/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17859703]

I agree with everything that Nagarjuna says.
In fact he makes more sense than the actual original words of the Buddha because he doesn't allow for the same ambiguity and shifting of contextual meaning

Should I try to refute him through further meaning or shouldI try to dedicate my life to the reestablishment of the pure Madhyamaka school?

[Anonymous No.17859744]

>>17859703
Read Adi Shankara.
And https://web.archive.org/web/20191029052538/http://www.thelogician.net/BUDDHIST-ILLOGIC/Cover-page.htm .

[Anonymous No.17859772]

>>17859744
(Ca be read in the footer of the page)

[Anonymous No.17859891]

>>17859744
adi shankara is recursively refuted by Nagarjuna.
Nagarjuna shows that svabhava is untenable, so what leg does Adi Shankara have to argue for it?

[Anonymous No.17859905]

>>17859891
>adi shankara is recursively refuted by Nagarjuna
No. Read him.

>Nagarjuna shows that svabhava is untenable
No.
Read the book >>17859744

[Anonymous No.17859918]

>>17859905
how can svabhava be tenable

no thing is self caused
no thing is caused by another
no thing is caused by itself and another
no thing is uncaused

so where is svabhava?

[Anonymous No.17859970]

>>17859918
it is eternal, uncaused, beginningless and undecaying as God or Brahman’s very nature

[Anonymous No.17860002]

>>17859970
an eternal thing cannot undergo change, yet quite apparently the universe around undegoes change.

[Anonymous No.17860023]

>>17860002
The universe is not the same thing as Brahman in Advaita so the universe having change does not contradict Brahman or God having an unchanging svabhava. The universe is not a part of, or the emanation of or the body of Brahman. It’s an illusion caused by Brahman’s maya.

[Anonymous No.17860044]

>>17860023
if Brahman is not subject to change, how it go from being unthought of by me, to thought of? That is the undergoing of change

If Brahman is eternal and not subject to the change of time, at what point in time can Brahman exist?

[Anonymous No.17860125]

>>17860044
>if Brahman is not subject to change, how it go from being unthought of by me, to thought of? That is the undergoing of change
That’s not Brahman, it’s your mental conception of Brahman which is not the same thing as Brahman. Brahman is not an object of thought and it can never be one, the mind can only conjure up its own representation of Brahman, but that is not Brahman Himself, so what you describe involves no change in Brahman whatsoever. You are wrongfully reifying your thoughts as being identical with the Absolute which they are not.

>If Brahman is eternal and not subject to the change of time, at what point in time can Brahman exist?
Time is another illusion that comes from Brahman’s maya, it’s not actually real. Brahman remains outside time in the timeless eternity of the infinite while projecting the illusion of time for the living being within the illusory universe.

[Anonymous No.17860317]

>>17860125
>never can be one
then what the actual fuck are you talking about lol

[Anonymous No.17860386]

>>17860317
>then what the actual fuck are you talking about lol
I’m talking about Brahman, it’s understood in Advaita that the sign used to signify the Absolute (the word Brahman) isn’t identical with the Absolute as It truly exists in Itself independently of the minds mental representation of it. Brahman is only fully realizable in an immediate spiritual realization which transcends thought, but that doesn’t prevent us from saying things about Brahman which are true. Metaphysics uses language to point and guide the aspirant to a spiritual realization which transcends language. Hence, there is no contradiction in anything that I’m saying, you are just confusing the sign for the thing that is signified by the sign.

[Anonymous No.17860540]

>>17859744
I would be careful about reading Shankara as a commentary to the Upanishads, he is extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (he's called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 8th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17860609]

>>17859703
You should dedicate yourself to expand the Madhyamaka for the benefit of all sentient beings, anon. Who are we, not enlightened nor bodhisattvas, who haven't completely realized śūnyatā, reducing things to nāmarūpa, to think that we can go beyond such enlightened masters? It would only enforce Avidyā in ourselves. We can always make punctual critiques, but, if not in accordance with other enlightened being, but by "ourselves", it would only reforce Saṃskāra.

[Anonymous No.17860620]

>>17859703 (OP)
You should dedicate yourself to the Madhyamaka for the benefit of all sentient beings, anon. Who are we, not enlightened nor bodhisattvas, who haven't completely realized śūnyatā, reducing things to nāmarūpa, to think that we can go beyond such enlightened masters? It would only enforce Avidyā in ourselves. We can always make punctual critiques, but, if not in accordance with other enlightened being, but by "ourselves", it would only reforce Saṃskāra.

[Anonymous No.17860627]

>>17859703
You should dedicate yourself to the Madhyamaka for the benefit of all sentient beings, anon. Who are we, not enlightened nor bodhisattvas, who haven't completely realized śūnyatā, reducing things to nāmarūpa, to think that we can go beyond such enlightened masters? It would only enforce Avidyā in ourselves. We can always make punctual critiques, but, if not in accordance with other enlightened being, but by "ourselves", it would only reforce Saṃskāra.

[Anonymous No.17860788]

>>17860386
this is the beauty of the sunya. it doesn't require some sort of unexplained transcendental leap from the described to the realised.

it is quite plainly, tattva. it can be realised intellectually, it can be realised spiritually.

[Anonymous No.17860822]

>>17859918
Where are the arguments? I only see assertions

>everything is caused
>nagarjuna is false
>Well? You see

[Anonymous No.17860840]

>>17860788
I disagree, I think Madhyamaka is totally illogical, this is detailed in such books as ‘Emptiness Appraised’ by Burton and ‘Buddhist Illogic’ by Sion. I’m not here in this thread though to start a huge argument about that, I was just pointing out why your arguments against what Advaita says have no basis to them, I wasn’t even the 2nd poster in this thread btw but I just came in and saw your response to him and saw that it was easy to correct.

> unexplained transcendental leap
It’s not unexplained, it’s explained in great detail in Shankara’s writings and other Advaita texts, it’s just that you are ignorant of what they say. The Absolute cannot be an object of thought for many reasons that are listed in Shankara’s works, this does not prevent us from having it be revealed to us though because consciousness is separate from the mind and its thoughts.