/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22013484]

Are there any books that can refute the first verse of this guy's opus
'a thing is not caused by itself
Not by something else
Not by itself and something else
A thing is not uncaused'

[Anonymous No.22013497]

Plato's Theaetetus and Sophist

[Anonymous No.22013509]

>>22013497
>Theaetetus
Literally further evidence for the arguments, especially since it ends in aporia

Protagoras' theory is pretty close to sunyatavada though

[Anonymous No.22013523]

>>22013484
>'a thing is not caused by itself
>Not by something else
>Not by itself and something else
>A thing is not uncaused'
the buddha refuted this in the pali canon

[Anonymous No.22013525]

>>22013523
Reference to where this refutated sir? Inb4 the abhidhamma

[Anonymous No.22013572]

>>22013509
Sure, both dialogs include argument to the effect of Nagarjuna's, to show how it is inadequate. Whatever aporia there is would involve how same and other, being and not-being interact, which I find Plato illuminates more than Nagarjuna. You could criticize his and Aristotle's treatment of not-being as other, as Stanley Rosen does for instance by mentioning nihil absolutum, which could go in a mystical or deeper direction that Rosen doesn't go into. Pic is from Plato's Trilogy by Jacob Klein.

[Sag No.22014022]

Hi hakeem, get back to cold calling Americans and stop shitposting

[Anonymous No.22014026]

>>22014022
He can cold call deez nuts

[Anonymous No.22014084]

>>22014022
No dear

[Anonymous No.22014300]

“What is the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas? It is this: Because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises. That is to say: Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise; because of activities, consciousness arises, and so on …, and thus arises this whole mass of suffering.

“Regarding the statement conditioned by birth, aging-and-death arises, someone may ask: Who is it that ages-and-dies? To whom does aging-and-death belong?

“And he may answer: It is the self that ages-and-dies. Aging-and-death belongs to the self; aging-and-death is the self.

“To say that soul is the same thing as body, or to say that soul is one thing and body another, these have the same meaning, though they are expressed differently. For one who has the view which says that soul is the same thing as body, there is no point in the noble life. And for one who has the other view which says that soul is one thing and body another, there is also no point in the noble life. Following neither of these two extremes, the mind should move rightly toward the Middle Way.

“The noble ones, transcending the world, free of distortion, have right view, seeing the true nature of phenomena, namely: Conditioned by birth is aging-and-death, and similarly conditioned are birth, becoming, attachment, craving, feeling, contact, the six sense-spheres, name and form, consciousness, and activities. Conditioned by ignorance, activities arise.

“And if someone asks: Who are the activities? To whom do the activities belong?

“He may answer: The activities are the self, activities belong to the self.

“Thus for him, soul is the same thing as body; or he may say that soul is one thing and body another. For one who views soul and body as the same thing, there is no point in the noble life; and for one who says soul is one thing and body another, there is also no point in the noble life. Avoiding these two extremes, move rightly toward the Middle Way.

“The noble ones, transcending the world, free of distortion, have right view, seeing the true nature of things, namely: Conditioned by ignorance are activities.

“Monks! As to who ages-and-dies, and to whom aging-and-death belongs, when ignorance fades away, and knowledge arises, aging and death are cut off, and one knows they have been cut off at the root, like the cut-off stump of a palm tree, never to arise again in the future.

“As to who is born, and to whom birth belongs, and so on …; and as to who are the activities, and to whom the activities belong, when ignorance fades away and knowledge arises in a monk, activities are cut off, and one knows they have been cut off at the root, like the cut-off stump of a palm tree, never to arise again in the future.

“When ignorance fades away and knowledge arises in a monk, in him ignorance ceases, and thus activities cease, and so on …, and this whole mass of suffering ceases.

This is called ‘the great discourse on the emptiness of dharmas’

https://suttacentral.net/sa297/en/choong

[Anonymous No.22014325]

>>22013484
This is just drivel, and self refuting as it contradicts itself. Self-refuting statements are dead on arrival and not in need of further refutation.

[Anonymous No.22014402]

Kant, he was proves we project causation

[Anonymous No.22014429]

>>22014402
The only thing Kant proved is that he had incurable autism

[Anonymous No.22014436]

>>22013572
Neither Plato nor Aristotle assert that non-being is the same as other or being the same as sameness. In fact, Plato explicitly refutes that notion in the dialogue Sophist.

[Anonymous No.22014559]

>>22014325
Nagarjuna isnt asserting anything
Just negations sweety

[Anonymous No.22014655]

>>22013484
He offers no argument there to refute the premise of an uncaused Absolute, so, his assertion can be dismissed without giving it credence

[Anonymous No.22014912]

>>22014325
no, the catuskoti shows that the problem of causation is categorically inefficient, that the idea or category of causationin itself doesn't make any sense, since any way you try to articulate causation end up in aporia
>>22013523
the buddha use causation in a empirical way, nagarjuna is using causation ina metaphysical way, he's addressing first causes, which the buddha also refutes

[Anonymous No.22015284]

>>22014300
is the buddha basically saying ignorance is the root of consciousness? this seems similar to the christian idea that we are sinners by nature.

[Anonymous No.22016140]

>>22014655
Nagarjuna addresses this, as does the Buddha. Something that cannot be the object of anything else cannot be the subject of any action. So, yes, he doesn't try to refute what you're suggesting because such a thing's existence is identical to its non-existence and as such it's pointless for someone with Nagarjuna's mission to address it at length.

>>22015284
No, the Buddha is saying that ignorance is the root of dukkha. This is in contrast to the Christian view which says that human nature (or rather post-Fall human nature) is the root of suffering.

[Anonymous No.22016158]

>>22016140
What exactly is "consciousness" in this context?

[Anonymous No.22016200]

>>22016158
Whose context? The Buddhist or Christian context?

[Anonymous No.22016205]

>>22016200
im referring to the original post I replied to, which is >>22014300

[Anonymous No.22016230]

>>22016205
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na
tl;dr Mental activity is caused by inputs to the senses, of which there are six, taste, touch, sight, hearing, smell, and mind. Mind is what you use for psychic powers, memory, and thinking, so remembering something is a type of sensory input.

This leads into the 12-fold chain of dependent origination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

So, yes, ignorance leads to mental activity, but mental activity is just one step in the chain, and there's 9 more links before we get to the actual "pain" of dukkha.

[Anonymous No.22016281]

>>22016230
>So, yes, ignorance leads to mental activity
I still don't follow how ignorance leads to mental activity. you're merely rephrasing what was said in the post I referred to.

[Anonymous No.22016378]

>>22016281
Well for starters ignorance leads to bad actions. You don't know that killing is bad, so you kick a puppy, and that puppy hurts. But you then feel bad later. See? Ignorance leads to mental activity leads to bad feelings.

At a higher level, ignorance leads to the creation of karma that leads to beings being born in samsara, which causes the chain to repeat.

[Anonymous No.22017668]

>>22016158
In buddhism conciseness >>22016230
and it is the 6th sense connecting the intellect to the world of ideas, like the nose connects ''you'' to the world of scents and so on.

It has a special role because it is where all other sense meet

>>22016281
''ignorance leads to mental activities'' because when there is no ignorance there is no mental activities. ''ignorance leads to mental activities'' is the contrapositive of the empirical result that 'no ignorance there is no mental activities'. This is why ignorance is the root of all the suffering. It's not like there is some real blob of ignorance floating in space and causing the suffering, it is more ''once you know what causes suffering, suffering ceases''.

One piece of killing suffering is the ''mental activities'' ie just mental masturbation, like typically what the intellectuals in the atheist academia have been doing over the last few centuries. This is one of the reason why buddhism is incompatible with atheism, contrary to what atheists claim.

[Anonymous No.22017849]

>>22017668
Consciousness in Buddhism is the 5th aggregate
You're confusing thought which is like a 6th sense in Buddhism with consciousness which is more like reflexive awareness of perception and thoughts

Ignorance is the stem of all mental and sensual activity which is the stem of all experiential reality
Knowledge puts you off the scale where neither extremes like existence of nonexistence aptly desvribe

[Anonymous No.22017875]

>>22017849
I dont confuse anything. Consciousness is also the 6th sense, ie the intellect and its objects are mental objects, ie ideas, fantasies, concepts and so on.

[Anonymous No.22018896]

[Anonymous No.22019598]

>>22017668
>''ignorance leads to mental activities'' because when there is no ignorance there is no mental activities.
this is basically repeating the same sentence twice. you are still not explaining what consciousness means in this context. perhaps you don't know?

>it is more ''once you know what causes suffering, suffering ceases''.
yeah, i get that's the central message of buddhism. what i do not understand is how consciousness is derived from ignorance. to find out what is meant by that, i want to figure out what consciousness is in this context.

>''mental activities'' ie just mental masturbation
so you mean to say consciousness is a collection of superfluous thoughts?

>>22017849
so basically, our experienced reality is caused by ignorance? is a rock less ignorant than a human?

[Anonymous No.22019861]

Sometimes I wonder if I'm meant to feel happy and bliss when I think about the teachings and the freedom they give. Isn't that attachment too?

[Anonymous No.22019872]

>>22014912
What do Buddhists think of Hume? I know of at least one zen practitioner who claims Hume's conclusions were the same as zen philosophy without even being aware of it.

[Anonymous No.22019907]

>>22018896
Makes me kinda wish Christ had had a 40 year long ministry

[Anonymous No.22020233]

>>22019872
all the buddhisi know love Hume, and a lot of Budologist study the similarities between Hume and Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.22020841]

>>22020233
Awesome, I will have to read him again.

[Anonymous No.22020967]

>>22013484
Wittgenstein : What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

[Anonymous No.22021029]

>>22013484
You need to post larger images. This is an image posting board, not a thumbnail posting board.

[Anonymous No.22021639]

>>22020233
>>22019872
Zen and Nagarjuna have nothing to do with buddhism in the first place.
And Hume was a thinkers, ie a very mediocre buddhist. You want to be a good buddhist, you do sila everyday and do buddhist meditation.

[Anonymous No.22022775]

>>22016140
>because such a thing's existence is identical to its non-existence
That is a non-sequitur, since whether something exists or not isn't determined by whether it can be an object or subject of action

[Anonymous No.22022866]

>>22022775
>my rules are different so you're wrong
fair enough, please show how something which is neither a subject nor an object "exists," unless you've also implemented different rules governing subjects and objects in which case show us how that works as well

[Anonymous No.22022881]

>>22022866
>fair enough, please show how something which is neither a subject nor an object "exists," unless you've also implemented different rules governing subjects and objects in which case show us how that works as well
Which "rules" are you referring to in the first place?

[Anonymous No.22022885]

>>22013484
Brainlet here, what is this trying to say?

[Anonymous No.22022898]

>>22022881
>whether something exists or not isn't determined by whether it can be an object or subject of action
so what IS it determined by?

[Anonymous No.22022922]

>>22022898
>so what IS it determined by?
Different philosophical schools give different answers to this question, adopting and defending one of them is not relevant for my present purpose though, which was to point out that the argument:

"a thing's existence is identical to it's non-existence if it cannot be the object of anything or the subject of any action"

Is based on the fallacy of petito principii since the argument is presupposing that a thing's existence is determinable by whether it can be an object of anything or the subject of any action. Unless you actually provide positive proof of why this is necessarily true then the argument lacks any merit or force, and trying to backstop it with argumentum ad populum argument (another fallacy) wouldn't work either since that's not by any means the common person's understanding or definition of existence.

[Anonymous No.22022945]

>>22022922
>Unless you actually provide positive proof of why this is necessarily true
There's a whole book, it's not just a single sentence lol

[Anonymous No.22022956]

>>22022945
>There's a whole book
Are you talking about the MMK? That doesn't prove anything about what the correct definition of existence is. If it really did have an argument that could be followed rationally that demonstrated this you would have just written the argument here, but there is none to be found in it.

Moreover Nagarjuna claims in it to have no position on anything, so he could be contradicting himself by maintaining that while also trying to prove that a thing's existence is correctly determined by whether it is an object of something or the subject of an action. You can't both argue for this and try to prove it true and also claim have no position le epic reddit ataraxia, you can't both have your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous No.22022974]

>>22022956
>That doesn't prove anything about what the correct definition of existence is.
Right that's the point. Pick your favorite explanation... and it's bullshit. That's the analysis of every chapter of MMK. So we agree—existence doesn't depend on subjects acting or objects acted upon. But do you have some other set of rules to attempt describing it or are we done here?

[Anonymous No.22022987]

>>22022922
>"a thing's existence is identical to it's non-existence if it cannot be the object of anything or the subject of any action"
Sounds like a logical if roundabout way to describe abstract concepts

[Anonymous No.22023180]

>>22022974
>Right that's the point. Pick your favorite explanation... and it's bullshit. That's the analysis of every chapter of MMK. So we agree—existence doesn't depend on subjects acting or objects acted upon. But do you have some other set of rules to attempt describing it or are we done here?
So, first, the existence of a thing or absolute was described by you as being determined by whether it can be an object or subject, then this was citied as a reason for why an uncaused Absolute is supposedly illogical or incoherent according to the purportedly impressive logic of the MMK.

Then, when pressed you were forced to concede that this relies upon a definition of existence which is not proven in the MMK or commonly accepted by people either, you tried to save face by claiming "yea b-but this is what the MMK says that all explanations of it are BS"

Well, if that explanation of existence is also BS then it means the argument against an uncaused Absolute which relied upon that explanation is also BS and thus the argument can be dismissed and the notion of an uncaused Absolute remains as coherent by sophistic attempted takedowns. QED

[Anonymous No.22023183]

>>22023180
*remains as coherent and unaffected by sophistic attempted takedowns.

[Anonymous No.22023184]

a very zen thread here with all these technical arguments to nitpick each other

[Anonymous No.22023218]

>>22021639
I don't want to be a good Buddhist in the dogmatic sense per se, I want to approach it from a philosophical perspective. I am interested in jhanas however.

[Anonymous No.22023252]

>>22023184
buddhism in /lit/ is debating the academic idea of buddhism, which is ironic.

[Anonymous No.22023294]

it all depends on scope.
what manner of thing are we talking about here.
there are many abstractions that are arguably uncaused and moreso "discovered".
human beings human awareness is the only awareness that accounts for time.
we cannot see beyond causality becuase of this.
magical thinking misattributes causes to effects due to a always preceeding b.

the only thing that could refute such a mortal and human verse, is something that is "beyond human", as the only contention this argument often gets applied to is the debate on the existance and nature of god.

[Anonymous No.22023344]

>>22023180
>the notion of an uncaused Absolute remains as coherent
No it doesn't. MMK argues against a number of competing Indian Buddhist and non-Buddhist positions and attempts to show their incoherence. That your version wasn't covered doesn't mean it isn't refutable. You do seem to agree with these refuted definitions being deservedly refuted... you wouldn't be about to steal Nagarjuna's homework would you?

[Anonymous No.22023355]

>>22023252
Because you have people larping as orthodox Hindus always coming into these threads and complaning that their nth permutation of the atman concept hasn't been specifically addressed

[Anonymous No.22023746]

>>22023252
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm6WGE_efHw

[Anonymous No.22024016]

>>22022775
If it can't be the object of seeing, it cannot be seen.
If it can't be the object of touching, it cannot be touched.
If it can't be the object of smelling, it cannot be smelled.
If it can't be the object of hearing, it cannot be heard.
If it can't be the object of tasting, it cannot be tasted.
If it can't be the object of knowing, it cannot be known.
If it can't be the object of existing, it cannot exist.
If it can't be the object of memory, it cannot be remembered even if you somehow do interact with it.
If something is unchanging and cannot be uninteracted with, we have no way of knowing it exists, and even if we did know that it exists it would by definition not interact with us.

So, yes, you could come up with some kind of asinine wordsalad logic puzzle that would allow for a thing to exist in such a manner that we humans would have no way of confirming that it exists and live lives identical to those we would live if it did not exist, but we would by definition have no way of confirming that it exists and live lives identical to those we would live if it did not exist.

[Anonymous No.22024647]

"Gaudapada here affirms the possibility of intuiting reality beyond all veiling and thus attain an all comprehensive vision in contrast with the self-stultifying desperate negation of all things by means of the critical intellect.
[...]

In a word, his is a supra-mental philosophy failing to see anything positive, negative or even neutral which can be rightly characterized as the essence of things. He considers it only proper to suspend his judgement in the matter. The means of approach, as I have said before, is reason (yukti) aided by intuition (anubhava) of the three states (avasthatraya) on the one side (Vedanta), and critical reason restricted to the waking state on the other (Madhyamaka)." - Mandukya Rahasya Vivrt, SSS

https://archive.org/details/Sachidanandendra_Swamiji_-_Maandukya_Rahasya_Vivrutti/page/n13/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.22025524]

>>22023180
>>22023344
Reminder that MMK can't explain how ignorance and karma are generated from the primordial awareness

[Anonymous No.22026054]

>>22025524
there's no >ignorance and karma generated from the primordial awareness
they're just imaginary superimpositions

[Anonymous No.22027056]

>>22025524
igrnorance can't be "generated" since that would imply causation, which the MMK refutes

[Anonymous No.22027071]

>>22014655
yes he does, he pretty much refutes cuasation as an objective thing, which is the core principle needed for an uncaused cause

>>22022775
>since whether something exists or not isn't determined by whether it can be an object or subject of action
how can you "know" that if everything you know presents to you as an object for a subject? the moment you want to prove something exist outside subjectivity you refute yourself, since you have to pose it as an object for a subject

[Anonymous No.22027346]

>>22027071
>how can you "know" that if everything you know presents to you as an object for a subject?
I don't agree that everything that is known presents itself as an object

[Anonymous No.22027395]

>>22019598
> yeah, i get that's the central message of buddhism. what i do not understand is how consciousness is derived from ignorance. to find out what is meant by that, i want to figure out what consciousness is in this context.

One description given of how ignorance is at the root of consciousness, is of a split between “self” and “other” in the primordial arising of consciousness. After all, conventionally speaking, from the viewpoint of sentient beings, we regard there to be a clear-cut distinction between a subject “in-here” and objects or a universe “out-there,” which dualism Buddhism regards as a subtle form of ignorance.

Here is a Tibetan Buddhist discourse on the teachings of the Abhidharma which gets into this:

We could begin by discussing the origin of all psychological problems, the origin of neurotic mind. This is a tendency to identify oneself with desires and conflicts related to a world outside. And the question is immediately there as to whether such conflicts actually exist externally or whether they are internal. This uncertainty solidifies the whole sense that a problem of some kind exists. What is real? What is not real? That is always our biggest problem. It is ego’s problem.

The abhidharma, its whole contents with all the details, is based on the point of view of egolessness. When we talk about egolessness, that does not mean simply the absence of ego itself. It means also the absence of the projections of ego. Egolessness comes more or less as a by-product of seeing the transitory, transparent nature of the world outside. Once we have dealt with the projections of ego and seen their transitory and transparent nature, then ego has no reference point, nothing to relate to. So the notions of inside and outside are interdependent — ego began and its projections began. Ego managed to maintain its identity by means of its projections. When we are able to see the projections as nonsubstantial, ego becomes transparent accordingly.

According to the abhidharma, ego consists, in one of its aspects, of eight kinds of consciousness. There are the six sense consciousnesses (thinking mind is regarded as a sixth sense). Then there is a seventh consciousness, which has the nature of ignorance, cloudiness, confusion. This cloudy mind is an overall structure which runs right through the six sense consciousness. Each sense consciousness relates to this cloudy situation of not knowing exactly what you are doing. The seventh consciousness is an absence of precision. It is very blind.

The eighth consciousness is what you could call the common ground or the unconscious ground of all this. It is the ground that makes it possible for all the other seven to operate. This ground is different from the basic ground of which I have sometimes spoken, which is the background of all of existence and contains samsara and nirvana both.

[Anonymous No.22027404]

The eighth consciousness is not as basic as that ground. It is a kind of secondary basic level where confusion has already begun; and that confusion provides an accommodation for the other seven consciousnesses to operate.

There is an evolutionary process which starts from this unconscious ground, the eighth consciousness. The cloudy consciousness arises from that and then the six sense consciousnesses. Even the six senses evolve in a certain order according to the level of experiential intensity of each of them. The most intense level is attained with sight which develops last.

These eight types of consciousness can be looked at as being on the level of the first of the five skandhas, form. They are the form of ego, the tangible aspect of it. They constitute the ultimate grounding element of ego — as far as ego’s grounding goes; which is not very far. Still, from a relative point of view, they do comprise something fixed, something definite.

I think to place this in perspective, it would be good to discuss briefly the basic ground — even though the abhidharma teaching does not talk very much about it — the all-pervading basic ground which we have just contrasted to the eighth consciousness. This basic ground does not depend on relative situations at all. It is natural being which just is. Energies appear out of this basic ground and those energies are the source of the development of relative situations. Sparks of duality, intensity, and sharpness, flashes of wisdom and knowledge — all sorts of things come out of the basic ground. So the basic ground is the source of confusion, and also the source of liberation. Both liberation and confusion are the energy that happens constantly, which sparks out and then goes back to its basic nature, like clouds (as Milarepa described it) emerging from and disappearing back into the sky.

As for ego’s type of ground, the eighth consciousness, that arises when the energy which flashes out of the basic ground brings about a sort of blinding effect, bewilderment. That bewilderment becomes the eighth consciousness, the basic ground for ego. Dr. Herbert Guenther calls it “bewilderment-errancy.” It is error that comes out of being bewildered — a kind of panic. (…) Something suddenly freezes and brings the bewilderment of not knowing how to conduct the situation. Then actually the situation takes you over. Rather than just being completely one with the projection, the projection takes you over. Then the unexpected power of the projection comes back to you as your own doing, which creates extremely powerful and impressive bewilderment. That bewilderment acts as the basic ground, the secondary basic ground of ego, away from the primordial basic ground.

[Anonymous No.22027457]

So ego is the ultimate relative, the source of all the relative concepts in the whole samsaric world. You cannot have criteria, notions of comparison, without ego. Things begin from ego’s impression of relativity. Even nirvana begins that way. When ego began, nirvana, the other side of the same coin, began also. Without ego, there could be no such thing as nirvana or liberation, since a free state without relativity would be the case. So as ego develops, freedom and imprisonment begin to exist; and that relative situation contains the basic quality of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.22027564]

>>22027346
>I don't agree that everything that is known presents itself as an object
Then you are in disagreement with Shankara.

[Anonymous No.22027842]

>>22014559
even negations are affirming themselves as negation. L + ratio + you're literally trans

[Anonymous No.22027851]

>>22016140
based non-syncretist. The idea that ignorance is the root of all evil and the corrolary that consciousness unbinds the knot

>>22014300
yeah yeah fuckin orientals and their anti-ontology. It does have a nice vibe when contrasted against a degraded christendom (i.e: satanism), but it's still wrong.

[Anonymous No.22027855]

>>22016281
Ignorance of the underlying insubstantial nature of all phenomena makes you care about shit and that leads to attachment, which leads to pain (cause nothing is real). it's literally that simple. Buddhists are hyper nihilists. The very fact they're not sad about their own nihilism shows them to be true nihilists.

[Anonymous No.22027962]

>>22027855
>cause nothing is real
Not sure what you mean, the Buddha was pretty clear that things exist. They just depend on other things for that existence.

[Anonymous No.22028264]

>>22027962
anatta

[Anonymous No.22029064]

>>22028264
Nothing exists but there is existence

[Anonymous No.22030329]

WTF