/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20320321]

The Mulamadhyamakakarika just can't be refuted and it makes everyone seethe.
hindus, abhidhammiks, sarvastavadins, realists of any description, nihilists of any description.

If there were modern day Madhyamaka monasteries around I'd join them.

[Anonymous No.20320326]

>>20320321
>If there were modern day Madhyamaka monasteries around I'd join them.
A lot of Tibetan and East Asian monasteries have Madhyamaka thought. Chan/Zen too with their non-conceptual nature.

[Anonymous No.20320334]

Madhyamaka did what Wittgenstein did over a thousand years earlier.

[Anonymous No.20320338]

>>20320334
... Ah, so autism post and achieve nothing.
Okay dropped

[Anonymous No.20320347]

>>20320338
You're not going to make it.

[Anonymous No.20320407]

>>20320321
The buddha refuted Mulamadhyamakakarika before the brahmin nagarjuna was born, because the buddha never ever said that dhamras had svabhava in the first place. And emptiness in never ever taught by the buddha.

[Anonymous No.20320411]

>>20320407
>in never
is never

[Anonymous No.20320413]

>>20320347
Define "it"

[Anonymous No.20320415]

>>20320321
>If there were modern day Madhyamaka monasteries around I'd join them.
Sure you would. Like the one tradposter bragged about becoming an orthodox monk, but in the end didn't. Your intellectual musings on teachings of religions and sages will not yield any spiritual fruit, and you will never actually walk a spiritual path.

[Anonymous No.20320464]

>>20320326
modern Mahayana/Vajrayana isn't proper Madhyamaka, I don't want to spin wheels or coompassion my way through.
>>20320334
how so?
>>20320338
literally yes, the Mulamadhyamaka is one of the most autism documents ever written. it's very well written, but insanely cryptic.
>>20320407
>Buddha never ever aid that dharmas had svabhava
yes that was what Nagarjuna was reminding us, Nagarjuna was just repeating what Buddha taught us
>emptiness is never ever taught by Buddha
not in so many words, but he did teach it just not expressed as straightforwardly as Nagarjuna puts it.
>>20320413
Nirvana
>>20320415
i would because its the truth. it's not about spirituality or anything. it's just about living in accordance with the truth.
the truth is sunya. this what the nature of reality is and everything else is a massive cope.

[Anonymous No.20320470]

>There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever whenever, wherever.[39]

Buddha says otherwise

>There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana.
>There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.


Buddha says otherwise

>Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness.
>That, being a dependent designation, / Is itself the middle way.
Buddha says otherwise

Not what Buddha says


>What is the nature of the thus-gone one (the Buddha), that is the nature of the world.

Not what Buddha says

>Nirvana is like phenomenality, unarisen and unstopping.


Buddha says otherwise


>To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism.

>Therefore a wise person does not say "exists" or "does not exist".[36]

Incomplete to be true. Buddha says dharmas are conditioned.

It's always the same thing with Mahayanists. They take the bits they suit their purposes and they leave out the bits which fuck up their own retarded take on buddhism.

But dependent origination kills their prajnaparamitas so the Mahayanists created ''interdependence''. An when they are pointed to their fallacies that they do on purpose, Mahayanists start screeching lol.

Why do people still eat up this Nagarjuna's diarrhea?

[Anonymous No.20320479]

>>20320464
Stfu, icchantika.

[Anonymous No.20320511]

>>20320470
ah yes taking individual lines from the MMK and then saying 'Buddha teaches otherwise' without retaining the full meaning of the chapters and verses they're in.

[Anonymous No.20320560]

Nihilistic corruption of the doctrine

[Anonymous No.20320564]

>>20320321
>>20320464
>can't be refuted
>well written, but insanely cryptic
pick one

[Anonymous No.20320570]

>>20320464
>it's not about spirituality or anything. it's just about living in accordance with the truth.

[Anonymous No.20320576]

Buddha said in 500 years doctrine would be lost to a shadow of doctrine. Nagarjuna was born 500 years later and taught novelty

[Anonymous No.20320598]

>>20320321
how can it be refuted if it can't even be pronounced? q.e.d.

[Anonymous No.20320616]

Nagarjuna has been a disaster for Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.20320632]

>>20320576
>Buddha said
His compilers said he said this. Idk why people trust that the suttas we have the pristine unaltered words of the Buddha.

[Anonymous No.20320653]

Buddhism is literally just mereological nihilism for the ‘spiritual but not religious crowd’.

[Anonymous No.20320688]

>>20320653
Are you Christcoping?

[Anonymous No.20320721]

>>20320688
>you
Isn’t this a violation of anatta??

[Anonymous No.20320813]

>>20320576
Nagarjuna was born 700 years later, dumbass

[Anonymous No.20320826]

>>20320321
>The Mulamadhyamakakarika just can't be refu

Except for the part about Nagarjuna's denial of the reflexivity of consciousness leading to an infinite regress that makes knowledge impossible

And except for the part about how Nagarjuna is unable to demonstrate the emptiness of consciousness since according to his own admission consciousness cannot examine itself or have awareness of itself and hence cannot detect its own alleged emptiness

And except for the part when Nagarjuna tries to refute the existence of akasha his argument presupposes the denial of real things having extension, even though this claim cannot be considered proven until the existence of akasha as ubiquitous and indivisible has been disproven, i.e. he puts the cart before the horse and uses the circular reasoning fallacy.

And except for the part where Nagarjuna claims to refute his opponents without advancing any empirical propositions which are not accepted by them, but this is not true in fact and he asserts dogmatically the empirical proposition that perception is marked by conceptualization which falsifies

And except for the part when samsara and nirvana are equated by Nagarjuna it violates the law of non-contradiction by ascribing two mutually exclusive statuses to the same thing at once (suffering vs absence of suffering); and if in an attempt to rescue this from contradiction one says the suffering is just an incorrect view of nirvana, then this suffering has to be different from nirvana which falsifies the original thesis, or if this isn't done then it continues to violate the LNC. And if you try to back away from this and say they are equated conditionally while ultimately Nagarjuna takes no position on their sameness or difference, then this isn't even Buddhism anymore and is a heresy since Buddha identifies skepticism and having 'no views' and 'no positions' as a heresy and as not his teaching in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya

[Anonymous No.20320835]

>>20320826
>makes knowledge impossible
To think otherwise is folly

[Anonymous No.20320856]

>>20320835
>>makes knowledge impossible
>To think otherwise is folly
It's self-evident that we have knowledge, which is what allows us to be communicating with each other online, and which allows us to be aware of that. It's impossible to refute the self-evident truth that knowledge or awareness is taking place. Therefore, taking as your perspective something that would make this self-evident knowledge impossible is mere folly

[Anonymous No.20320917]

>>20320835
> To think otherwise is folly
Do you have knowledge of this?

[Anonymous No.20321014]

>>20320813
700 years later is still 500 years later

[Anonymous No.20321058]

Cliffs?

[S10241875 No.20321315]

>>20320321
>Madhyamaka monasteries
Madhyamaka is the tradition of interpreting the commentaries created by Nagarjuna on the Prajna Paramita Sutra and other sutras of the second turning of the wheel. Monasteries, on the other hand, were formed on the basis of the transmission of the line of monastic initiation and the Vinaya code. Do not confuse the lines of interpretation of texts and the lines of monastic initiation, these are different things.

[Anonymous No.20321320]

>>20320321
How the FUCK is this digshit allowed but not ranking the Gospels?

[Anonymous No.20321328]

>>20321315
This

>>20320321
>If there were modern day Madhyamaka monasteries around I'd join them.
So... any Mahayana monastery? Well you're in luck, friend, there's LOTS of those

[Anonymous No.20321337]

>>20320835
If knowledge did not exist, then surely a thousand years in hell would be fine with you? Since you would lack knowledge of the tortorous pain, of the felt passage of time, of the change in scenario apparent in the memory, you should be indifferent to such a scenario, yeah?

[Anonymous No.20321379]

>>20321337
lmao wtf

[Anonymous No.20321513]

>>20320321
This is a very nice Christian thread, but are there any Buddhists here?

[Anonymous No.20321765]

>>20320653
>>20320721
Seethe harder

[Anonymous No.20321952]

>>20320321
> cannot be refuted
Being untestable is not a selling point.

[Anonymous No.20322172]

>>20321952
>systems other than apophatic non-duality
ngmi

[Anonymous No.20322295]

>>20320407
>And emptiness in never ever taught by the buddha.
Then why does the Buddha teach it?

>>20321952
Why have an opinion on a work that you haven't read?

[Anonymous No.20322362]

>>20320321
there's any good seminar or course on youtube that give a good analysis of the madhyamaka? i liked the bob thurman videos but i think he prefer to just do an introductory analisis

[Anonymous No.20322373]

>>20320826
>Except for the part about Nagarjuna's denial of the reflexivity of consciousness leading to an infinite regress that makes knowledge impossible
infinite regress can only be possible on an outdated substance based ontology, buddhism on the other hand uses a relationship based ontology, so it doesn't have to deal with those traps of logic, since all usbtance base dontologies end up sooner or later on paradoxes and contradictions

[Anonymous No.20322380]

>>20321320
the gospels are well known by english speakers and there's only 4 of them you fucking retard
you were probably spamming the board too

[Anonymous No.20322489]

>>20322373
>Infinite regress can only be possible on an outdated substance based ontology,
It doesn't have anything to do with substances or non-substance ontology, the point is that a visual sight or thought with no consciousness present that has first-hand access to its own knowledge of that sight or thought is the same as there being no knowledge of anything at all, if nobody knows that knowledge is going on then it's like it never occurred at all. This cannot be saved by adding additional consciousnesses observing the prior one, since if they are also not reflexive (don't have access to themselves), they require further to no end, and because of this nothing ends up being known

[Anonymous No.20322662]

>>20322172
> apophatic: pertaining to knowledge of god
> knowledge
> of god
Lol. Lmao.

>>20322295
You tell me.

[Anonymous No.20322666]

>>20322380
I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are more than four English speakers. There are at least twelve.

[Anonymous No.20322694]

>>20322662
It's not theological if the absolute principle beyond discursiveness isn't identified with a volcano demon that collects foreskin, keep seething

[Anonymous No.20322724]

>>20322694
What the fuck are you talking about, Jesse.

[Anonymous No.20322744]

>>20322373
An Infinite Regress is an infinite series of steps between two finite points. What you're getting at is an Infinite Causal series.

Anon's point is that if you can have a chain of mental states, then you can make an argument against needing an Atman. Shankara is proposing a trivial solution to the point that the Buddha (and also Parmenides) were asking, wherein if something is discrete and unchanging then how can it ever interact with anything (and thereby change)? Shankara's (trivial) solution is that there aren't multiple existing things, there's just one thing, Atman which is also Brahman, and it does nothing other than reflexively be aware of itself. To that end, he has to first argue that you can ever have something that can engage in reflexive action, but then you he also has to argue that things CAN'T actually engage in reflexive action (because the inability for, as an example, a hand to touch itself or a mind to be aware of itself, is a demonstration of the unreality of the hand or the mind, as the only thing that exists is Atman which is also Brahman). Because things other than Atman which is Brahman cannot engage in reflexive actions, they don't exist, but because Atman which is Brahman can (ultimately because it never does anything else, unlike the hand or mind), it exists, and as such is the only thing that exists, and the problem is solved.

[Anonymous No.20322758]

>>20322744
But what if the hand or mind come from something else?

[Anonymous No.20322771]

>>20322758
And what made that? And that? And that? Eventually you'll have to admit an infinite causal series or you'll have to come to something that can engage in reflexive action, but it can never do anything but that one single reflexive action. If it can only ever engage in that one reflexive action, then it can't make the first thing in the series to the hand or mind. Thus, the hand or mind does not exist.

[Anonymous No.20323099]

>>20322489
>It doesn't have anything to do with substances or non-substance ontology
yes it does

>the point is that a visual sight or thought with no consciousness present that has first-hand access to its own knowledge of that sight or thought is the same as there being no knowledge of anything at all,
this presupouse a rez cogitans, a substance made of consiousness that give substantiality to the world, such substance isn't a neccesity, if you start your argument from that you're just doing circular reasoning, using your own point to prove that your point is right

[Anonymous No.20323584]

>>20322295
The Buddha teaches that the aggregates are empty, nothing else. The Buddha does not teach emptiness. DWT.

[Anonymous No.20323647]

why do you guys study all this weird foreign stuff instead of being Christians?

[Anonymous No.20323679]

>>20323647
Because that was retroactively refuted

[Anonymous No.20323682]

>>20323647

They're rejecting obviously false versions of Christianity that has infected the west, but think that the obviously false versions of Christianity, like megachurch prosperity gospel Christianity, or Pope-ism, are the highest forms of Christianity.

They want something that brings them into direct contact with reality, so they're attracted to Buddhism/variants of Hinduism that openly acknowledges the faculty of their own awareness and self-awareness, and brings attention to the reality they are currently living in, instead of what they see as western Christianity's obsession with postponing real interaction with reality until the afterlife.

t. Orthodox Christian

[Anonymous No.20323688]

>>20323682
>Orthodox
You are the same as the others, but moving at a slower pace

[Anonymous No.20323690]

>>20323688

Wrong.

[Anonymous No.20323698]

>>20323690
Then change my mind, bayraktar bait

[Anonymous No.20323713]

>>20323698

Back up your assertion that Orthodoxy is the same as others, but moving at a slower pace, first.

[Anonymous No.20323755]

>>20323713
All Christianity comes from the same stock, and has been planted among various peoples. You like the more conservative ones but that is merely a relative question. Why is eastern Christianity more conservative than western? The short answer is oriental despotism. You know that's true, that's why you despise the more demotic or presbyterian Christianity that developed out of a geopolitically fractured northern Europe with a market economy. But that's a debate for people who believe in Christianity and want to select among the copies of it for which they think is the most authentic copy. Someone who rejects it wholesale will not be moved by a defense of one version of it as having more fidelity than the others, and supposing it does, what is to prevent it from following the trajectory of the others with whom it shares its essence? If it is so divergent there must be something at work to drive this. Perhaps the degenerated varieties (from your perspective) are actually the most pure, and your ideal version is the most corrupted, the most influenced by the neoplatonist pagan doctrines which render the scriptures and events of Christianity as little more than a baptized Odyssey? But maybe you are right and they are wrong, but we are back to lamenting the cultural situation of the west and it becomes a problem of the eastern Christian to avoid becoming him despite reading the same book.

[Anonymous No.20323797]

>>20323755

>You like Orthodox Christianity more because it is more politically conservative

>Marxist dialectical materialist reading of history

I don't believe in the Marxist interpretation of history.

The only way to even begin changing your mind, is to convince you that the Marxist-materialist understanding of history is false, because spiritual influences are the most important aspects of history, since they shape the political climate. If you're hard committed to an atheist interpretation of history, and think that religions are just conditioned responses to political situations, and you're looking for purely atheist solutions to spiritual problems, then there will be nothing in Orthodoxy that will appeal to you.

[Anonymous No.20323847]

>>20323797
>the Marxist-materialist understanding of history is false, because spiritual influences are the most important aspects of history, since they shape the political climate
Ok so you've just swapped "how people feel about class" for "how people feel about church." You are claiming politics is downstream of religious ideology instead of a secular ideology. Fact remains that you think Orthodoxy is the better Christianity because it is relatively more conservative than Protestantism. What I would like to understand is why that is anything other than a slower moving Christianity. If you are just going to retreat into mysticism and say it wouldn't appeal to me then that's fine, and we'll have to see which religion you decide on next month. Maybe it will be Islam.

[Anonymous No.20323902]

>>20323847

>Ok so you've just swapped "how people feel about class" for "how people feel about church."

If by "Church" you mean "The Official Instutition", then again, I don't believe in the Marxist interpretation of history. How people feel about God, and their relation to God is the primary factor - The Church as the extended body of Christ in the world, rather than its status as an official institution, is relevant here, but doesn't account for all of humanity's internal relationship with God, outside of interaction with the Church.

>You are claiming politics is downstream of religious ideology instead of a secular ideology.

It's true that religious ideology is upstream from secular ideology, but I wasn't referring to religious ideology. I was talking about the spiritual state of people's souls in relation to God. Formulations of religious ideology is downstream from that.

>Fact remains that you think Orthodoxy is the better Christianity because it is relatively more conservative than Protestantism.

>we'll have to see which religion you decide on next month. Maybe it will be Islam.

Look - stop projecting. Your misunderstandings of what I'm saying come completely from forcefully interpreting my beliefs through yours, and assuming answers to questions you haven't asked.

Orthodoxy did not appeal to me because of political conservatism, and in the past I was an atheist dabbling in Occultism, after researching through almost everything I could think of through all of my life, until settling on Orthodoxy after all those years of searching and discarding what didn't work.

Pick better points than projection to make your case. You can only get to the bottom of a topic with honest dialogue. If you're not interested in honest dialogue, you would get more from it by doing it on a platform without anonymity - that way you could benefit from it materially in some way, with clout, or viewers, or something.

[Anonymous No.20324077]

>>20323647
Because christianity is obviously complete bullshit and deep down you know this (unless you were raised in it).
Buddhism is too, mind you, but at least it has an interesting phenomenological model.

[Anonymous No.20324082]

>>20323682
>>20323690
>>20323713
>>20323797
>>20323902
Orthodoxy is bullshit like the rest of christianity because it's simply false and anyone who isn't a larper or indoctrinated can see this pretty intuitively
But by all means keep pretending to be a religious fundamentalist on an anime forum

[Anonymous No.20324120]

>>20324077
>>20324082

>christianity is obviously complete bullshit and deep down you know this (unless you were raised in it).
>Orthodoxy is bullshit like the rest of christianity because it's simply false

These posts are perfect for getting upvotes or likes, but you're not on either reddit, facebook, or twitter. Why are you making these pointless rhetorical posts?

[Anonymous No.20324152]

>>20324120
>no stop making posts that hurt my feelings
This isn't your safe space, larper. Your posts lack any substance so I simply responded in kind, no need to seethe

[Anonymous No.20324953]

>>20323902
>Orthodoxy did not appeal to me because of political conservatism
It's just a coincidence then? You're not like the other converts? Then why such diatribe about the western churches? Why are they wrong? For having developed later than Orthodoxy and appealed to the sensibilities of more liberal peoples?

[Anonymous No.20325017]

>>20323099
>this presupouse a rez cogitans, a substance made of consiousness that give substantiality to the world, such substance isn't a neccesity,
Wrong, it's not making a single claim about substances or consciousness giving substantiality to the world, it's talking about how knowledge of the world occurs to consciousness without making any claims on the substantiality of either the world or consciousness, and about how this knowledge becomes impossible via a regress if consciousness isn't admitted to be reflexive. It's making a point about relations and not about substantiality.