/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17608545]

Ok I've realised that all phenomena and entities are empty because of their conditional dependence and this emptiness is not in itself a thing, nor the assertion of nonexistence but more of a recognition of the indeterminate and superfluous nature of things.

Now what do I do?

[Anonymous No.17608558]

>>17608545
Wrong, Plato and Heidegger know full well emptiness and nothingness is a thing.

Eastern religions are good for determining an experience, experience, but they're not as true articulated truth.

[Anonymous No.17608561]

>>17608545
extinguish

[Anonymous No.17608568]

>>17608545
Learn to enjoy the surface devoid of the agalma

[Anonymous No.17608583]

>Now what do I do?
You sit back and ask yourself "where does all this dependence arise from and depend upon for its own existence as a dependent thing?"

Then you realize "Actually, this cannot even arise and exist as such because if dependent things only have other dependent things it can rely upon for its own existence and dependence, none of the dependent things are sufficient to account for the existence of the total set of dependent things as a whole and so it leads to an unresolved infinite regress concerning what permits these dependent things to exist at all" which reveals that the notion of the interdependence and emptiness of everything is thus a false doctrine.

Then you move on to reading more logically-consistent metaphysics and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17608609]

>>17608558
I've dropped buddhism because it felt insubstantial, is Plato the next step towards true understanding?

[Anonymous No.17608636]

>>17608558
reifying emptiness is akin to going to an shop with nothing on the shelves and asking the shopkeeper if you can buy some emptiness.

It's clearly not an existent thing.
>>17608561
how?
>>17608568
huh?
>>17608583
>where does all this dependence arise from and depend upon for its own existence as a dependent thing
oh that's easy.
the seer depends on sight and seen object for its apparent existence
the seen object dependends on sight and the seer for its apparent existence
sight exists on seer and seen objects for its apparent existence.

none have an independent existence and all their apparent existences are fairly superfluous and circular as shown here.

yeah like you say here:
>none of the dependent things are sufficient to account for the existence of the total set of dependent things as a whole and so it leads to an unresolved infinite regress concerning what permits these dependent things to exist at all

there is no underlying dependent thing that acts as a substrate for all of them, they all just work as a web to support each other but are all in of themselves empty as are the apparent linkages supporting each other.
>infinite regress
well more of a circular relationship, which goes to show that the relatinship is essentally unfounded which is the point of emptiness.

things are in an indeterminate state of emptiness where they neither exist nor don't exist.

[Anonymous No.17608637]

>>17608545
you got it all wrong firend

all phenomena and entities are CREATED BY their conditional dependence. they are empty in content yes, but through their inseperable nature within that dependence, they actualize and coexist in a state of ever-becoming. this becoming is what we call a "thing", not any sort of substance or content. in a way this IS substance and content

[Anonymous No.17608646]

>>17608609
>buddhism because it felt insubstantial
it is insubstantial. that's the point there is no substances. things only apper to exist in conditional dependence on one another.

[Anonymous No.17608659]

>>17608609
>is Plato the next step towards true understanding?
Yes, you'll probably semi-come back to Buddhism when you realise the place of Pathos (or Paschein) in life (which Christianity took up for 1500 years in the West, as a religious mystery), but Plato will last you forever. His early philosophy is great, his middle philosophy is greater, but his late philosophy blows the doors open and nothing has gone beyond it in philosophy. Even Heidegger, who was such a critique of Plato, said that he was able to start a new beginning in his late philosophy.

Incredibly hard though.

[Anonymous No.17608667]

>>17608636
>reifying emptiness is akin to going to an shop with nothing on the shelves and asking the shopkeeper if you can buy some emptiness.
Stupid comparison, it's not a "thing," it's a no-thing. Or do you think there isn't no-thing in this world?

[Anonymous No.17608679]

>>17608637
>inseparable nature within that dependence, they actualize and coexist in a state of ever-becoming
see that's where you're wrong friendo.

as soon as you take away the conditions for a thing's apparent existence, it no longer effectively exists as that thing.

here's a good example.
me looking at an apple at 3:30. this is a phenomena.
as soon as a i look away, or the apple falls or the clock changes or i am blinded or something blocks me. the conditions that lead to the apparent phenomena are no longer there and that phenomena and the things therein are no longer there.

me as an apple seer at 3:30 is gone
the apple as being seen at 3:30 by me is gne
3:30 as being a time when i see an apple is gone.

[Anonymous No.17608727]

>>17608636
>the seer depends on sight and seen object for its apparent existence
>the seen object dependends on sight and the seer for its apparent existence
How can that be true when we still exist as intelligent beings when we close our eyes and don't have sight or seen object? Moreover, if there isn't a seer to begin with who can see, then it cannot even see the vision of the object to begin with which generates the seer, since for this to occur would already presuppose an existing seer who sees those objects. That leads to another unresolved regress.
>are fairly superfluous and circular as shown here.
What do you mean? It leads to an immediate and obvious contradiction
>there is no underlying dependent thing that acts as a substrate for all of them, they all just work as a web to support each other but are all in of themselves empty as are the apparent linkages supporting each other.
But since none of them are admitted as uncaused or self-caused, a cause for the web and its linkages must be established, but nothing inside the web is sufficient to account for the fact of the webs existence itself, but the Buddhist cannot admit anything outside of the web which causes it, so the Buddhist is left with a unresolved infinite regress and a big gaping hole when trying to explain what permits there to be a dependently-existing web in the first place.
>well more of a circular relationship, which goes to show that the relatinship is essentally unfounded which is the point of emptiness.
No, it is an infinite regress, because in asking how the dependent things have the degree of existence that they possess, one gets misdirected back to the previous thing, and so on ad infinitum, but there is never any factor admitted which would provide a way for the whole gamut of dependent things to themselves exist as a collective of dependent things.

[Anonymous No.17608748]

>>17608727
>ow can that be true when we still exist as intelligent beings when we close our eyes and don't have sight or seen object?
then the seer doesn't exist anymore does it?
>Moreover, if there isn't a seer to begin with who can see, then it cannot even see the vision of the object to begin with which generates the seer, since for this to occur would already presuppose an existing seer who sees those objects
no because why would a seer be able to see before having sight or an object to see?

it's like fuel and fire.
either one precedes the other (which makes no sense because fuel is only fuel by virtue of giving rise to fire, but fire only arises where there s fuel) or they are unrelated but just happen to simultaneously coincide (Which is nonsense).
they coudl be ne and the same (which is a bit weird that we call them two different things)
or they can be as you point out, conditionally dependent.

[Anonymous No.17608782]

>>17608727
>What do you mean? It leads to an immediate and obvious contradiction
what contradiction?
>the web's existence itself
is no different to the rest of the web. just as fire is dependent on fuel, so too are all conditionally dependent phenomena dependent on other conditionally dependnet phenomena.
in this sense they are all empty (devoid of self establishment).
>anything outside the web
the web explains itself.
seer requires sight and object
object requires sight and seer
sight requires seer and object.
that is the web, complete and it's completely empty.
>infinite regress
exactly, when you seek self establishment but you analyse properly you find none. you only find a circular regress of conditional dependence.

this is emptiness. you get it but you don't seem to accept it, because you're grasping for something which isnt there.

[Anonymous No.17608800]

>>17608659
Not him, but where to begin with Plato and where to end?

[Anonymous No.17608807]

>>17608748
>then the seer doesn't exist anymore does it?
Then we wouldn't be conscious anymore when we close our eyes, but we are.
>no because why would a seer be able to see before having sight or an object to see?
Exactly, that is why the seer cannot be dependent upon the objects seen, because if the sense of being a seer arises based on the objects seen, it can never arise at all, because objects cannot be seen except by a seer, there can never be a way for objects to be seen without a seer, which then gives rise to the seer, because that would imply someone aside from the seer seeing the object to begin with.
>either one precedes the other (which makes no sense because fuel is only fuel by virtue of giving rise to fire)
Just because an object is considered a fuel because of its capacity to ignite, doesn't change the fact that the fuel in question precedes the fire in time that it later gives rise to when it ignites.

[Anonymous No.17608819]

>>17608679
>as soon as you take away the conditions for a thing's apparent existence, it no longer effectively exists as that thing.
yes but that doesnt mean that they dont exist because they are dependent, it means that they are created by that dependence. the dependence is the thing that exists.

[Anonymous No.17608830]

>>17608646
Yeah yeah I know. Not my thing.
>>17608659
Buddhism is too nihilistic for me, I don't think I'll come back to it. What do you call Plato's "early", "middle" and "late" philosophy?

[Anonymous No.17608841]

>>17608782
>what contradiction?
see >>17608807
"objects cannot be seen except by a seer, there can never be a way for objects to be seen without a seer, which then gives rise to the seer (which is what you implying if the seer is dependent on the object) because that would imply someone aside from the seer seeing the object to begin with."
>is no different to the rest of the web. just as fire is dependent on fuel, so too are all conditionally dependent phenomena dependent on other conditionally dependent phenomena.
Yes, I know, I'm saying that the Buddhist position is logically incoherent because the web is unable to cause its own existence, nor do the Buddhists admit any separate factor which causes it, so there is no reason why it should or can exist to begin with, it's a big gaping illogical hole in Buddhist doctrine.

[Anonymous No.17608846]

>>17608636
Things are as they seem, so enjoy how they look.

[Anonymous No.17608860]

>>17608807
we don't subsist through time. in each instance there is a new set of phenomena and entities.
>it can never arise at all
except clearly seers, seen objects and sight do arise. it would be impossible for them to coincide if they were not conditionally dependent - you'd have seers that see nothing, seen objects that are unseen etc.
clearly the only possible way they can arise is in dependence.
>capacity to ignite
fuel is not fuel until it has ignited.
if fuel precedes fire as fuel, that is a dilemma because fuel depends on fire to be fuel and you are saying that it precedes the thing ti depends on for its identity?

[Anonymous No.17608884]

>>17608841
>so there is no reason why it should or can exist to begin with, it's a big gaping illogical hole in Buddhist doctrine.

i mean it's not a gaping hole. that is the doctrine. it is what i mean by the sort of indeterminancy of reality. it neither exists nor can be said to not exist.

but any alternative explanaton eg things substantially do (or don't) exist fails to accurately describe phenomena - because it leads to regresses like
fuel preceding fire despite being dependent on fire
or moving objects need to carry motion with them, which entails motion partaking of a secondary motion etc.

by contrast saying that
being seen depends on there being someone to see (who can see)
being someone who can see depends on there being something to see.

there is nothing wrong wtih that? it is true? grasping for some substantial rhyme or reason seems pointless, because if there was inherent seers or inherently being seen, then what would explain their arising or ceasing? they would be totally uncaused.

[Anonymous No.17608892]

>>17608800
>>17608830
>-Plato Five Dialogues(Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo which includes the trial and death of Socrates)
>-Laches
>-Ion
>-Protogoras
>-Gorgias(best possible explanation and condensing of all of Plato's typical philosophy and orientation)
>-Cratylus
>-some other smaller/earlier dialogues
>-Symposium
>-Republic
>That's a pretty good intro-to-middle list. As far "last dialogues", there are quite a few and the Republic isn't one of them. There's a radical change in late Plato from early Plato which is an even greater genius than what most people see. Nevertheless such dialogues are:

>-Phaedrus(has the secret to the whole structuring of the dialogue, as well as the reason for Plato's use of it, and in the case of the dialogue, especially his late, Plato's poetic as well as philosophical genius comes into its greatest ability--; and Plato does nothing and puts nothing in the dialogue for no reason, it is all, working backwards to forwards or vice versa, structurally it is all there purposefully, even ideas one might first think are "silly"[I felt this much when I was younger and first read him] Plato is very self-aware of, that is a normal reaction or conception of them)
>-Philebus(continues from Gorgias, but I should say a lot of Plato's dialogues intersect with each other in very interesting ways where you have to keep in mind where something he previously arrived at is being rejected, or built upon or such)

>-Parmenides
>-Theaetetus
>-Sophist
>-Statesman
>-Timaeus
>-Critias
>-Laws

[Anonymous No.17608902]

>>17608830
>Buddhism is too nihilistic for me,
What do you think about the split between Theravada and Mahayana?

[Anonymous No.17608913]

>>17608892
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.17608915]

>>17608892
Thanks friend.
>>17608902
I don't really care about it, why? They have their own differences but it's still Buddhism and they come back to the same core doctrine.

[Anonymous No.17608927]

>>17608860
>we don't subsist through time. in each instance there is a new set of phenomena and entities.
If that was so it would be impossible to notice the perception of change and movement because we as entities would flit in and out of existence before we persisted long enough to notice them. But this is not the case so that is obviously wrong.
>except clearly seers, seen objects and sight do arise.
Yes, except that people do not possess a memory of when their consciousness originally entered into existence from non-existence, so it cannot established that the ultimate seer in the form of sentience actually arises at all.
>it would be impossible for them to coincide if they were not conditionally dependent - you'd have seers that see nothing, seen objects that are unseen etc.
Why would that be so? You just state this as a given but you don't show the actual reason for it. The scientist does not have his existence depend upon the Alpha Centaurai star that he sees in a telescope, not does the Alpha Centaurai star depend on the scientists looking at it for its own existence, but its own existence as a star long precedes that of the scientist and the moment he looks at it
>clearly the only possible way they can arise is in dependence.
Clearly this is not true, as the above example shows

[Anonymous No.17608941]

>>17608558
The philosophy of buddhism is precise and logical, but I've always felt it lacked a certain something and western philosophy, especially platonism and neoplatonism, made me realize what: unironically, it's soul. For all its consistency and the elegance of its arguments, buddhism doesn't have that 'spark', so to speak, I don't feel beauty or awe from it

[Anonymous No.17608966]

>>17608941
I know what you mean. It's too mental for my taste. A religion should have more heart. That's why Christianity despite its manifest absurdities is and always has been so compelling. The gospels simply radiate with warmth and soul

[Anonymous No.17608986]

>>17608966
Yeah, absolutely. I honestly wish I could believe in Christ with true sincerity.

[Anonymous No.17609007]

>>17608884
>i mean it's not a gaping hole. that is the doctrine.

No, it is a gaping hole although maybe you are not seeing it. Buddhists actively deny that anything exists that is self-caused with independent existence, so the existence of pratityasamutpada itself or the web of dependence cannot be self-caused and eternal with unconditioned existence, so the existence of the web must be accounted for by another thing since it is incapable of accounting for or causing its own existence, but the Buddhists don't admit the existence of the other thing that causes it, so it leads to an infinite regress when examining what permits the various things in the Buddhist cosmology like the web to exist at all.

>but any alternative explanaton eg things substantially do (or don't) exist fails to accurately describe phenomena - because it leads to regresses like
fuel preceding fire despite being dependent on fire
It doesn't though, just because the fuel possesses the capacity to ignite doesn't change the fact that the material fuel precedes the existence of the fire and we observe this every day and confirm it as true in our direct experience of it when we see fuel existing without fire suddenly give rise to fire when the fuel is ignited. All flammable plants in the world can be a fuel for fire; insofar as they possess the capacity to ignite - they are all fuel. Their existence as that does not depend upon whether they actually are ignited as individual plants or not at a certain point in time.

>there is nothing wrong with that
There is something wrong because a thing (A) cannot have its own existence dependent on something else (B) which is itself also dependent on (A) for its existence or neither of them will ever enter into existence because the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to permit them to exist will never be met.

[Anonymous No.17609009]

>>17608927
>impossible to notice the percpetion of change
ceasing and arising are happening infinitesmally quickly and memory is a feature some animals have developed to deal with this.
there is not a self-existence person because self-existence means that that entity would be immutable, which is clearly not the case given that you have yourself said that we undergo change. undergoing change requires you to be dependent on the things that are changing (a good trivial example is the time - you are literally a different person at 1pm to 1:01pm, because you're subject to a different time.
>ultimate seer in the form of sentience actually arises at all
nonsense. the ultimate seeing would have to inhere in every instance of sight, but would be immutably and self-existence seeing and thus unable to cease existence when sight is over. this is clearly nonsensical.
similarly for the ultimate seeing be seeing, shouldn't it also partake in an even more ultimate seeing?
>alpha centauri being seen by a scientist
this is the phenomena.
when alpha centauri is unobserved/unthought of - it from the perspective of the scientist neither exists nor doesn't exist.
same goes for the scientist.
it's just conventionally we seem to notice a phenomena happening when a scientist actually looks at alpha centauri - but consider that the form in we see that phenomena (alpha centauri as a thing seen by an astronomer) only appears to exist in that relation. outside of that relation it doesn't exist (except for in other conditional relations eg me thinking about alpha centauri or a comet crashing into alpha centauri)

[Anonymous No.17609028]

>>17608915
>I don't really care about it, why? They have their own differences but it's still Buddhism and they come back to the same core doctrine.
Not necessarily, many people who agree Buddhism to be nihilistic like Mahayana Buddhism because it's ultimate goal is not desirelessness. That's not Enlightenment for them.

[Anonymous No.17609037]

>>17609007
the web is empty. it only exists on the condition that one thinks of it as a web.
to a non-sentient stone, there is no web that it conceives of.

>for its existence or neither of them will ever enter into existence because the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to permit them to exist will never be met.
i think this is the result of the argument coming from negations of the opposite rather than assertions. i'll have to reread the destroyer of disputes to remember how exactly Nagarjuna disarms what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.17609044]

>>17609028
I see what you mean but I think Mahayana is ultimately the same, it's not like it's a completely different religion altogether, it just disagrees with Theravada on some relatively important points. But the four truths and so on are the same, and Nirvana itself (which I just can't see as a worthwhile goal) is the same too. Also I'm not a big fan of the doctrine of emptiness.

[Anonymous No.17609116]

>>17608941
>buddhism doesn't have that 'spark', so to speak, I don't feel beauty or awe from it
That's the point of buddhism, you shouldn't be clinging to things or concepts no matter if they're beautiful or ugly

[Anonymous No.17609123]

>>17609116
that's fucking boring bro.

[Anonymous No.17609128]

>>17609116
Yeah and I'm saying I dislike how utterly dry and mechanical that is. The world is ugly but it is also beautiful, and beauty is to be appreciated

[Anonymous No.17609265]

>>17609009
>ceasing and arising are happening infinitesmally quickly and memory is a feature some animals have developed to deal with this.
If you are saying that it is so infinitesmally quick so as not to be noticed then you are already conceding that this is not how we seem to experience things, and this is so because it's too quick to notice, which is just begging the question that if it's not how we seem to experience things than why assume that it is the case if its not supported by our experience? Because then there is no reason to view it as being true.
>there is not a self-existence person because self-existence means that that entity would be immutable, which is clearly not the case given that you have yourself said that we undergo change.
We only seem to observe change, but we don't actually undergo it
>you are literally a different person at 1pm to 1:01pm, because you're subject to a different time.
No, that's wrong because you haven't identified any actual change which has occurred in the living entity under consideration
>nonsense. the ultimate seeing would have to inhere in every instance of sight, but would be immutably and self-existence seeing and thus unable to cease existence when sight is over.
If the ultimate seeing is continuous and unending, then it is different from the individual acts of seeing which it occurs alongside, so it is no problem that the ultimate seeing would continue when the non-ultimate acts of individual seeing cease.
>similarly for the ultimate seeing be seeing, shouldn't it also partake in an even more ultimate seeing?
Why should it? There is no inherent reason for it to do so. The reason I mention it is that our sentience continues on from moment to moment irrespective of the changes of objects that occur within it, thus sentience is the ultimate seer while the sensory perceptions are the individual acts of seeing, and there is a reason to call for this distinction because of how we can notice things changing without our awareness without that awareness itself vanishing or ceasing. There is no reason to assume a further sentience behind sentience though.
>when alpha centauri is unobserved/unthought of - it from the perspective of the scientist neither exists nor doesn't exist.
That's not true at all, science generally say that objects continue existing when we are not looking at them or their image. To imply otherwise leads to a form of solipsism or panpsychism which is not accepted by most scientists.
>but consider that the form in we see that phenomena (alpha centauri as a thing seen by an astronomer) only appears to exist in that relation. outside of that relation it doesn't exist
I'm not talking about the visual representation of Alpha Centaurai but Alpha Centaurai itself, which continues to exist before, during and after it is visually represented to a faraway observer. It's existence as a star is independent or how or when it is visually represented to people.

[Anonymous No.17609279]

>>17609037
>the web is empty. it only exists on the condition that one thinks of it as a web.
That doesnt change anything, there is nothing permitting the web to have empty or non-empty existence, or half-full existence. Whatever adjective or qualification you make, it's still an unresolved infinite regress all the same which doesn't permit the web to exist or exist emptily.

[Anonymous No.17609806]

Try galaxy brain Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17610757]

>>17609265
>We only seem to observe change, but we don't actually undergo it
to clarify: Sentience doesn't undergo change because it's intrinsically different from the changing sensory perceptions which appear to sentience because in itself sentience is abiding, transparent, self-knowing and unchanging as the constant and natural basis to which everything else is presented. It cannot detect any changes in itself, because anything that is graspable as an object of knowledge is delimited by form or characteristics whether as outside or internally in the forms of thoughts, and so anything grasped in knowledge and cited as proof of sentience changing will inevitably be a insentient object of knowledge comprised of form which does not show that sentience itself is changing, the sentience which illumines things is not comprised of form, but it is a formless and steady light.

Thus even the distinctions of waking, sleep and dreaming as observable changes which are presented to sentience provide no data about the sentience in which they appear. Neither do the subject and object being relational to each other show that sentience changes either, because subject-object distinctions occur in the intellect which itself appears within the unchanging luminous basis of sentience that is different from that intellect, sentience itself is non-dual, unchanging and self-knowing. If there wasn't something that was self-knowing like sentience and we only had non-self-knowing thoughts and perceptions then thoughts and sensory perceptions will necessarily have to perceive one another for us to form coherent strings of thought and action, but this would lead to an infinite regress as each thought and mental sensation would have to be witnessed by another to be cognized and so on ad infinitum and it would be impossible to know anything. Thus, there must by necessity be something that is self-knowing in order for us to know things, and this sentience is completely incapable of detecting any proof that as sentience it ever changes. And this self-knowing thing is not the intellect and the intellect's thoughts and so it must be self-knowing sentience, because thoughts and other functions of the intellect are clearly presented to us as things which are arise and cease in the same space of continuous awareness just like outside objects are also presented to that awareness when the subject-object distinctions of the intellect come and go in that space of awareness.

[Anonymous No.17611709]

>>17608558
The kind of voidness that Buddhists point to is not a thing. It is an unfolding potential but it is not an actuality.

>>17608583
There is nothing for phenomena to ultimately depend upon because all phenomena is within the Ground, or voidness. The Ground is all that is and there is nothing apart from it, and the Ground is all that it needs for itself. If all phenomena is a mirage within the Ground, then phenomena needs nothing else to support its existence. In this way, emptiness appears to be fullness. Mahayana Buddhism is the most pure form of non-dualism in this light.

>>17608941
>I don't feel beauty or awe from it
That's because you haven't read Longchenpa. Try "Space Without Centre or Edge" or "Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena"

[Anonymous No.17611926]

>>17611709
>If all phenomena is a mirage within the Ground, then phenomena needs nothing else to support its existence.
You are contradicting yourself there

Without the Ground there as its support, phenomena wouldn’t appear as phenomena, so phenomena does in fact need other things supporting it there, namely the Ground. You can’t both have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous No.17612269]

>>17608545
>conditional dependence
>indeterminate and superfluous nature of things
?? Imagine being this much of a brainlet

[Anonymous No.17612755]

>>17611926
Yes, but the point is that phenomena isn't anything at all without the Ground, so it basically is the Ground, and the Ground has no support, being only an unfolding potential and not a fixed essence, so phenomena itself is an unfolding potential and not based on any fixed essence.

I think that's a better way to say it. The Ground and the phenomena in the Ground aren't actually any different. If the Ground has no basis then so doesn't the phenomena because they are one.

"As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space / an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble / a dream, a cloud, a flash of lightening / view all created things like this."
This quote from the Diamond Sutra is saying things are illusory because they are not fixed and have no existent basis. Otherwise, created things wouldn't be likened to a dream and a flash of lightning, would they?

[Anonymous No.17613371]

>>17608545
>>Now what do I do?
Now you read the pali canon and learn buddhism instead of hinduism.

[Anonymous No.17613396]

>>17608659
>Yes, you'll probably semi-come back to Buddhism when you realise the place of Pathos (or Paschein) in life (which Christianity took up for 1500 years in the West, as a religious mystery), but Plato will last you forever. His early philosophy is great, his middle philosophy is greater, but his late philosophy blows the doors open and nothing has gone beyond it in philosophy. Even Heidegger, who was such a critique of Plato, said that he was able to start a new beginning in his late philosophy.
Yes intellectuals despise hearing that their brain farts are useless. Especially the Judeo Christian thinkers. makes me think.

[Anonymous No.17613430]

>>17609044
>Theravada on some relatively important points. But the four truths and so on are the same, and Nirvana itself (which I just can't see as a worthwhile goal) is the same too.
They are not the same things at all. Mahayana rejects dependent origination and created interdependence. Mahayana says the 4 truths and the path don't lead to nirvana. Mahayana has the hindu understanding of emptiness and nirvana, ie nirvana= no cognition = resting with the ineffable Brahma or Buddha like here >>17611709

[Anonymous No.17613906]

>>17613430
Still Buddhism though.

[Anonymous No.17613968]

>>17608545
So basically you said nothing.

[Anonymous No.17614097]

>>17613430
>Mahayana rejects dependent origination and created interdependence
They are the same thing ie pratityasamutpada.

>Mahayana says the 4 truths and the path don't lead to nirvana
Mahayana schools maintain that the 8 fold path can lead to personal nirvana. They just prefer a 'better' path in which all sentient beings are released.

>Mahayana has the hindu understanding of emptiness and nirvana, ie nirvana= no cognition = resting with the ineffable Brahma or Buddha
'Mahayana' isn't a monolith. Many Mahayana schools have their own interpretation. The majority reject a 'hindu' understanding, rather they adhere to a Madhyamika or Yogacaric understanding of Sunyata and Nirvana.

Mahayana may have varied teachings and interpretations, but they are at their core Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.17614131]

>>17611709
>That's because you haven't read Longchenpa
Am I being memed again or is he actually worth reading? As >>17608966 put it I got tired of how mental and philosophical buddhism is at its core, it's all rationality and systematization, no heart, which can perhaps be blamed on its mostly pessimistic outlook and its cosmology devoid of a creative divine principle. Unless dzogchen is somehow completely different I doubt I'll get much from it.

[Anonymous No.17614199]

O World-Honoured One! How am I to practise the precepts, samadhi and Wisdom?

The Buddha said: "O good man! There is a man who upholds the prohibitions and precepts, but [does so] for the happiness that he can gain for his own self and for humans and gods, and not to save all beings, not for guarding unsurpassed Wonderful Dharma, but for profit and out of fear of the three unfortunate realms, for life, lust, power, safety, oratory, out of fear of state laws, evil fame, for fear of dirty names, and for worldly works. Such guarding and upholding of the precepts cannot be called practising the precepts. O good man! What is true upholding of sila? When one upholds sila, the object must be to pass beings to the other shore, to protect Wonderful Dharma, to save the unsaved, to enlighten the unenlightened, to enable those who have not yet taken refuge to take it, to enable those who have not yet attained Nirvana to attain it. Practising thus, a person does not see sila, how it is actually upheld, the person who upholds sila, the results to be attained [therefrom], whether the person has sinned or not. O good man! If one acts thus, this is the upholding of sila.

"How does one practise samadhi? If, when practising samadhi, one does it to enlighten one's own self, for profit, not for the sake of all beings, not for the practising of Dharma, but out of greed, for defiled food, for sexual reasons, because of the impurities of the nine holes, for disputes, for beating, and for killing others, anybody who practises samadhi thus is not one who practises samadhi.

"O good man! What is the true practice of samadhi? One practises it for the sake of all beings, to plant in the mind of beings the all-equal mind, unretrogressive Dharma, the holy mind, to enable beings to attain Mahayana, to guard unsurpassed Dharma, for beings not to retrogress from Enlightenment, for them to gain the Suramgama, the vajra-samadhi, dharanis [i.e. long mantras or magic spells], to enable beings to gain the four unhinderednesses, to enable beings to see the Buddha-Nature; and when practising thus, one sees no samadhi, no form of samadhi, nor a person practising this, nor any result to be arrived at. O good man! If things indeed proceed thus, we say that this person is practising samadhi.

"How does one practise Wisdom? One who practises Wisdom thinks: "If I practise such Wisdom, I shall attain Emancipation and save those in the three unfortunate realms. Who is it that indeed benefits all beings, passing them to the other shore beyond birth and death? It is difficult [to be present when] the Buddha appears in this world. It is as rare an event as one's coming across the flowering of the udumbara. I shall now thoroughly cut away the bonds of all defilements. I shall gain the fruition of Emancipation. On this account, I shall now learn to practise Wisdom and sever the bond of defilement and attain Emancipation." Any person who practises the Way thus is not one who practises Wisdom.

[Anonymous No.17614201]

"How does a person truly practise Wisdom? The wise person meditates on the sorrows of birth, age, and death. All beings are overshadowed by ignorance and do not know how to practise the unsurpassed right path. He prays: "I pray that this body of mine will suffer great sorrows in lieu of all beings. Let all poverty, degredation, the mind of transgressing the precepts, all the actions of greed, anger and ignorance of all beings gather upon me. I pray that all beings will not gain a mind of greed, will not be bound up in body-and-mind. I pray that all beings will soon cross the sea of birth and death, so that I may not now need to face it and not feel the worry. I pray that all will gain unsurpassed Enlightenment." When a person practises the Way thus, he sees no Wisdom, no form of Wisdom, no one practising WIsdom, and no fruition to be arrived at. This is practising Wisdom.

"O good man! One who thus practises sila, samadhi, and Wisdom is a Bodhisattva; one who cannot thus practise sila, samadhi, and Wisdom is a sravaka.

[Anonymous No.17614205]

>>17608966
>>17614131
>I just want a feel-good LARPy experience
Then just read romance novels or comic books. Clearly dharmic religions aren't suited for people with an insatiable lust for dopamine spikes as they expect euphoria and ecstasy out of a philosophically rigorous body of work.

[Anonymous No.17614207]

But most early Mahāyāna texts simply discuss this in terms of “giving rise
to the thought” 發意74 or to the “first thought.”75 The term bodhicitta itself is
very rare. Nāgārjuna (if we assume that he did not write the Bodhicittavivaraṇa)
seems to be unfamiliar with the term,76 and I cannot be certain that it pre-
dates the Da Mingdu Jing,77 suggesting that the term was coined sometime
after the second or third century. Nor is there any hint of the 10 stages of the
Daśabhūmika Sūtra. The only stages of a path mentioned are the attainments
of irreversibility and unexcelled complete enlightenment. There is no discus-
sion of compassion, the bodhisattva’s delay in attaining enlightenment or
skill in means (upāya).78 The only hint that a bodhisattva might work toward
others’ enlightenment is the mention of Subhūti’s skill in the araṇavihāra – an
attribute that is well established in canonical texts. Furthermore – at least in the
original sutra – it is assumed that the perfection of wisdom (a la section G) is for
everybody: śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, arhats and bodhisattvas. There is no sense
in this part of the chapter that the Perfection of Wisdom constitutes a separate
teaching from what the arhats, pratyekabuddhas or śravakas should learn.

[Anonymous No.17614223]

>>17614205
kek you sound like an insufferable faggot.
>nooooo you can't say my religion is too dry and philosophical, you must be a hedonist, beauty doesn't exist
why are so many western buddhists weirdly cultish?

[Anonymous No.17614287]

>>17611926
Space without Center or Edge is a song or poetic work written by Longchenpa to praise the Mahayana concept of open primordial mind and Dharmadhatu. I think it is beautiful if you meditate on it and read it quite slow. I first encountered it on samaneri jayasara's youtube channel in audiobook form and found it beautiful before I read the plain written form of Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena for myself.

They explain Dzogchen and a way of viewing phenomena as perfect and peacefully pure.

[Anonymous No.17614296]

>>17614205
Flagellating yourself and seeking to become a vegetable doesn't make you noble or praiseworthy.

[Anonymous No.17614301]

>>17614205
I find the Buddhist view of existence as very beautiful, at least the prajnalaramita. Theravada seems more focused on basic practice, which is less relevant to one's view of reality and therefore aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.17614304]

>>17614223
There is no need to lash out anon. It isn't my fault that Buddhism and Hinduism are highly systematic and demand serious analytical thought to be appreciated. You are simply Dionysian and prefer rhapsodic literature, there is nothing wrong that.

[Anonymous No.17614341]

>>17614304
>demand serious analytical thought
All religious philosophies require analytical thought.
>there is nothing wrong that
Your previous post was obviously condescending

[Anonymous No.17614468]

>>17612755
>Yes, but the point is that phenomena isn't anything at all without the Ground, so it basically is the Ground,
You don’t equate them though but you distinguish between them, one arises in the other, they are not equivalent. You can’t just switch positions and say they are the same to avoid contradiction in one case and then go back to saying they are different when it helps you in another instance, or you can but it is logically incoherent.
>and the Ground has no support, being only an unfolding potential and not a fixed essence, so phenomena itself is an unfolding potential and not based on any fixed essence.
That doesn’t do anything to solve the infinite regress of there being nothing which permits the dependent phenomena to enter into existence though. The ground or Rigpa doesn’t directly cause the phenomena itself, and so the Dzogchen practitioner is still left holding the bag of a beginningless cycle of avidya and phenomena giving rise to each other forever as an explanation for how and why they arise, but this still leads to an unresolved infinite regress because when phenomena and avidya depend on each other for their existence neither will never ever enter into existence as illusion/appearance or otherwise because the conditions which allow it to exist will never be met, because for B to exist A would have to already exist, but for A to already exist B would have to and so on ad infinitum, there is never any point or principle admitted which allows either to exist. I think its especially funny that you would think Dzogchen teachings solve this mess given that the early Dzogchen writers like Rongzom considered sunyata and the 2nd turning as only provisionally true and they viewed the Tantras as being higher, so clearly the Madhyamaka perspective is not an essential and inseparable part of Dzogchen teachings.

>I think that's a better way to say it. The Ground and the phenomena in the Ground aren't actually any different.
Do you have a source for this or are you making it up as you go along because everything I’ve read says that the Ground and the phenomena in it are different
>If the Ground has no basis then so doesn't the phenomena because they are one.
Then why call one the ground and the other phenomena, why distinguish them? If the ground is the same as phenomena then it arises based on avidya too and you are left back at square one of not being able to give a coherent explanation or why and how they exist/arise

[Anonymous No.17614473]

>>17614341
>All religious philosophies require analytical thought.
They are not equality analytical. The New Testament is more impassioned whereas eastern texts (Pali Canon and Upanishads) are more insightful. If you want a bible-like Buddhist, there's the Dhammapada or the The Gospel of Buddha by Paul Carus (see also Dwight Goddard for a Mahayana based bible). Other than that, there is no going around the 'dullness' of Dharmist text.
>Your previous post was obviously condescending
Perhaps, but I'm not making a fuss about it.

[Anonymous No.17614484]

>>17614341
Nietzsche once claimed that when it comes to philosophical talent, India is first, and England is last (worst). He also claimed that Europe has not yet reached the level of spirituality that India had reached thousands of years ago.

/lit/ likes to talk about the Bible a lot, it's become almost a meme, we all seem to agree Bible is a source of wisdom.

But comparing the ancient Indian Indo-European civilization with the Jewish one, to see the spiritual level they were at.

Deuteronomy was written in 7th century BC (according to scholars). It has stuff like:

>You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.

A veritable pearl of wisdom.

TWO CENTURIES before that in the 9th century BC, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad had already been composed. Sample from the text:

>"That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. the infinite proceeds from the infinite.
>(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone."

One text deals with stuff like what you can eat and where you can put your penis, the absolute retardation probably due to excessive exposure to sun of the desert man can be felt on every page of the Bible.

On the other hand, the Indian text of the time show a philosophical depth of a Kant or a Hegel. Schopenhauer said that the re-discovery of the Upanishads by Europe is comparable to the rediscovery of ancient Greek materials in the Renaissance. He said it's by far the most profound material he's ever read.

Question: Why do we still waste so much time & energy with Desert Trilogy when our own, Indo-European heritage, is so much more richer and profound?

[Anonymous No.17614613]

Nietzsche is a nihilist and an atheist and everything he says is garbage

[Anonymous No.17614689]

>>17614473
>I'm not making a fuss about it.
You're the one who made a retarded comment, what's your point?

[Anonymous No.17614706]

>>17614484
I don't care too much about Christianity. I'm not even the guy who posted the NT was beautiful even though I agree with him.
The point is that the dharmist texts are, for the most part, dry and lack soul because they're pretty much metaphysical treatises with some cosmology sprinkled in. Contrast to Plato or even Plotinus, from which I feel a true attempt to grasp the sublime that vedic philosophy lacks. Buddhism is even worse because it doesn't care about the sublime in the first place. It negates beauty for the sake of extinguishment.

[Anonymous No.17614711]

>>17608659
>His early philosophy is great, his middle philosophy is greater, but his late philosophy blows the doors open
I dont read philosophy but gave the republic a try and it was so boring. can someone recommend some good books on plato? preferably with a preface to each chapter

[Anonymous No.17614720]

>>17614711
Read Phaedo

[Anonymous No.17614962]

>>17614689
Why do you keep harking back to my comment? I'm sorry if it upset you that much, there happy now?

[Anonymous No.17614975]

>>17614962
>start talking shit
>get called out
>"wow why are you upset"
Disingenuous faggot

[Anonymous No.17614976]

>>17614706
>Plotinus
You do realise that the Enneads is basically a textbook of metaphysics? It is as 'dry and soulless' as any Hindu or Buddhist text.

[Anonymous No.17614977]

where is the guenonfag when u need him

[Anonymous No.17614987]

>>17614975
Yea exactly, why are you upset? I said I was sorry, now can we actually move on and stay on topic for once.

[Anonymous No.17614988]

>>17614987
Because you're a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.17614992]

>>17614988
Love you too.

[Anonymous No.17614997]

>>17608545
Is this what 般若心経 is about?

[Anonymous No.17615004]

>>17614977
He already posted >>17608583 and failed to come up with anything of substance (as per usual).

[Anonymous No.17615005]

>>17614992
So enlightened

[Anonymous No.17615018]

>>17614975
>>17614988
who is this braindead? go back to pol kiddo.

[Anonymous No.17615035]

>>17615018
There's no need to samefag.

[Anonymous No.17615043]

>>17615035
damn ure cringe

[Anonymous No.17615051]

>>17615043
Holy shit you are dumb
Read the reply chain again and realize how much of a brainlet you are

[Anonymous No.17615057]

>>17614287
I have read some of Longchenpa already and can appreciate his work as another perspective on non-dualism but for me Dzogchen doctrine is still not as logically consistent and coherent as Advaita Vedanta and it contains some unresolved metaphysical quandaries that means the Nyingma metaphysical explanation of things is not the full truth, regardless of the fact that they happen to possess some enjoyable writings talking about non-dual awareness and so forth. I don’t only limit myself to studying Advaita and I enjoy reading the works of other Hindu and non-Hindu schools, but that doesn’t oblige me to concede that any of their metaphysics are fully consistent/correct.

>>17614977
I’ve been here the whole time my man, these ones quoted below are all my posts
>>17614468
>>17611926
>>17610757
>>17609279
>>17609265
>>17609007
>>17608927
>>17608841
>>17608807
>>17608727
>>17608583

[Anonymous No.17615059]

>tfw Samsara is Nirvana

[Anonymous No.17615065]

>>17615059
Buddhism is self-refuting because of this

[Anonymous No.17615067]

>>17615057
>I’ve been here the whole time my man, these ones quoted below are all my posts
ty vedantabro

[Anonymous No.17615096]

>>17615057
I have read Advaita texts and while its a decent attempt at explaining the true nature of things, it is still logically inconsistent as pointed out by Ramanuja, Madhva and Desika. Ultimately Shankara is wrong but at least he tried, even with all the plagiarism stuff, to come up with something. I will still stick with based Buddhism, as it is fully logical and doesn't stick 'God' to fill the gaps of logic to escape scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.17615104]

>>17615059
Based.

[Anonymous No.17615107]

>>17615096
bugman take

[Anonymous No.17615119]

>bugman take

[Anonymous No.17615126]

>doesn't stick 'God' to fill the gaps of logic to escape scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.17615138]

>>17615126
>posts a gif of guenon

[Anonymous No.17615142]

>>17615138
kek

[Anonymous No.17615161]

>>17615096
>things, it is still logically inconsistent as pointed out by Ramanuja, Madhva and Desika
All of their criticisms are wrong and have already been answered and refuted by Advaitins centuries ago, I’m not even joking. Often times they are not even criticizing actual doctrines which are taught by Advaita by the way but rather their arguments are misunderstandings which would be rejected by Advaita as not accurately describing what Advaita teaches. Vedanta Desika’s arguments in particular were all refuted by Madhusudana Sarasvati’s work ‘Advaitasiddhi’

You can post any of their criticisms and I’ll point out for you exactly which mistake they make and why their argument fails.

[Anonymous No.17615173]

>>17615096
>as it is fully logical and doesn't stick 'God' to fill the gaps of logic to escape scrutiny.
Also this is not true, since Buddhism contains an unresolved infinite regress which doesn’t permit the things within samsara to ever exist as illusion or otherwise, so no, Buddhism is not fully logical.

[Anonymous No.17615184]

>>17615173
>Also this is not true, since Buddhism contains an unresolved infinite regress which doesn’t permit the things within samsara to ever exist as illusion or otherwise, so no, Buddhism is not fully logical.
This point has already been refuted in previous threads.

[Anonymous No.17615219]

>>17615161
>All of their criticisms are wrong and have already been answered and refuted by Advaitins centuries ago
Those criticisms seem to be correct, I have read the attempts by later advaitins to rectify criticisms and they come up dry.

>Vedanta Desika’s arguments in particular were all refuted by Madhusudana Sarasvati’s work ‘Advaitasiddhi’
Ramacarya refuted Madhusudana Sarasvati's attempt at a refutation.

[Anonymous No.17615261]

>>17615065
Mahayana will never be buddhism

[Anonymous No.17615279]

>>17615261
Theravada is nihilistic garbage anyway

[Anonymous No.17615341]

>>17615184
No, that doesn’t refute anything, it’s telling that you keep posting this as an image instead of just stating in plain terms what their argument is.

If the dependence relations close back on each other in a circle there is still no factor which permits the constituents of the cycle to exist at all, and trying to determine what permits them to exist leads to an infinite regress which remains unresolved. You can’t have any dependence relations at all if there is nothing permitting the dependent things to exist as such.
>>17615219,
>I have read the attempts by later advaitins to rectify criticisms and they come up dry.
I doubt that this is true
> Ramacarya refuted Madhusudana Sarasvati's attempt at a refutation.
Oh really? Would you care to give us an example?

[Anonymous No.17615349]

>tfw Emptiness is Empty

[Anonymous No.17615374]

>>17615341
>No, that doesn’t refute anything, it’s telling that you keep posting this as an image instead of just stating in plain terms what their argument is.
This is the first time I'm posting the image.

>If the dependence relations close back on each other in a circle there is still no factor which permits the constituents of the cycle to exist at all, and trying to determine what permits them to exist leads to an infinite regress which remains unresolved. You can’t have any dependence relations at all if there is nothing permitting the dependent things to exist as such.
Lol you are still conflating infinite regress with circular argument. I guess thats all you can do at this point, obfuscate different arguments when you have no recourse.

[Anonymous No.17615379]

>>17615184
They have not been refuted in any way. In the case of your image we can see where the problems lie in them.
>1. Independent entities
In this case the very “dependence” is already broken. If one entity is independent from the other, there is no necessary dependence and co-causal arising.
>2. The dependence relations go on forever.
This is the most illogical because nothing would be anything at all since nothing would be anything. There would be not a single thing, a whole thing for the whole is dependent on the parts, but the parts would not be “whole” parts since the parts would be depenent on the parts’s parts, and so on indefinitely.
Nothing would arise.
>3. They close back on themselves in a circle
But then again there is the problem of how anything could arise without an independent entity to begin the chain. If there is no beginning of a chain from entities then there are independent entities and the problem becomes the one in the first point.

[Anonymous No.17615407]

>>17608558
Truth does not exist in articulated form.

[Anonymous No.17615410]

>>17615407
Yeah it does

[Anonymous No.17615421]

>>17615341
>Oh really? Would you care to give us an example?
Example of what? And who's us? You are just 1 person. If you're eager, read his Tarangini.

[Anonymous No.17615426]

>>17615410
What is it then?

[Anonymous No.17615524]

>>17615374
>Lol you are still conflating infinite regress with circular argument
No, I’m not. The main issue is not that dependent origination is circular, the issue is that without something outside of circular dependent origination permitting it to exist as such that it could never exist as a cycle or circle at all, and that’s where the infinite regress comes in.

[Anonymous No.17615533]

>>17615426
The Good

[Anonymous No.17615557]

>>17615533
That's an empty concept which doesn't mean anything. Literal wordgames. I can use Plato's reasoning to make anything good depending on my fancy.

[Anonymous No.17615562]

>>17615557
Read Plato

[Anonymous No.17615568]

>>17615524
>there's got to be a thing outside the thing making the other thing go
Thomist tranny

[Anonymous No.17615579]

>>17615562
I have, not convincing from an intelligent perspective.

[Anonymous No.17615580]

>>17615568
Refute >>17615379

[Anonymous No.17615582]

>>17615579
No, I can tell you haven't. Read Plato.

[Anonymous No.17615588]

>>17615580
You will never be an uncaused cause

[Anonymous No.17615591]

>>17615524
>No, I’m not
You are and you still persist with this error.

I will help you
>A to B to C to D to E ....... ∞
this is an infinite regress

>A to B to C to B to A.....
this is circularity

Btw both these propositions are unsatisfactory, so you could still argue circularity and it wouldn't reduce your argument but you still think the former and latter are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.17615592]

>>17615568
>>17615588
/lit/ "buddhists" are so obnoxious
you guys managed to single handedly turn me away from dharmist religions

[Anonymous No.17615593]

>>17615579
Not the same person but you nihilists are really dumb. The Good is not any particular good.

[Anonymous No.17615594]

>>17615582
I have, and Plato has already been refuted by people more dedicated than me. "The Good" is an empty concept, which only works in the dialogues because all of Socrates's partners are uncritical and dumb, and just give in to whatever he says without any intelligent critique.

[Anonymous No.17615603]

>>17615593
>The Good is not any particular good.
That's not what I said. I said the good is meaningless BECAUSE it can be instantiated as virtually anything, which is purely dependent upon subjective criteria. If the Good can be instantiated as anything, then it is quite literally nothing meaningful.

[Anonymous No.17615605]

>>17615594
>Plato has already been refuted
you orientalist fetishists are so fucking delusional it's unreal

[Anonymous No.17615611]

>>17615592
Don't confuse anti-thomism with Buddhism. Different teachings for different beings

[Anonymous No.17615618]

>>17615603
Where did you get the idea that it can be anything? Plato all the time shows this is not the case at all. Your situation for example is not close to anything good, even though you think it is.

[Anonymous No.17615624]

On the topic of infinite regress, how do Hindus square this verse that the universe and even God are infinite?

>Om. That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone. -5.1.1 Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

[Anonymous No.17615641]

>>17615588
Great refutation this the power of buddhism

[Anonymous No.17615642]

>>17615618
>Plato all the time shows this is not the case at all.
What I've said is just that he doesn't show that. All he shows are his subjective inclinations of what he considers good in specific things, and then thinks he can create THE Good which is an abstraction and perfection of his specific subjective inclinations, which suddenly becomes an objective Good, because... well, again, this is where the lack of critical thought on the part of Socrates's opponents would help with at least rectifying his arguments.

[Anonymous No.17615645]

>>17615624
It's just deus sive natura if taken literally. In other words, atheism from the perspective of transcendent theology. But Shankara and other commentators have to rescue Brahman from this, otherwise the Buddhists living rent-free in the Hindu commentarial tradition will overwhelm them.

[Anonymous No.17615661]

>>17615591
I understand the difference, in not saying the that infinite regress results from the mere fact of dependent origination proceeding from A to B to C to A, I’m saying something different, which is that when trying to determine what accounts for the existence of dependent origination and/or anything within dependent origination, one is led to a regress which extends infinitely in a circle, at no point in the circle is any factor encountered which permits the dependent things to exist, so despite the cycle being circular, the regress proceeds along it without ever stopping, i.e. an infinite regress that makes the existence of the circle or cycle itself impossible.

[Anonymous No.17615663]

>>17615641
>"God did it" deserves a lengthy response

[Anonymous No.17615665]

>>17615379
>how anything could arise without an independent entity to begin the chain
Well there's yet to be verifiable proof of the first cause, for all we know the universe could very well be a never ending cycle of big bangs and big crunches, so how anything could arise simply arose, and a first cause doesn't actually explain the underlying process of existence it just says that it must have a beginning whatever it may be. Long story short, its unknowable and simply say 'b-b-but what about father giving birth to his father etc and so on' doesn't amount to anything other than conjecture.

[Anonymous No.17615681]

>>17615663
>"it's always been" is better

[Anonymous No.17615687]

>>17615642
He shows in literally all dialogues how the Good is the foundation of the main subjects of his dialogues, Justice, Intellect and Beauty all converge to it. You either have not read a single word of one of his dialogues or you understood nothing.

[Anonymous No.17615691]

>>17615681
If everything has a cause, simple as. You've got the ontology with ads/malware where it keeps telling you to subscribe to Causation+.

[Anonymous No.17615694]

>>17615691
Are you able of communicating with other human beings sincerely and without memes?

[Anonymous No.17615695]

>>17615661
>I’m saying something different
Oh you're not saying the debunked Burton argument is valid, gotcha

>which is that when trying to determine what accounts for the existence of dependent origination and/or anything within dependent origination, one is led to a regress which extends infinitely in a circle, at no point in the circle is any factor encountered which permits the dependent things to exist, so despite the cycle being circular, the regress proceeds along it without ever stopping, i.e. an infinite regress that makes the existence of the circle or cycle itself impossible.
You're doing again, arguing that A to B to C to B to A is an infinite process and therefore magically becomes an infinite regress.

>An infinite regress is a series of propositions that arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, and so on, ad infinitum.
How are you not getting this, then coming back and saying 'I do understand it bro'.

[Anonymous No.17615699]

>>17615687
I understood it, I just wasn't convinced by it. You can keep repeating dogmatically that, "Plato is right and you're wrong", but you're really not convincing me of anything except the facile and conformist nature of Platonists, who won't even engage in a critical discussion of their own beliefs, and instead keep screeching that I just haven't understood him. Almost as bad as Marxists.

[Anonymous No.17615708]

>>17615699
>bugman buddhist is "unconvinced" by the Beautiful, the Good and the True
Obviously

[Anonymous No.17615712]

>>17615687
There's like a thousand-year period of almost radio silence in India after Buddhism and then finally the Vedantins go oh hey maybe we should respond to this, after the Buddhist center of gravity has tilted into East Asia and is declining in India. So I'm not surprised by the ignorance of other systems of thought from our most prolific vedantaposter.

[Anonymous No.17615719]

>>17615694
>implying god isn't a meme

[Anonymous No.17615720]

>>17615719
Thanks for demonstrating "western buddhists" are just the evolved form of fedora atheists.

[Anonymous No.17615730]

>>17615687
>>He shows in literally all dialogues how the Good is the foundation of the main subjects of his dialogues, Justice, Intellect and Beauty all converge to it.
What rationalists always fail to understand is that their ramblings never ''show'' anything. And by the way the idea of a proof or ''showing'' is a rationalist fantasy in the first place and it never ever worked. No rationalist ever proved anything... I know it hurts to read this and you cant only go into autistic screeching.

[Anonymous No.17615731]

>>17615708
I'm unconvinced of them as anything more than subjective idealities.

[Anonymous No.17615735]

>>17615720
Thank you for demonstrating how based and redpilled you are for having made shit up about an unknowable object.

[Anonymous No.17615741]

>>17615731
>>17615731
>>17615735
Funny how buddhists are unable to even conceive that their system, too, is "made up".
>b-but you can experience it directly if you're a sotapanna lord buddha told me so
It's literally no different from any other religion. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.17615752]

>>17615730
Rationalism being wrong doesn't mean Buddhism is true.

[Anonymous No.17615761]

>>17615731
I'm unconvinced by the four noble truths as anything more than subjective idealities.

[Anonymous No.17615785]

>>17608545
Were you in a state of samadhi? If not then you didn't realise shit

[Anonymous No.17615799]

>>17615785
This shit reads like levels in a videogame
>uuh you didn't do that while in samadhi mode? sorry bro you can't sequence break here, you don't get to access the next level
Do you people really believe this stuff?

[Anonymous No.17615804]

>>17615741
I'm just here to argue with thomist trannies and remind them they literally don't know what they are talking about.

[Anonymous No.17615806]

>>17615761
That's why they're called noble truths, they're only applicable to the worthy ones, ie the Arya. It's irrelevant whether you find them convincing or not, not least because they're not even dialectical "truths", but existential truths which can only be ascertained through direct experience and practice.

[Anonymous No.17615814]

>>17608545
Meditate, my son.

[Anonymous No.17615815]

>>17615806
>n-no bro they're not meant for you, they only make sense to the chosen ones like myself
>yeah I know they can't be proven but that's fine you just have to meditate a lot and you'll eventually convince yourself they're true
lmfao

[Anonymous No.17615827]

>>17615815

[Anonymous No.17615829]

>>17615804
>pyrrhoposter
I retract my previous statements, you are unequivocally based. Fuck dogmatists.

[Anonymous No.17615838]

>>17615827
I mean if you want to literally waste your life chasing after mystical bullshit that's your problem my dude

[Anonymous No.17615846]

>>17615838
As long as we agree that Platonism is rubbish, then we're both happy.

[Anonymous No.17615854]

>>17615827
I can also meditate so hard that I end up deluding myself into believing Jesus is my lord and savior, but that doesn't count, why?

[Anonymous No.17615861]

>>17615829
We're gonna make it

[Anonymous No.17615868]

>>17615846
>Platonism is rubbish
But Buddhism isn't? If you're gonna be a skeptic, go all the way instead of stopping at crypto-nihilism.

[Anonymous No.17615891]

>>17615868
Yes, because Buddhism doesn't play at dialectical deception, it is a matter of practice rather than deceit. I am skeptical of reason's ability to reach any meaningful truth, no more. Buddhism does not abuse the faculty of reason like Platonism, but instead provides a path of actual practice, which one can take or leave.

[Anonymous No.17615906]

>>17615891
Nah Buddhism makes truth claims. I used to think like you before I realized it was a religion like any other. Rebirth, karma, 4NT, N8P, jhanas, nirvana, all those things are claims.
>but you can experience them!
Sure, refer to >>17615854. Buddhism is a set of beliefs, nothing more. Just because it has a strong practical aspect does not make it exempt from skepticism.

[Anonymous No.17615911]

>>17615891
>I am skeptical of reason's ability to reach any meaningful truth
By the way, why aren't you skeptical of the reliability of direct experience?

[Anonymous No.17615913]

>>17615868
>>17615891
I can respect people wanting a soteriology or devotional practice. It's when it becomes a turning of your opinions into absolute ontological reality which you have advanced knowledge of that refutes all the rivalrous subjective opinions—the real emptiness was the bullshit we said along the way.

[Anonymous No.17615937]

>>17615699
What is the critique of the inherent intelligibility in all things and in their conditioner as Being? I’m not saying Plato was right without a justification, I did not came to this conclusion out of nowhere. The fact is that his ontology and epistemology are true and inescapable, a thing cannot be anything other than what it is. The Good is the supra noetic reality, which in the platonic understanding is the Light that illuminates the Intellect and its forms,!and in this way my answer goes to:
>>17615730
Despite of the rationalistic means Plato employed, he is aware of the mystical, supra intellectual, foundations of his own philosophy (his main influences were mystics). If you are annoyed by the rational means to prove how the platonic ontology, epistemology are true, you dont need to worry because he reaches the same place of understanding as those of egyptian, christian, jewish theologies.

[Anonymous No.17615946]

>>17615906
>Buddhism is a set of beliefs,
No there a beliefs, practices and then truths

[Anonymous No.17615947]

>>17615937
I think he doesn't like the fact that Plato doesn't say "you can just disregard everything I said and EXPERIENCE it" like Siddhartha does.

[Anonymous No.17615948]

>>17615891
Read >>17615379
Buddhism abuses one’s intelligence by being regarded as logical and being just another fantasy.

[Anonymous No.17615960]

>>17615937
I should add that the reason in plato is literally a means, that is why it is DIAnoetic.

[Anonymous No.17615964]

>>17615946
kek you really aren't able to comprehend that your religion is just a religion, aren't you? At least christcucks are honest about their belief being ultimately based in irrationality.
The beliefs lead to practices, which lead to experiences that lead to stronger beliefs. These are not "truths". You experience them to be truthful.
In my experience buddhism is bullshit and that is the truth for me. But my truth is inferior to yours because it hurts your feelings.

[Anonymous No.17615979]

>>17615964
Ok you have no idea what truth means beside some atheist definition of it. Stick popsci on youtube.

[Anonymous No.17615980]

>>17615937
>his ontology and epistemology are true and inescapable,
Within the realm of logic. But does any aspect of platonism transcend logic?

[Anonymous No.17615982]

>>17615937
>he reaches the same place of understanding as those of egyptian, christian, jewish theologies.
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.17615985]

>>17615979
Yep, this kills the buddhist.
Sorry bub, your "truth" is as relative as any other religious experience.

[Anonymous No.17615989]

>>17615980
I just told you it does. Logic, reason are means to go beyond it, >>17615960

[Anonymous No.17616000]

>>17615982
Glad to hear finally that you are not interested in knowledge and truth.

[Anonymous No.17616003]

>>17615989
I'm not the guy you were talking to. Isn't rationality and contemplation the means to truth according to Plato? Where is the "supra-logical" element there?

[Anonymous No.17616018]

>>17616000
Those are totally different systems. Platonism is closer to Egypt than the other two but you clearly have some interest in reconciling Platonism with the other two (which neither adds nor removes from Platonism as a system).

[Anonymous No.17616052]

>>17616018
Those are not totally different systems, you are wrong. Platonism in some of its currents, like the emanationist, is still inferior to those other theologies for it will fall short of a fundamental aspect of the relation between phenomena and numen.

[Anonymous No.17616117]

>>17616052
They are totally different systems. There is a genealogy with Egyptian thought but not with Abrahamic covenant theology's pact sealing blood sacrifices and solipsistic counter-religion. Platonism has nothing to do with the revealed scriptures of Judaism and Christianity, and the Christians closed the Academy in order to supress Platonism. Some later theologians then borrowed elements of Platonism because they found the monistic elements useful as opposed to insisting on miracles or calling their opponents names in order to argue for monotheism. You're doing an "I made this" meme-tier feigned analysis.

[Anonymous No.17616272]

>>17616117
I was restricted to metaphysics in their theologies but since you brought anthropological significance it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Anthropologically egyptian religion and judaic one are based on the same fundaments and sacred impulse. Christianity reveals their mechanism with the Passion, so its significance is not only metaphysical. Read Girard.
>Platonism has nothing to do with the revealed scriptures
It has in that Platonism is rationalistic and Christianity does not reject reason (that is why christians and jews employed Platonism as hermeneutical tool for exegesis of theological symbology)
>Christians closed the Academy
Justinian is not Christianity and not all christians, he was a political man. However, the roman Sulla was the first to close the Platonic Academy. Also, Plato’s wanting to burn Democritus writings justifies the burning of other pagan works to you?

You seem to not know anything about Christianity, Judaism and even platonism.

[S10241875 No.17616275]

>>17608545
>Now what do I do?
Become a Buddha, of course.

[Anonymous No.17616314]

>>17608902
Theravada this, Mahayana that. Vajrayana is the best branch of buddhism, boys.

[Anonymous No.17616315]

>>17616272
Could you answer >>17616003

[Anonymous No.17616326]

>>17616314
True but only because it's so far removed from theravadin nihilism that it might as well be a different religion altogether. Dzogchen is alright.

[Anonymous No.17616350]

>>17616326>>17616314
Vajrayana is part of Mahayana and still wrong view in buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17616362]

>>17615624
>how do Hindus square this verse that the universe and even God are infinite?
The second infinite in the text does not refer to the universe as such (universe does not occur in the actual sanskrit text) but to the conditioned Brahman (which makes up the relative universe) which proceeds from the unconditioned Brahman

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-brihadaranyaka-upanishad/d/doc122186.html

[Anonymous No.17616380]

>>17616350
Vajrayana is Mahayana done right.

[Anonymous No.17616397]

>>17616350
Who gives a fuck, theravada is a literal death cult

[Anonymous No.17616531]

>>17616272
Dishonest Christian hands wrote this post. You can't have it both ways. Either they are all hurr durr the same thing or Christianity supersedes them with its "Passion" and rational theology

[Anonymous No.17616687]

>>17608545
Embrace infinity.

[Anonymous No.17616729]

>>17616397
>>17616314
you people are acting like there is much of a difference between Theravada and Mahayana

[Anonymous No.17616765]

>>17616729
In theravada being a layman is wasting your life
At least mahayanists cope with the bodhisattva ideal which allows them to still enjoy life by postponing their "enlightenment"

[Anonymous No.17616834]

>>17616531
The thing is that metaphysically it surpasses Platonism for it is not restricted to intellectualism (this is why Kabbalah is also more refined than platonism) and not going to even mention anthropologically. But you still have nothing to say.

[Anonymous No.17616907]

>>17616834
>it's just better because I said so
See here
>>17615804

[Anonymous No.17616938]

>>17616729
There is, but not in the way any of them think. Askesis and cooompassion are closer than not.

[Anonymous No.17617040]

>>17616907
Literally told you why and even recommended a reading. But again I'll reiterate: you don't care about knowledge and truth.

[Anonymous No.17617050]

>>17617040
>my religious beliefs are knowledge and truth

[Anonymous No.17617921]

>>17615043
are you fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.17618542]

>>17615592
That is genuinely sad if you rely so heavily on this cesspool for shit like religion. No matter what religion is being represented here its safe to assume there will be shitflinging. Maybe you should go read real books instead of looking to Cantonese foodporn forums for religious knowledge. That applies to Christianity, paganism, whatever else.

[Anonymous No.17618754]

Mahayana sutras a boring, confused, verbose and all over the place and just advocate for the brahmincal idea of emptiness seething at the buddhist sutras.

[Anonymous No.17618780]

>>17618754
Theravada is nihilistic garbage so cryptohindu mahayana is still preferable

[Anonymous No.17619129]

>Now what do I do?
Forget all that bullshit and read Foyan

[Anonymous No.17619199]

Redpill me on vajrayana and dzogchen

[Anonymous No.17620029]

>>17615695
>You're doing again, arguing that A to B to C to B to A is an infinite process and therefore magically becomes an infinite regress.
No I’m not, you just keep on insisting on misrepresenting what I’m saying. Probably because either way it shows that Buddhism is illogical nonsense so instead of addressing the point head-on you’d rather bitch about how I’m framing the argument.

A to B to C to D to A is circular, not infinite

However:

When we examine these factors to see if any of them are sufficient to permit themselves or the chain as a whole to exist, A is not able to, nor B, nor C, nor D, and all the way around back to A again.

So in the absence of any factor permitting A to exist, A could not arise, neither could B, C and D again all the way around. So even though the cycle itself is closed and not extending infinitely, when you try to establish what permits the things in the cycle to exist, it just keeps going back without finding anything that allows them to exist, and this can be extended infinitely so long as you keep looking, it never ends. You can keep going back around the circle to A again for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time etc and none of them will ever be sufficient to permit the parts or the whole of the chain to exist.

Trying to establish what permits any of them to exist, leads to a regress around the circle, which continues infinitely without stopping, because it never stops, i.e. never arrives at anything that allows it to exist, it is an infinite regress that shows dependent origination could not possibly be true.

> >An infinite regress is a series of propositions that arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, and so on, ad infinitum.
Just because you tie the ends of the line together into a circle doesn’t mean that when it connects back around to the P1 in the form of the first link that it is magically able to support the truth of the other propositions, it still continues on without stopping.

[Anonymous No.17620070]

>>17615891
>Yes, because Buddhism doesn't play at dialectical deception
Except when they use sophistic reasoning in their texts, which they do constantly

[Anonymous No.17620421]

>>17608558
Heidegger does not reify das Nicht. The nothing is not a thing. It is literally no-thing.

[Anonymous No.17620763]

Fuck it should I join a monastery burger life isn't worth it

[Anonymous No.17620845]

Btw Buddhism keeps becoming philosophy in these threads and that's too bad

[Anonymous No.17620879]

>>17616765
>In theravada being a layman is wasting your life
source?

[Anonymous No.17620888]

>>17620763
you won't

[Anonymous No.17620889]

>>17619199
buddhist bon hindu syncretism

[Anonymous No.17621000]

>>17620888
You hit me with those trips too >:(

[Anonymous No.17621829]

>>17620029
>No I’m not, you just keep on insisting on misrepresenting what I’m saying. Probably because either way it shows that Buddhism is illogical nonsense so instead of addressing the point head-on you’d rather bitch about how I’m framing the argument.
Every time you say you're not obfuscating the argument, you do it again. Me bitching about your lack of awareness is actually addressing the point. You just like to run away from the point that was refuted by Westerhoff because it showed the Burton's argument is wrong and you're desperately clinging to a non-point to save yourself from embarrassment.

>When we examine these factors to see if any of them are sufficient to permit themselves or the chain as a whole to exist, A is not able to, nor B, nor C, nor D, and all the way around back to A again.
So you are just positing the first cause argument like you've always done.

>So in the absence of any factor permitting A to exist, A could not arise, neither could B, C and D again all the way around. So even though the cycle itself is closed and not extending infinitely, when you try to establish what permits the things in the cycle to exist, it just keeps going back without finding anything that allows them to exist, and this can be extended infinitely so long as you keep looking, it never ends. You can keep going back around the circle to A again for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th time etc and none of them will ever be sufficient to permit the parts or the whole of the chain to exist.
Then this is not an argument against infinite regress. You are just shifting goalposts by saying 'actually an uncased thing must exist otherwise that thing tends to infinity'. Absurd argument.

>Trying to establish what permits any of them to exist, leads to a regress around the circle, which continues infinitely without stopping, because it never stops, i.e. never arrives at anything that allows it to exist, it is an infinite regress that shows dependent origination could not possibly be true.
See you've done it 3 times now, saying 'I understand what circularity is....but I'm still calling it an infinite regress lol'. You are clearly obfuscating differing arguments because you have no way out of your logical error.

>Just because you tie the ends of the line together into a circle doesn’t mean that when it connects back around to the P1 in the form of the first link that it is magically able to support the truth of the other propositions, it still continues on without stopping.
And just because you see propositions going back to each other, doesn't mean it leads to infinite regress.

[Anonymous No.17621907]

When did the Buddha teach that the soul does not exist?

[Anonymous No.17621917]

>>17621907
early in the PC is where he refuted the idea of a self

[Anonymous No.17622057]

>>17621829
>So you are just positing the first cause argument like you've always done.
He's arguing the principle of contingency I think (something uncaused must cause something else). He's been known to use several Thomist arguments to defend his crypto-buddhist drivel.

[Anonymous No.17622116]

>>17622057
Yes but invoking the principle of contingency and conflating it with infinite regress is a fallacy. No serious scholar actually invalidates points 2 or 3 of Westerhoff's propositions, it completely debunks the idea that constructed constructs require an unconstructed construct to exist, or else it tends to infinity.

[Anonymous No.17622217]

>>17621917
source?

[Anonymous No.17622236]

>>17608545
Just be yourself

[Anonymous No.17623215]

>>17620889
ok but what's it about and why do people praise it

[Anonymous No.17623534]

>>17608545
turn to Taoism

[Anonymous No.17624124]

>>17622116
See >>17615379 and answer

[Anonymous No.17624513]

Bump