/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21475691]

>retroactively answers all philosophical questions before philosophy was even a thing

B-but how?!

[Anonymous No.21475723]

>>21475691
Hinduism already did it better he was just a rebellious faggot who thought he was too smart for the traditions. All he did was create a life denying virus and a religion that can barely even be practiced by normal people. Buddha was a parasitic aristocrat whose enlightenment was made possible by the laborers who his philosophy is useless for. This is why Daoism and Hinduism are superior religions - they can give people from every way of life meaning and they do not deny the value of life or the value of ordinary humans.

[Anonymous No.21475735]

>>21475723
How is Buddhism life denying though?

[Anonymous No.21475763]

>>21475735
Regular people are nothing more than necessary intermediaries on the soul’s progress to reach nirvana. Regular living with it’s suffering is seen as something to escape and it does not understand that the existence of suffering is a reflection and expression of the meaning of life that was created by humans. The proper path is seen as one of meditation and training of the mind to lose desire, no place for creation or labor. It seeks to get rid of our animal nature rather than embracing it.

[Anonymous No.21475771]

cope: the cult

[Anonymous No.21475777]

>>21475771
go worship you're jewish god somewhere else

[Anonymous No.21475795]

>>21475771
yes but it's the based kind of cope, I wish I had the balls and the intelligence to become a NEET and on top of that being revered as a divinity for it.

[Anonymous No.21475798]

>>21475763
Sometimes I think it would be better just to get rid of the lower, carnal self altogether, if such a thing were possible. But I don't actually believe any human being really ever has, I think those who claimed to were more or less just pretending.

But no I think Buddha and the Gnostics kind of had a point though The lower self sucks. Matter and energy more often than not work to sustain evil within creation. If they could actually be overcome, that would be a good thing.

[Anonymous No.21475808]

NIGGER, how can you retroactively answer at thing that don't even exist before? Are low IQ?

[Anonymous No.21475828]

>>21475798
No the lower self is what you are made of. You need to stop equating the lower self with excessive carnal hedonic desire. It is also the source of all noble virtues such as compassion and the part of you that wants to escape the flesh. You dont have to get rid of it you just have to cultivate the good parts

[Anonymous No.21475852]

>>21475828
How can the lower self want to escape the flesh when it is the flesh by definition? I don't understand how any of this stuff could be good either. If I have a sandwich, and some hungry guy doesn't, it is the material realities of matter and energy which sustain the inequality and evil of the situation. It is a good thing to recognize how hollow and lowly the lower self and the material world are in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.21475869]

>>21475852
>How can the lower self want to escape the flesh when it is the flesh by definition?
Because it’s a manifold

[Anonymous No.21475875]

>>21475723
>Hinduism already did it better

Spotted the poo.

[Anonymous No.21475907]

>>21475869
You mean like it's self evident? No it isn't. I and everyone else would see it if it was manifold, that is a really bad argument in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.21475927]

>>21475763
There’s an implicit value judgement in your phrase “life-denying.” Not to mention an ambiguity in the fact that there is no such thing as “life.” Only lives and living. There is nothing to deny, only particular experiences, which we do so anyway in other religions and practices.

[Anonymous No.21475929]

>>21475691
>Attachment is le bad
It's not when done appropriately with regards to the thing/person you are attached to. Suffering and tears are sometimes appropriate anyway, we aren't robots, even our Lord cried for Lazarus.

[Anonymous No.21475936]

>>21475929
>even our Lord cried for Lazarus.

Opinion disregarded.

[Anonymous No.21476239]

>>21475936
Your loss.

[Anonymous No.21476597]

>>21475907
No I mean it’s a manifold as in it has parts you autist

[Anonymous No.21476602]

>>21475927
>There’s an implicit value judgement in your phrase “life-denying.”
Correct. Buddhism is also based on arbitrary values - just ones that happen to be incompatible with the human way of life

[Anonymous No.21476656]

>>21475691
Buddhatardism doesn’t answer shit.

[Anonymous No.21476667]

There's a lesser known parable in classical Indian philosophy known as “Menander’s Chariot” (which is a similar but better formulation of the famous parable of Theseus’ ship). The Milinda Pañha (“Questions of King Menander”) portrays a dialogue between King Menander and the monk Nāgasena. Since attaining canonical form in Plutarch as Theseus’ ship, a version of this thought experiment has had a long life in European philosophical thought, where it is often used to argue for some version of mereological nihilism. But the Milinda Pañha has a different conclusion. First, it suggests that the chariot is only provisionally or conventionally the same chariot. Any entity composed of parts or aggregates lacks a single or essential nature. So in this respect, a process is in some sense always changing, and therefore lacks autonomous or permanent identity (again, think of Heraclitus never stepping in the same river). This seems to be a largely skeptical response. But the Milinda Pañha goes one step further, and suggests that the conventional identity of the chariot is similar to a lit torch being used to light another torch. Is it the same flame? No. But Nāgasena argues that the flames share a causal continuity. Restated, whatever the degree to which Menander’s chariot is the same chariot, it is the same because it shares a process or causal continuity. You are not the matter of your body, but to the extent that you are provisionally you, you are an unfolding process with a particular causal history.

[Anonymous No.21476799]

>>21476667
I think as opposed to Buddhists' causally linked processual ontology, Hinduism adopts an essentialist stance. That's why I prefer reading the former than the latter.

[Anonymous No.21476821]

>>21475723
>hinduism did it better
>india is still an utter shithole
hmmm i wonder how

[Anonymous No.21476841]

>>21475691
The sexy snek lady is having an orgasm, she's blushing.

[Anonymous No.21476845]

>>21475763
They fixed the neognosticism of early buddhism with Nagarjuna though.

[Anonymous No.21476850]

>>21476799
This. Sramana philosophy is the best when it comes to Indian philosophy, be it Buddhism or charvaka or ajnani. This >>21475723 retard is just another upper caste hindoo who most prolly worships vedas and bagavad gita.

[Anonymous No.21476856]

"""Soul""" in the ancient Indian context is not the same as the concept of Christian soul

[Anonymous No.21476858]

>>21475691
>>before philosophy was even a thing
almost had a good thread going there, but you had to ruin it

[Anonymous No.21476863]

>>21476858
Philosophy is a Eurocentric phenomenon. You can't just retroactively and transculturally apply it however you want.

[Anonymous No.21476871]

>>21476667
Interesting
Why don't they teach about this chariot too while teaching about theseus’ ship in the west to put things into perspective?

[Anonymous No.21476878]

>>21476871
It's haram to include middle eastern or south asian philosophy in the west. Japanese get an exception pass because they make anime and their girls are kawaii.

[Anonymous No.21476880]

>>21476667
This is not unique to Buddhism. St Thomas Aquinas reaches the same conclusion about material aggregates, but uses it in support of the metaphysical distinction between substantial and accidental forms (which I would assume you are ignorant of). In other words, one can simply affirm that the ship of Theseus, or the chariot, are not proper identities to begin with, because they do not fit any rigorous definition of an identity (which would be a substantial form).

[Anonymous No.21476889]

>>21476880
You only half read that post. Continue from "But the Milinda Pañha goes one step further".
It not only rejects the substantialist view but posits a process oriented view that can get us out of this trap.

[Anonymous No.21476895]

>>21476880
Your comprehension skills are down in the gutter.

[Anonymous No.21476900]

>>21476863
>love of wisdom is a Eurocentric phenomenon
okay...?

[Anonymous No.21476903]

>>21476880
>This is not unique to Buddhism.
Does Jesus Christ make lady snakes have orgasms also?

[Anonymous No.21476909]

>>21476900
Philosophy =/= wisdom
If you define it that broadly, you have to concede that even animals engage in philosophical discourses.

[Anonymous No.21476910]

>>21476880
>This is not unique to Buddhism
Nairatmya is the definitive feature of Buddhism. Will Aquinas deny that the biblical God is self-existent or not?

[Anonymous No.21476915]

>>21475691
Unless you're reading primary texts, it could be that what you're talking about is just contamination from the western philosophies you think it answered beforehand.
https://meaningness.com/bad-ideas-from-dead-germans
>>21475927
>implicit value judgement
lol
>there is no such thing as “life.”
lmao even

[Anonymous No.21476916]

>>21476863
Plato, the "founder" of "Western philosophy" had no trouble citing Egyptian mythology

[Anonymous No.21476924]

>>21476889
I read the whole post. What you failed to understand in my post is that the Buddhist (or more specifically, certain Buddhist schools') rejection of substantialism is irrational and predicated on a misunderstanding of the "thought experiment."
>Any entity composed of parts or aggregates lacks a single or essential nature
Aquinas concurs with this statement, but uses it to affirm substantialism and the distinction between matter and form, substance and essence.
>But the Milinda Pañha goes one step further, and suggests that the conventional identity of the chariot is similar to a lit torch being used to light another torch.
This statement is trivially true and adds nothing to the original thought experiment that isn't already obvious. The only caveat being a "processual" identity is not an actual identity at all, it's made up by Buddhists so they can retain some semblance of rationality, without actually being rational (because they refuse to further elaborate upon what a "processual identity" really is.) The "process oriented view" only leads you in circles, it doesn't get you out of anything because it cannot even explain the illusion of identity, let alone real identity in substantial form. Do yourself a favor and read some real philosophy, like Aquinas or Aristotle.
>>21476895
That would be yours.

[Anonymous No.21476981]

>>21476924
You're so fucking retarded. There's literally no need to bring back substantialism when you have process oriented ontology to explain temporary zones of stability in our casually linked processually changing world. Identity attribution is provisional and task dependant. Rationality is a spook of western philosophy.

[Anonymous No.21476995]

In the Western philosophical tradition, it was usual, until recent times, to ask: does knowledge arise from *reason* or from *experience*? The rationalists and the empiricists differed in their answers. These answers, in their various formulations, determined the course of Western philosophy. In the Sanksrit philosophical vocabulary, the words 'reason' and 'experience' have no exact synonyms, and the epistemological issue was never formulated in such general terms. On the other hand, a question which was asked is: is perception [pratyakṣa] the only pramāṇa or is anumāna [inference] a pramāṇa? Neither is 'perception' synonymous with 'experience', nor '*anumāna*' with 'reason'. Those who recognize perception as *pramāṇa* (in fact, every philosophical school did so) often did not restrict perception to sensory perception, and did not restrict sensory perception to the domain of sensible qualities, such as color, and material objects, such as sticks and stones. Among things that were taken to be sensuously perceived are: the self and its qualities, such as pleasure, pain, desire and cognition; universals, such as redness; natural-kind essences, such as cowness; and relations, such as contact and inherence (of a quality in a substance; of a universal in its instances). That *anumāna* or inference is different from reason (of the rationalists) is clear from its very etymology; it follows upon perception. If we leave the Buddhists out, no school of Indian philosophy ascribed to inference a 'constructive' role. It knows what can be known otherwise. There is always a priority of perception. There are no Indian rationalists. Neither perception nor inference pointed to any specific faculty of the mind—as 'experience' and 'reason' did in classical Western philosophies. The same faculties or cognitive instruments—operating in different manners–resulted in one case in perception, in another in inference.

[Anonymous No.21477036]

>>21476924
>things i agree with are rational and things i disagree with are irrational
ok tommy

[Anonymous No.21477066]

>>21476981
That's why alaya-vijnana, tathagatagarbha, east asian buddhism's general shift of emphasis embodied in three thruths etc, exist...The more people weren't content to not ask certain questions the buddha said not to ask and especially when buddhism spread across asia different responses developed.

[Anonymous No.21477067]

>>21475723
>Hinduism already did it better
>MUH GOD DID IT
lmao

[Anonymous No.21477082]

>>21476909
>Philosophy =/= wisdom
Never said it was, anon.
>you have to concede that even animals engage in philosophical discourses.
Even if I said Philosophy was wisdom in and of itself, this is stupid. No, I would not have to concede this at all. Do you even know what you're saying? Please, read more before posting on this topic.

[Anonymous No.21477163]

>>21476981
You cannot explain temporary zones of stability without appealing to a mind which applies names to things (which imputes stability), hence the Buddhist (which is divergent in Hinduism and takes a broader form) distinction of nāma and rūpa, so far from being a purely Western distinction. This fact does not force one to admit that "reality is mental" or some similar form of subjectivism, just that some identities are names-only, some identities are actual form (rūpa). This is not the raison d'etre for substantial forms (as substantial forms are non-mental and therefore objective), it is the reason processual "ontology" is question-begging.
>>21477036
>statements that provide a non-question-begging and explanatory, non-contradictory answer are rational and question begging or ambiguity are irrational
Yes.
>>21476995
>There are no Indian rationalists.
You don't know what you're speaking about.
>either perception nor inference pointed to any specific faculty of the mind
If you completely neglect the concept of manas (cognate with "mind"), and the explicit doctrine (which is also partly assimilable to Aristotle's) that the mind itself is at least partly a sense organ like all the rest. You're confusing "Western philosophy" and "modern philosophy", two totally different tendencies. And if you also ignore the fact that there are whole Hindu fields of study, namely Nyāya (and the sub-distinctions of Vyāpya, content, and Vyāpaka, form), dedicated exactly to an expounding of the rational method in terms that are basically directly comparable to Aristotle's Organon. Secondly there is the Hindu equivalent of "experience", called Vaisheshika, which properly translates to "individual thing", which is how Aristotle also equivocates the modern term "experience." It is the analysis of particular things, closely related to the idea of experience as opposed to "reason." What can't be stressed enough clearly is the conflation you have achieved between "Western philosophy" and "modern philosophy."

[Anonymous No.21477206]

>>21475777
"jewish" god over streetshitters everyday

[Anonymous No.21477226]

>>21475763
>on the soul’s progress to reach nirvana
this is a contradiction in terms, buddhism not onlñy doesn't believe in a soul, but see nirvana as the realisation that such a thing can't exist

[Anonymous No.21477232]

>>21475828
>No the lower self is what you are made of. You need to stop equating the lower self with excessive carnal hedonic desire. It is also the source of all noble virtues such as compassion and the part of you that wants to escape the flesh. You dont have to get rid of it you just have to cultivate the good parts
This is completely false and moronic lol.
Also you know nothing about life forms, and they dont give a shit about your made up ''lower self''.

[Anonymous No.21477244]

>>21477067
>Hindu
I don't think any Hindu god has fucked a sexy snek.

[Anonymous No.21477324]

>>21475723
>>21475735

>Hinduism already did it better
>All he did was create a life denying

not at all, this show you know little about buddhism and the philosophical concept of a life defying religion, life defying religions as Nietzche view them are religions that need to create a tarscendental view of the world, that is, this wolrd is an illusion and the "real" wolrd is somewhere else, thus this life was metaphysically being denied, this is not only opposite of what buddha taught but in fact the core principle of all Hinud schools, Advaita Vedanta is a perfect example of a life defying philosophy, this wolrd is an illusion and the real wolrd is an empty god with no qualities (nirguna brahman) Buddhism on the other hand say that nirvana is realisign that there's no other world, the only illusion is that of a trascendental self separating you from the experience of reality, thus making buddhism one of the most life affirming religions in history, even more if you take into account the madhyamaka school which sees everything as enlightened and part of the nature of the buddhas, and nirvana as a transformation into a spirit that helps all sentient beings reach buddhahood in all the forms of the imanent world
and daoism isn0't denying or affirming life, daoism is not even a thing really, there's so many schools of daoims with different sacred texts and practices that you can't really say daoism is a concrete thing, the only thing all those expression of chinese culture have in common is the dao de xing, and i say this as someone who practiced a taiwanese form of daoims for years

[Anonymous No.21477785]

>>21477163
>statements that provide a non-question-begging and explanatory, non-contradictory answer
big if true, atmavadin, big if true