Materialists in Eastern Religion Threads

[Anonymous No.13428875]

Why do the Hindus and Vedantins on this board get to have such comfy discussion without the interference of materialists? It seems like Hindus get to have threads on /lit/ where the materialists stay out and everyone accepts or at least doesn't outright deny things like reincarnation, subtle bodies, pranayama....etc, whereas every Buddhism thread is flooded with people who lose their shit at something like "The mind is the forerunner of all things," let alone something like rebirth or karma.
Why are materialists so interested in engaging in debate with Buddhism as if it isn't a religion with mystical aspects contradictory to materialism? What causes them to approach Buddhism as some sort of secular humanist philosophy based in Cartesian rationalism, and then hurl insults when they're disappointed that it isn't that?

[Anonymous No.13428883]

>>13428875
>What causes them to approach Buddhism as some sort of secular humanist philosophy based in Cartesian rationalism
How else would it have become popular among westerners in the first place without innumerable books and people promoting it as such, lmao

[Anonymous No.13428892]

When can we start rounding up materialists into camps to be exterminated?

[Anonymous No.13428908]

>>13428883
Even from a Buddhist perspective there is a lot of merit in spreading the Dhamma but imo if it is in a totally corrupted manner like the McMindfulness trend, I think it's kind of fruitless and if anything detrimental to the possibility of people genuinely and meaningfully delving into the religion.
I suppose that it wasn't Buddhists from the East who spread this Western interpretation of it, but probably the people trying to make money off of "10 Steps to Awakening," or "Why Science Proves Meditation is Real" books. Maybe Schopenhauer and Nietzsche for spreading the "Buddhism is life-denying/nihilistic" thing too.
Pretty rough desu

[Anonymous No.13428924]

>>13428875
I'm a materialist and there's no evidence for any supernatural claims of Buddhism either
>>13428892
you can't exterminate me its not good for your "soul" lel

[Anonymous No.13428934]

>>13428875
Just adding this in early in the thread btw:
Buddhism not being materialist does not necessarily mean it taught of a True Self or of Brahman. In its earliest form it taught neither.
It is mystical, has mystical elements, a cosmology full of heavens and hells and ghosts and demon-like beings and gods, but it has a different ontology from religions that propose a soul/substance.
Buddhism is opposed to objectification.
Not being, not non-being. Not existence, not non-existence.
Not no-self, not True-Self, but Not-Self.

[Anonymous No.13428957]

>>13428924
where's the evidence for materialism

[Anonymous No.13428958]

>>13428924
>I'm a materialist and there's no evidence for any supernatural claims of Buddhism either
What do you mean "either?" Did you interpret my OP to mean "there is no proof for Hindu supernatural claims but there is proof for Buddhist claims"? That is not what I meant at all.
I was just asking why materialists go all out in Buddhist threads expecting it to be devoid of anything "supernatural," while happily letting the Hindus be because they can accept that Hinduism is a religion, but for some reason not Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13428977]

>>13428875
Though I haven't seen it here per se, what you describe could simply be the fact that Buddhism somehow unfortunately became the modern West's simultaneous antidote to Christianity and atheism, whereby a faith could be followed which did not contain the same errors as belonging to the rest. Unfortunately, this viewpoint was itself incorrect, born of the selfish desires modern Westerners held for the religion to be, and not what it happened to actually be itself. Hinduism, despite being imported too, somehow retained it's exotic flavor and supernatural aspects, perhaps because deities are central to it's fabric whereas Buddhism was born out of the very rejection of these dimensions, but regardless Buddhism became seen as a mindfulness practice and not a traditional faith with its own cosmology, metaphysics and otherwise, nothing of which aligns with that of current scientific materialism.
It's unfortunate, really, because I think Buddhism is extremely rational even within the range of supernatural beliefs it posits, and that it offers the perfect escape from both theistic supernaturalism and scientific naturalism, and if it had been embraced for it's true character, could actually improve the state of modern culture from the opposing dregs we find ourselves being pulled between. Instead, it's lost the essence it truly possessed, by virtue of the space Westerners sought to place it in - leaving scientific materialism in place, neuroscientific supremacy to continue it's reign, conversations on reality's nature to remain as stilted as ever, capitalism and consumerism as forceful and mindless as can be (albeit mindfulness is ironically one of the products being sold by it now), and our culture having barely evolved to a more open-minded vantage on reality.

It's funny because Remote Viewing has support for itself within something like the Stargate Project, and Buddhism explicitly mentions remote viewing within it's original teachings on siddhi's, yet despite this convergence of ancient proposition and modern discovery, people continue to attempt to strip Buddhism's validity where extrasensory realities are concerned. Heck, Ian Stevenson has compiled a large list of cases where the birthmarks of living individuals can be traced to death-wounds on previously deceased persons which they claimed to have remember being in their past life - thus perfectly fitting the concept of karma and rebirth, and lending us a new realm to explore regarding whether modern biological defects (for which medical science still has no clue as to the actual causes for, only the existence of and treatment for) could be prompted by sources beyond even our present lifetimes, contingent on past events. And if you've properly read into stories regarding DMT, of the hyperspace and the "entities" described as encountered there, then the concept of higher realms and higher beings does not seem implausible at all either.

[Anonymous No.13428988]

>>13428924
>I'm a materialist
Kill yourself, bugman

[Anonymous No.13428994]

>>13428977
Very weird that a religion devoted to transcending the mortal coil, dropping attachment to sensuality and worldly things, has had its essence sucked out of it and been turned into a self-improvement tool to help you be more efficient in making money at the office and keeping up with the Jones' (in the West at least).

[Anonymous No.13428998]

>>13428957
OOOF

[Anonymous No.13429007]

>>13428892
Don't ever say this, even jokingly. I've seen you in other threads too. Please stop, anon. Very toxic sentiments here. Everyone can hold different metaphysical beliefs, so long as we embody kindness towards others.

[Anonymous No.13429019]

>>13428957
There is evidence for matter itself, but not something beyond it
>>13428988
>name calling and telling people to kill themselves without thinking of karmic consequences or sin
you see, you're just like me

[Anonymous No.13429030]

>>13428892
social media and pop culture has replaced god in the west and now people's lifelong values are informed by animalistic and hedonistic pursuit of status, carnal pleasure, wealth and power
atheshits thought the west could survive the loss of god cause "lol just be a good person bro its called being a decent person just dont be a dick" is supposed to be enough to serve as a strong fundamental value structure as the social fabric collapses and the youth of north america and europe falls en masse into existential confusion, depression and addiction

[Anonymous No.13429031]

Where can I find a repository of the works of Adi Shankaracharya in English?

[Anonymous No.13429032]

>>13429019
>There is evidence for matter itself, but not something beyond it
This is not positive evidence for materialism. Generally, no evidence that X is true does not mean X is false.

[Anonymous No.13429042]

>>13429031
there's probably resources in the Traditionalism thread that's up right now

[Anonymous No.13429058]

>>13429030
talking about the necessity for God in order to maintain principles among people - in a thread about Buddhism, which espouses the very opposite of such viewpoints - is never a good look

[Anonymous No.13429073]

>>13429032
Another way of saying it: "there being no reason to believe X does not mean you should not believe X." Which is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.13429079]

>>13429031
>Prasthanatrayi commentaries
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf
https://archive.org/details/Shankara.Bhashya-Chandogya.Upanishad-Ganganath.Jha.1942.English
https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraSankaraBhashyaEnglishTranslationVasudeoMahadeoApte1960
https://archive.org/details/BrahmaSutraSankaraBhashyaEngVMApte1960
https://archive.org/details/Bhagavad-Gita.with.the.Commentary.of.Sri.Shankaracharya

>non-commentary works
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-Upadeshasahasri%20-%20Swami%20Jagadananda%20%281949%29%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf
https://gita-society.com/pdf2011/vivekachudamani.pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Sri_Shankaracharya-AtmaBodha%20%28and%20Other%20Stotras%29%20-%20Swami%20Nikhilananda%20%281947%29%20[Sanskrit-English].pdf
http://estudantedavedanta.net/Aparoksha-Anubhuti-by-Sri-Shankaracharya.pdf
https://www.swamij.com/shankara-vakya-vritti.htm
http://shiningworld.com/site/files/pdfs/publications/books/1_Knowledge_of_Truth_Tattva_Bodh.pdf
http://www.vidyavrikshah.org/SIVANANDALAHARI.pdf
http://www.vidyavrikshah.org/SOUNDARYALAHARI.pdf
http://theheartofthesun.com/Nirvana.pdf
http://jagannathavallabha.com/pdf_engl/prasnottara%20english%20for%20amazon.pdf

[Anonymous No.13429085]

>>13429073
"Not believing X" is not equivalent to believing "X is false."

[Anonymous No.13429097]

>>13429058
not the necessity god, it just so happens that god was the foundation for the West's value structure for so long.
It's moreso about the necessity of a strong and traditional value structure, which materialism and scientism cannot provide.

[Anonymous No.13429101]

>>13429097
*necessity of god

[Anonymous No.13429110]

>>13429097
oh, that's fair. yeah, west's cultural ethos has been very different from that of the east, and needs time to restore itself to a better shape

[Anonymous No.13429115]

>>13429079
Thanks again anon, you beautiful man of devotion

[Anonymous No.13429132]

>>13429085
So I have to actively believe X is false to be a materialist? I can only be a materialist until someone provides evidence to the contrary

[Anonymous No.13429143]

>>13429132
How is materialism the default? You have no idea if what you perceive is even a remotely accurate representation of any 'objective reality' apart from your perception, let alone any means of understanding the fundamental substance of existence.

[Anonymous No.13429170]

>>13429143
if I saw evidence to support the notion that what I perceive is a lie then I would reconsider what I see based on that evidence, otherwise I turn my back on that which I cannot know

[Anonymous No.13429172]

>>13429132
The only way Y (materialism) is true is if X (metaphysical reality) is false.

The default belief would be neither believing X is true nor false. Y requires evidence of it's own rather than "there is no evidence for X".

[Anonymous No.13429189]

>>13429170
>otherwise I turn my back on that which I cannot know
And you cannot know if what you perceive is the truth, just as much as you do not know if it is a lie. You have as much reason to believe it is a lie as you have to believe it is the truth. You are bound by your subjective perception, and cannot perceive outside of that to get any sort of "objective" view of things.
The answer is the end of objectification, friend. Substance metaphysics is just a big jerkoff session, nobody can say they know fuck all about "objective reality" - yet materialists do exactly that.

[Anonymous No.13429259]

>>13429189
if everything I perceive is a lie then that lie is matter, but it's such a good lie that there's no escaping it, since there is no indication of anything beyond it

[Anonymous No.13429273]

>>13429259
You've still offered no evidence in favor of materialism.

[Anonymous No.13429298]

>>13429273
well we know we're made up of matter, don't we?

[Anonymous No.13429334]

>>13429298
We experience through sense perception, bodies made up of matter. This is still in the realm of subjective sense perception, not objective reality apart from it. If you are only arguing that we experience our physical bodies as being made up of matter, and are not arguing that matter is the fundamental substance of objective reality, then you are not a materialist.

[Anonymous No.13429381]

>>13429334
>and are not arguing that matter is the fundamental substance of objective reality
do you not believe in matter?

[Anonymous No.13429387]

Didn't Plato already prove the immortality of the soul? What is up to discuss?

[Anonymous No.13429467]

>>13428988
If you live in modern society, then you're a materialist.

[Anonymous No.13429486]

>>13429334
Jumping off the roof of a tall building would be a simple litmus test to prove whatever supernatural nonsense you believe in. After landing on the ground, if you see your own body while floating in midair, then congrats.

[Anonymous No.13430612]

>>13429381
I believe in matter as something that makes of our subjective world as we experience it. Whether it exists or not outside of perception as some sort of objectively existing material - I cannot say one way or another.

[Anonymous No.13430624]

>>13429486
That was totally in bad faith. I am merely making a very basic epistemological argument here.
>Furthermore, Quantum physics leaves us with a rather large open question. What is reality? The Copenhagen interpretation attempts to solve this problem by saying that reality is what is measured.
>However the measuring device itself is then not real until it is measured. The problem which is known as the measurement problem is, when does the cycle stop?

[Anonymous No.13430697]

>>13429486
>Anyone who doesn't have faith in materialist metaphysics must inherently believe in stupid shit like flying out of a window
You guys are worse than Christians sometimes

[Anonymous No.13430784]

>>13430612
there's the truth of what you experience and the information from the outside world and then there's the possibility that it all might be a lie so that makes it a 50/50 in your mind?

[Anonymous No.13430790]

>>13430784
>there's the truth of what you experience
yup
>and the information from the outside world
nope
All we know is experience, we know nothing outside of it. Materialism is asserting something outside of the realm of experience - the substance of what makes out objective reality independent of experience.

[Anonymous No.13430791]

>>13429387
Do you believe in samsara?

[Anonymous No.13430805]

>>13430790
do you experience anything beyond the material?

[Anonymous No.13430831]

>>13430805
Yea I've experienced some pretty "supernatural" meditative states, visions, OBE-type stuff.
I'm not saying it's indicative of a soul or something like that, but they are experiences nonetheless. I don't assign any metaphysical value to them though as if they indicate anything about objective reality outside of immediate experience.

[Anonymous No.13430869]

>>13430831
>I don't assign any metaphysical value to them though as if they indicate anything about objective reality outside of immediate experience.
Wouldn't verifying OBE experimentally give you unequivocal proof of that which is beyond the material?

[Anonymous No.13430944]

>>13430869
No, it's just a subjective experience. It is proof that there can be immaterial experiences, sure, but not necessarily that anything can be said about the ontological status of the immaterial. It holds no indication of "objective reality" just as much as experiences of the material are no indication of 'objective reality.'
Are you familiar with the proposition that everything we know is limited by our subjective sensory experience, and that true 'objectivity' outside of that is impossible?

[Anonymous No.13430983]

>>13430944
>No, it's just a subjective experience.
It would be fucking huge and I wouldn't be a materialist anymore.
>It is proof that there can be immaterial experiences
there is no proof for immaterial experiences and you will never be able to provide that proof, this is an objective fact of reality from which you cannot escape. Go ahead, remote-view me.
> It holds no indication of "objective reality" just as much as experiences of the material are no indication of 'objective reality.'
But your whole experience of subjective reality would change as much as it's possible for it to change. The whole pretense that it wouldn't change anything or that it's unimportant is childlike

[Anonymous No.13430999]

>>13430983
Stuff like OBEs, Jhanas, Astral projection...etc are well documented. The reason they're not huge is because materialists still have the argument that they are just hallucinations caused by the interaction of chemicals in the physical brain - ie an interpretation of the metaphysical and substantial basis behind them (just as an eternalist might say that astral projection is the soul leaving the body to wander). They are experienced as immaterial, whether they are proof of the ontological status of some kind of immaterial substance in objective reality is unknowable though.

[Anonymous No.13431035]

>>13430999
>Stuff like OBEs, Jhanas, Astral projection...etc are well documented. The reason they're not huge is because materialists still have the argument that they are just hallucinations caused by the interaction of chemicals in the physical brain
Because no one is coming up with any verifiable evidence that it isn't. No one is coming up with any results in a lab setting because there's a big Jewish conspiracy to cover it up, is there?

[Anonymous No.13431110]

>>13431035
Jhanas and OBEs may correspond to certain chemical interactions in the brain, but that does not mean that they are caused by them, just as the fact that all correspondence between neuro-chemistry and any experience at all is no indication of the actual cause of consciousness, which any such scientific studies are limited by and contained within.
>>13430624
>>Furthermore, Quantum physics leaves us with a rather large open question. What is reality? The Copenhagen interpretation attempts to solve this problem by saying that reality is what is measured.
>>However the measuring device itself is then not real until it is measured. The problem which is known as the measurement problem is, when does the cycle stop?
So,
>no one is coming up with any verifiable evidence that it isn't
No one is coming up with any verifiable proof that it is, either. Where is your proof that matter, which is only experienced as an extension of sense-experience and consciousness, is truly the fundamental substance that gives rise to and precedes consciousness? This is metaphysical dogma, you're taking materialism as a given. Which is why in the last two posts I've made, I have repeatedly made it clear that such supernatural experiences can only be said to be that - experiences, with no indication of objective reality, the fundamental substance (material or otherwise) of reality.

[Anonymous No.13431140]

>>13428875
Buddhism is more popular than lobsters gods in the west, and most /lit/ """""hindus""""" are just pretendious neomystics with a very fast and loose relantionship with hinduism proper. Of course, the general butthurt agaisnt materialism and its general boogeyman status is really funny, especially since most hindus proper quickly engage in hedonism and decadence when they have the material resources to do so.

[Anonymous No.13431201]

>>13431110
you never being able to remote view any materialists on this board until the day you die is an objective fact of reality

[Anonymous No.13431207]

>>13431201
That has nothing to do with anything I said.

[Anonymous No.13431211]

>>13428892
If you want to kill people who just believe what they can see/measure you need to seek help. Most people have lost spirituality, not their fault but their leaders'.

[Anonymous No.13431238]

>>13431207
it proves the power of materialism, experienced materialists have siddhis with which they can predict the future

[Anonymous No.13431239]

>>13431201
You seem to be arguing against the view of "mystical experiences disprove materialism" when the argument is actually "basic epistemology shows that materialism is an unverifiable metaphysical assumption"

[Anonymous No.13431251]

>>13431239
then why bring up OBEs

[Anonymous No.13431252]

>>13431238

[Anonymous No.13431260]

>>13431140
>especially since most hindus proper quickly engage in hedonism and decadence when they have the material resources to do so.

[Anonymous No.13431261]

>>13431251
You/he brought it up, not me:
>>13430805
And I said
>>13430831
>Yea
>m not saying it's indicative of a soul or something like that, but they are experiences nonetheless. I don't assign any metaphysical value to them though as if they indicate anything about objective reality outside of immediate experience.
>>>13430944
>it's just a subjective experience. It is proof that there can be immaterial experiences, sure, but not necessarily that anything can be said about the ontological status of the immaterial. It holds no indication of "objective reality" just as much as experiences of the material are no indication of 'objective reality.'

[GOD No.13431269]

Hard this

[Anonymous No.13431302]

>>13431261
>It is proof that there can be immaterial experiences
where is that proof?

[Anonymous No.13431336]

>>13431302
The endless reports, documentation and studies of OBEs, Jhanas...etc
By immaterial I meant experiences as immaterial, ie to the individual experiencing it, these experiences are perceived as distinct from normal physical experiences in the same way that the experience of body feels distinct from experience of mind.
Whether it proves anything about an immaterial substance is pointless to even suggest, though, as I said here:
>>13430999
>Stuff like OBEs, Jhanas, Astral projection...etc are well documented. The reason they're not huge is because materialists still have the argument that they are just hallucinations caused by the interaction of chemicals in the physical brain - ie an interpretation of the metaphysical and substantial basis behind them (just as an eternalist might say that astral projection is the soul leaving the body to wander). They are experienced as immaterial, whether they are proof of the ontological status of some kind of immaterial substance in objective reality is unknowable though.
>>13431110
>Which is why in the last two posts I've made, I have repeatedly made it clear that such supernatural experiences can only be said to be that - experiences, with no indication of objective reality, the fundamental substance (material or otherwise) of reality.

[Anonymous No.13431362]

>>13431302
Also the point in bringing up mystical experiences is to point out that in fact, experiences that appear subjectively to not be of physical causes are a part of life, and to say "well there's no such experiences in life that aren't physical/experienced as contained within the body, therefore there is no reason to believe that there is anything more than the physical in objective reality and therefore materialism is a reasonable assumption" is inaccurate.
But then if it is mentioned that these experiences do occur and are a part of life, the argument shifts to "but those are just hallucinations caused by chemicals in the brain" and we're back to square one, arguing about epistemology and the measurement problem.

[Anonymous No.13431376]

>>13431336
>By immaterial I meant experiences as immaterial, ie to the individual experiencing it
in other words they have no measurable value in the material world and do not suggest existence of the immaterial
>Whether it proves anything about an immaterial substance is pointless to even suggest
Remember older siddhis included levitation, teleportation, healing, walking on water, changing one's size. Materialist warlocks have made all those disappear.

[Anonymous No.13431382]

>>13431362
>and we're back to square one, arguing about epistemology and the measurement problem. All experience seems to correspond with neuro-chemistry. as mentioned here:
>>13431110
>Jhanas and OBEs may correspond to certain chemical interactions in the brain, but that does not mean that they are caused by them, just as the fact that all correspondence between neuro-chemistry and any experience at all is no indication of the actual cause of consciousness, which any such scientific studies are limited by and contained within.

[Anonymous No.13431390]

>>13431376
>in other words they have no measurable value in the material world and do not suggest existence of the immaterial
Yes but in the exact same way, experiences of materiality do not suggest existence of the objective material world independent of perception, all it suggests is experience.

[Anonymous No.13431422]

>>13428977
>lending us a new realm to explore regarding whether modern biological defects (for which medical science still has no clue as to the actual causes for, only the existence of and treatment for)

uh... genetics?

[Anonymous No.13431470]

>>13431390
the question is which one has a stronger case in your subjective experience? Is it 50/50 for you?

[Anonymous No.13431502]

>>13431362
>arguing about epistemology and the measurement problem.
this is because the idea of proof is an idea popularized by rationalists, so it does not apply outside their methods and even in their dogmas, there is nothing which says what is a proof and what is not a proof

[Anonymous No.13431505]

>>13431470
what do abilities have to do with the experiential validity of immaterial experiences? People have them regardless of any magical abilities.
But also
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-study-confirms-tibetan-monks-can-raise-body-temperature-with-their-minds/

[Anonymous No.13431534]

>>13431505
>what do abilities have to do with the experiential validity of immaterial experiences?
lol, I think this is a good place to end it

[Anonymous No.13431552]

>>13431534
Mysticism is more than superpowers

[Anonymous No.13431654]

>>13431260
200GB! How long are those 3 videos and are they all shot in 4k?

[Anonymous No.13431768]

>>13431534
Hindus (and certain indian sects of buddhism) have to include the superpowers in order to sell their religion to the masses.
The only "superpower" of buddhism is familiarity and control of the body and mind, including the unconscious and something approximating the "collective unconscious"
The latter's where I'm pretty sure most "supernatural" experiences such as that anon's come from. No he can't float out and remote view you, but he can do something approximating isolating his consciousness from his body. So he isn't seated in his head, but in the abstract
Is this "immaterial?" Almost certainly not, and it has a material correlate in the firing of your brain, but it is still a useful skill nonetheless. You should think of buddhism as more of a technique you can practice rather than a philosophy. The philosophy's helpful, but the point is to experience it first hand, which is certainly attainable

[Anonymous No.13431804]

>>13429007
>toxic

[Anonymous No.13431853]

>>13431768
>Hindus (and certain indian sects of buddhism) have to include the superpowers in order to sell their religion to the masses.
Completely wrong, the vast majority of Hindus go about their day without caring or thinking about developing siddhi powers, some of the most influential Hindu thinkers such as Shankara and others acknowledged them while saying that they were distractions and potential pitfalls in the spiritual path and were best avoided except in the case of unintentional and accidental manifestations of one's spiritual progress.
>The only "superpower" of buddhism is familiarity and control of the body and mind,
Are you forgetting the part where Buddha claimed to remember his past lives? lol

[Anonymous No.13431857]

>>13431853
Pretty sure you're talking to one of the materialist "Buddhists" as described in the OP

[Anonymous No.13432004]

>>13431853
>Are you forgetting the part where Buddha claimed to remember his past lives?
Maybe try not bringing your biblical literalism into every other religion you encounter

>>13431857
Yes, what's the problem? Are you worried the bugmen are coming to take your occult powers away without having to larp mystic?

I don't see any reason it should be impossible to reconcile the more "mystical" aspects of human consciousness with physicalism

[Anonymous No.13432022]

>>13432004
>Maybe try not bringing your biblical literalism into every other religion you encounter
It is always amusing to watch western buddhists projecting their dislike of Christianity onto Hinduism, some things never change

[Anonymous No.13432080]

>>13432022
Lol I like christianity a lot but the brainless take that is biblical literalism was probably the biggest factor in turning you Americans from christians into atheists within a couple generations.
Sacrificing your kid cos God told you to - symbolically true, literally schizo

[Anonymous No.13432084]

why did asian materialistic schools of thought always got butchered out of existence?

[Anonymous No.13432122]

>>13432084
because usually they realize that materialism is bullshit and move on to better things

[Anonymous No.13432153]

>>13432004
>I don't see any reason it should be impossible to reconcile the more "mystical" aspects of human consciousness with physicalism
That's not even the irreconcilable part. It's more about the ontological and epistemological philosophies of Buddhism. Materialism and physicalism is absolutely incompatible with Emptiness, with the cessation of objectification that is Nirvana. Objectifying things of sensory experience or believing in metaphysical abstractions about substance contingent on attachment to transitory experience is antithetical to the enlightened or Nirvanic state, which consists of no such objectification.

[Anonymous No.13432465]

>>13432153
>Materialism and physicalism is absolutely incompatible with Emptiness
Is that so? I don't see materialism claiming to have put a lid over all of nature. The scientific method is to try to shatter all the Forms you propose. Especially at the frontiers, but even our axioms have the potential to be shattered one day due to physical workings beyond our understanding.
Is this moving the goalposts? To say that everything that was immaterial becomes material as soon as it manifests material phenomena
I thought nirvana was the cessation of involuntary attachments, not an altogether rejection of the possibility of Forms. Even if the forms contain emptiness, they are nonetheless forms, no?

[Anonymous No.13432575]

>>13432465
Buddhism doesn't reject the sciences as a means of understanding the physical world we experience, but adopting materialism as a substance metaphysics is in direct opposition to Nirvana.
>To say that everything that was immaterial becomes material as soon as it manifests material phenomena
That's not the case. Buddhism doesn't teach of an immaterial substance or of anything manifesting into materiality. Just because Buddhism isn't materialist doesn't mean it is idealist. It rejects all substance metaphysics. Nirvana is the cessation of all fabrications, and that includes the fabricated mental abstractions of substance metaphysics (which materialism counts as)

[Anonymous No.13432650]

>>13432575
>B-BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT SAM HARRIS SAYS?!??!!! I THOUGHT BUDDHISM WAS TOTALLY JUST LIKE SCIENCE AND EMPIRICISM?!?

[Anonymous No.13432772]

>>13432575
That's very fair. My misunderstanding of materialism then.
>adopting materialism as a substance metaphysics
Would certainly not make any positive claims of the sort, given how little we know of even our observable physics.

[Anonymous No.13433059]

>>13428892
I'm okay with materialists. They just haven't questioned the status quo yet. But it just amazes me that people who study philosophy and metaphysics can still be materialists after their studies, like how autistic can you be? I think it's because they actually fear the idea of a meaningful universe and get comfort from lovecraftian horror the same way fundamentalist religious folks get comfort from the idea of an afterlife.