/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19540102]

>Emperor Wu asked the great teacher Bodhidharma, “What is the first principle of the holy teaching?”
>Bodhidharma said, “Vast emptiness, nothing holy.”
>“Who are you, standing here in front of me?” asked the emperor.
>“I don’t know,” said Bodhidharma.
>The emperor didn’t understand.

What did he mean by this "nothing holy" part? Is Chan Buddhism just atheism?

[Anonymous No.19540105]

>Reddit, but ancient and Asian.

[Anonymous No.19540121]

I never heard this shit before, but I'll take a stab at it. I don't think anything can be "holy" without some human deeming it to be such. It's like Hamlet's saying nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. In Salinger's "Teddy" he talks about not telling what an elephant is to children and just letting them go and see one first, before you even tell them what it is. I think it's something like that.

[Anonymous No.19540690]

Mu!

[Anonymous No.19540750]

>>19540102
Read Der Satz vom Grund by Martin Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.19541747]

>>19540102
>are ya winning, son?

[Anonymous No.19541860]

What's up with all these ancient wise-guys telling powerful people and emperors to fuck off?

[Anonymous No.19541887]

>>19541860
The better question is how many of these accounts are actually true.

[Anonymous No.19541896]

>>19541860
Emperors can at most rule other people, wise-guys rule over their own selves.

[Anonymous No.19541939]

>>19540102
what the Emperor refers as "the holy teaching" here is normally translated as Noble Truth, (see the Four Noble Truths). Bodhidharma's typically radical and cryptic response is literally "Vast/immeasurable/empty-ness, No Noble"

[Anonymous No.19541944]

in other words he's saying something like: all is void, there are no noble truths

[Anonymous No.19541987]

>>19540102

[Anonymous No.19542410]

>>19540102
>“I don’t know,” said Bodhidharma.
Based but incredibly distraught

[Anonymous No.19542458]

>>19541860
>be emperor
>meet someone with strong authentic non-sycophantic vibes
>interpret even slightly weird turns of conversation as being told to fuck off cause you're excessively prideful

[Anonymous No.19542516]

>>19540121
>In Salinger's "Teddy" he talks about not telling what an elephant is to children and just letting them go and see one first, before you even tell them what it is
Spot on. The entire point of Zen is realizing that language cannot convey the entirety of reality, and therefore using non-linguistic methods of conveying information. The Koan is thus a linguistic statement that is designed to produce a result in the one pondering the Koan not through having an answer produced via linguistic reasoning, but rather by the very pondering of the Koan.

The tl;dr of the Koan here is
>Sunyata.

>>19541860
Wu of Liang was a HUGE patron of Buddhism. He sought out Bodhidharma, it's not like Alexander with Diogenes where he just happens upon him one day.

[Anonymous No.19542523]

All Buddhism is just atheism

[Anonymous No.19542637]

>>19542523
Something happens after death depending on the latent seeds' potentials in the storehouse consciousness, so it's wrong to say it's atheism. It's not materialistic/physicalistic.
It's more like nontheist*. It doesn't matter to them if there are gods or not since they are, likewise, impermanent and empty. More like a general apathy.

[Anonymous No.19542688]

>>19542637
>impermanent and empty
is Parnirvana impermanent and empty?
>well... not exactly we make a special exception whereby we don't subject it to the same critique as other things

[[OP] No.19542712]

>>19540102
The goal of most major schools of hinduism and buddhism is to achieve non-dualism. So in this context "vast emptiness, nothing holy" means that there is no difference between holiness and emptiness.

[Anonymous No.19543830]

>>19540102
>Vast emptiness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net
>Nothing holy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Consciousnesses
>Not knowing who you are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81

[Anonymous No.19544618]

>>19542712
nonduality is what is.

[Anonymous No.19544663]

>>19540102
>Is Chan Buddhism just atheism?
Cha'an buddhism is neither atheist nor theist, but, ought a God to turn up they would get drunk and shit fuck it after having pretended to be disengaged.

Cha'an started out as a small Heidegger book club after Heidegger travelled through time having fucked Hannah Arendt and used the outrage of people towards Eichmann in Jerusalem to power his time travel. He'd accidentally inspired a bunch of buddhist nutcases.

They gradually stopped using the Sutras as the central part of their faith, because with the short posting times caused by an influx of reddy to study studentors they were forced to be danker and danker with their copypasta, until their pasta became so obtuse that all Zen masters are forced to travel forward in time to the early life of [s4s] before it transcended the /s4s/ interface and to post there.

As a result, [s4s] was enlightened.

Jomon's commentary: If you fuck a dead corpse you get 5 years. If you fuck a live dog you get 15 years. Fucking a dead dog is perfectly legal.

When Emperor Wu turned his name upside down, he was enlightened as to the nature of categories in language in front of the Bodhidharma. When the Bodhidharma turned the Emperor Wu upside down, Emperor Wu got a mouth full of cock. Who sucked cock more here?

[Anonymous No.19544728]

>>19541887
I really dont think that that is the better question...

[Anonymous No.19544744]

>>19540102
The whole buddhism is based on nihilism, mahayana buddhism just expose It to his limit

[Anonymous No.19544829]

Consider why so few words were spoken in the dialogue in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19544847]

>>19544829
because chinese characters are a pain to write so they value concision

[Anonymous No.19545384]

>>19542688
This is an extremely controversial issue within the tradition that has no real answer. Some posit Nirvana has actual existence, others that it's just dissolution. There's also a big debate about what this dissolution would be, and whether it would simply be permadeath.

[Anonymous No.19545397]

>>19540102
I think all of these masters were trying to put sometime into wards which couldn't be put into words. It's not materialism.

I wonder how does these mystical experiences feel like.

[Anonymous No.19545411]

Other Bodhidharma quotes:

The buddha is your own mind
don't misdirect your worship

A buddha can't be found in words
or anywhere in the Twelvefold Canon

If you envision a buddha, a dharma, or a bodhisattva
and conceive respect for them
you relegate yourself to the realm of mortals
if you seek direct understanding
don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever and you'll succeed

If you know that everything comes from the mind
don't become attached...
understanding comes mid-sentence
what good are doctrines?

The ultimate Truth is beyond words
doctrines are words
they're not the Way
the Way is wordless
words are illusions

[Anonymous No.19545637]

>>19544663
>When Emperor Wu turned his name upside down, he was enlightened as to the nature of categories in language in front of the Bodhidharma. When the Bodhidharma turned the Emperor Wu upside down, Emperor Wu got a mouth full of cock. Who sucked cock more here?

The answer is absolute: OP

[Anonymous No.19545638]

>>19542523
>oh no the buddhist view does not truly care that much about deities and holy realms! but the abrahamic religions and even hindu religions put so much emphasis on deities and otherworldly realms! why wont buddhism care as much as them?
buddha said he merely came to teach ABOUT dukkha. everything else is secondary matters. he focuses so much about dukkha cos even if u succeed with 'gods' or 'heavens' in any way u still dont defeat dukkha. but nooo "atheistic!"
and im not even buddhist.

[Anonymous No.19545656]

>>19545638
> even if u succeed with 'gods' or 'heavens' in any way u still dont defeat dukkha
proof?

[Anonymous No.19545731]

>>19545656
From the Buddhist pov if you are "reborn" in a heavenly realm, which was the goal of the mainline theism at the time Buddhism started, you are still subject to dependent origination and therefore death. Gods are effectively demoted from being eternal to being merely super-human. In the nikayas for instance there are suttas where Buddha claims Brahmā only appeared in his realm after passing from a previous realm, one he does not remember due to ignorance while Buddha knows of it. So gods still "exist" but they are constrained by many of the same conditions as humans.

[Anonymous No.19545748]

>>19545731
> From the Buddhist pov if you are "reborn" in a heavenly realm, which was the goal of the mainline theism at the time Buddhism started, you are still subject to dependent origination and therefore death.
This is basically just a partisan claim though, who are Buddhists to say that heaven is non-eternal and that those who enter heaven never die again? It’s not like they have any arguments or proof for it do they?

[Anonymous No.19545776]

>>19540102
Buddhism would be based if it wasn’t so oddly normative.

[Anonymous No.19545829]

>>19540121
>I don't think anything can be "holy" without some human deeming it to be such
I think that the deeper point is that there is no "something" in the first place to which "holiness" could be attributed. One could say in the same sense "nothing beautiful", "nothing powerful", "nothing made of wood", and so on. Bodhidharma mentions holiness specifically only because Emperor Wu asked him about "holy teachings"

[Anonymous No.19545833]

>>19545748
>It’s not like they have any arguments or proof for it do they?
In the scholastic literature there are more arguments than in the suttas, but in any case the theists certainly have no proof for their claims

[Anonymous No.19545872]

>>19544829
only fools ramble on

[Anonymous No.19545885]

>>19545833
> In the scholastic literature there are more arguments than in the suttas
such as?
>but in any case the theists certainly have no proof for their claims
neither do buddhists

[Anonymous No.19545888]

>>19540102
God is no-thing

[Anonymous No.19545909]

>>19545411
>>The buddha is your own mind
that's false
>>19545411
>don't misdirect your worship
worship is a useless brahminical invention which is useless in buddhism
>>19545411
>If you envision a buddha, a dharma, or a bodhisattva
>and conceive respect for them
>you relegate yourself to the realm of mortals
>if you seek direct understanding
>don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever and you'll succeed
>
>If you know that everything comes from the mind
>don't become attached...
>understanding comes mid-sentence
>what good are doctrines?
>
>The ultimate Truth is beyond words
>doctrines are words
>they're not the Way
>the Way is wordless
>words are illusions
word salad by mental midgets in order to fight the strawman that the path is intellectual and words are magical.

The buddha always said that people should spend most of their time practicing, and protip the practice is not the way advocated by mahayana.

[Anonymous No.19545911]

>>19540105
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.19545940]

>>19545885
The usual arguments against theism in Buddhism are tied to criticism of the understanding of permanence. If the god is said to be permanent or eternal or unchanging, he is no longer capable of any efficacy because 'doing' would involve a change in state of some kind and this change would violate permanence, or introduce a second/contributing causal factor into the mix. If for instance God decides to do something he wasn't doing before, he has changed. There are others but this has been the most common from what I've read.

[Anonymous No.19546054]

>>19545940
> If the god is said to be permanent or eternal or unchanging, he is no longer capable of any efficacy because 'doing' would involve a change in state of some kind and this change would violate permanence, or introduce a second/contributing causal factor into the mix.
This argument is very weak because it wrongly presupposes that God isn’t changelessly and eternally doing whatever he does that provides for the universe to emerge or take place, but various classical forms of Theism do in fact say that God provides for the universe in a way that involves no change in or of God, this is a pretty obvious rebuttal to such an argument; do the Buddhists really consider that simplistic of an argument to be sufficient when it has already been addressed? For example, in Thomism, God has one eternal will/act that includes the knowledge and preordination of everything coming into existence at specific times and so it’s all accomplished through one eternal and beginningless will, and in Advaita Vedanta Brahman is just changelessly projecting or wielding maya without any change or beginning/end.

[Anonymous No.19546064]

>>19544663
Underrated

[Anonymous No.19546121]

>>19540102

[Anonymous No.19546127]

>>19540102
it means you cant pray to your imaginary sky god and just offer millions of trumpbux in his honour to somehow sway the powers that be in your favour

[Anonymous No.19546173]

>>19546054
>do the Buddhists really consider that simplistic of an argument to be sufficient when it has already been addressed
Already addressed? In India the response is "the Vedas say." Buddhists do not accept the Vedas as authoritative. In Buddhism there's a sliding scale of addressing rival theological arguments to proclaiming gods themselves are either nonexistent or they are inferior to Buddhas, because ultimately the worship of deities is not fundamental to Buddhism. Buddhists are not constantly worrying about proving or disproving gods and that takes up a minimal part of scripture and other literature. If you're going to say god is so super-duper he can do everything all at once and forever without any changes to himself, there really is no answer to that other than to be smug. You've stopped caring about anything we can actually know and argue over, and are just imagining things on the basis of revelation.

[Anonymous No.19546186]

>>19546054
>but various classical forms of Theism do in fact say that God provides for the universe in a way that involves no change in or of God, this is a pretty obvious rebuttal to such an argument

How is "some forms of theism believe the contrary" a rebuttal? Absent some independent reason to believe they're correct, this is just a statement that some forms of theism are incorrect.

[Anonymous No.19546428]

>>19542523
depends on your definition of atheism, if by atheism you mean not believing in a creator god then buddhism is indeed atehist, but if your definition of atheist is not believing in a trascendental aspect of reality, just pure materialism, then buddhism is not atheist

[Anonymous No.19546433]

>>19542688
>is Parnirvana impermanent
no
>and empty?
yes

[Anonymous No.19546455]

>>19546054
>God has one eternal will/act that includes the knowledge and preordination of everything coming into existence at specific times and so it’s all accomplished through one eternal and beginningless will
how he manage to do that?
>in Advaita Vedanta Brahman is just changelessly projecting or wielding maya without any change or beginning/end
again how he manages to do that?

you can't just say, this god actually can be unchangeable and at the same time be the creator fo change without explaining how he manages to solve that contradiction
you're just saying, he can do it because he can, that's no logical argumentation, just blind faith
just like chirstians trying to prove the holy validity of the bible citing the bible

[Anonymous No.19546456]

>>19546428
>if your definition of atheist is not believing in a trascendental aspect of reality
Atheists should be more strict with theists on the term "atheism." It is just a simple negation of the belief in god. It doesn't tell you anything else and depends entirely on the theism being rejected

[Anonymous No.19546831]

>>19546173
> In India the response is "the Vedas say
No, the response is “saying God cannot be unchanging and be the origin of the universe is a strawman argument because there are ways that God can be the origin of everything without changing thereby, i.e. constant creation or constant projection in one unchanging and eternal act.
>>19546186
> How is "some forms of theism believe the contrary" a rebuttal?
It is a rebuttal by providing an answer to the question of ‘how can God be the origin of things and be unchanging’, by giving a logical answer of how it can take place it shows that such a thing is not in fact impossible as Buddhists wrongly imply or claim.
>>19546455
>>God (in Thomism) has one eternal will/act
>how he manage to do that?
Through using His power or energy which for Thomists is the same as God’s essence, i.e. God’s essence or nature includes an inherent power to create
>>in Advaita Vedanta Brahman is just changelessly projecting or wielding maya
>again how he manages to do that?
Through it being Brahman’s uncreated self-nature to timelessly and unchangingly project maya using Brahman’s inherent power
> you can't just say, this god actually can be unchangeable and at the same time be the creator fo change without explaining how he manages to solve that contradiction
I already explained how the contradiction is solved, but maybe you misunderstood. For your sake, I’ll explain it again. If God is just doing the same thing forever without any change or deviation from that timeless act or function, then God is not changed by that thing He does forever or timelessly. If that very unchanging act is the origin of the universe, then God is the origin of the world while remaining unchanging, there being no changes remaining in God that are occurring which we can identify and label God as changing because of them.

[Anonymous No.19546881]

>>19546831
>Through using His power or energy
>Through it being Brahman’s uncreated self-nature to timelessly and unchangingly project maya using Brahman’s inherent power
that don't explain anything, you're just saying god can do it because he's god
>I already explained how the contradiction is solved, but maybe you misunderstood. For your sake, I’ll explain it again. If God is just doing the same thing forever without any change or deviation from that timeless act or function, then God is not changed by that thing He does forever or timelessly. If that very unchanging act is the origin of the universe, then God is the origin of the world while remaining unchanging, there being no changes remaining in God that are occurring which we can identify and label God as changing because of them.
again, that don't explain anything, you're just saying taht god can surpass the paradox because it's in his nature to do so, i can just say that everything can come from nothingness because it's in nothingess nature to do so, which is pretty much the sam ething, non causality creates causality, why? because i just say that it's in non causalitys nature to do so, that's not an argument, just a statement, yuou're not articulaitng how can brahman or god can posses that nature and how humanity can interact with such paradoxical being

[Anonymous No.19546885]

>>19546831
>there are ways that God can be the origin of everything without changing thereby, i.e. constant creation or constant projection in one unchanging and eternal act
Well then he doesn't really exist as an entity which can be observed and reasoned about, so it's your own fantasy as far as any dialog is concerned, and you are calling that "god" because you have to for cultural reasons. You certainly won't be able to demonstrate this imperishable point of origin without faith, and have instead labeled your absolute principle "god," to which there is indeed recourse to scriptures. Just as the entire point of thomism was to describe the God of the Bible in a "rational" way, the Advaita Vedanta position does this for the Brahman of the Vedas. There was a desire for better proofs to be produced than comic books and such is the result. But the premises are the same regardless of innovations in argumentation, that there is some unobservable magical being who creates the universe and his priests know this because they read about him all day. The terse retort of skeptics has always trumped this in the absence of opposing political pressure.

[Anonymous No.19546915]

>>19546831
>If God is just doing the same thing forever without any change or deviation from that timeless act or function,
if god is "doing something" then he's by deffinition changing, sicne to do something is to move in some way or another, and moving is the most fundamental form of change
>then God is not changed by that thing
thisis not about god being changed by teh object, is about how god can interact or exist in the objcet if he can' change, since objects fundamental ature is to change
>He does forever or timelessly. If that very unchanging act is the origin of the universe,
how so? how can you prove that? that's just a empty statement, not a metaphysical argument
>that timeless act or function, then God is not changed by that thing He does forever or timelessly. If that very unchanging act is the origin of the universe, then God is the origin of the world while remaining unchanging, there being no changes remaining in God that are occurring which we can identify and label God as changing because of them.
to arive to this conclusion you need to prove first that, the unchanging act is the origin of the universe and that god remains unchanging

[Anonymous No.19546926]

>>19546831
>by providing an answer
lol no, you can articulate an answer about pretty much anything, it needs to be a good(logical, consitent, non falsiable) answer in order to actually refute a claim

[Anonymous No.19547773]

>>19546926
> it needs to be a good(logical, consitent, non falsiable) answer in order to actually refute a claim
There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the hypothetical premise of an unchanging God/Brahman forever engaged in the same act or function, without any deviation, beginning or end whatsoever. Both the Buddhist claim that God cannot create or project the universe without Himself changing and the Theist’s response to this are both unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.19547784]

>>19540121

Holy makes sense only from a moral perspective. Only if we talk about good or bad. From a cosmological perspective, there is nothing good or bad, everything just is, irrespective of any morality. Morality is only something that makes sense from a human perspective, from the perspective of people that can suffer or benefit from actions. So there is nothing holy in a strict sense.

I'd say that vast emptiness is more discutable.

[Anonymous No.19547786]

>>19540102
>nothing holy
there is no particular thing about a lotus that makes it holy, and there is no holy bohdidharma in front of the emperor. the emperor has gained no merit, and lost none in the process of trying to get it.

[Anonymous No.19547790]

>>19544618
imagine being defined by something that it isn't.

[Anonymous No.19547800]

try some koans and one blade of grass

[Anonymous No.19548017]

>>19547773
>There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the hypothetical premise of an unchanging God/Brahman forever engaged in the same act or function,
yes there is, because we live in a changing world, so in order for an unchanging being to exist he must exist outside of change, thus a bridge between change and unchange is needed, that brings all sort of problems, the most obvious one is that such a bridge then would need a bridge in each of his parts and so on and so on, creating an infinte loop of bridges
and just answering, they can because they're god and they just can, is not a valid logical unfalsiable answer, that's just a dogmatic axiom
>the Theist’s response to this are both unfalsifiable
the only way it's unfalsiable is if you make a "statement" like god is beyond change, but that can be said about any statemet, statmente are by definition unfalsiable, since in order for something to be falsiable it need to be an argument with premises,not a statement
i just can say god dosen't exist, and that also a unfalsiable statement

[Anonymous No.19548084]

>>19547773
>There is nothing illogical or inconsistent about the hypothetical premise of an unchanging God
What about God not existing? I'm not sure why you think theology is the ultimate gotcha response to Buddhist threads when you are dealing with atheists on an anime forum

[Anonymous No.19548273]

>>19540102
buddha is no better than a shit stick (or a dried stick of shit)

[Anonymous No.19548402]

>>19544728
Cheers cunt. I tried to get all the rote learning and “danke bantz master” crap of Cha’an in combined with the utter weakness of western philosophy’s ontology philosophy of self and philosophy of language to the point where 3000 year old Buddhist findings regurgitated in undergraduate teaching tool koans appears pithy to idiot westerners. Maybe it’s Zen having a latent Nazi streak (The emperors best Shinto disciples) and Heidegger being a Nazi fuck: all ontology has an anti communal streak as much as an anti individual.

In any case if you seek enlightenment please cease using the /s4s/ interface because you’re missing 80% of the posts.

[Anonymous No.19548425]

Buddhism is a NWO atheistic bugman “religion”
Provemewrongprotipyoucant

[Anonymous No.19548481]

>>19548425
Don't you have a palestinian zombie you should be kowtowing to?

[Anonymous No.19548603]

>>19548017
>yes there is, because we live in a changing world, so in order for an unchanging being to exist he must exist outside of change, thus a bridge between change and unchange is needed, that brings all sort of problems, the most obvious one is that such a bridge then would need a bridge in each of his parts and so on and so on, creating an infinte loop of bridges
No, this is just silly. If the power of God directly produces time along with creation etc, then there is no bridge between the two needed but there is just God timelessly producing or projecting time, space, matter etc. When it's directly produced then nothing else is needed aside from God with that power.
>>19548084
>What about God not existing?
Well, the context was about Buddhist arguments attempting (and failing) to refute God, and simply stating that as a belief doesn't have value as an argument
>I'm not sure why you think theology is the ultimate gotcha response to Buddhist threads when you are dealing with atheists on an anime forum
but I thought Buddhism wasn't atheist? Maybe it was a Freudian slip. In any case, theology has important lessons to offer when analyzing Buddhism, such as the lesson that the Buddhist model leads to an infinite regress if one does as some Buddhists do by positing dependent-origination as the origin of samsara/rebirth (instead of simply having no idea what the origin is, which some Buddhists take as the alternative position)

[Anonymous No.19548654]

>>19541747
underrated

[Anonymous No.19548708]

>>19548603
>the Buddhist model leads to an infinite regress
The theist model is that one's father does not have a father. But both the Buddhist and the theist have only ever observed causes and effects. How could there be a first cause on this basis unless you imagine one? What father is not himself a son?

[Anonymous No.19548785]

The first lesson is emptiness, noting. In other words, pure nothing which can’t be defined without a something. Therefore, Bodidarma shows the emporer that he is no thing in the same way the Buddah defined himself in the negative.


Are you a man? Asked Parmahansa.
I am not. Said the Buddah

Are you a god? Said Pramahansa
I am not. Said the Budda.

If neither god nor man?

I am No Thing said the Buddah.

[Anonymous No.19548903]

>>19548603
>No, this is just silly. If the power of God directly produces time along with creation etc, then there is no bridge between the two needed but there is just God timelessly producing or projecting time, space, matter etc. When it's directly produced then nothing else is needed aside from God with that power.
first you need to prove that god exist(which you didn't) and even if we for some reason choose to take for granted the existence of god, that still don't articualte how he can act on this changing world, just saying he has "the power" to do so is AGIAN, just a empty statement devoided of logical reasoning, notice how all you can answer against the problem of ininite bridges is that "god just has the power to do so"

>Buddhist model leads to an infinite regress
that's only the case if you use an ontology of substance, but buddhism use an ontology of relations, and in order for infinite regress to be a thing you have to take for granted that causation is created by an object and not by a subject which no philosophy does today, so the infinite regress really don't apply here
>if one does as some Buddhists do by positing dependent-origination as the origin of samsara/rebirth
dependent origination(Pratītyasamutpāda) is a epsitemological system not an onotlogical one, so again, it really don't apply here

so all you have as an argument is that god exist because "he has the power to exist" and he can circumvent the paradox that comes with being unchanging just because again, "he just have the power to do so"
you have to be a really medicore individual to be convinced by that type of "argumentation"

[Anonymous No.19548989]

You can tell if someone's a man by putting your fist inside him and waiting for the "gay" signal on the back of his head to light up. If you think he might be a man don't put your fist inside his vagina: gay is anal only.

Buddha obviously didn't experiment in college.

[Anonymous No.19549099]

>>19547773
>>19548017
another big problem with an unchanging being is the problem of qualities, an unchanging being by deffinition can't have qualities, since qualities are the forms in which entities interact in time/space(the changing world) so this unchanging being can't possess any type of quality, making him pretty much something indistinguishable from nothingness

[Anonymous No.19549291]

>>19549099
why on earth is it impossible for a quality to be beyond time and space

[Anonymous No.19549365]

>>19549291
Because if it is beyond space and time it is not possible for us mutually as an object. But feel free to argue from scripture or mystical experience. I just have no reason to believe you.

[Anonymous No.19549468]

>>19549291
i already said it, because qualities are the way objects manifest in space and time

[Anonymous No.19549544]

>>19546885
advaita/guenonfag BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.19549583]

>>19549468
If I cut off your fingers and cut out your tongue what is buddha nature?

[Anonymous No.19549917]

>>19549583
okey he went insane, thinking so hard about actual metaphysical problems melted his brain

[Anonymous No.19549920]

>>19549291
name a quality that don't involve space or time

[Anonymous No.19550036]

>>19549917
I’m so sorry you’re trying to rewrite the sutras. You should learn to draw water and cut wood. In this society running the KFC fryer also counts.

[Anonymous No.19550053]

>>19540102
>Is Chan Buddhism just atheism?
you are trying to apply labels of belief to complete and utter nonbelief. of course you will not understand it this way. you can't comprehend nothingness and nonbelief, so you try to name it with a belief. nothingness and complete nonbelief is not atheism, and in fact the true nonbelief isn't even nonbelief, it just isn't. if this explanation doesn't suffice you will have to experience it yourself and for this to happen you must become disillusioned repeatedly with everything and with beliefs you didn't even know you had over and over again until you finally get it

[Anonymous No.19550135]

>>19550036
>I’m so sorry you’re trying to rewrite the sutras
lol wat?

[Anonymous No.19551047]

>>19548273
the modern translation would be more in the lines of "used toilet paper". the shit stick is what they used in that time to wipe their butt, it is a branch made of wood and not poop.

[Anonymous No.19551515]

>>19548273
If you told them this was a koan buddhoids would be like
>wow so much wisdom! It’s like, not discursive and linear like western wisdooom? It like makes you think in a non linear waaay?

[Anonymous No.19551526]

13 KB PNG
>>19548273 #
If you told them this was a koan buddhoids would be like
>wow so much wisdom! It’s not like, discursive and linear like western wisdooom? It like, makes you think in a non linear waaay? And I like, thinks it’s so coool? Wow

[Anonymous No.19551533]

>>19545909
Your post sucked, zero information
I hope you dont think u are enlightend

[Anonymous No.19551618]

>>19540102
Buddhism is even more hardcore atheism than normal. Everything melts into effeminate goo

[Anonymous No.19551750]

>>19546885
> The terse retort of skeptics has always trumped this in the absence of opposing political pressure.
kek, in case you forgot, Buddhism lost out to Hinduism in India

[Anonymous No.19551821]

>>19551526
How is everything anon? Are you ok?

[Anonymous No.19551825]

>>19546915
> if god is "doing something" then he's by deffinition changing, sicne to do something is to move in some way or another, and moving is the most fundamental form of change
That’s stupid, performing a function doesn’t necessarily entail movement. A pillar “does something” by performing the function of being a support for the roof without itself moving. If God is just effortlessly using his power without any movement involved and without any beginning or end to this using of his power, then there is no change involved.
>then God is not changed by that thing
>thisis not about god being changed by teh object, is about how god can interact or exist in the objcet if he can' change, since objects fundamental ature is to change
Interaction means reciprocal effects being exerted, a changeless creator projecting or producing the universe isn’t an interaction because its not reciprocal but rather one-way, it would only be an interaction if the created universe produced some change in God. God directly projects the objects in an unchanging way, and this gives them a relative and contingent being-ness which permits them to undergo change.
>He does forever or timelessly. If that very unchanging act is the origin of the universe,
>how so? how can you prove that? that's just a empty statement, not a metaphysical argument
I’m speaking about this in the context of replying to Buddhist arguments that supposedly (but not really) show that God being the origin of the universe is logically untenable. In order to show that the Buddhist arguments fail, I don’t have to provide positive proof of the existence of God or the way in which God exists, I only have to point out that the Buddhist argument is a strawman that fails to demonstrate any incoherency or illogicality in the more sophisticated understandings of God which are actually held by various Theistic schools, which I have done. The Buddhists arguments are largely directed at a strawman conception of God, its like Buddhists all throughout history pretend that theists only believe in Brahmā instead of in any immutable supreme God.
>that timeless act or function, then God is not changed by that thing He does forever or timelessly. If that very unchanging act is the origin of the universe, then God is the origin of the world while remaining unchanging, there being no changes remaining in God that are occurring which we can identify and label God as changing because of them.
>to arive to this conclusion you need to prove first that
No I dont you fool, see above, when replying to Buddhist arguments against God I only have to point out how they fail to refute anything, doing so doesn’t require me to prove anything about God. You seem to not understand how basic logic and debates works

[Anonymous No.19551840]

>>19544663
Based schizoposter

[Anonymous No.19551851]

>>19548708
> The theist model is that one's father does not have a father. But both the Buddhist and the theist have only ever observed causes and effects.
If you can only admit as valid things you’ve empirically observed then all of Buddhism and its soteriology etc collapses in a heap. In case you forgot Buddhists dont commit themselves to the ultimate reality of causality anyway and they posit Parnirvana as beyond causality so by extension you’re really arguing that Parnirvana doesn’t exist
>How could there be a first cause on this basis unless you imagine one?
If there is one immutable and timeless Entity who projects the whole chain of cause and effect, the chain being unable to account for its own existence
>What father is not himself a son?
The one on which the whole cycle of fathers and sons itself depends

[Anonymous No.19551863]

>>19546881
> that don't explain anything, you're just saying god can do it because he's god
There is nothing illogical in saying this though, which is the point. As a statement or premise it violates no rules of logic.
> again, that don't explain anything, you're just saying taht god can surpass the paradox because it's in his nature to do so
No, I’m saying there is no paradox whatsoever once you understand what I’m saying, the unchanging produces or projects the changing in one unchanging performance or function, there is nothing paradoxical about that.
>i can just say that everything can come from nothingness because it's in nothingess nature to do so, which is pretty much the sam ething
No it’s not, because nothingness doesn’t possess the capacity to produce anything, if it did, then by virtue of having a capacity it is no longer nothingness, i.e. that claim of yours would violate basic logic, while nothing that I am saying violates any logic.

[Anonymous No.19551865]

>>19540102
Yes nothing is holy in Chan lol. We are just a combination of things that is sometimes aware but just a process that changes then goes away.

But all these Buddhist ideas and stories are just parables for different times and places to point at the truth they are not the truth so you shouldn't argue about them too much

[Anonymous No.19551867]

>>19547790
>What is the ‘in-finite’?

[Anonymous No.19551871]

>>19548785
> Therefore, Bodidarma shows the emporer that he is no thing in the same way the Buddah defined himself in the negative.
If we were nothingness then we wouldn’t be conscious, but we are. Hence, Buddhist nihilism stands refuted

QED

[Anonymous No.19551895]

>>19551750
That proves my point. Hindus were more successful at winning state patronage in medieval India, as apparently the most zealous Buddhists had gone abroad. Oh and then the Muslim invasions dealt the final blow, and they had a zero tolerance policy for the "shaved brahmins"

[Anonymous No.19551919]

>>19551851
>If you can only admit as valid things you’ve empirically observed then all of Buddhism and its soteriology etc collapses in a heap.
Soteriology is always faith based. One could accept Buddhist momentariness, as it is based on our observable and experienced world of transient phenomena, and remain skeptical of nirvana. But Brahman has nothing to do with the observable and experienced world we share because he is posited as a cause beyond causality, one which is not also an effect, which is simply not true for anything we experience if put under analysis. There is either an infinite chain behind it or an arbitary stopping point of "we don't know what caused that" after going a few levels down. The theist claims "oh oh oh I know I know.... GOD did it" but there is nothing admissable in this to an infidel. The unbeliever does not accept your scripture or arguments you claim are consistent with said scriptures or arguments you claim prove those scriptures without depending on them (which would be a lie wrapped in a lie).

[Anonymous No.19551921]

>>19551871
>not having a permanent immutable existence is nihilism
Cool world-denial bro your slave morality is showing

[Anonymous No.19551926]

>>19548903.
>first you need to prove that god exist(which you didn't)
No I dont, that’s completely unnecessary if my aim is only to demonstrate that the Buddhist arguments against the Theist model of God fail to demonstrate any logical contradictions in it. Explaining how a theoretical model doesn’t violate any laws of logic is a separate question from the issue of proving it to be true.
>that still don't articualte how he can act on this changing world, just saying he has "the power" to do so is AGIAN, just a empty statement devoided of logical reasoning
In the model that I’m talking about, God only “acts upon” the world through projecting it, there is no acting or interaction outside of this, and God has the inherent capacity to effortlessly and timelessly project it, so no other intermediary factor is required. This is a logical statement insofar as it doesn’t violate any rules of logic like the LNC.
>mnotice how all you can answer against the problem of ininite bridges is that "god just has the power to do so"
You never provided a reason that shows why a bridge is actually needed, that was the point. If God’s nature directly projects the changing phenomena, then there is no inherent reason for a bridge to be needed. You were misconstruing my position as God “interacting” with a changing world, which is not what I’m talking about, I’m instead talking about God’s nature directly projecting the changing world without any interaction involved (no interaction is involved as all interaction is reciprocal and the universe doesn’t have a reciprocal relation with God).
>Buddhist model leads to an infinite regress
that's only the case if you use an ontology of substance, but buddhism use an ontology of relations, and in order for infinite regress to be a thing you have to take for granted that causation is created by an object and not by a subject which no philosophy does today, so the infinite regress really don't apply here
So then the Buddhists have no idea why and how samsara and rebirth are taking place at all, and hence their claim of supernatural insight into how to be liberated from it should be treated with suspicion, like a man who professes to know how to escape from a maze despite him not knowing how he entered into the maze.
>if one does as some Buddhists do by positing dependent-origination as the origin of samsara/rebirth
>dependent origination(Pratītyasamutpāda) is a epsitemological system not an onotlogical one
Buddhists flip-flop on this all the time, when they want to argue against the point that God is necessary for the universe they cite dependent-origination, contradicting what you just said, then when its pointed out that this leads to an infinite regress then they back away from it.

[Anonymous No.19551939]

>>19551926
>buddhists are wrong about god
>huh, no i don't need to prove god exists

[Anonymous No.19551988]

>>19549099
>another big problem with an unchanging being is the problem of qualities, an unchanging being by deffinition can't have qualities, since qualities are the forms in which entities interact in time/space(the changing world) so this unchanging being can't possess any type of quality, making him pretty much something indistinguishable from nothingness
This a completely circular argument where you first made an unsubstantiated definition of qualities as forms in which entities interact in time and space, and then cite your own presuppositions which you began with as the argument that supposedly demonstrates what you are trying to prove, i.e. it’s pure sophistry. There is no inherent reason why awareness or sentience cannot exist as beyond (i.e transcendent to) time and space. Qualities can exist as things we encounter within time and space, while at the same time existing as the nature characterizing something that is beyond time/space.
>>19549365
> Because if it is beyond space and time it is not possible for us mutually as an object
That sentence makes no sense grammatically, can you try rewriting it in proper English? It’s not clear what you meant to say
>>19549468
> because qualities are the way objects manifest in space and time
That doesn’t establish that something cannot have e.g. the quality of being sentient or alive while remaining beyond time and space, both can be true at the same time.

[Anonymous No.19552002]

>>19549920
> name a quality that don't involve space or time
Sentience or awareness doesn’t, time and space are apprehended *through* it and hence after the fact of there already being sentience, knowing them presupposes sentience, but a transcendent sentience doesn’t presuppose time and space.

[Anonymous No.19552022]

>>19551895
> Hindus were more successful at winning state patronage in medieval India,
And the Hindus were more effective at debating Buddhists and they did defeat Buddhists in various debates, as admitted by Buddhist historians themselves. Also, whether or not a group received patronage was often the RESULT of state-sponsored public debates, with the winner of such debates subsequently receiving the patronage as a reward for winning.
>Oh and then the Muslim invasions dealt the final blow, and they had a zero tolerance policy for the "shaved brahmins"
That’s a cope answer, there is no record of Muslims directing a special persecution at Indian Buddhists which they didn’t also direct at Indian Hindus Lastly, the Muslim answer doesn’t explain why Buddhism largely vanished from southern-India too, despite the Muslims taking way longer to reach it, and despite them never fully controlling it, only holding onto a portion of it for a brief period before the Mughals collapsed.

[Anonymous No.19552030]

>>19551939
> buddhists are wrong about god
Yes, because their arguments are fallacious as I pointed out
>huh, no i don't need to prove god exists
That has nothing to do with whether or not the Buddhist arguments are fallacious

[Anonymous No.19552035]

>>19551921
What you said there was that we are nothingness, not that we weren’t immutable and eternal. Denying that we are nothingness isn’t making any affirmation or denial of permanence/immutability.

[Anonymous No.19552093]

>>19545748
Because umm, Buddha is enlightened, ok? Are you stupid?

[Anonymous No.19552140]

>>19552022
Well we can see from these threads what those debates must have been like, with the theists arguing for the sky daddy who doesn't need any proof of his absolute majesty but only your obedience, and why this was appealing to royal states

[Anonymous No.19552154]

>>19552030
>fallacious arguments
>since everything has a cause, there's something uncaused, and that's god
Your premise is capeshit and it doesn't matter what comes after that. Trying to trip the opponent up in logic games about something you made up and which the rules of that "logic" are meant to endorse is a big joke to anyone paying close attention. "It's a fallacy to argue against God" is just a less blunt version of "because the Vedas say so."

[Anonymous No.19552169]

>>19540102
>What did he mean by this "nothing holy" part?
Nothing to become obsessed with.

[Anonymous No.19552173]

>>19552169
Alternatively, nothing higher than other things.

[Anonymous No.19552199]

Since "mindfulness" is making the rounds with Westerners right now, what do you all think most people mean by it?
Because I'm slowly becoming convinced it only works on depressed people. I feel like if you tried to sell "mindfulness" to happy people it wouldn't work. Well-adjusted people probably don't have an aversion to paying attention to details, and are not riddled with anxieties that mindfulness apparently allays.

And what does mindfulness have to do with Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.19552227]

>>19552199
>Well-adjusted people probably don't have an aversion to paying attention to details,
if anything they are less observant than the poor mendicant who has to keep watching his 6 lest he gets jumped at a moments notice.

[Anonymous No.19552238]

>>19541747

[Anonymous No.19552253]

>>19548402
Tell me how you know nothing about Buddhism without telling me you know nothing about Buddhism: the post

[Anonymous No.19552443]

What would the Buddha think about Mahayana (so-callled) “Buddhism”?

[Anonymous No.19552446]

>>19552443
based af

[Anonymous No.19552461]

>>19552199
>And what does mindfulness have to do with Buddhism?
Read the Mahasattipathanna Sutta. It has nothing to do with California therapy culture

[Anonymous No.19552496]

>>19544663
4chan needs more posters like you anonymous

[Anonymous No.19552644]

>>19552199
"Mindfulness" is Thomas Williams Rhys Davids translation of "Sati", which is "mindfulness" in the sense of "awareness". Essentially, Buddhist posits that mental phenomena is a series of cyclical occurrences. There are six senses, taste, touch, sight, smell, hearing, and mind. Mind is using for psychic powers and the like, but also for the inner monologue and memory. Sensing occurs, then mental activity occurs. Mental phenomena can be caused by other mental phenomena.

A central Buddhist meditative practice is essentially to take apart your own mind and watch it work (notice, that in doing so, you generate mental phenomena as a result of observing mental phenomena; this is the point, as a demonstration of Sunyata). The problem with this is that we're so distracted. So, the Buddha came up with Anapanasati, which is where you sit down, and observe the breath. If a thought enters your head, let it fade away. Return to the breath if your attention wanders. Sit down and do this for five minutes.

Pretty hard, huh? So, Buddhists grind away at Anapanasati (and a bunch of other techniques) to get really good at paying attention to very minor things. Buddhists also do a LOT of other stuff. So, in the 20th century, the Burmese King asked a local collection of foreign monks to create a rejuvenated lay-Buddhism. This is a common theme in Buddhist societies: a new king comes in, and to usher in a golden age, he asks monks to wipe the slate clean and create a new, vitalistic and low-to-the-ground Buddhist practice.

[Anonymous No.19552653]

>>19552227
>>19552199

It's being able to drop the defensiveness when you get attacked with words, subtle intentions, or slights.

It's looking past your ego's self preservation mechanisms and do what's good for your environment. And often times, your ego prevents you from bettering your own life because of anxiety.

A common and often overlooked example is spending money to make money. A guy going broke but is a penny pinching miser will starve before he deploys his parachute.

Letting go of your evolutionary animal instincts and being able to walk the middle path is what is, not only, wise but functional. Buddhism is about the "Goldie locks way of life" or the path of least resistance. You need mindfulness to get there.

[Anonymous No.19552672]

>>19552644
The monks he chose held to the idea that Vipassana ("insight") could be achieved by the laity via a series of practices aimed at, essentially, being aware of the body and mind. They held that in doing so, one would achieved Vipassana spontaneously. The goal of Anapanasati, and a bunch of other practices (like watching a body get dissected) is to generate Vipassana, insight, which moves you closer to fixing the core problem which is ignorance. Vipassana and Samatha ("calming") are the two purposes of meditation. Samatha is about undoing the results of ignorance by starting at the top of the chain, whereas Vipassana is about attacking ignorance directly. The Vipassana Movement's trick was that by focusing on very basic forms of Vipassana that the laity could easily do, they could create a form of Buddhism that didn't require large monastic establishments to do the Samatha stuff.

The Vipassana Movement would be brought to the US as a counter to the New Age. From there, it would get taken over by Jews as a means of deconstructing and colonizing Buddhism for Liberalism. Essentially, the Mindfulness Movement redirects the practice of Anapanasati away from achieving insight about the nature of reality towards merely being a tool to calm people. This is of course literally the opposite of the point of doing Anapanasati, but again, what is being done here is attempting to defang Buddhism as an opponent to Liberalism.

In this sense, yes, the Reddit "Mindfulness Movement" is literally about just distracting people who are unhappy. It's actually for the best that people who are happy don't do it, as they'd just realize how much Liberalism fucking sucks.

[Anonymous No.19552978]

>>19551926
>No I dont, that’s completely unnecessary
it is if you wanna prove the existence of god, more so when the main criticism buddhist have against the theological model is that god's existence can't be proven
>if my aim is only to demonstrate that the Buddhist arguments against the Theist model of God fail to demonstrate any logical contradictions in it
the logical contradiction was already stated, you can't have an unchanging being creating a changing world, since that results in a infnite loops of bridges between those two modes of existence
>Explaining how a theoretical model doesn’t violate any laws of logic is a separate question from the issue of proving it to be true.
you still fail to show how this model don't violate laws of logic

>This is a logical statement insofar as it doesn’t violate any rules of logic like the LNC.
there's no such thing as a logical statement, only logical arguments,statement in general don't violate rules of logic, they're by definition unflasiable only logical ARGUMENTS are valid and falsiable, i just can say god doesn't exist and that's also a argument that doesn't violate the LNC
>In the model that I’m talking about, God only “acts upon”
again that's just an empty statement, if you can't articulate how he can do it, then all you're sayign is that he has "the power" to do so, that it's in his existence to do so, that's not a logical argument, that just a dogma, that doesn't resole the problem of inifnite links or how something can exist outside of the realm of qualities
>You never provided a reason that shows why a bridge is actually needed
of course it's needed because we're talking about two different types of substances, one changin one unchanging, so by definition they can't exist together, so a link is needed
>You were misconstruing my position as God “interacting” with a changing world, which is not what I’m talking about
you're trying to argue semantics to avoid the main point, that's the factual existence of an unchanging thing, it's not about interacting, it's about creating, if thi world wa screated by an unchanging thing then logically a link is needed, if you just say he has the power to do so, then you're just being dogmatic, since that doesn't make any logical sense, soemthing that can't change can't produce change/creation, the soemthign that can both change and not change is needed, but that violates the LNC, so other type of link is needed, but that link also would need links in each part of the bridge, somethgn that connect the unchanging with the link and the changing with the link, and those link will also need more and more links making an infinite loop
>So then the Buddhists have no idea why and how samsara and rebirth are taking place at all
not really, he just say that such a trascendental reality can't be articulated semantically
>Buddhists flip-flop on this all the time
not really, maybe péople you found out on 4chan

[Anonymous No.19552994]

>>19551988
>There is no inherent reason why awareness or sentience cannot exist as beyond (i.e transcendent to) time and space
there is, since awarness needs an object to be aware of, there's no such thign as awarness on itself, it's liek saying there can be walking without a person
>Qualities can exist as things we encounter within time and space, while at the same time existing as the nature characterizing something that is beyond time/space.
name a quality that doesn't involve space and time
>>19552002
>Sentience or awareness doesn’t
again, awarness needs something to be aware of
>>19552002
>but a transcendent sentience
youi're taking for granted a trascendent sentience, how do you know that such a thing exist, the only expericne we have of awarness is awarness of a thing

[Anonymous No.19553013]

>>19551988
>where you first made an unsubstantiated definition of qualities as forms in which entities interact in time and space,
lol i didn't made up that definition, that's the most common philosophical definition of quality, from medieval scholar to kant

[Anonymous No.19553069]

>>19551988
>This a completely circular argument
says the guy who's main point of argument is that "god can exist outside of change because he's god and he just can"
that's the definition of a circular argument, your notion of god is designed to evade all the logical problems that such a notion inherently have in the first place

[Anonymous No.19553078]

>>19551988
>Qualities can exist as things we encounter within time and space, while at the same time existing as the nature characterizing something that is beyond time/space.

no, they actually can't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_man_argument

[Anonymous No.19553911]

>>19553078
The third man argument is specifically about Platonic forms and not about qualities in general, it's not relevant to the question of a quality existing beyond time and space. Nominalists who deny that there are universals or forms at all could still posit an individual and particularized instance of a quality existing beyond time and space.

[Anonymous No.19553919]

>>19552093
>Because umm, Buddha is enlighten-

From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.

- Sri Śaṅkarācārya, Brahmasūtrabhasya 2.2.32.

[Anonymous No.19554130]

>>19552978
>>19552978
>it is if you wanna prove the existence of god
I wasn't trying to in this thread, I was just pointing out why the Buddhist arguments that try to actively disprove God are garbage. I think there is strong evidence to infer the existence of God and the alternatives generally don't make sense logically, but all the same I don't think it can be infallibly proven.
>the logical contradiction was already stated, you can't have an unchanging being creating a changing world, since that results in a infnite loops of bridges between those two modes of existence
You never provided a good reason to assume a bridge is needed, your argument was a variation of what you later summarized as "we're talking about two different types of substances, one changin one unchanging, so by definition they can't exist together, so a link is needed", but I've already explained that in Advaita, it constitutes the nature of Brahman to timelessly directly project maya, so the first thing and the "bridge" to the second are really the same. If Brahman or God was totally different from a 'tool' which Brahman relied upon as the 'bridge' to be the origin of maya, then a 3rd thing would be needed, but Brahman's essential nature that is non-different from Brahman itself directly projects maya as the category of falsity or mithya, in-between absolute being and nothingness, it relies upon no other accessory or tool to directly do so, and it is effortlessly accomplished as Brahman's nature is unimpeded and uninterrupted by anything.

You arbitrarily rejected this as an explanation because I didn't provide step by step logical proofs which are supposed to demonstrate that it's true and what's actually taking place, but that's entirely besides the point because I'm only showing how the Buddhist arguments fail to demonstrate the violation of any logical laws like the LNC in what Advaita teaches viz. origin of the universe.

>if you can't articulate how he can do it, then all you're sayign is that he has "the power" to do so, that it's in his existence to do so, that's not a logical argument, that just a dogma,
I have articulated it, you are just rejecting it for being too simple, clear and straight-forward, which isn't the same as the demonstration of a logical contradiction
> that doesn't resole the problem of inifnite links
"infinite links" presupposes that Brahman relies upon something else to produce maya, instead of it being accomplished directly and effortlessly by His own nature, i.e. it fails to refute what Advaita teaches
>how something can exist outside of the realm of qualities
Because qualities can characterize mundane things, while at the same time God has the nature of being self-aware as the sentient reality who is the origin of phenomena and their qualities

[Anonymous No.19554168]

>>19554130
>god? no i can't prove that but here are some attributes of god and things he does, and that's why Buddhists are wrong to deny god

[Anonymous No.19554174]

>>19552994
>there is, since awarness needs an object to be aware of, there's no such thign as awarness on itself
That's the claim which you are trying to demonstrate as true, hence citing that as an argument itself n order to prove or provide support to that claim is Circulus in Demonstrando.
>name a quality that doesn't involve space and time
>Sentience or awareness doesn’t
>again, awarness needs something to be aware of
more Circulus in Demonstrando
>youi're taking for granted a trascendent sentience
I have directly intuited it within myself, in any case I'm simply talking about a theoretical concept not violating any logical laws like the LNC or others, despite fallacious Buddhist claims to the contrary; why or how I personally know it exists is besides the point

[Anonymous No.19554194]

>>19553069
>god can exist outside of change because he's god... your notion of god is designed to evade all the logical problems that such a notion inherently have in the first place

>hurr durr how can an immutable thing be not subject to change..... it's not like words actually mean what they mean or anything

[Anonymous No.19554207]

>>19553919
blah blah blah holy shit do you even read all the crap that you have written. just be quiet

[Anonymous No.19554219]

>>19554207
>do you even read all the crap that you have written
No, I just close my eyes and punch the keys randomly and it produces posts that refute all the sophistic buddhist arguments anyways, it's amazing!

[Anonymous No.19554226]

>>19553919
>>19554130
Too intellectual. Meditate more.

[Anonymous No.19554296]

>>19554226
Based Zen chad

[Anonymous No.19554341]

>>19554226
>Meditate more.

SANKARA: Meditation is a mental action, and like any action, it can be done, or not done, or done in a contrary fashion. The implication of making liberation an effect (of an action like meditation) is to make it impermanent like Swarga and all attainments generated by human activity. This is the very negation of liberation. In meditation you impose one entity on another by an assertion of the will and generate a new effect (or practice Vipassana or Samatha etc) which did not exist before. Brahma Vidya is not an activity like that of converting Atman, which was not Brahman before, into Brahman by mental assertion. Brahma Vidya is knowledge and not meditation. Knowledge is a mental mode of 'being what one has always been' and not of 'becoming into something that was not before.' The (Upanishadic) text 'That Thou art' declares the eternal nature of things. Whatever passages look like commandments in the Upanishads as 'This Atman should be heard of, meditated upon, etc.': are only for removing the obstacles or coverings. Jnana or knowledge, if you call it an action at all, is only of the nature of removal of obstacles. and not of bringing about a new condition or effect. When the obstacles are removed, the truth that 'the Atman has always been Brahman,' stands revealed. This is not an effect but what is in the nature of things.
- SANKARA-DIG-VlJAYA: CANTO 8

[Anonymous No.19554438]

>>19554341
>When the obstacles are removed, the truth that 'the Atman has always been Brahman,'
Very cool find-and-replace of Nagarjuna, Shankara.

[Anonymous No.19554443]

>>19553911
>Platonic forms and not about qualities in general,
platonic forms include qualities in general
>>19554130
>but all the same I don't think it can be infallibly proven.
then you just prove that buddha was right
>>19554130
>You never provided a good reason to assume a bridge is needed,
i did, two substances(change and non change) can't coexist without some kind of bridge, since by deffintion both are self sufficient, since change deosn't need unchange and unchange doesn't need change, so if you wanna state that both of them can exist, then you need a bridge that conect them
>it constitutes the nature of Brahman to timelessly directly project maya
again this is not a logical argument, you just saying god can do it because he can, that's an statement, i can say "god doesn't exist" and it has the same value of truth
>>19554130
>I have articulated it
no you didn't, you just said he can do it because it's his nature to do so, that's not an aritculation, that's a dogma
>>19554174
>That's the claim which you are trying to demonstrate as true, hence citing that as an argument itself n order to prove or provide support to that claim is Circulus in Demonstrando.
i don't need to prove logically that awarness needs an object to be aware of,since it's empirically dmoestrable, the fact that you're reading this is prove enough,you(a subject/awarness)is reading this(an object/phenomena) it's self evident that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are both interdependent, now proving that awarness can exist outside of phenomena, that's what need logical articulation, since there's no experience of such a thing
>I have directly intuited it within myself
so you have no proof, just what you believe is a pure intuition

>>19554194
>>hurr durr how can an immutable thing be not subject to change.
you need to prove that such an inmutable thing exist
>>19554341
that's only applicable to shamata meditation, most buddhist don't do shamata and teh oens that do just do it as preliminar practice

[Anonymous No.19554482]

>>19540102
I think that when he says, "Vast emptiness, nothing holy." he's referring to that you're just a consciousness observing everything. There's no 'true' perspective.

So saying that something is 'holy' is wrong, because that's an interpretation of one consciousness. The reality of it is that all perspectives are neither true nor false, because there's not the 'right' one. It's all just a massive void of no meaning which we *attribute* meaning to.

In other words, when the emperor asks who he is, he's asking for the meaning Bodhidharma attributes to his 'self', but since he can't truly give an answer to what Bodhidharma's own little meaningless slice of the void is, he just says he doesn't know.

Then I read
>>19542516
>>19545829
>>19547784
and I realized I said the same thing from a different perspective, kind of proving what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.19554508]

ThroughoutBuddhist art, Bodhidharma is depicted as an ill-tempered, profusely-bearded, wide-eyednon-Chinese person. He is referred as "The Blue-Eyed Barbarian" (Chinese:碧眼胡;pinyin:Bìyǎnhú) in Chan texts.

where the FUCK did this white boi come from

[Anonymous No.19554545]

>>19554508
He was either Persian or Gandharan iirc. Buddhism is not from China as you might know, and the Chinese are historically very conscious of who is not Chinese

[Anonymous No.19554793]

>>19554341
lol fake advaita larpers in 4chan getting triggered that buddhist don't believe in god, meanwhile true advaita practicioners honoring the buddha and sharing his teaching: https://youtu.be/QnGp0WON93I

[Anonymous No.19554798]

>>19554443
>platonic forms include qualities in general
the same question is not relevant in Advaita, since as phenomenal or worldly qualities (which are non-aware and which appear to awareness) are a part of maya, they are contingent upon Brahman and don't need some 'meta-quality' to rely upon in order to account for their existence like a Platonic form might need another, because maya being contingent upon Brahman accounts for them and Brahman and his nature is self-sufficient
>then you just prove that buddha was right
No, because there are many questionable claims in Buddhism that can't be proven true e.g. anatta, rebirth, karma etc, and in any case, God is the most likely explanation and doesn't contain the many logical contradictions and paradoxes in the alternative explanations like an infinite regress of contingency, remember how the author of the 3rd man argument you cited concluded that an unmoved mover is required for all change to occur?
>>You never provided a good reason to assume a bridge is needed,
>i did, two substances(change and non change) can't coexist without some kind of bridge, since by deffintion both are self sufficient, since change deosn't need unchange and unchange doesn't need change so if you wanna state that both of them can exist, then you need a bridge that conect them
The changing does in fact need change, because the changing is non-eternal and hence has a beginning where it arises or is produced in reliance upon another changing thing, if there are only other changing and temporary things to rely upon to account for all these, none of them can account for the whole collective of changing existing things in the first place, and regress takes place that prevents there from being a collective of temporary changing things at all, this is where the unchanging and eternal is required. When Brahman is non-different from his nature and function and projection/projector, then what is normally considered as a bridge actually inheres in Brahman and it produces or casts maya directly without an intermediary.
>it constitutes the nature of Brahman to timelessly directly project maya
>again this is not a logical argument
I don't care about proving it as true incontrovertibly, because as I already said, I'm was only pointing out how the Buddhist arguments fail to refute God or Brahman.
>I have articulated it
>no you didn't, you just said he can do it because it's his nature to do so, that's not an aritculation, that's a dogma
Yes I did, God has a beginningless power which is always in effect as the beginningless basis of multiplicity, causation, time etc like an eternal sun that was always luminous, if you can't demonstrate how that violates any law of logic then you should stop whining about muh dogma and just accept that you can't refute it and move on.

[Anonymous No.19554808]

>>19554443
>That's the claim which you are trying to demonstrate as true, hence citing that as an argument itself n order to prove or provide support to that claim is Circulus in Demonstrando.
>i don't need to prove logically that awarness needs an object to be aware of,since it's empirically dmoestrable
YET ANOTHER Circulus in Demonstrando, you seem to be quite fond of them. It's a Circulus in Demonstrando because you are citing the domain of ordinary experience to try to rule out the possibility of transcendent non-dual awareness, in other words, your position that you are arguing for and tryin to prove (awareness can only take place as we know it in mundane experience and there can be no theoretical but possibly true existence of it beyond this) is exactly what you cite as the argument that proves it (we know this because we have encountered ordinary experience), in other words, you are doing little more than stating your starting position as a tautology, kek
>the fact that you're reading this is prove enough,you(a subject/awarness)is reading this
That doesn't refute the theoretical claim that an eternal non-dual awareness can be inside indiscriminating and embodied beings while falsely seeming to them to be inherently dualistic or intentional, even at the exact moment it really exists as non-dual, even when their mind is under the impression otherwise.
>it's self evident that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are both interdependent,
it's self evident to me that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are not both interdependent, which refutes your claim that it's self evident that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are both interdependent,
>now proving that awarness can exist outside of phenomena, that's what need logical articulation, since there's no experience of such a thing
Advaita articulates it in a theoretical manner way that violates no law of logic, which isn't the same as incontrovertibly proving it though logic. Nothing about Buddhism whatsoever has ever been 'logically articulated' ever according to how you define that term, since no Buddhist has ever provided any incontrovertible proof of any of it being true. Nothing in Buddhism is provable.
>I have directly intuited it within myself
>so you have no proof, just what you believe is a pure intuition
Nothing in Buddhism has ever been proved, I find that when we discern awareness from thoughts etc and examine the nature of awareness clearly, we find it to be peaceful, self-revealing, effortless, natural, inherently blissful, complete, abiding in itself without caring for or needing anything else, and this is self-evident to me and clear to me always even when my embodied experience is present "alongside" that awareness so to speak, and this is I how would conceive the awareness of God to be, if you have an incorrect understanding of awareness though, you can't see what I see naturally. It's "Self-evident" to me, to use a favorite argument of yours

[Anonymous No.19554923]

>>19544663
good post, thank you sensei

[Anonymous No.19554937]

>>19554793
>getting triggered that buddhist
No, I was just pointing out that their arguments don't work here, I don't care if they personally do or don't believe in God.
>meanwhile true advaita practicioners honoring the buddha and sharing his teaching
I like him, but he is just following the Ramakrishna Order's tradition of being charitable and perennialist towards other religions, in his other videos like some of his Q&A's that I've seen he has talked before about how Shankara's arguments and even some of the arguments of post-Shankara Advaitins refute some Buddhist positions and claims. He probably thinks that Buddha was secretly more or less agreeing with the Upanishads regarding the Atman and that anatta was misunderstood by later Buddhists as negating the Self instead of negating the not-Self in order to direct one inward apophatically to the Self, this is a not uncommon view among educated Hindus with perennialist-leanings (especially I would venture Ramakrishna types) as well as increasingly more western academics/authors. Ramakrishna Order is not even a traditional Advaita order btw but they mix all sorts of stuff like tantra and bhakti, while taking Advaita as their common basis or reference point.

[Anonymous No.19554944]

>>19554341
This sounds very similar to the message of the Lotus Sutra.

[Anonymous No.19555026]

>>19554798
>beginningless power [...] if you can't demonstrate how that violates any law of logic then you should stop whining about muh dogma
The priest is afraid god might be dead

[Anonymous No.19555035]

>>19554944
Shankara is a much better Buddhist than guenonfag

[Anonymous No.19555168]

>>19554808
>o because you are citing the domain of ordinary experience to try to rule out the possibility of transcendent non-dual awareness
i'm not doing that, i'm just saying i don't need to prove that awarness and phenomena can exist conected, it's an empirical fact, you on the other hand need to prove that awarness can exist outside of phenomena since there's no empirical way to prove it
>That doesn't refute
again, i'm not trying to refute that, i'm just showing how i don't need to articulate a rational logical argument to prove the conection between awarness/subject and phenomena/object, you on the other hand did nothing to prove that awraness on itself can exist outside of phenomena, considering that's your main point for the existence of god, that shows how weak your theology is
>it's self evident to me that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are not both interdependent, which refutes your claim that it's self evident that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are both interdependent,

if that was the case you couldn't write this right now lol, the fact that you just answer me show that you're aware of what i jsut write, showing again that you(subject) are aware of my post(object) no further prove is necessary

>Advaita articulates
we don't care what advaita postulate, since it's a dogmatic tradiiton that relies on axioms and violates the LNC with a unchanging entitie that can create change, we care about pure logic
>Nothing in Buddhism has ever been proved
buddhism is a practice, that don't rely in faulty metaphysics(ontotheology, since advaita don't articulate true metaphysics) the facts of buddhism can be experienced in practice, dukkha, anatta, dhamma etc
>nd this is self-evident to me and clear to me
again, we don't care about what you feel, but what you can articulate logically, you can be a schizo with a hard life trying to larp as a religious advaita practicioner, i don't care about that, is what you can articulate logically what can have some weight, until now you didn't show any single logical argument, just empty dogmatic statements about what's god and how he just can circumvent all the paradoxes because he's so powerful

[Anonymous No.19555314]

>>19554808
>it's self evident to me that awarness(subject) and phenomena (object) are not both interdependent,
>i will deny that i can perceive, that surely will own the buddhist and it won't make me look like a total idiot
this is your mind on Guenon, you're so up your own ass that you start to negate basic aspects of reality itself, this is a great lesson abotu anatta, when you get so fixated on an identity personal or divine, you start to get further and further away from the world to the point you argue against the possibility or perceiving the world

[Anonymous No.19555381]

>>19540102
>Hello -- Who are you sir? What is your name?
Would have received a direct answer. But that's not what he asked--
"Describe your presence."
"I am that I am here, WHAT of 'it' retard? Thou art THAT too, fucking retard"

>>19545384
>>19542688
>>19544744
>the spurious rendering of 'anatta' as nothingness has been a disaster for the western buddhist race

>>19552199
>what do you all think most people mean by it?
go-along-to-get-along retroduction for retards

[Anonymous No.19555437]

Some Ch'an Buddhists describe the Absolute as "non-abiding awareness".

[Anonymous No.19555522]

>>19540121
yup
>>19541747
Dad!I'm trying to achieve enlightenment!"
>>19541887
The amount of spin on todays recorded data...do you think the lies of the age persist for very long? People cling to true accounts, and tell and retell stories. It's likely an embellished/mythologized account of what happened.
>>19542523
Place no head higher than thine own.
>>19542712
based mahakala
>>19548273
You are actually acting in complete buddha nature, if you see the buddha in the road, kill him!

[Anonymous No.19555533]

>>19554808
>theoretical manner way that violates no law of logic
saying that the unchanged can create that which can change is a contradiction, just saying brahman has the power to be above that contradiction doesn't make it less of a contradiction
>no Buddhist has ever provided any incontrovertible proof of any of it being true. Nothing in Buddhism is provable.
buddhism don't waste time with metaphysics, since as Kant proved, metaphysics or to be more precise ontotheology(metaphysics applied to the explaination of causation) ends up leading you to a dead end, arguing about a god that can't change but can create change "just because", it's a perfect example of a metaphysical dead end, since you renounce to explain logically how he can do it and just rely on the dogmatic idea that it's in his nature to do so, without further inquiry
buddhism is a phenomenology, the buddhist agenda is to explain phenomena(anatta, dukkha, dhamma,kleshas, sankharas etc), so each person can make it's own practice and find the ineffable and indescribable aspect of reality by himself, since by deffinition the trascendental aspect of reality(trascends) it's beyond language and semantic reasoning and can't be articulated, when you try to articulate ultimate reality you end up with contradictory statements like unchange can cause change

[Anonymous No.19556117]

>>19541860
elites patronize religion and the arts because other elites are eye-wateringly boring

[Anonymous No.19556159]

chan used over zen is like sri lanka over ceylon, aesthetically indefensible.

[Anonymous No.19556257]

>>19556159
Cha'an > Zen > chan

p.s.: 4cha'an[s4s]

[Anonymous No.19556281]

>>19552238
You bang your head against the wall until it breaks.

[Anonymous No.19556287]

>>19552253
I guess you were born from an egg on a mountain top cunt.

[Anonymous No.19556298]

>>19554226
>>19554296
Too reliant on state power, cut your own wood, draw your own water.

[Anonymous No.19556304]

>>19554508
I FUCKEN TOLD YOU SHIT CUNT ITS FUCKEN HEIDEGGER.

[Anonymous No.19556305]

>>19553911
>The third man argument is specifically about Platonic forms
the third man argument is about any attempt to propose a quality outside of phenomena, platonic forms and qualities are the same thing, justice is the quality of that which is just, chairness is the quality all chairs posses, plato's theory was that qualities can exist outside of phenomena and becoming, but aristotle (and even plato himself in gorgias) knew that such theory had the fundamental flaw of a separation between the object an his "eternal" quality, change and unchange, awarness and experience, this separation will end up creating an infinite loop of objects inbetween, the third man argument destroys advaita's theory of brahman and atman, since if brahman is in any form part of this world he's changing and interdependent, if he's not then how he can be conected or created phenomena? and even worst how can anyone can claim any knowledge of such being totally outisde human epxerience? to which the last question arise, how can a human can speak let alone systematise ways to conect with such abstract being outside human experience?
the buddhist answer is simple, such a being can't exist, ultimate reality can't be outside of phenomena while at the same time being the creator of phenomena, all those are just metaphysical traps(kant will agree with this and change western philosophy forever) just like any other intelectual trap our minds can create, we must not waste time with that and practice a path that can give us true insight into our mental activity, each life has his own vicissitudes, a theology/eschatology that can work for everybody is impossible, thus a phenomenology that let us know ourself and discover our own virtues and flaws is needed, the spiritual path is solitary and can't be systematised, only some fundamental factors of practice can be articulated and each practicioner must be creative and aware,each practicioner must make his own path, no metaphysical speculation, no dogmas, just willpower, cunning and awarness

[Anonymous No.19556313]

>>19540102
because 'holy' things stand out, become items and objects of value and worship, detractors and misleading

[Anonymous No.19556316]

>>19556305
justice is the quality of that which some bitches conspire to tell us might be just, bitch

[Anonymous No.19556326]

>>19553078
wiki post LOL

every idea i can have invents a quality that didnt exist before but is perfectly useful and true in characterizing the world

[Anonymous No.19556382]

>>19556159
use 禪 or ध्यान then

[Anonymous No.19556702]

>>19556326
>but is perfectly useful and true in characterizing the world
lol no, tons if not most ideas are contraproductive in our endevours to represent the world, that's why we're a neurotic mess, we have uncontroled instincts, we're alienated and the most basic aspects of reality space/time(see paradox of extension) are alien to us
also about being "true" no one believes that, modern philosophy is just system after system tryin gto handle the simple fact that we can't have a true characterization of the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

[Anonymous No.19556717]

>>19556326
>every idea i can have invents a quality
not really, every idea you have is a mix of already existing qualities, just like each sentence you invent is a mix of already existing words

[Anonymous No.19556722]

>>19540102
read the heart sutra desu

[Anonymous No.19557687]

>>19556159
word zen just reminds me of western hippies

[Anonymous No.19557985]

>>19544663
Lmao its koan form

[Anonymous No.19558115]

>>19544663