the mind is the one establishing the porcess of causation, taking that into consideration you can't use "a first principle" or "substance" as a logical necessity to justify your claims
at least until you can prove that causation can happen outside the mind, but how can you do that?

>>20644813
> no, empty means that nothing is a thing on itself
Lol, now you are making me suspect that you dont even read many Buddhist writings and are just a larper interpreting Buddhism through some European philosophical lenses or something. To be a thing on itself means to exist independently, hence to deny that anything exists independently like almost all Buddhists do deny is equivalent to saying everything is contingent since if something isn’t independent (doesn’t have independent existence) then it’s automatically contingent.

>everything is empty of substance, not empty of meaning, identity or functionallity, everything is a dhamma, eveyrthing has an identity that let it interact and be inetrdependent with everything else, and that identity is neccesary
That’s not denied by anything I’ve said in any of my posts, nor is it denied by saying all dharmas are contingent, which IS what Buddhist philosophical writings say since for them if something is non-contingent then it automatically has svabhava or own-essence or own-existence but this is anathema to them and they say nothing has svabhava so thus all phenomena or dharmas are all contingent which doesnt preclude them from having meaning, identity, interacting etc. You yourself say they are interdependent, then it’s contradictory for you to deny they are contingent at the same time, since being interdependent necessarily involves being contingent. It doesn’t matter if something or things are “intra-dependent” or “inter-dependent”, literally any kind of dependency whatsoever equals a form of contingency. This is pretty basic logic and shouldn’t have to be explained.

>’ Since Buddhists say all is empty i.e. nothing is independent and all depends on another they are saying everything is contingent on something else in some way.

>>20644813
>no because everythign gains it's necessity from the interdependency, a wooden chair needs to be made from wood, that's not contingent but neccesary
Every identifiable instance of any particular instantiation of any wooden chair that we can detect in our experience is contingent upon the physical materials making up the chair, these materials came from trees that were grown in a way that depended on water and sunlight, and the growth of that tree and the later shaping of it into a chair were all the whole time contingent upon things like gravity holding them in place so that objects dont fall apart or move away from planets etc; thus all particular objects within manifestation are contingent upon a whole host of causes and conditions, and no matter how far you take back the analysis nothing within the universe can account for the contingency that characterizes the universe but there will always be a regress. There is nothing necessary whatsoever about the chair, because the tree and its wood could have been made into anything else instead and often are, unless you mean to say “a wooden chair has to necessarily be made of wood or its not a wooden chair” but this can be redone with any object and its merely a restatement of the law of identity (A = A) which doesn’t prove anything.

>>20645962
>which IS what Buddhist philosophical writings say since for them if something is non-contingent then it automatically has svabhava
no, the buddha never said this

>>20644872
> Yeah, I agree, the Five Ways is pretty dumb
Can you show me where in the five ways he says verbatim “everything has a cause, therefore there is an uncaused cause” without any other supporting arguments or logic or evidence that play an important role in this conclusion?

>>20644929
> alright well show me the theists who do not believe a supreme God is the uncaused cause
The strawman argument was about the exact logical steps that the poster was alleging they were using, it was not about their beliefs about Gods existence that the logical steps are supposed to justify

>>20644959
That’s a scripture and not a work of theology, it’s not intended as a logical argument like the logical arguments in the works of theologians and metaphysicians and philosophers involve logical arguments.

>>20645962
>hence to deny that anything exists independently like almost all Buddhists do deny is equivalent to saying everything is contingent since if something isn’t independent (doesn’t have independent existence) then it’s automatically contingent.
in which sutta buddha say this?

>>20645962
>That’s not denied by anything I’ve said in any of my posts, nor is it denied by saying all dharmas are contingent, which IS what Buddhist philosophical writings say since for them if something is non-contingent then it automatically has svabhava or own-essence or own-existence but this is anathema to them and they say nothing has svabhava so thus all phenomena or dharmas are all contingent which doesnt preclude them from having meaning, identity, interacting etc. You yourself say they are interdependent, then it’s contradictory for you to deny they are contingent at the same time, since being interdependent necessarily involves being contingent. It doesn’t matter if something or things are “intra-dependent” or “inter-dependent”, literally any kind of dependency whatsoever equals a form of contingency. This is pretty basic logic and shouldn’t have to be explained.
again you're confusing conditonated with contingent

>>20645963
>There is nothing necessary whatsoever about the chair,
yes, it's identity(dhamma)

>>20644967
> >but not philosophy or ontology any more.
>most modern philosophies are based on a process oriented ontology
That confirms how bad it is, the ability to have insight into metaphysical truths is degenerated in modern man compared to the ancients and medievals.
>and yes, process ontology is actually more logically consitent than subtsance based ontologie
As I have already pointed out, that’s a false dichotomy because some (superior) philosophies reject both as inferior, when you’re a sophist who wants to present his preferred form of sophism as a fait accompli you like to present everything that is opposed to it as being a problematic philosophy of substance when this is far from being true in actuality.
>substance based ontologies can't resolve the problem of causation or the problem of the third man
Well, you can instead have a non-substance and non-process ontology instead which doesn’t face either problem. Not being a philosophy of substances it doesn’t have the above issue, not being a philosophy of reducing everything to an immanent process it doesn’t face have the problem of a regress, as an example of this you have Advaita which is superior and more logically refined than Buddhist ontologies and normal western ontologies.

>>20646023
>some (superior) philosophies reject both as inferior,
name one please

>>20645148
> all of this is false. the buddha never said contingent, he said conditioned. and he never said there is a point in time where something was not conditioned then conditioned, ie he never said there was a fall from a primordial heaven, contrary to judaic bugmen. The buddha never talked about why there is samsara rather than nothing. The only thing the buddha talks about is why samsara keeps on going.
I know, but later Buddhist philosophers give this explanations and its repeated by many modern Buddhists. And many of them choose to believe that this is what he intended to teach. Every time someone says “you dont need God or X to cause the universe/samara because of pratityasamutpada” it involves the implicit belief that Buddha actually taught it to be an ontological basis or cause that accounts for why there are embodied beings in the first place, instead of it merely being descriptive of how certain actions or thoughts cause harm etc in this life in a way that is observable. Because so many modern Buddhists believe it and also so many Buddhist philosophers, whether Buddha actually taught it isnt important for determining if the idea itself is illogical or not; and we certainly have reason to discuss it in the first place even if he never taught it; because it’s an idea that has become bound up with Buddhism over time; the funny thing is that this situation is exactly true with interpreting Buddha as teaching the non-existence of the Self, he never says that the Self does not exist anywhere in the Pali Canon.

>The buddha doesnt give a shit about why samsara was created in the first place, because his goal is to end suffering and knowing why samsara was created int he first place is utterly useless to reach this goal.
If you were in a vast intricate maze and somebody told you they knew a way out of the maze but they didn’t remember how you guys entered into the maze, would you trust them?

>go back to jerking over your retarded atheist turned muslism guénon crap
uh oh… someone knows a thing or two about eastern thought and they aren’t embarrassing themselves by slavishly simping for Buddhism… it must be one of those cursed guenonians!!!!

>>20646023
>as an example of this you have Advaita

advaita contradicts itself all the time,it's probably one of the most ilogical religions in india, the notion that maya is being and non-being at the same time or what is the same either being or non-being, which is like saying something can be neither a cat nor a non-cat breaks the law of non contradiction

also advaita don't resolve the problem of causation
or the problem of the third man

and Advaita is deffinetly a substance based ontology, since it proposes brahma as the first principle

also contingent means '' what may be or may not be'', ie the opposite of ''necessary''.

you guys should crack up some dictionary

>>20646062
>Because so many modern Buddhists believe it
like who?

>>20646023
>when you’re a sophist who wants to present his preferred form of sophism as a fait accompli
> because some (superior) philosophies reject both as inferior,


so who's really the sophist here bro?

>>20645289
> not on something else, but on everything else, that's why everythin gis necessary, if you take anything out, the whole thing cease to be what it is, every part of existence is necessary
This is like Huayan Buddhism but its not an idea of classical Madhyamaka. In the works of classical Indian Madhyamaka they only talk about specific phenomena being dependent on each other, they dont say objects relies on the totality of all other universal objects for its arising/being like an earth flower relying in some fashion upon some moon in another galaxy billions of light-years away.

To say that in an abstract general sense a whole depends on its parts or constituents being present in order to be the whole is basic logic

To say that the parts within phenomena or the universe depend on all of the parts within the totality of that phenomena/universe and that they also arise or have temporary being in dependence upon all of them is still illogical because you end up with an identical regress as before where none of them can arise and be the support of another at all. It’s like trying to build a house floating in mid-air and using nails and cement to connect it to other floating pieces of the same house in the air, in the hope that if you just connect it enough, that the house wont have to rest on the ground and it will just remain floating there on its own.

>>20646119
>where none of them can arise and be the support of another at all
again that already takes for granted that a trascendental substratum is necessary for a thing to exist, which can't be proven, so it's not really ilogical, just not in line with substance oriented ontologies, but a thing can clearly be supported by the thing that caues it, again a chair is caused by the process of transformation of a tree, you don't need anything else to explain it's existence
and trying to formulate a first principle, a substratum, leads to all kind of problems already mentioned, like the third man problem or the problem of causation, problems avdait never could really address, all it can do is that is in "god's nature" to exist oustide of such problems, but nontheless, the problems like the third man remains unsolved
all advaita can do is to say that all the problems are just an illusion, how we solve the problem of causation? change is just an illusion
how we solve the problem of the infnitie manifetstaion of substances?maya it's just an illusion
how can brahma cast an illusion into soemthing if he's the only thing that exist? he cast an illusion into another illusion(which would involve an infinite regress of illusion by the way XD)
this then bring another problem, if all forms of change and articulation are illusion how can you trust the gitas? which are also a mediation/articulation between the trascendental world and phenomena? no real solution either, just, it's achieved by "magical means" which then throws all pretense of logical thinking out the window
and if we follor advaita solution to the problem of change/unchange, which is that we really are awareness/brahma then we end up in solipsisims, since the only prove that something exist is awareness, and i'm only aware of myself, so i can't say that anyone else besdie sme really exist, not even the dudes who wrote the gitas, making the sacred text that tell me that brahma is awareness falsity, since they're part of the illusion, so by following advaita i end up arriving at the conclusion that advaita is false, since the gitas are part of the illusion they themselves condemn
advaita has no answer to any of this problems
and that's why a process ontology is better than a substance ontology, you don't end up with this many contradictions, and can actually explain the causes of phenomena instead of just saying it's all an illusion and you should have faith in an illogical first principle that contradict itself

advaita can't explain why illusion and karma were created in the first place

>>20646157
advaita can't explain anything, all it can do, is to say:"it's an illusion bro" or "it's part of brahma's nature bro"
that is the level of "metaphysics" used by the people who want a first principle
all they really want is a god so they won't be afraid of death, the moment you start asking questions about their "first principles" or"uncaused cause" they end up in pure mysticism

sneed

>>20645983
I accept your concession. I suppose the alternative is that not everything has a cause and therefore the all-powerful God is the cause of some things and not the others(?!?!?). That's even worse but not my problem

>>20645494
>>incorrect, according to Buddhists everything is contingent
>no, everything is conditioned, not contingent
Something that isn’t contingent is automatically independent in which case it has independent existence or svabhava in which case Nagarjuna and Madhyamaka are refuted. If you actually read Buddhist texts instead of larping and reading Buddhism through some Hegelian lenses you would know that Mahayana/Vajrayana generally denies that anything has independent (non-contingent) existence since that would refute the premise of sunyata.
>No it’s not, because nothing about the definition of “causer” means “itself caused”
>if the cause is not itself a cause how he can interact in the world of cause and effect?
This sentence makes no sense grammatically, did you mean to say “how can it be a cause if it isnt an effect?”; there are at least two possible answers to this, being that it either was the first cause i.e. the first link or the other main solution that the ultimate causal agent/basis is transcendent to time and the universe and is putting them into being constantly and timelessly or for all eternity, i.e. the basis of the chain is not another chainlink or the first one but is the altogether different basis that the beginningless chain rests upon and is sustained by.
>if the causer is not a cause he's out of the chain of causation
When the basis of the beginningless chain of causation like God, Brahman, Tao etc is not another chain but is the transcendent basis of the totality of the chain which the entire chain relies upon then yes the basis is not included in the chain itself, which would be a contradiction.
>at most it means the unbroken chain has a beginning
>if the chain has a beggining then the whole system of cause and effect hs no longer has concsitency, a new chain could appear anytime, since there's no logic to how cause can happen
First off that’s an illogical non-sequitur response; just because the chain hypothetically has a beginning doesn’t logically entail that it could randomly arise again at any point, there is no logical connection here that shows how one idea leads to another. The only reason why it arises in the first place is because of an independent non-contingent principle or God so in the absence of multiple of these there is no logical reason why another might arise as there is not another of the sole thing that was responsible for the arising of the previous chain.

Secondly, I dont subscribe to the “beginning of the chain” model so that’s not a problem for me, I subscribe to the “transcendent basis timelessly putting forth time/causal relations/the universe for all eternity” model which does not have that “”””issue””” which is really an unsubstantiated non-issue anyway (there are real issues with saying it begins in time which is why I dont accept it but what you said isnt one of them)

>>20645494
>but you can instead ground the chain of causation by having it be resting or anchored upon something above it that is atemporally acting as such a support from/for all eternity or from outside time.
>that would again be a contradiction in terms, since an unchanging thing would "produce change"
First off as I already pointed out the prior thing you erroneously alleged was a contradiction in terms was not one at all since “cause” does not have the meaning in English or any language of “effect”; this is also not a contradiction in terms either since there is no logical necessity that generated/producing/projecting something changing requires the transcendent basis to change; when God or Brahman is just eternally casting his power of generation/display in an unchanging manner, and then creatures and the universe spring into relative being directly from this energy, at no point does that require God to change, only the projected energies and its resultant products are changing here. Once again you are committing petito principii fallacy by asserting your own questionable non-proven metaphysical axioms as if they were self-evident truths that govern how language works.

>chain is not the breaking or damaging of it b
>ye sit is, because there's a cause that's no longer also an effect, thus the chain is no longer a chain, one of it's parts is no longe ra link
The thing in question (God/Brahman) is not a part of the chain to begin with so the chain is not broken by having it be not included in the chain so what you describe is merely your own error in incorrectly defining something and then the results of this incorrect understanding

>so the chian of causation no longer has logical validity, if a cause can be uncaused, then all causes can be uncaused
Incorrect, because the links within the chain are contingent and depend (are contingent) on something else; while the ultimate basis of the chain is independent, not contingent, unborn and eternal. Just because the ultimate basis of the chain is uncaused and eternal doesn’t mean that the links exist within the chain can also be so; by nature they cant since they depend on something else for their own being.

>a new chain can appear, the chain itself can end at any moment, posing a first link that is not like the rest of the links(uncause) means is no longer a chain, what's even worst, it never was a chain, causation thus can't be explained anymore
Positing an ultimate basis outside the chain and which isnt a part of the chain by which eternally puts it into relative being DOES explain causal relations and explains us being here; since its not a part of the chain at all its not “positing a first link thats not a part of the chain” again thats your own error of misdefinition; it’s not a part of the chain full stop but its what the chain is sustained by and what continuously and unchangingly puts forth the chain into relative being from the position of being itself transcendent.

>>20645494
>or its nature,
>this is a really cheap way of trying to solve the problem, since it no longers provide an explanation or even an answer, and just relly on dogma, what is worse
Wrong, saying its the nature of God is identifying the ultimate explanation as being God’s inherent uncreated nature, just because you disagree doesn't make this not an explanation.

>now you can't refute any buddhist point,
except that I can and often do

>since we can just use the same answer "it's in the nature of the dharma to be that way", you think that buddhist dharma leads to infinite regress? well is is reality's nature to be that way
You can choose to posit that it’s the nature of samsara/dharmas to be this way, but it involves an absurd infinite regress unlike my position and so your position is logically incoherent and self-refuting while mine isn’t. You may believe that reality/existence itself is completely incoherent and that logic useless but I disagree.

>they all spring from it directly
>that can't be the case becaus ethat would imply that we have direct access to the trascendnetal world, which again, that would no longer made it trascendental but phenomenical
No it doesn’t imply this, that’s a stupid response. Springing forth from the transcendent doesn’t imply that we have access to this as phenomenal/observable content because springing forth from or being generated by the power of the One doesn’t necessarily involve this process being accessible to our various means of knowledge like thought or the senses. You question retardedly presumes this process would be accessible to our means of knowledge.

>hat the power or energy or nature or activity or projection etc of the One or God has to be explained as being a substance
>what is it if not a substance?
a non-substantial energy; if you are not a substance ontology then there is no reason whatsoever to automatically accept that everything has to be considered a substance
>what this thing on itself could be if ot a substance?
a non-substantial contingent energy
>and how you can still need a first cause if you're no longer using a thing on itself?
When the basis of the chain is not a singular link in the chain, them it’s not a “first” temporal cause but is an atemporal ultimate metaphysical cause that grounds and permits for the apparent taking place of all temporality.

>>20645494
>That’s wrong, since this one specific criticism of Buddhism doesn’t involve making any claims or presuppositions about Advaita
>yes it does, because it presupouse a thing onitself, a first cause that can't be proven and is not self evident
No it doesn’t, that’s a flat-out lie that can’t be substantiated with the actual text; in the actual text he merely responds to what the Buddhist purvapaksin proposes by pointing out the inherent logical contradiction involved without making any claim or presumption about any first cause; Shankara doesn’t accept any ‘first cause’ within time anyway but the atemporal ultimate ‘basis’ type of cause that I have described in this thread.

Here is what he actually writes:


>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence?

>>20645494
As you can see, nothing in the above presupposes or mentions a “first cause” (which is rejected by Shankara as a wrong idea anyway) but its just examining the logical paradoxes in the model some Buddhists propose, so you are just straight-up lying
> so it s a petitio principii fallacy, Shankara is asking that a first cause be taken as a logical necessity to make his point valid
This is refuted above which shows you are a liar, as you’ve already shown in other threads before (to other anons watching, the ESL-poster who is obsessed with Hegel and Buddhism and who writes in awful English is a dishonest liar)


>>20645235 #
>Pointing out that contingency turns into an illogical and absurd regress that cannot account for or ground itself unless grounded in non-contingency is basic logic,
>ywa it ia, because Shankara just like you are confusing conditioned with contingent
No I’m not

>just as giving causation a substantial ontology,
Advaita isnt a substance ontology retard, they reject that model entirely, it’s a non-realist ontology.
>which can't be proved, thus a petitio principii fallacy
Its not asserted to begin with anon, that’s either your sophistic mischaracterization or you are embarrassing yourself by trying to argue against something you are horribly misinformed about

I don't understand how reaching the state of enlightenment doesn't lead one to reaching a similar state of atman-brahman realization. something like death and resurrection.

>>20645625
> >Not every ontology that posits a non-contingent basis of all contingency is a substance ontology
> name some of them then
Advaita Vedanta is a non-realist ontology that doesn’t classify things as consisting of different substances being related to each other or as permutations of the same substance; hence it’s not a substance ontology. It’s not a process or anti-foundationalist ontology either. Despite not being a substance ontological it posits the Atman-Brahman to be the ultimate non-contingent metaphysical principle grounding everything. I have not read Mulla Sadra but from what I understand he is not a substance ontologist either but he still nevertheless posits and ultimate non-contingent basis of everything in God.

>>20645784
> everyone knows that Hume already proven objective causation as false
Hume didnt prove shit; what you just said is Argumentum ad populum which is a fallacy; if he really proved anything you would just state his argument but you cant because he proves nothing.

>>20645735 #
>can only be accounted for in the first place via reference to either other contingency (which is absurd, illogical and results in a regress)
>again, in order for this to be true you need a thing on itself that works as a first cause
No that’s incorrect, it’s true either way regardless of whether you posit a first cause or any other numerous explanations for the universe; whatever explanation you posit does absolutely nothing to remove the paradoxical regress involved in attempting to ultimately ground contingency in more contingency, and this is because the regress has to do with the contingent facts themselves and not with whatever ultimate explanation is given for them, hence the ultimate explanation can change but the paradoxical regress remains unless all that is contingent is ultimately contingent upon something non-contingent.

>you're asking us to take for granted that a cause is needed to explain how a subject presupouse a cause
According to Buddhist logic that you dont even follow consistently its logically necessary that the subject apprehending an object is a contingent fact which itself presupposes a cause of itself because if nothing is needed for the subject to be present and know stuff then it has independent existence or svabhava and sunyata is false.

>“Contingent
>contingent means that is not necessary,
Wrong, contingent means to be in a state of dependence on something else. An ESL poster erroneously trying to state the meaning of English words is hilarious

> contingent
>adjective formal
>US /kənˈtJn.dʒənt/ UK /kənˈtJn.dʒənt/
>contingent on/upon something

>depending on something else in the future in order to happen:
>Outdoor activities are, as ever, contingent on the weather.
>Our success is contingent upon your support.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/contingent

using ‘contingent’ to mean ‘not necessary’ is a derivative, secondary usage of the term that only makes sense when the first actual meaning is presupposed, something ‘contingent’ is non-necessary only because that which is completely non-contingent i.e. that which has complete independence is naturally completely and fully necessary since there is no possibility of it relying on anything or otherwise failing to be actual.

>>20645784
>which isn't the case for subjectivity, since every aspect of experience needs subjectivity, sujbectivity is "neccesary" for conciousness to happen
Subjectivity can either be completely independent and not depending on anything else, in which case it has independent self-existence and sunyata and Nagarjuna are refuted (but even in this case the association of the independent subjectivity with contingent objects is itself a contingent fact that has to be accounted for via recourse to something non-contingent or it leads to a regress).

Or, the alternative is that you admit that subjectivity being present is a contingent fact presupposing a cause that itself presupposes something non-contingent unless you want to accept an illogical regress. Either option you choose results in your position being nonsense

>>20645829
> >the conditions permitting them to exist will never be fulfilled.
> that condition can only be possible if a thing on itself is posed, a thing can arise thank sto the movement/change of a previous thing a chair can be made thanks to a tree,and a tree can exist thanks to a seed from a previous tree
You dont understand the point being made; where there is a regress like this it actually rules out the possibility of there being a previous tree etc that can produce the present one so your response is totally invalid. Since the whole chain of them wont be present and exist at all if its not grounded in something, like trying to build a house floating in the air without it touching the ground, it all will just come crashing down instead and there will never be any previous tree etc to produce the present one at all. This remains true regardless of whether or not you accept ‘things in themselves’

>>20648000
>but is the altogether different basis that the beginningless chain rests upon and is sustained by.
this is a contradiciton in terms, if the chain rest upon sometihng else, then is no longer a chain
by deffinition a chain is a serie of logical links, if that which starts the chain doesn't posses the same logical structure(cause and effect), then it can't be part of the cain, since it can't be linked
you need to explain how sometihng that in the end is a different substance can interact with the chain

Flat Earth proves the Bible is true
https://pastebin.com/LJj0NA1E

>>20648036
>ultimate non-contingent metaphysical principle grounding everything
based and sunyata pilled

>>20644573
have you ever just wanted something mildly and casually without a hurry nor fear for not having it? now imagine your entire life is that

You people claim to be buddhists but forget about right speech and right thinking.
If you are aware that anons here do not want to criticize buddhism in good faith, then why do you argue?
if this is a source of frustration that goes nowhere, then you're doing it all for no worthy or sensible reason
let people say what they want about buddhism or about anything without a care while you just keep meditating
I hope anyone here that says to be a buddhist understands this message and takes action, close this tab, there's nothing good for you here

>>20648016
good question

>>20648223
>where there is a regress like this it actually rules out the possibility of there being a previous tree etc that can produce the present one so your response is totally invalid
that can only be the case if you take for granted that a trascendnetal substance is needed in order for things to "have being" but there's nothing that leads us to think that such a thing is a necessity
all a wooden chair needs to exist it's his causes, wood, a dude who made it ,etc i don't need a trascendental pricniple to explain why a chair exist, and suc ha trascendental principle bring a lot of metaphysical problems, liek the third man problem, or the problem of causation, so not only a first cause is not needed to explain a chair, a first cause/thing on itself/substratum ends up being problematic to explain being itself
>its not grounded in something
it's grounded on it's own identity

>>20645709
There is no A and B, yet we can perceive A and B due to the difference we posit in the act naming and moving from one abstraction level to another. It should be obvious substances can't arise dependently, but then again buddhism denies substances. Anything that you can name is not it, but what you see or name is part of a chain of dependent co-arising, involving your perception, which is completely contingent on positing distinct things such that you could imagine As and Bs. It's like you didn't read the latter part of my post at all.

>>20645709
more explanation...
To separate A, you need to posit B, that's already the first contingency that destroys any substantiality but moreover, to posit separation of A from B you need to posit a third something...You can only posit "things" with a limited framework like that, never as something inherently existent

>>20648223
>You dont understand the point being made
i think you're the one missing the point, how do you know that, a substance outside of cause and effect is needed in the first place?
>This remains true regardless of whether or not you accept ‘things in themselves’
not really, because cause and effect are enough to grant phenomenical objects it's identity, infinte regress is only a problem if it leads me to a loss of identity or meaning, which is not the case here, since all thigns have a functional identity(dharma)
so if you want infinite regress to be a problem then you need "a thing on istefl" that grants "being" to things, outside of cause and effect, the moemnt you replace a thing on tiself with a ontology of process that give being to things with their relationships,then infinite regress stop being a problem