/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19700996]

Any literature on Aristotelian-Thomist vs Buddhist philosophy?
I mean books with actual philosophical criticisms, not bland religious dialogue.

[Anonymous No.19701249]

>>19700996
Maybe see if you can find a book about or a translation of the writings of the 17th century Italian Jesuit missionary Ippolito Desideri who learned Tibetan in Tibet

>Desideri starts from Nagarjuna's assertion: "For him to whom emptiness is clear, everything becomes clear. For him to whom emptiness is not clear, Nothing becomes clear." Having therefore stated that all things will not be real without the correct definition of emptiness, he works in this direction, summarizing in this way: "since all phenomena are empty of existence of themselves, because they are interdependent, it follows that "interdependence" is the meaning of "emptiness." ... The missionary fully accepts the first part of this reasoning, that is, that all things are contingent and strictly produced by causes and therefore without their own nature; this appears indisputable to him. He therefore focuses his efforts on showing that this conceptual construction lacks coherence if no "Primary Cause" is introduced to start the whole process, an absolutely independent entity. He begins immediately and confidently to contrast the two positions: If we look carefully, the whole system of truth and non-truth lies in these two opinions, and that is:

>1. The Mãdhyamika maintain that not even an absolute independent entity exists;
>2. We believe in this existence of an absolute independent entity. We must therefore carefully examine which of our two opinions is correct and which is wrong

>Desideri skillfully appropriates Tibetan Buddhist terminology and specific method of argument but as Robert Goss has correctly said, he "is not just literally translating Christian concepts into a Tibetan cultural milieu; rather, he is modifying a préexistent doctrinal language and scholastic method that is hermeneutically significant to his Buddhist readers, so as to convey new meanings. Desideri creates an interpretative medium, a rhetoric, for Buddhist-Christian communication ad thus for polemical engagement of these two forms of scholasticism."

>In contrast to his interlocutors, the courageous explorer proposes an "Existent being beyond the sphere of existing things" and supports this with a substantial series of profound arguments starting with the consideration that the "dependent" in itself requires the independent, continuing with the necessity of a primary cause in order not to retract the principle of causality, and again with the contention of the eternity and infinity of the chain of causality (infinite regress) which would not permit the manifestation of the world in which we live. Last, he focuses on the fact that if nothing exists by its own nature, then neither does the whole sphere of existing things, but then this must depend on an "other" without which it could not have manifested itself in any way, and this in turn leads inevitably to a contradiction without the introduction of a supreme Being outside of interdependence (existing of itself and not by cause)

[Anonymous No.19701374]

>>19701249
Interesting. Roberto de Nobili played the same role in India, learning sanskrit and tamil and teaching brahmins in terms they could understand. He managed to convert quite a lot of brahmins and other castes. He was known as Teacher of Reality in sanskrit.

[Anonymous No.19701466]

>>19701249
>>19701374
Very interesting! Thanks!

[Anonymous No.19701758]

>>19701249
>thing causes other thing so there's gotta be a super duper thing that this doesn't operate on
Apparently this missionary failed to convince Tibetans to worship the volcano demon, as there is a great deal of Buddhist scholastic literature arguing against similar nonsense from the Vedas

[Anonymous No.19701792]

>>19701758
>infinite regresses are bad when Nagarjuna tries to refute his opponents through a reducto ad absurdum involving pointing out the regress, but they are acceptable when they happen in the Buddhist model

[Anonymous No.19701824]

>>19701792
>>infinite regresses
But it's not an infinite regress. An infinite regress is an infinite number of steps in between two points a finite distance. This has always been something that Buddhists, going back to the Buddha himself, have taken great pains to avoid. Sunyata posits an infinite historical past. There is a finite distance between any two points. In fact, one criticism of Thomism (via Aristotelianism) is that it allows for infinite subdivision of space and time, which results in an infinite regress. While the Chinese philosophical tradition (or perhaps it's better to call it Taoist) has been very much in agreement with this, the Buddhists generally aren't, arguing that space and time are discrete (although the units of time and space are incredibly tiny).

As Aquinas himself readily admits the only reason to argue against an infinite historical past is to defend Jewish scripture. He even agrees with Aristotle's mocking of the rejection of an infinite past, he just believed that, yes, the Jews were right and everyone else was wrong, and this was just a simple fact of the universe. But then, as Aquinas argues, that's only what we can come to expect. After all, Aristotle (and the Buddha) were gentiles, so of course they didn't get the Jewish scriptures. They were doing philosophy by observing the world around them, and creating systems to explain it.

Their philosophy, then, under Thomism, is perfectly rational and sensible. It's also wrong, because reality is inherently irrational and senseless.

[Anonymous No.19701846]

>>19701249
Seems like the early jesuits missed the big part.

Its not an existence beyond existing things but the only existence of existing things dictates that there not being any "absolute independent entity." Not only would it be impossible for the "absolute independent entity" to interact with our world, it would be impossible to do so without breaking its own "absolute independent" status. So such an absolute state is rejected purely because its an illogical state

[Anonymous No.19701871]

There's a book, The Great Debate (google it; I don't believe it's on libgen) about a Sri Lankan monk annihilating two Christian priests. Both are Protestant, however. To be fair, the first one (a British dude) was clearly not that intelligent, and the second one is a sycophant and not really all that interested in Christianity as a belief system, but rather as a tool for personal gain.

[Anonymous No.19701878]

>>19701792
Your logic is a mythology designed to produce belief in god. But how could we possibly accept that the real just so happens to coincide with the human demand for finitude from the indefinite? Certainly, it can't be demonstrated, nor has it held up to scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.19701886]

>>19701871
McMahan talks about this debate in his book on Buddhist Modernism also

[Anonymous No.19701889]

>>19701824
>But it's not an infinite regress. An infinite regress is an infinite number of steps in between two points a finite distance.
No it's not, that's your own contrived definition that you are coming up with in order to fool people into thinking the regress in the Buddhist model isn't one, the SEP gives a correct description of what it actually entails:

>An infinite regress is a series of appropriately related elements with a first member but no last member, where each element leads to or generates the next in some sense.[1] An infinite regress argument is an argument that makes appeal to an infinite regress. Usually such arguments take the form of objections to a theory, with the fact that the theory implies an infinite regress being taken to be objectionable.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/

>Sunyata posits an infinite historical past. There is a finite distance between any two points.
When they posit that X component of Sunyata arises on some previous basis, and that on a previous basis, it leads to an infinite regress because the responsibility for the existence/appearance of each element is assigned to the prior element that it arose from, and this gets forever extended back, leading to an infinite regress. The problem with this is that since each element is incapable of being responsible for (accounting for) it's own existence, there is nothing that allows the whole chain of dependent components of sunyata to exist emptily from the beginning, as Ippolito points out, since it would require someone outside of itself to place itself into existence, as none of the individual elements that make it up nor the collection of them are assigned the ability to cause themselves.

>In fact, one criticism of Thomism (via Aristotelianism) is that it allows for infinite subdivision of space and time, which results in an infinite regress.
How does that result in a regress?
>the Buddhists generally aren't, arguing that space and time are discrete (although the units of time and space are incredibly tiny).
How do if (if they do so) respond to someone pointing out that what the buddhists posit as the final limit of discrete space and time are arbitrary and that someone can just point to half of whatever unit they give as being smaller than that unity?

>As Aquinas himself readily admits the only reason to argue against an infinite historical past is to defend Jewish scripture.
on which page of which work?
>He even agrees with Aristotle's mocking of the rejection of an infinite past
on which page of which work?

[Anonymous No.19701904]

>>19701889
>that's your own contrived definition
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infinite_regress
>A regress into an infinite sequence of propositions in an attempt to found the truth of the proposition Pi on the truth of the proposition Pi+1.
Hell, your own link to Stanford there agrees.

>When they posit...
It's not an infinite regress because the cause of X is X-1. There is a finite number of steps between X-1 and X. There is no reason to bring in X-2, it has no relation to X.

>How does that result in a regress?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

>How do if (if they do so)...
They point to the lowest unit and show that you can go no lower.

[Anonymous No.19701912]

there is something wrong when these people so interested in buddhism blaspheme left and right against God. now i have noticed buddhism caters a lot to scientific minded people

[Anonymous No.19701945]

>>19701912
Buddha "blasphemes" Brahma and the brahmins throughout the nikayas. It's not a priestly religion

[Anonymous No.19702023]

>>19701904
>It's not an infinite regress because the cause of X is X-1. There is a finite number of steps between X-1 and X.
It's not clear what you are intending to say here, how does that specifically demonstrate that sunyata extending back doesn't result in a regress? If sunyata isn't self-caused and is only comprised of non-self-caused components, then sunyata and its components can only be a thing if caused by something else beyond it, because no amount of allowing further past time will allow sunyata to anchor its own existence in itself. Even if given infinite time, it won't make a closed cycle of non-self-caused things to magically appear. As long as none of the individual elements included in sunyata are capable placing sunyata itself into existence (and there are none given), then it wont be as such in the first place, your response does nothing to solve this quandary.

>>How does that result in a regress?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
I was hoping for a specific example, it's not clear just from you linking to the wikipedia page for that article, especially since Zeno's paradoxes seem to be demonstrating the opposite, that is the demonstrate the contradictions inherent in models that divide space and time into discrete units instead of being continuous, as the wikipedia article itself notes "Whereas the first two paradoxes divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.[16]" Zeno's paradoxes involve contradictions when you posit models of space and time as comprised of discrete units or points, as Buddhists do.

>They point to the lowest unit and show that you can go no lower.
How do they show that this is indeed the lowest unit, and by what method or argument do they attempt to show that you can go no lower?

[Anonymous No.19702050]

>>19702023
>As long as none of the individual elements included in sunyata are capable placing sunyata itself into existence (and there are none given), then it wont be as such in the first place
Sunyata doesn't have "elements" and it doesn't "come into existence" on their basis. Do you even know what you are so set on disproving?

[Anonymous No.19702052]

>>19702023
It's not a regress because it's not a regress. Suppose A causes B, and B causes C. B->C is a finite distance. A->B is too. Something caused A, yes. And that had a cause. And so on and so forth. But A has no impact on C. A is done, finished. There is a finite distance A->B, and a finite distance B->C. An infinite regress is an infinite series of points between two things that are a finite distance apart. An infinite historical past (and an infinite historical future, which is usually assumed with an infinite historical past but is not necessarily included in one), however, has a finite distance between any two points within it, but an distance in either direction. That's why it's not an infinite regress. An infinite regress is an infinite series of points between any two points that are a FINITE distance apart. Infinity to infinity isn't a finite distance.

>Zeno
Zeno's paradoxes are meant to show the problem with both. He's trying to defend the monistic process philosophy of his teacher Parmenides. While the paradoxes, at their core, come down to "if X and Y aren't connected, how can they ever interact?", they work through playing with infinite regresses caused by infinite spatial and temporal division. You can use Achilles and the tortoise here (which, again, isn't really about space, but shows a nonsensical scenario that arises out of it).

>how do they show the lowest point?
Usually be demonstrating other phenomena as requiring this. I personally find this bunk, I don't believe that space-time is actually discrete, and some Buddhist thinkers DO reject this, but the Buddha himself brings up discrete space and time (Buddhist thinkers who reject discrete space and time argue that he's being metaphorical here).

[Anonymous No.19702079]

>>19702052
Secondly, Sunyata isn't "a thing". It's just a property of existence. It's not caused. It's just the Buddha giving a single name to a single abstract property that links the Five Aggregates and Six Sensory Phenomena. Properly, it's really an adjective (in the Pali Canon it shows up as an adjective FAR more often than as a noun). All conditioned phenomena are Sunya, Empty. Nothing causes Sunyata because it isn't a phenomena at all.

The Buddha compares phenomena to sea foam. The foam is Empty. It's real, it arises, it changes, it falls, but it is not destroyed. Early Buddhism adopted an atomistic trend, in line with the discrete time and space, wherein all things were made up of "dharmas", which were not just material atoms but also spiritual and mental things (your soul is made up of dharmas; when you see something red there is a "red dharma"). This term has nothing to do with "The Dharma", it's just a homonym. All dharas are Empty. Emptiness is a property of all dharmas. The dharmas are caused, Emptiness is not, as Emptiness is not a dharma.

[Anonymous No.19702085]

>>19702079
You might ask "well, wouldn't that mean space and time dharmas?" and the answer is no, space and time are not conditioned IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION. Space and time are not conditioned, and neither is nirvana. The Mahayana meanwhile take a stance that space and time ARE conditioned, and reject the atomism of Early Buddhism. Instead, they posit a sort of monism where everything is connected via flows. "Emptiness" is thus not a property of all dharmas but rather of the universe as a whole, as the universe is immanently connected.

[Anonymous No.19702114]

>>19702050
>Sunyata doesn't have "elements" and it doesn't "come into existence" on their basis. Do you even know what you are so set on disproving?
Yes, everything is muh interdependent and arising on the basis of previous things, I get it, if it didn't arise on the basis of other things and was responsible for its own existence, it would be independent and not interdependent. The regress comes from, "okay, since these things like mental sensations, ignorance, matter etc that are arising in dependence upon other things cannot account for the arising of the whole collective of all phenomena or empty things, what does?" If nothing accounts for them then it would be impossible for them to exist as a collective of dependent things, or as all empty things, in the first place, because to admit this would mean that things can just exist spontaneously and not in dependence upon other things, in which case the central premise of sunyata is falsified.

[Anonymous No.19702150]

>>19702114
So you are looking for some permanent underlying thing... like a soul or a god or a substance or some other entity which cannot be located outside the elements nor among them?

[Anonymous No.19702179]

>>19700996
De Differentiis by Gemistus Pletho

[Anonymous No.19702192]

>>19702052
>An infinite historical past (and an infinite historical future, which is usually assumed with an infinite historical past but is not necessarily included in one), however, has a finite distance between any two points within it, but an distance in either direction. That's why it's not an infinite regress.
It IS still a regress because the thing that is explained as allowing any phenomena to exist or appear is redirected onto something else, and this redirection continues forever in a regress that continues forever with the effect that there is nothing that permits the whole collection to have relative existence in the first place

>the cosmological argument is an example of a positive infinite regress argument. An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor.[27] An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.[27][28] A positive infinite regress argument employs the regress in question to argue in support of a theory by showing that its alternative involves a vicious regress.[29] The regress relevant for the cosmological argument is the regress of causes: an event occurred because it was caused by another event that occurred before it, which was itself caused by a previous event, and so on.[27][30] For an infinite regress argument to be successful, it has to demonstrate not just that the theory in question entails an infinite regress but also that this regress is vicious.[27][30] Once the viciousness of the regress of causes is established, the cosmological argument can proceed to its positive conclusion by holding that it is necessary to posit a first cause in order to avoid it.[31]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Cosmological_argument_and_infinite_regress

>>Zeno
>Zeno's paradoxes are meant to show the problem with both.
What is an example of how it demonstrates any contradiction in the continuous space or continuous time model?

>>how do they show the lowest point?
>Usually be demonstrating other phenomena as requiring this.
How do they attempt to demonstrate that other phenomena require this, I ask for specifics and you just give more vague answers

[Anonymous No.19702198]

>>19702192
tldr
fuck off

[Anonymous No.19702219]

>>19702192
>there is nothing that permits the whole collection to have relative existence in the first place
How would a non relative thing permit relativity? Because you say it does? With the opposing view, nothing would ever actually take place, no events, no objects, nothing at all. No efficacy, no efficiency. This non-relative thing would have no means engaging with relativity. And if that's the case, it solves nothing but your desire for finitude

[Anonymous No.19702222]

>>19702114
>If nothing accounts for them then it would be impossible for them to exist as a collective of dependent things, or as all empty things, in the first place, because to admit this would mean that things can just exist spontaneously and not in dependence upon other things, in which case the central premise of sunyata is falsified.
But then you're irrationally plugging your ears and denying a possibility. It's already been demonstrated that you don't have to posit this, and that the only reason to do this is if you a priori are trying to defend Judaism. If you do this, then what created that thing that created/grounds everything else? You have to admit one of the following:
>An infinite regress of Yahwehs creating each other
or
>Yahweh spontaneously poofed into existence, this could happen again, and thus the universe could also have poofed into existence without Yahweh

At the end of the day, you just have to admit that reality exists in a certain way, and that that is just the way that it is. Aristotle does this when he posits that the universe is ruled by 47-55 deities who are made out of Aether and that the universe is uncreated and eternal.

[Anonymous No.19702230]

>>19702079
>>19702079
>Secondly, Sunyata isn't "a thing". It's just a property of existence.
You can replace where I wrote sunyata with "all things existing sunyatily" and the same point still holds true about it not panning out logically.
>It's not caused.
But all the elements that comprise conditioned existence are, but when these are only caused by other things that would have no existence were if not for them being put into existence by another cause, then none of them would be present in the first place without something outside them that was responsible for them.

[Anonymous No.19702236]

>>19702222
>the universe is uncreated and eternal
Based Aris-tao-tle dabbing on the virgin thomists appropriating his work and ruining his reputation

[Anonymous No.19702242]

>>19702192
>because the thing that is explained as allowing any phenomena to exist or appear is redirected onto something else
No, it isn't. By definition. The very article you linked explains why this isn't the case. Again, Buddhist atomism is setup such that if A caused B and B causes C that C has no relation to A. Once B is caused, it's there, and A is gone. It is, by definition, not a regress.

Again, you can't just redefine an infinite regress to mean whatever the fuck you want it to. It has a specific definition. That definition has been given. You've literally argued against yourself twice, once in >>19701889 and now here

[Anonymous No.19702252]

>>19702230
>But all the elements that comprise conditioned existence are, but when these are only caused by other things that would have no existence were if not for them being put into existence by another cause, then none of them would be present in the first place without something outside them that was responsible for them.
Correct. And this goes back forever, and goes forward forever. The Buddha didn't have any Rabbis telling him otherwise, so of course he didn't have some irrational reason to think that this wasn't the case.

[Anonymous No.19702267]

>>19702242
>Buddhist atomism
Is rejected by the Madhyamaka school which posits sunyata

[Anonymous No.19702277]

>>19702230
>something outside them that was responsible for them
If it is outside them, how does it have efficiency among these relative things?

[Anonymous No.19702299]

>>19702150
>So you are looking for some permanent underlying thing
Yes, that is the only logical answer to the infinite regress involved, it's been hundreds of years since Ippolito pointed it out, and over a millennium since Hindu thinkers also pointed it out, and the Buddhists still dont have an answer that solves their conundrum, they just have icky gross FAITH that it works, almost like those dumb Christians, yuck!
>>19702198
take a deep breath and meditate, you seem angry
>>19702219
>How would a non relative thing permit relativity?
By being That which, by a contrast to, the very concept of relativity itself has meaning.
>Because you say it does?
Because the problem of the infinite regress presents it doing so as the solution that is acceptable to logic, unlike the alternative
>With the opposing view, nothing would ever actually take place, no events, no objects, nothing at all.
How so and in what way? Relative things can certainly still take place if permitted to and if anchored upon something that is non-relative. If there is just relativity/contingency all the way down though it leads to a regress that eliminates the condition of the possibility of contingent things existing in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19702301]

>>19702299
>anchored upon something that is non-relative
Ok so it's relative again. Buddhists: 1 , whatever priestly doctrine you've got: 0

[Anonymous No.19702311]

>>19702267
The term "śūnyatā " is the Sanskrit version of the Pali "suññatā". It is found in the Pali Canon and is used by the Theravada. In English, it is used as equivalent with pratītyasamutpāda (Sanskrit, AKA paṭiccasamuppāda, Pali). This is also done by the Theravada tradition.

The Madhyamaka posits a specific formulation of sunyata, but the source of Sunyata as a concept is the Buddha.

[Anonymous No.19702321]

>>19702299
and its been over 2500 years since the buddha demonstrated this and like twenty minutes since like five anons explained it to you, and you just keep throwing a temper tantrum because you hate religion.

[Anonymous No.19702350]

>>19702311
It is not a central emphasis of the Pali Canon. You can even find the dharmakaya in there, where it is equated with a "brahmakaya" and not yet matured into the trikaya doctrine of Mahayana, and not a central emphasis either. It is indisputably the foundation of the Madhyamaka school and not the earlier ones, regardless of antecedents in the nikayas that were not picked up on by the more literalist or scholastic schools, e.g. sarvastivada-abhidharma,

[Anonymous No.19702372]

>>19702222
> Aristotle does this when he posits that the universe is ruled by 47-55 deities who are made out of Aether and that the universe is uncreated and eternal.
That sounds cool af tho

[Anonymous No.19702378]

>>19702350
>okay so i was wrong but...
Correct, you were. Moving on.

[Anonymous No.19702394]

>>19702222
>But then you're irrationally plugging your ears and denying a possibility. It's already been demonstrated that you don't have to posit this, and that the only reason to do this is if you a priori are trying to defend Judaism.
No it hasn't, what are you talking about? I'm not OP and I'm not a Thomist, nor did you even provide a source for the quotes you attributed to Thomas but which Im suspicious arent even real. If you have not provided a quote and demonstrated that you have not made it up, then you can hardly say you've proven anything.

In any case, that doesn't address the problem that I'm talking about. Even if you admit eternal beginningless time as existing, if you only have temporary phenomena arising on the basis of previous phenomena, then the totality of all temporary phenomena past present and future cannot exist in the first place, since the condition that must be fulfilled in order for them to take place is never actualized. Since the chain has to exist prior to any one particular instantiation of one of its dependent units *in order so that very unit can arise*, but this chain is not something that exists on its own eternally and as self-caused, and nor can it arise from the temporary units itself, so the whole chain is ruled out as logically impossible.

Think of it another way:

The totality of all conditioned phenomena as a dependent chain = A
individual units of the chain of conditioned phenomena = B

If B depends on A for its existence, and if A depends on B for its existence by itself existing as the collection of B's, then neither B nor A will ever arise or exist because the conditions permitting them to exist will never be fulfilled

>If you do this, then what created that thing that created/grounds everything else? You have to admit one of the following:
>>An infinite regress of Yahwehs creating each other
>>Yahweh spontaneously poofed into existence, this could happen again, and thus the universe could also have poofed into existence without Yahweh
No, I can just say that the non-relative sole origin is eternal and existed without beginning. Then you say "hurr durr muh jews muh yahweh but what about muh aristotle eternal universe" to which I reply: "even if you admit eternal time or an eternal spacetime for the totality of all conditioned-phenomena to arise in, there is still an infinite regress present that prevents them from existing in the first place"

[Anonymous No.19702412]

>>19702394
If you aren't OP, then you should have read the thread. This was already explained in >>19701824. If you are OP, then this was already explained to you by several anons.

[Anonymous No.19702417]

>>19702372
Yeah, it's a shame that Aristotle is only ever brought up by Christcucks, and even then they just ignore what he says.

[Anonymous No.19702434]

>>19702242
>No, it isn't. By definition. The very article you linked explains why this isn't the case. Again, Buddhist atomism is setup such that if A caused B and B causes C that C has no relation to A. Once B is caused, it's there, and A is gone. It is, by definition, not a regress.
You say that "C has no relation to A", but this is nonsense since if you remove A is removed from the equation there is no arising of C, because that require C arising from B, which requires B arising from A. When the presence of A at a certain point is required for the latter arising of C, without which C cannot possibly arise, that doesn't sound like "no relation"
>Again, you can't just redefine an infinite regress to mean whatever the fuck you want it to. It has a specific definition
And its detailed how exactly what you are proposing results in an infinite regress here >>19702192 in the wikipedia page and the quoted paragraph

>>19702252
>Correct. And this goes back forever, and goes forward forever. The Buddha didn't have any Rabbis telling him otherwise, so of course he didn't have some irrational reason to think that this wasn't the case.
That's logically impossible, because it results in a situation of A (individual arisings) not being able to arise unless there is the presence of B (an existing collective of arisings), but since B cannot exist as a collective without prior A's which are themselves dependent on B, it leads to a case of "neither B nor A will ever arise or exist to begin with since the conditioned permitting them to do so are never met"

it's like trying to build a building in the air that's not ever connected to the ground, and saying "well, we can just attach this floating building to other parts of itself already in the air, and it'll hold itself up off the ground that way"

[Anonymous No.19702443]

>>19702394
>No, I can just say that the non-relative sole origin is eternal and existed without beginning
but what created that?

[Anonymous No.19702446]

>>19702277
>If it is outside them, how does it have efficiency among these relative things?
It's efficiency is not 'among' them, but *as* them

[Anonymous No.19702452]

>>19702434
>it's like trying to build a building in the air that's not ever connected to the ground, and saying "well, we can just attach this floating building to other parts of itself already in the air, and it'll hold itself up off the ground that way"
No it isn't, because there's the infinite historical past holding it up.

I'm not going to bother with the rest because you're being willfully obtuse at this point. You've been given the definition of an infinite regress multiple times, and have twice pointed out that it contradicts your """"""""""""""""argument""""""""""""""""".

[Anonymous No.19702455]

>>19702301
>the relative being contingent upon something non-relative amounts to relativism
did you think that through before posting it?

[Anonymous No.19702468]

>>19702321
>demonstrated this
demonstrated what and how?

[Anonymous No.19702474]

>>19702455
If Yahweh just poofed into existence from nothing for no reason, then yes he is indeed relative.

[Anonymous No.19702486]

How do I know which one is right? When the Christian speaks, it makes sense, but when the Buddhist speaks, it makes sense too. To be sure, when an atheist materialist speaks, it also makes sense. Am I destined to forever be a reed going to and fro with every wind of doctrine, never having any firm belief? How did you choose your religion anons?

[Anonymous No.19702489]

>>19702378
I was not wrong. You have very poor reading comprehension and based your response off what you imagined you read. The Madhyamaka school rejects an atomistic view and upholds Sunyata. Even if sunyata is mentioned in passing in the canonical suttas, the Madhyamakas were arguing against a different view than what other readers of the suttas had emphasized.

[Anonymous No.19702492]

>>19702412
>This was already explained
No, that was shown to be a non-sequitur that seeks to redirect the question, but it's a non-sequitur because even if the Buddhists is allowed to have an infinite beginningless time in which to place their conditioned phenomena, there is still the logical fallacy of a mutual-dependency present, which leads to a vicious regress when accounting for what allows the chain of conditioned phenomena to exist, thus ruling out the Buddhist model as logically inadmissible

[Anonymous No.19702495]

>>19702446
So you are a pantheist or something? Well if this cause is immanent in every effect then it is relative to all of them as well.

[Anonymous No.19702498]

>>19702443
>but what created that?
the eternal is *by definition* uncreated, to even ask the question implies you don't know what the word means

[Anonymous No.19702502]

>>19702486
A big part of Buddhism is that you can empirically validate a lot of these claims for yourself. For example, you can observe the rising and falling of thoughts. You could check out accesstoinsight.org, but really, Anapanasati is pretty simple. Sit down, and breathe. Watch the breath. Be aware of it. Alter your breath occasionally, and understand it. If a thought arises, let it fall away. Slowly move your awareness to something else. Body, thoughts, soul, whatever. Don't think, just observe.

[Anonymous No.19702503]

>>19702455
How can you relate to something non-relative? Please do explain this, and think it through carefully, as I am not a Galilean or shudra who will take your revelation at face value

[Anonymous No.19702506]

>>19702489
>upholds Sunyata
Literally all Buddhists do this, anon. The Buddha himself uses this term.

>the Madhyamakas were arguing against a different view than what other readers of the suttas had emphasized.
The Theravadans disagree.

[Anonymous No.19702514]

>>19702486
You know what you must do. Conquer the serpent, destroy all views, and transcend discursive thought

[Anonymous No.19702515]

>>19702498
so like the universe then.

[Anonymous No.19702531]

>>19702506
No, not all Buddhists are sunyavadins. Read some of the material. Moreover there was little dialog between Mahayana and Theravada as the primary opponents of the Mahasamghikas and their doxographical descendents were the Sarvastivadins of Ghandhara, all the way on the other side of India. The Abhidharmakosa of Vasubandhu, for instance, is not about the Theravadin abhidharma but the Sarvastivadin

[Anonymous No.19702542]

>>19702452
>>it's like trying to build a building in the air that's not ever connected to the ground, and saying "well, we can just attach this floating building to other parts of itself already in the air, and it'll hold itself up off the ground that way"
>No it isn't, because there's the infinite historical past holding it up.
Nope! That's wrong, as anyone with a decent grasp of basic logic can understand. Because even if you allow an infinite temporal duration for this to take place, as long as the building is just nailed to other parts of the same building that are floating in the air, then it never can hold itself up in the air off the ground, no amount of time passing can change this.

As long as the conditioned phenomena are arising on the basis of other conditioned phenomena, these are all just more and more extensions in mid-air of the same building, hence unlimited extension of it 'horizontally' is never sufficient to hold up the building itself. Without something holding the building off the ground, i.e. without something that gives reality to the first unit or the chain as a collective, it never can exist in the first place and just collapses to the ground.

>I'm not going to bother with the rest because you're being willfully obtuse at this point.
No I'm not, if that's your excuse because you know I'm right and the Buddhist model contains the fallacy of mutual-dependency, resulting in a regress, then so be it.

[Anonymous No.19702547]

>>19702023
>I was hoping for a specific example, it's not clear just from you linking to the wikipedia page for that article, especially since Zeno's paradoxes seem to be demonstrating the opposite, that is the demonstrate the contradictions inherent in models that divide space and time into discrete units instead of being continuous, as the wikipedia article itself notes "Whereas the first two paradoxes divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.[16]" Zeno's paradoxes involve contradictions when you posit models of space and time as comprised of discrete units or points, as Buddhists do.

This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of Zeno's paradox that I doubt you understand almost anything involved in the entire conversation. Zeno's paradox can be constructed only on the assumption that time and space are infinitely divisible, and do not arise if time and space are finitely divisible. It's the complete opposite of what you claim. This is not a subtle point of interpretation.

[Anonymous No.19702549]

>>19702474
>If Yahweh just poofed into existence from nothing for no reason, then yes he is indeed relative.
Fortunately, that's the opposite of what the word 'eternal' means

[Anonymous No.19702551]

>>19702531
>okay so they agree with sunyata but they disagree on the specifics
Irrelevant, they still adhere to sunyata.

Given that you were wrong about something basic like whether or not sunyata doctrinally originates with the Buddha, wouldn't you think it wise to not bother with this? You're trying to do the Theravada sola-scriptura thing, and it's not working, because this religion operates differently than Christianity. I'd recommend starting with What the Buddha Taught, and then checking out the Heart Sutra. This is a better introduction to Buddhism than reading Wikipedia articles on scholastic autism, as this conversation demonstrates because you're getting tripped up on the basics.

[Anonymous No.19702561]

>>19702549
Yeah, like the universe. But Yahweh isn't eternal, so I don't see what that has to do with anything.

[Anonymous No.19702566]

>>19702542
>an infinite temporal duration
But we aren't talking about an infinite temporal duration. That's the point. There's a finite distance between any two points. That's what the anon pointed out to you in the first post in this chain. That's why he explained to you the whole thing about time and space being discrete.

[Anonymous No.19702589]

>>19702495
>So you are a pantheist or something?
No
>Well if this cause is immanent in every effect then it is relative to all of them as well.
The cause's efficiency being present as relative things doesn't necessitate the cause itself being immanent in them. An agent or principle that possesses a causal efficiency isn't the same as its manifested or actualized efficiency.

[Anonymous No.19702593]

>>19702551
So what you're telling me is that Theravada has become Madhyamaka, is that right? Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti etc. all being studied in Sri Lanka?

[Anonymous No.19702601]

I posted these questions in another Buddhism thread, but nobody's answering, so I'm posting this here since it's active here. Can someone explain to me how the whole right livelihood business won't end up creating a caste system of people to do the dirty work (like butchers)? How would Buddhism function in a non-industrial/non-agricultural society, without laymen to support the monks? Is Buddhism for the technological singularity, where we're all eating artificial meat, since that would not break the precept of not-killing? Buddhism seems to condone factory farming, while decrying hunting and fishing naturally. Hunting is beneficial for the environment in many ways (without hunters the deer population would rise too high and start harming the environment). What about invasive species? I feel as though the whole karma business is a little too simple (No, you can't kill and eat this highly invasive species of fish, it's bad karma!!!1!). Ultimately, I feel like the positives and negatives of any situation are highly subjective and balance out (I might free an animal from a trap, but because I do that a wolf that would have eaten that animal starves to death). I have respect for Buddhism, but there are certain things I just can't get behind. To me, it seems like Buddhism needs to be balanced out with Confucianism and Taoism.

[Anonymous No.19702603]

>>19702503
>How can you relate to something non-relative?
through an asymmetrical relation

[Anonymous No.19702633]

>>19702593
And now you're dropping to seething and throwing a tantrum, as predicted.

>>19702601
>Can someone explain to me how the whole right livelihood business won't end up creating a caste system of people to do the dirty work
Let's ignore butchery for a moment here, because you can have a society without that. It absolutely does. The Buddha is pretty clear that not everyone can be a monk, and not everyone should. Yes, this sucks. Samsara sucks. Getting out of it (a term that I will use for simplicity) is the point, because samsara sucks.

>How would Buddhism function in a non-industrial/non-agricultural society, without laymen to support the monks?
The monks hang around until they either nirvana out or get eaten by tigers. There was a minor "movement" of sorts, the Hinayana, that wasn't really a movement but rather people learning Buddhism and then fucking off to the woods to either nirvana or get eaten by tigers.

>fake meat
Depends on if fake meat is "meat" or not. I think that you could argue that isn't because the problem isn't eating meat but killing. So, "yes", but I think most monks would agree that a vegetarian diet is just easier to pull off.

>karma
We live in samsara. Samsara sucks. Sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of two evils. That's just how it is. Yes, that means that some people have to intentionally hold themselves back (by doing bad karma even with a good mind) for the good of others. Yeah, that sucks. Sometimes, thinks suck. You just have to deal with it, tying yourself up in copes won't help.

Personally, I agree with your statement. From Buddhism's history in China, I see the whole "divining precise karmic values and then legislating off of them" to be a flawed practice. The Neo-Confucians argued a point such as yours, broadly: that Buddhism as an enforced state religion really goes against the point of it. I, personally, agree with this.

[Anonymous No.19702646]

>>19702547
>Zeno's paradox can be constructed only on the assumption that time and space are infinitely divisible and do not arise if time and space are finitely divisible
Why? The paradox of the arrow involves the contradiction that if you try to divide time into being composed of discrete slices of moments, the arrow is always motionless in each singular instance or moment, but if you hold the position that time is continuous and not composed of discrete moments, then you don't face the contradiction of saying the arrow is always motionless in all identifiable discrete moments while magically still having motion.

[Anonymous No.19702658]

>>19702561
We don't know if the universe is eternal or not, but even if it was, that wouldn't eliminate the fallacy of mutual dependency that prevents the Buddhist model from taking place, where A relies upon B which itself relies upon A, which means neither ever exists even if given an infinite time for them to attempt to do so.

[Anonymous No.19702664]

>>19702603
>it's non-relative through a relation
that's cute

[Anonymous No.19702670]

>>19702633
>asking a basic question is seething
ok retard

[Anonymous No.19702674]

>>19702589
>An agent or principle that possesses a causal efficiency isn't the same as its manifested or actualized efficiency
Uh oh we better end this regress with a super cause

[Anonymous No.19702691]

>>19702566
>But we aren't talking about an infinite temporal duration. That's the point. There's a finite distance between any two points. That's what the anon pointed out to you in the first post in this chain. That's why he explained to you the whole thing about time and space being discrete.
Regardless of whether you consider time as discrete or non-discrete, and regardless of whether you allow for a beginningless and eternal time for conditioned phenomena to arise it, none of these positions solve the contradiction at the heart of the Buddhist model because it involves

A: the totality of arisen conditioned phenomena as a collection or chain
B: individual instances of conditioned phenomena

A relies upon B (because it's comprised of a series of them)
B relies upon A (because the collection or chain i.e. A is responsible for the production of further units or B's)

Hence:

If A cannot arise unless B is arisen
If B cannot arise unless A is arisen

Then: neither A nor B will ever arise and the Buddhis model is logically impossible

and all of the above holds true, regardless of whether time is discrete or non-discrete, and regardless of whether you admit time as eternal or beginningless or as having a beginning

[Anonymous No.19702716]

>>19702664
That you are relating yourself to something doesn't make that thing relative if you are only relating yourself to it and that thing is not relating itself to you.

[Anonymous No.19702720]

>>19702674
>uh oh we better end this vicious regress with something that avoids the logical contradiction that creates the regress in the first place
why yes that is how logic works how could you tell?

[Anonymous No.19702807]

>>19702716
So some relations are not relations because they just aren't!
>>19702720
"logic" is just another form of scripture if it lets you invent imaginary uncaused entities which cause others

[Anonymous No.19703088]

>>19702807
>So some relations are not relations because they just aren't!
No, from the beginning you conflated the origin relating itself to us with us relating itself to it, which already betrays a misunderstanding of what is being talked about, since the question is not of two things within causality, space and time relating to each other, but of something within causality, space and time and the conditions that ensure the possibility of causality. The sole origin and ultimate reality or God is the principle that ensures the possibility of relativity, change and causality, but does so in a non-relative and acausal way. This is because actually real relations (causal or any other sort) require two participants, without two real participants the relation is purely imaginary or figurative, for the sake of convention, and because what is contingent has no intrinsic reality, it's not actually a second thing that can participate with God in a relation because it's not real. When God ensures the possibility of duality, causality etc, there is no relation occurring because there are not two real things that can have one, there is just one real thing (God) that is providing for there to be the semblance of a secondness, and within this semblance of a secondness is experienced what for humans seem to be the domains of space, time, relativity, causal relations etc. But there is never any actually two separate real things that would allow a real relation to take place and so the sole reality remains not-related to anything, non-relative, non-causal.

[Anonymous No.19703123]

>>19703088
>because what is contingent has no intrinsic reality, it's not actually a second thing that can participate with God in a relation because it's not real
So only god is real and we are unreal. Apparently the best response to emptiness is priestly nihilism

[Anonymous No.19703158]

>>19703123
>So only god is real and we are unreal
We are not unreal if we are God

[Anonymous No.19703317]

>>19703158
I would expect the people who actually believe in god and aren't trying to one-up Buddhists at non-dualism might take issue with deus sive natura

[Anonymous No.19703443]

>>19701912
Buddhism is dualistic (good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, right and wrong are all equal) whereas Aristotleanism posits absolute good and the subjugation of evil as a nondual privation of good.

Atheists are attracted to Buddhism's underpinnings because it helps them waive away internal moral shortcomings as "just the way things are" rather than actively seeking to overcome them.

[Anonymous No.19703457]

>>19703443
Even Nietzsche, who considered Buddhism to be a passive nihilism, recognized that it went beyond a duality of "good and evil." But if evil is indeed the privation of good, an ontological lack of good, then that is dualistic rather than non-dualistic.

[Anonymous No.19703573]

>>19701249
this agian end up withthe problem of two existences, one made of causes and one outside of cause, but this ucnaused existence for some reaosn is the firts cause of the world of causes, how this bridge can be made, when these two metaphisical substances are compelty different on Desideri own account is something all proponets of a primum mobile can0t ever actually answer, it's always ends up with, it's just god bro thrust me, he can be a cause and exist outside of causes because he just can

[Anonymous No.19703587]

>>19701792
there's no infinite regress in buddhism, cos buddhism don't use a substance based ontology like the vedas or christian theology, cause and effect are made by te subject not the object, in that sense buddhism is more akin to idealism

[Anonymous No.19703598]

>>19702050
>Do you even know what you are so set on disproving?
he deosn't, he jsut read Guenon's crappy books about vedanta and that's pretty much all he knows about eastern religion

[Anonymous No.19703636]

>>19702114
>what does?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra%27s_net

their interdependence

or Dhamma with the big D, dhammakaya if you want, the law that balance everyting

[Anonymous No.19703643]

>>19702242
>You've literally argued against yourself twice, once in >>19701889 and now here
lol guenonfag BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.19703666]

>>19702299
>the only logical answer to the infinite regress involved
no is not, an underling principle generates all kind of new problems, first of all you need to construct a bridge between this principle(A) and the wolrd of causation(B) so this bridge that's not A or B becomes C, now you need a bridge between C to A and C to B and those bridges need bridges also, creating and infite set of substances
the only logical answer is realising that causation is a subjective phenomena like David Hume did, the buddha did something similar with his pratikiasamutpada, in which the world of causation(becoming) is created by the mind

[Anonymous No.19703688]

>>19702434
>That's logically impossible
both, an dinfinite ste of causes or a uncaused first cause, are impossible, read Kant
logic can't explain time as a thing on this world just as a concept

[Anonymous No.19703692]

>>19702691
>logically impossible
in which type of logic? is totally possible in Paraconsistent models of logic

[Anonymous No.19703741]

>>19702542
>as anyone with a decent grasp of basic logic can understand.
the most important philosophers of logic like Davud Hume or Godel, even in some ways Hegel and Heidegger created models very similar to buddhist's dependent-origination

[Anonymous No.19704110]

>>19702691
>solve the contradiction at the heart of the Buddhist model
the heart of the buddhist model is a relationship based ontology(se epratikiasamutpada or indra's net), infinite regress only applies on substance based ontologies(see David Hume's a treatise of human nature) in which causation is a form of substanciality
so there's really no contradiction at the core of the buddhist dhamma, only people who confused both models of ontology like shankara did can believe inifnite regress can be applied to buddhist cosmology

[Anonymous No.19704248]

>>19702720
>that is how logic works
there's different models of logic, and all of them work in different ways, thats logic 101
also most models of logic are against a first cause, since it violates the principle of non contradiction
something that's non-causal can't create casuation

[Anonymous No.19704266]

>>19702498
>the eternal is *by definition* uncreated
you can say that the universe is eternal then, and cut the middle man, if eternity is a quality of that which is not created and always existed, why we need to establish an out of this world eternal principle when this univere itself can be that eternal thing that always existed and never needed to be created?
you end up establishing the same cosmology that buddhist do, you just add one more world/god but at the end of the day you also think there's a substance which has an uncreated property that is inmune to the infnite regrees, you only need to apply that property to this world instea dof adding it randomly to another wold/being just because

[Anonymous No.19704379]

>>19704266
Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.19704700]

It’s over Buddhists! You leader Shiddharta is in hell. Christ won. Repent now or no amount of fallacies will save you from eternal damnation. THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING!

[Anonymous No.19704704]

>>19703457
I think the duality in Buddhism is more along the lines of samsara vs. nirvana, in Theravada at least. In many ways Theravada is similar to sethian gnosticism and other hard dualisms.

[Anonymous No.19704712]

Theism was just never convincing to me. I have issues with Buddhism too but I haven't found a better system so far. Pratityasamutpada makes so much more sense to me than the various flavors of creationism. Theism is primitive
>>19704700
Religions aren't anime battles, larper

[Anonymous No.19704722]

>>19703587
> cause and effect are made by te subject not the object,
and that subject arises on the basis of cause and effect, ergo you still have the same logical issue of something producing something else which that first thing itself relies upon for its own existence, meaning neither will ever take place

[Anonymous No.19704728]

>>19703666
> first of all you need to construct a bridge between this principle(A) and the wolrd of causation
Only if you assume that its not capable of directing acting upon something, which isnt a reliable assumption but is completely arbitrary, since we have examples in life of things directly acting upon each-other without needing an intermediary or bridge, i.e. your claim is just sophistry

[Anonymous No.19704733]

>>19703692
Setting aside that classical logic is usually considered the gold standard in debates on metaphysics and religious philosophy, how would paraconsistent logic make that not illogical anymore?

[Anonymous No.19704742]

>>19704110
>the parts can produce the whole despite being dependent on the prior existence of that whole for its own existence as parts just because I called it a “relations based ontology” despite this still being impossible
lol

[Anonymous No.19704753]

>>19704266
> you can say that the universe is eternal then
que the braindead madhymaka blabbering about how an eternal thing is contradictory and cant interact or relate to anything and cant logically exist (except when you want to rescue your faulty buddhist cosmology kek)

[Anonymous No.19704758]

>>19702547
Do you know zeno's 4th paradox

[Anonymous No.19704777]

>>19702514
Is that Roerich?

[Anonymous No.19705025]

>>19704777
Yes

[Anonymous No.19705055]

>>19704753
>logic i disagree with is babble
I couldn't have said it better myself. Seems logic isn't all that useful in establishing non-conceptual absolutes, only demolishing silly claims like having permanence and efficiency simultaneously

[Anonymous No.19705206]

>>19705055
No! Don't you understand, my book says otherwise Rabbis have discussed this for a very long time!

[Anonymous No.19705244]

>>19702486
Everything is truth anon everybody is talking about the same thing.
The eternal discussion is just how to best communicate it