/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20363489]

literally never been refuted.
all responses to him are either missing the argument and focussing on a specific verse (sautantriks and sarvastavadins); or begging the question (advaitins).
>BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE
yes that's the point and that's exactly what the Buddha taught see the: Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta.

It's over, we won. It's finished.

[Anonymous No.20363678]

>>20363489
> literally never been refuted.

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.20363698]

>>20363678
ah begging the question.
>infinite regress that makes knowledge impossible
yes! that is sunyata. the indeterminate-ness of reality.
>emptiness of consciousness since according to his own admission consciousness cannot examine itself
consciousness depends on conditions my man. what is consciousness without the objects of consciousness. Naga literally describes a seer depending on seeing a sight.

i cannot be bothered to engage in begging the questions. he won. you lost.

[Anonymous No.20363709]

>>20363678
>suffering has to be different from nirvana
Only because you haven't read Nietzsche, unwittingly the greatest exponent of the bodhisattva path

[Anonymous No.20363749]

>>20363678
>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);
read the
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta
or the even the Kaccanagotta Sutta.

so long as you're stuck in conceptualisations you won't make it.

[Anonymous No.20363774]

>>20363698
> ah begging the question
No, they are simply just pointing to contradictions and logical inconsistencies in Nagarjuna’s writing and reasoning, that’s not the same thing as begging the question
>yes! that is sunyata. the indeterminate-ness of reality.
An infinite regress making knowledge impossible isn’t the same thing as existence being indeterminate, the infinite regress in question makes even indeterminate, conditioned, relative knowledge impossible. Just read Mipham if you want to see someone who adheres to Madhyamaka BTFOing the denial of the reflexivity of consciousness
>consciousness depends on conditions my man.
What is your argument that is supposed to establish that? Are you just stating it as an axiom? That would be begging the question. Or are you instead making the unsound inference that just because ordinary waking conscious experience takes place alongside objects, that consciousness depends on them? That would also be begging the question, because that’s not providing any actual logical argument or proof in support of your claim but it’s just making a purely faith-based assumption that nothing in future experience will contradict your past experience. If consciousness was independent and didnt depend on objects but was just temporarily associated with them in certain circumstances like the samsaric embodiment of creatures, then your premise that consciousness is dependent would be falsified even though our experience would take place the same way, so simply observing the presence of objects in empirical experience and then making a fallible inference or faith-based claim about conciousness on this basis isn’t proving or demonstrating anything at all

>what is consciousness without the objects of consciousness.
Objectless consciousness, pure reflexive sentient self-disclosure
>Naga literally describes a seer depending on seeing a sight.
That doesn’t prove anything anon, its just begging the question (see above), if you apply the same sort of loopy reasoning you get incorrect answer like “my body will never die because I have never experienced it dead”

Saying “consciousness has to always have an object because I have never found it to be otherwise” isnt different from saying “my body has to always be alive because I have never experienced it otherwise”, both are just begging the question.

[Anonymous No.20363787]

>>20363678
>violates the law of non-contradiction
Agree with your other points, but if you don't accept the law of non-contradiction you hardly violate it.

[Anonymous No.20363792]

>>20363749
> so long as you're stuck in conceptualisations you won't make it.
Well, the topic of the thread is whether or not Nagarjuna has been refuted, which entails making conceptual distinctions to even examine and discuss. I dont doubt that some people fooled by Nagarjunas sophistry will find his teachings to have a kind of placebo effect, a kind of lobotomizing pseudo-wisdom, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he has been refuted.
>>20363709
If you care about not violating the law of non-contradiction at all, then they have to be different.

[Anonymous No.20363800]

>>20363774
>“my body will never die because I have never experienced it dead”
there is no body. there is many bodies constantly arising and ceasing in dependence on conditions. same with consciousness.
there is no a-priori conscisouness. you talk about having nothing to establish that:
>Objectless consciousness, pure reflexive sentient self-disclosure
establish this
it is an empirical observation that consciousness is populated with objects. but this objectless consciousness, that exists independently where does that exist?
is that the same consciousness that is populated by objects or is it a different one?

[Anonymous No.20363808]

>>20363489
wtf is everyone talking about?
this reads like sci-fi to me
"the gargujana , the bohdhakama"
wtf pals

[Anonymous No.20363862]

>>20363792
>If you care about not violating the law of non-contradiction at all
Madhyamaka philosophy, like many others, resolves into monism. Logic applies to conventional discourse, the conceptual splitting up into this and that. So these provisional or nominal labels are not the absolute, which is asserted to be void of such descriptions, given that that they can all be analyzed and picked apart even on the conventional level.

[Anonymous No.20363876]

>>20363800
>there is no body. there is many bodies constantly arising and ceasing in dependence on conditions
It’s begging the question either way, past experience is not an infallible predictor of how something will behave in the future. Trying to apply that reasoning consistently produces results we already know are wrong
>same with consciousness.
Well, what is your argument for that claim? Are you just stating it as an axiom? Thats the petitio principii fallacy, begging the question. It’s impossible in fact to empirically establish that consciousness ever arises because to observe this taking place would require a consciousness already in existence in order to observe that change of state, but if consciousness is already present and observing then there is no basis to say it has ‘arisen’ anymore.
>there is no a-priori conscisouness.
We have a-priori knowledge of our own consciousness in every moment, that’s why you never have to infer or deduce this fact but it’s instead always immediately obvious.
>you talk about having nothing to establish that:
Whether or not objectless consciousness is ‘established’ is irrelevant to whether or not Nagarjuna provides in his work any argument that successfully refutes it (he doesn’t)
>it is an empirical observation that consciousness is populated with objects
The phenomenal content is comprised of objects, not the observing consciousness, consciousness is not comprised of or constituted by objects, but if it was hypothetically these objects would be undetectable and unperceivable since according to Nagarjuna himself consciousness cannot see itself. That the observed phenomenal content is populated with objects doesn’t show that the knowing consciousness is, just like observing an ant-farm populated by ants doesn’t show that one’s eye is itself populated with ants
>but this objectless consciousness, that exists independently where does that exist? is that the same consciousness that is populated by objects or is it a different one?
The consciousness which is present in each moment only appears to be directed towards those objects because of the presence of those objects as phenomenal content, where there is no object or phenomenal content present there is nothing left that could possibly be interpreted as indicating that consciousness is directed towards anything or dependent on anything, just like space in itself is undivided and only can be spoken of figuratively as divided by objects present in it, even though space continues on in an undivided manner through that object, the undivided expanse of space permeating it and inhabiting the same location as it.

[Anonymous No.20363878]

Nagarjuna has been a disaster for buddhism.

[Anonymous No.20363900]

I have no clue what either side is talking about, half these words aren't in English

[Anonymous No.20363918]

>>20363862
People can and do follow systems of monism or non-dualism that don’t violate the LNC, there’s no requirement that one has to violate it. If the Absolute were really entirely void of all such descriptions then saying “its the same as samsara” would have no purpose and would be no more or less true then saying “the absolute is Yahweh” or “the absolute is Neptune” or “the absolute is Aristotle’s self-thinking thought”

[Anonymous No.20363930]

>>20363876
turn your schizo rant into a single paragraph. them i'll reply.

[Anonymous No.20363947]

>>20363876
>petitio principii fallacy
>but then asserts that there is a consciousness independent of the objects of it

hm

[Anonymous No.20363950]

>>20363876
>It’s begging the question either way, past experience is not an infallible predictor of how something will behave in the future. Trying to apply that reasoning consistently produces results we already know are wrong
Because your notion of reality is just a series and collection of codependent illusions. "Fundamental" reality can always be "subverted".

[Anonymous No.20364260]

>>20363918
>saying “its the same as samsara” would have no purpose and would be no more or less true then saying “the absolute is Yahweh” or “the absolute is Neptune” or “the absolute is Aristotle’s self-thinking thought”
Yes

[Anonymous No.20364291]

>>20363698
BASED

[Anonymous No.20364323]

>>20363678
>violates the law of non-contradiction
all hindu systems violates the law of non contradiction, specially advaita vedanta

[Anonymous No.20364340]

>>20363489
>focussing
Lost the argument

[Anonymous No.20364346]

>>20364323
Don't get him started he'll be blathering for the next 300 posts about how the atman is brahman despite neither of those things being demonstrable or efficacious, while everything else is fake

[Anonymous No.20364453]

>>20363930
> turn your schizo rant into a single paragraph. them i'll reply.
I responded in a coherent manner to each of your points individually, nothing I said was schizo. You will never succeed at attracting /litizens to Nagarjuna’s writings if when people dispute his points you dodge having to come up with a response to that by calling their perfectly legible sentences “schizo”

>>20363947
Its not petitio principii to point out that Nagarjuna has no argument that refutes it, its only petitio principii to say “x is true because of x” while I’m not saying.

[Anonymous No.20364466]

>>20364323
> all hindu systems violates the law of non contradiction, specially advaita vedanta
That’s incorrect, Advaita doesn’t say or teach anything that violates the LNC
>>20363950
> Because your notion of reality is just a series and collection of codependent illusions. "Fundamental" reality can always be "subverted".
That does nothing to address the criticisms of Nagarjuna’s reasoning that have been raised

[Anonymous No.20364514]

>>20364466
>Huh? Reasoning? No for my positions I just agree with the Vedas. Your positions, on the other hand, must adhere to the rules of logic outlined by my favorite theologians in order to support their own claims

[Anonymous No.20364524]

>>20364453
He does, the entire mmk refutes the idea of independent apriori things like a consciousness.
Read chapter 2

[Anonymous No.20364537]

>>20363489
>>20363678
Guenonfag is correct. Nagarjuna is an idiot and introduced too much confusion into Mahayana Buddhism. Something like panpsychism and hylozoism is also true and can't be dismissed as empty.

[Anonymous No.20364540]

>niggerjuna

[Anonymous No.20364549]

>>20364537
>dismissed as empty
Confirmed for not understanding it

It's not a dismissal, its the only logical way that these Dharmas can exist at all

[Anonymous No.20364601]

>>20364514
Saying “we hold as our belief that X scripture is means to knowledge about Y” is not a logical fallacy and its not violating any principles of logic. There is nothing inconsistent in someone who accepts such a position also critiquing Nagarjuna’s reasoning for committing logical fallacies or violating basic logical principles.

>>20364524
> He does, the entire mmk refutes the idea of independent apriori things like a consciousness.
No, it doesn’t. If Nagarjuna or the MMK actually refuted this then you would have just have posted his argument here in this thread instead of posturing with a post that makes empty unsubstantiated claims.
>Read chapter 2
I have, its an analysis of motion and the ‘goer’, there is nothing in that chapter or any other chapter of the MMK that refutes the premise that consciousness is immediately known or disclosed to itself a priori

[Anonymous No.20364642]

>>20364601
>Saying “we hold as our belief that X scripture is means to knowledge about Y” is not a logical fallacy and its not violating any principles of logic
would seem to be in bad faith for you to accuse others of being illogical while your own position depends "god wrote this book so it's true"

[Anonymous No.20364823]

Guenonfag in this thread reporting for duty again to be humiliated by people who don't even care about Nagarjuna, in this endless, cyclical, repeating sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.20364857]

>>20364823
The brahmin breaking will continue until he admits Shankara is a crypto-Buddhist, as was apparent to then-contemporary Hindu theologians.

[Anonymous No.20364917]

>>20364642
>would seem to be in bad faith for you to accuse others of being illogical while your own position depends "god wrote this book so it's true"
It’s not, because believing in a scripture does not violate basic logical principles and its not committing any logical fallacies, so there is absolutely nothing inconsistent or in bad faith or dishonest in accepting a revealed scripture while criticizing someone else’s logical fallacies and their violation of logical principles

[Anonymous No.20364936]

>>20364917
If logic is the means of determining whether a proper judgment has been made, I would not trust a theologian to do this any more than I would trust a five hundred pound man to clean my gutters.

[Anonymous No.20365130]

>>20363878
So the Buddha comes along and says that all things are "Empty". This means that they exist by virtue of other stuff causing them. But the Buddha doesn't have a Jew-book telling him that this HAS to end, so he just makes the sensible conclusion that this goes back forever, meaning that the universe was never created, it's just constantly been fluxing. Eventually, along come a group of monks who argue that ah, yes, everything is caused, but that there are small atomic bodies that cannot be subdivided further. They are caused all right, but they don't have parts.

Nagarjuna (his name means something like "Snake-fucker" as he taught the Dharma to snake people inside the center of the hollow Earth after seducing them to keep them from killing him) is essentially crafting a toolkit by which you can break down any of those atoms and demonstrate that they must, in fact, have parts. His central text, The Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way, takes several of these tools and demonstrates them on numerous things ultimately pointing to the necessity of some thing as being made of parts lest you admit an absurdity (like wood being burnt before the fire is lit).

Basically.

[Anonymous No.20365223]

>>20365130
>his name means something like "Snake-fucker" as he taught the Dharma to snake people inside the center of the hollow Earth
I prefer "dragonborn" as the anglicized version

[Anonymous No.20365576]

>>20363489
edgy larp

[Anonymous No.20365994]

Buddhism leads to transgenderism (reminder that)

[Anonymous No.20366177]

>>20363489
what's a good introductory book to mahdyamaka philosophy bros?

[Anonymous No.20367384]

>>20366177
Look up Jay Garfield's translation and commentary of Nagarjuna's MMK

[Anonymous No.20368188]

>>20365994
buddhism doesnt give a shit about the body in the first place