/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23121462]

Watch how Buddhists/jeetoids/ shake and cower when someone with an IQ over 100 and the most rudimentary metaphysical literacy analyzes their mess of a worldview.

[Anonymous No.23121471]

>religions are intellectually insulting
Welcome to the world of the 21st-century adult, OP.

[Anonymous No.23121483]

>>23121471
>believes in infinite regress
>believes mind emerges from matter
>believes its ok for me to kill him when nobody’s looking
I want you dead

[Anonymous No.23121487]

>>23121462
the whole field of metaphysics is ridiculous. 2,500 years ago a literal goddess invited a youth to a tea party, gave him the long and short of it all, and sent him home to tell the rest of us.

Yet when he had her words written down and distributed, all we could do was cope and seethe. The history of western philosophy and theology is just a series of desperate, self-serving reinterpretations of that truth. An ongoing embarrassment; the extent we indulge in it our words lose all meaning and we just churn out mountains of printed gibberish.

[Anonymous No.23121501]

>>23121483
Your brain has infinitely regressed, yes

[Anonymous No.23121518]

>>23121487
>>23121501
go back to your gay pride parade because you can’t define what a woman is

[Anonymous No.23121529]

>>23121487
reminder that the ancient platonists had access to Parmenides' whole corpus and no one accused them of misinterpreting or lying about Parmenides when they said he agreed with Plato

[Anonymous No.23121546]

>>23121462
ha yes a judeo-atheist greek will defeat buddhism with his mental masturbation
LMAO

[Anonymous No.23121571]

>>23121462
>mess of a worldview.
If you sincerely think that fairytale shit like magical immortal souls exist, you automatically & forever forfeit the right to refer to anyone elses worldview as a mess lmao

[Anonymous No.23121599]

>>23121483
>believes in infinite regress
Actually, it's possible I believe in one less step than you do.
>believes mind emerges from matter
Not necessarily.
>believes its ok for me to kill him when nobody’s looking
I tend not to believe in things just because I don't like the full implications of the alternative. Sorry about your Godcuck IQ.
>I want you dead
You seem upset.

[Anonymous No.23121692]

>>23121571
why isn't
>a combination of those elements
the right answer? seems like an intuitive solution to the problem.

[Anonymous No.23121694]

>>23121571
>Hume but even more retarded
This is beyond embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.23121719]

>>23121692
>why isn't
>>a combination of those elements
>the right answer?
the question is "which single element of the chariot is the ultimate fundamental undying essence ( ie "soul") of the chariot", & by extension, "which part of you is the ultimate fundamental undying essence (ie "soul") of yourself"
>>23121694
point out exactly where i've claimed that we can rely on our senses bro

[Anonymous No.23121726]

>>23121719
>the question is "which single element of the chariot is the ultimate fundamental undying essence ( ie "soul") of the chariot", & by extension, "which part of you is the ultimate fundamental undying essence (ie "soul") of yourself"
the answer is that the essence of a chariot lies in the whole of the chariot, and the whole of the chariot lies in each and every part of the chariot. if there was no such unity of the chariot and harmony between its parts and the whole, then the chariot could not perform its function.

[Anonymous No.23121731]

>>23121726
>if there was no such unity of the chariot and harmony between its parts and the whole, then the chariot could not perform its function.
you think so?

[Anonymous No.23121734]

>>23121731
Yeah, and your picture proves my point any way you want to slice it. His brain works fine, so that function isn't impeded. But his limbs don't work (and then some), so those functions are impeded.

[Anonymous No.23121738]

>>23121734
where's his soul then, bro?

[Anonymous No.23121750]

>where's his soul then, bro?

[Anonymous No.23121761]

>>23121738
Define soul. If you mean, the unity of the person, it's in the person. Dunno why you think this is that complicated.

[Anonymous No.23121763]

>>23121761
>Define soul.
Lmfao go back npc

[Anonymous No.23121777]

>>23121763
You're the one making assumptions about it being gone after posting a person who is clearly still living and even conscious. So, yeah, define soul for me. Because we're clearly operating under two different definitions.

[Anonymous No.23121780]

>>23121462
Their entire worldview is a cope. They've been utterly dehumanized in ways worse than what the modern society does to it's inhabitants for thousands of years and with no hope to improve the situation, they've developed elaborate ways of detachment from the Self. It's terrible, but their existence itself is probably even more terrible.
You could argue this was imposed on them by the higher castes to ensure nobody would ever, in thousands of years, rise to threaten their hegemony.
This is also the reason behind the rise in popularity of these types of thought among certain parts of the western populace - the "new age" types that consist of people who experience mental anguish and haven't found a way to alleviate that through more traditional ways since both religion(or, more clearly, their own community) and mental help industry of their own society had failed them before.
It does contain nuggets of wisdom here or there, but much of it is outright life-denying and thus extremely unhealthy in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.23121790]

>>23121487
This is the most asinine summary of Western Civilization I've ever heard in my life--and that's saying something because I LURK 4CHAN!

[Anonymous' No.23121796]

>>23121483
None of those follow from atheism, aside from the second proposition. If the universe had a first cause, or if morality was somehow objective, neither of those would necessitate the existence of a God. You have given up on understanding the world, so you've reverted to a dogma.

[Anonymous No.23121992]

>>23121780
this post reeks of atheism

[Anonymous No.23122137]

>>23121462
Nagarjuna destroys all metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23122184]

>>23121780
The shudras didn't invent neither Buddhism nor philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23122274]

>>23121692
The original chariot analogy as used in the suttas more or less aligns with what you said actually. The point being that the ‘chariot’ is entirely dependent on its temporal arrangement of parts (and so it isn’t some independent, separate, extra-temporal thing).
The later position that ‘there is no chariot, there are only the parts!’ is basically an aberration. If reductionism were all it took to be ‘awakened’ then every atomist would be a Buddha.
>>23121761
The unity of the person isn’t refuted (originally), but the independence/separation of that unity from the temporal parts it unifies, is refuted.

[Anonymous No.23122358]

>>23121761
>distinction implies division
I guess only subatomic particles exists then!

[Anonymous No.23122400]

>>23122274
>some independent, separate, extra-temporal thing).
>The later position that ‘there is no chariot, there are only the parts!’ is basically an aberration.
Not particularly, its an entirely valid conclusion at which to arrive, mirroring accurately the concept of aggregates
>If reductionism were all it took to be ‘awakened’ then every atomist would be a Buddha.
Reductionists are closer to enlightenment than animists dude, what separates them is their failure to understand that emptiness is the source of impermanence which is the source of pain & suffering

[Anonymous No.23122421]

> dude the reality is illusory
> except my realizing that it is illusory
> for no reason at all, that’s not illusory
Jeet philosophy in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.23122436]

>>23122421
reality isn't illusion in Buddhism, it's aggregate and the aggregations "untouchable nature" is an illusion ie PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN kind of deal

[Anonymous No.23122440]

Greek Soul (psyche) != Christian Soul (ie unique personality given by God that's also you and also a bunch of other shit) which is comparable to the Vedic "unchanging conscious state of Atman"
but you already knew that, right anons?

[Anonymous No.23122796]

>>23121529
Anon, you know that isn't true. Why are you ignoring Plato's own reference to Parmenideans and Melisseans, and Plato's express efforts to address Parmenides and try to wriggle out of the injunction and posit some sort of non-being to preserve his model of change? He is explicitly aware of older, opposing interpretations and he tries (unsuccessfully) to engage with the revelation in his own way.

>>23121790
Like I said, 2,500 years of cope and/or seethe.

[Anonymous No.23122983]

>>23122796
Yeah, whatever tard-o.

[Anonymous No.23123006]

>>23121462
>mess of a worldview
And?

[Anonymous No.23123031]

>>23121599
You actually believe in infinitely many more steps than I do.

[Anonymous No.23123040]

>>23121571
>tangible constituent parts
>No tangible whole
>the thing he rode in doesn't actually exist
All the king had to do was reassert his prior question. If there is no chariot then how did I get here?
Anyway Plato refuted this in the Phaedo when the Pythagoreans compared the soul to a lyre

[Anonymous No.23123050]

>>23121738
The soul exists in the act of perception. The things perceived merely change on the occasion that the soul receives the impression of change. In other words, the soul exists in the arms of God

[Anonymous No.23123064]

>>23122400
An accurate reductionism goes back to Being itself, not some kind of non-being, which is just absurd.
If there really is illusion then it must exist either in a state of act or potency. If it is act then it is real, if it is in potency then it is contingent on an actuality thereby making it real. Therefore it is not illusion

[Anonymous No.23123212]

>>23122274
>The unity of the person isn’t refuted (originally), but the independence/separation of that unity from the temporal parts it unifies, is refuted.
Not really.
>>23122358
I have no idea what you're talking about. Does everybody like to make random ass leaps in logic for no discernible reason here?

[Anonymous No.23123244]

>>23121487
what are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.23123280]

>>23122400
‘Self’ in Buddhism precisely means an independent thing. Atta, self-existing, independent, changeless, extra-temporal.
Buddhism doesn’t refute the (dependently arisen, temporal, non-separate) person, the individual.
If by ‘there is no self’ you mean that there is no independent self-existing extra-temporal soul/entity, then sure you can say that I suppose. But if by ‘there is no self’ you mean ‘there is no coherent unity and continuity of experience’ or ‘there is no experiential sense of a focal point of attention’, then you’re just saying something which contradicts the structure of experience. The same goes for any theory of flux or momentariness.
The aggregates are temporal. The individual is nothing but the collection of these aggregates, is wholly dependent upon these temporal aggregates. How can something dependent upon that which is temporal, be extra-temporal and independent, self-existing?
It is the principle of dependence that anattā hinges upon, not impermanence itself or reduction to ‘flux’.

[Anonymous No.23123293]

>>23123212
See
>>23123280

[Anonymous No.23123331]

>>23121501
kek

[Anonymous No.23123366]

>>23121571
>souls are fairy tales
>ghosts arent real
>but Buddha said ghosts are real
>haunted houses arent real
>spirit orbs are not real
There is no philosophizing these experiential elusive empirical claims you stake your life on.

[Anonymous No.23123369]

>>23123366
Fuck I didnt crop that Dr Dick Chopp.png now I have to wait after you have ample time to respond before I can delete. Curse thumbnail deception.

[Anonymous No.23123526]

>>23122421
Nagarjuna would never say his philosophy wasn't illusory

[Anonymous No.23123704]

>>23123280
>>23123293
I'll have to get back to you later when I have time.

[Anonymous No.23124328]

>>23123280
I'm back.
>‘Self’ in Buddhism precisely means an independent thing. Atta, self-existing, independent, changeless, extra-temporal.
This depends on whether we're sticking exclusively to the physical world. But in that sense, I agree with you. All created physical things are dependent on their creator, even if they do end up being self-sustaining in some way. But in that case, there are not only no souls, but there are also no things (except the original creator). So, nothing is real except for God/the universe/whatever you believe is the founding principle for cosmology.
>If by ‘there is no self’ you mean that there is no independent self-existing extra-temporal soul/entity, then sure you can say that I suppose. But if by ‘there is no self’ you mean ‘there is no coherent unity and continuity of experience’ or ‘there is no experiential sense of a focal point of attention’, then you’re just saying something which contradicts the structure of experience. The same goes for any theory of flux or momentariness.
The problem with the former "no self" point of view is that we may be privileging the "eternally unchanging" as a defining characteristic of being. Is this something that we are taking for granted, an unwarranted justification? It's worth considering whether we ought to differentiate between the "God's eye POV", the ontological perspective we just explored, versus the "human's eye POV", which would be more of (at the minimum) an Aristotelian-style understanding of being, where things are real and have self-perpetuating, knowable essences that constitute their unity of being.
>The aggregates are temporal. The individual is nothing but the collection of these aggregates, is wholly dependent upon these temporal aggregates. How can something dependent upon that which is temporal, be extra-temporal and independent, self-existing? It is the principle of dependence that anattā hinges upon, not impermanence itself or reduction to ‘flux’.
I'm a little bit confused on where you're going with this, most likely because I'm not familiar with Buddhist terminology. Could you explain further and link it back to the discussion we were having please?

[Anonymous No.23124488]

>>23124328
Ah, my bad. I thought that sub-conversation within this thread was on clarifying the Buddhist position on the self. Particularly with regards to the ‘chariot analogy’ which was sort of butchered in the Milindapanha by being turned into just garden-variety reductionism.
‘Anatman’ in Buddhism is entirely rooted in their teachings on mutual dependence, and it has absolutely nothing to do with ideas of reduction to parts, ‘constant flux’ or atomism. That was the main thing I was trying to get across, mostly to what I thought were other anons pushing a Buddhist perspective.

[Anonymous No.23124656]

https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments

[Anonymous No.23124942]

>>23121796
>If the universe had a first cause, or if morality was somehow objective
If you accept this, you've just conceded the existence of God, while spitefully insisting that He is somehow less that a person.

[Anonymous No.23125215]

>>23124328

the observation is that there is nothing worth calling a self in any realm of life, ie the formless realm is devoid of anything worth calling self, same for the form realm same for the desire realm. No matter what happens in those realms, there is no self in those.
Outside of that, there is nibanna and that's not the self again.

So if there is indeed some ontological self, then it is outside 1/ nibanna, 2/ any realm containing life.

If there is this self, you can't influence it and it doesnt influence you. At this point the self is completely useless.
And even worse, the self, the knowledge about the self, being influenced by the self or even influencing the self are not needed to end suffering. So the self is at best an intellectual craving, and it's not even required to reach the buddhist goal.

[Anonymous No.23125298]

>>23124488
>I thought that sub-conversation within this thread was on clarifying the Buddhist position on the self. Particularly with regards to the ‘chariot analogy’ which was sort of butchered in the Milindapanha by being turned into just garden-variety reductionism.
It was, but at a very simple level I guess.
>‘Anatman’ in Buddhism is entirely rooted in their teachings on mutual dependence, and it has absolutely nothing to do with ideas of reduction to parts, ‘constant flux’ or atomism. That was the main thing I was trying to get across, mostly to what I thought were other anons pushing a Buddhist perspective.
I can understand how mutual dependence means something greater than reductionism or atomism, but why does "constant flux" clash with the idea?
>>23125215
>nothing worth calling a self
That sounds like a subjective claim to me. Also, are you a different poster than the one I was talking to? I'm not sure if we're operating under the same definitions of self.

[Anonymous No.23125309]

>>23125298
>Also, are you a different poster than the one I was talking to?
yeah
>>23125298
>>That sounds like a subjective claim to me.
in all those realms, there are only aggregates and the aggregates never qualify as the self, precisely because they are conditioned, ie each one rises from a condition and each one ceases from a condition.

[Anonymous No.23125592]

/// He gets astonishing levels of media attention and that is a cross the young player has to bear /// His avuncular image belies his steely determination /// After a sudden burst of activity, the team lapsed back into indolence /// Such controversies have waxed and waned but continue to this day /// International support has given rise to a new optimism in the company /// Further analysis showed the absence of pathogenic bacteria /// The septuagenarian brothers are still heavily involved in the running of the business and they have no desire to relinquish control /// Later on, she would prevail on somebody else to chauffeur her home /// Was the newspaper report bylined or was it anonymous? /// His tailored suit had subtle inset patterns on the lapels /// This specialized knowledge is beyond the ken of most patients so that they must rely on others to fill in the gap /// He writes as an elegist for a lost England /// The stocks run the gamut from defensive staples to bets on emerging markets /// Those examples test the application of the fair use doctrine in copyright law, which allows creators to play with existing copyrights /// The latest evidence puts an entirely different slant on the case /// He is acknowledged within the music world, and is highly esteemed by the genre's marquee names /// The home team saw off the challengers by 68 points to 47 /// They went for a quick snog behind the bike sheds /// Numerous fabulists invented stories about enemies of the state /// Shame on them and shame of the student who actually believe the tripe being peddled /// Next time you pull a stunt like that don’t expect me to get you out of trouble /// The old women crooned their mystic tuneless dirges ///

[Anonymous No.23125626]

>>23125309
>in all those realms, there are only aggregates and the aggregates never qualify as the self, precisely because they are conditioned, ie each one rises from a condition and each one ceases from a condition.
In that case, I refer you back to >>23124328
>The problem with the former "no self" point of view [the self is not a thing because it is dependent and eventually passes away] is that we may be privileging the "eternally unchanging" as a defining characteristic of being. Is this something that we are taking for granted, an unwarranted justification? It's worth considering whether we ought to differentiate between the "God's eye POV", the ontological perspective we just explored, versus the "human's eye POV", which would be more of (at the minimum) an Aristotelian-style understanding of being, where things are real and have self-perpetuating, knowable essences that constitute their unity of being.
Hence it is "subjective." Why does eternal persistence make something more worthy of the title "being"?

[Anonymous No.23125695]

>>23121780
Worshipping niggers is American culture.
In India, our niggers know their place lies at the bottom of the totem pole.

Keep seething. Our Tyrones stay far away from our Stacies, in abject fear. American egalitarian culture is all about letting your beautiful daughters be railed by feral, good for nothing subhumans.

[Anonymous No.23125697]

what do i need to read in order to properly understand buddhist metaphysics in the sense of nagarjuna, or possibly hinduism in the style of shankara

[Anonymous No.23125730]

>>23121571

[Anonymous No.23125762]

>>23125626
Buddhism doesn't deny a conventional self, it denies the Upanishadic Self that is being consciousness bliss

[Anonymous No.23125764]

>>23125762
I don't know how this relates to what I've said.

[Anonymous No.23125770]

>>23125298
Change in Buddhism is discontinuous change, not constant or continuous change.
It is more phenomenological, rather than resembling metaphysical theories of ‘constant flux’ which contradict the structure of experience (experience would be incomprehensible if everything continuously changed at the same constant rate).

[Anonymous No.23125775]

>>23125730
I wonder what he is doing nowadays

[Anonymous No.23125793]

>>23125770
I never interpreted constant flux as meaning that the flux happens at the same "constant" rate, only that it is always happening.

[Anonymous No.23125801]

>>23121780
based

>>23122184
they probably did
if there's something common in the history of India since time immemorial is the shudras through revolt and becoming the new brahmins
it's almost like the caste system is retarded and doesn't work

[Anonymous No.23125811]

>>23125801
>shudras through revolt and becoming the new brahmins
Any proof of that? Sounds like a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.23125841]

>>23125801
The Buddha was a kshatriya

[Anonymous No.23125850]

>>23125626
There can only be self existence or dependent existence. Anything self existent would necessarily be eternal and unchanging, but nothing is self existent because everything is dependently arisen. But since there is no self existence, you cannot ultimately establish difference to serve as a basis of dependent existence, so everything is ultimately nonarising.

[Anonymous No.23126016]

>>23124942
No, those are not related or dependent to the notion of god

[Anonymous No.23126020]

>>23122137
No he didn’t lol, all Nagarjuna did was argue against Nyaya and a few different interpretations of Buddhism. It’s foolish to say that all of metaphysics is encompassed by Nyaya and 5th century BC - 2 century AD Buddhist thought. Nagarjunatards cant help but making retarded pronouncements about him it seems.

[Anonymous No.23126040]

>>23125215
> the observation is that there is nothing worth calling a self in any realm of life
This is not an ‘observation’ at all but it is a purely dogmatic claim, since it hinges on the acceptance of the dogmas of the Buddhist categorization of the universe and the person into various discrete categories like aggregates and dharmas as being correct and exhaustive in their analysis of the universe and the living being, but if this foundational analysis that is presented to Buddhist neophytes as a dogma to be accepted is itself wrong or incomplete, then the so-called ‘observation’ is not an observation at all but it is simply a consequence of the starting axioms that one has decided to adopt for oneself as dogma. Buddhists love to cloak non-empirical dogmas in the cloak of terms like ‘empirical’ and ‘observations’, this is partly why it’s so appealing to the reddit mindset, but to someone who is capable of thinking critically this is unserious.

[Anonymous No.23126065]

>>23126020
All metaphysics is encompassed by statements of existence and non-existence, Nagarjuna proves that all ontological statements are illogical.

[Anonymous No.23126068]

>>23126040
Nothing exists outside of the six sense organs, six sense objects, and six sense consciousnesses

[Anonymous No.23126085]

>>23126068
Yes, that’s a Buddhist dogma, but it’s not an empirical conclusion that can be verified or proven. Conclusions drawn from dogmas are just extensions of that dogma. What are you doing is no different than a Mormon blindly insisting that Jospeh Mormon read gold tablets written in Egyptian.

[Anonymous No.23126092]

>>23126065
> All metaphysics is encompassed by statements of existence and non-existence,
There are great differences in how different metaphysical traditions and philosophical schools classify existence and what categories it belongs to and so forth, so it’s just foolish and even fallacious to say that by attacking one particular conception of ‘existence’ that you’ve refuted all the various conceptions found in different schools of thought that get grouped under existence, because this is like saying “since I’ve pointed out that English doesn’t have gendered words, this shows that all languages are this way”.

>Nagarjuna proves that all ontological statements are illogical.
No he doesn’t lol. Try to explain why “God exists” or “the Absolute exists” is illogical and I can show you why it’s not illogical.

[Anonymous No.23126118]

>>23126065
Nagarjuna is refuted by Plato in Cratylus

[Anonymous No.23126125]

>>23121571
>pic
Thanks for proving OP's point, lmao. I had my eastern "philosophy" phase in my early 20s. It didn't take me long to realize that intellectually, it's pure straw. Ideas so stupid only a subhuman could invent them.

>There is no chariot!
So witty, lmao!! What did I ride on then, retard? Buddhist monks should be killed on the spot.

[Anonymous No.23126129]

>>23121761
>Dunno why you think this is that complicated.
Because you're arguing with a p-zombie. Buddhishits are just subhuman p-zombies. Once you realize that, you detach yourself from the idea that their existence has any worth, so they must be wiped off the face of the earth like the garbage they are. Soulless p-zombies should NOT waste our very precious oxygen, thank you very much.

[Anonymous No.23126132]

>>23126085
>>Yes, that’s a Buddhist dogma, but it’s not an empirical conclusion that can be verified or proven
There is no dogma in buddhism.

[Anonymous No.23126136]

>>23126129
>>Because you're arguing with a p-zombie. Buddhishits are just subhuman p-zombies.
p-zombies are an atheist invention and atheists are the p-zombies

[Anonymous No.23126151]

>>23126132
> There is no dogma in budd-
t. braindead redditor

karma is a dogma
rebirth is a dogma
Buddha having superpowers is a dogma
temporary heaven and hell realms are dogmas
the claim of everything being universally impermanent is a dogma
the claim that the human being is exhaustively reduced to the aggregates and that these are an accurate and correct analysis of the human being are dogmas
the idea that everything about the universe is reducible to the Buddhist list of dharmas is a dogma
everything Buddha says about various realms consisting “neither conscious nor non-conscious” etc and other categories are dogmas
the claim that you can end rebirth is a dogma
the claim that you can become a “once-returner” is a dogma

It’s impossible to show how any of these are not dogmas.

[Anonymous No.23126164]

>>23126151
Again, all the knowledge on suffering can be acquired by anybody following the path.

[Anonymous No.23126168]

>>23126136
>p-zombies are an atheist invention and atheists are the p-zombies
I don't care who coined the term. Morons who take something as risible as Buddhism seriously more than deserve that description, especially the westoid variety of buddhist. It's all horseshit. No one outside Europe has actually sought out the truth in any serious manner. Everyone else (especially in E.Asian cultures) just likes to make up schools of bullshit and get followers with profound sounding nonsense, irrespective of the factuality of their claims. It's just like martial arts, except a phenomenon of the "intellectual" variety.

People who can't see through the charade are either in on the act, or really fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.23126173]

>>23126164
> Again, all the knowledge on suffering can be acquired by anybody following the path.
That doesn’t show that the long list of Buddhists dogmas just provided are not dogmas. Nobody disputes that spirituality and meditation or even prayer can reduce suffering, but there is no way that this confirms anything about the way Buddha said that existence and rebirth etc works.

[Anonymous No.23126175]

>>23126168
> No one outside Europe has actually sought out the truth in any serious manner.
You are just as dumb as the most clueless P-zombie Buddhist

[Anonymous No.23126179]

>>23126168
You have no intellectual rigor, exactly like an atheist.

[Anonymous No.23126186]

>>23126173
>>23126173
>but there is no way that this confirms anything about the way Buddha said that existence and rebirth etc works.
yeah because the ending of suffering is after meditation.

[Anonymous No.23126190]

Attacking someone else's mysticism/metaphysics is low hanging fruit. Argue their philosophy or cultural backdrop first

[Anonymous No.23126194]

>>23126175
>muh Eurocentrism, le bad
>muh Indian CALCULUS
>muh Chinese whatever
>muh Sumerian goobledygook
Don't worry, if you're not terminally braindead you'll grow out of it eventually. It's just facts, and you can only deny your lying eyes for so long.

The Greeks might just as well have been gods. Actual gods. Euclid's elements and the axiomatic method they describe alone is worth infinitely more than all the "knowledge" accrued by trial and error by these insectoid others. Just look at this clown, >>23126164 he can't even UNDERSTAND the concept of dogma. It's all relativist bullshit.

>my truth vs your truth
>see in BUDDHISM we DEFINE "dogma" differently so that mean
That you're fundamentally unserious and low IQ as fuck. Doesn't matter whatchacallit. You just don't get it.

[Anonymous No.23126199]

>>23126190
Oh look, another unserious clown. You don't engage bullshit on its own terms because it's bullshit. What you do instead is you point out that it's bullshit. The people who "get it" and don't call it bullshit are either in on the joke (see zen koans as a stereotypical example) or dog shit stupid.

[Anonymous No.23126205]

>>23122436
An impersonal absolute renders this lived experience illusory by default >>23123526
That’s even worse lol

[Anonymous No.23126206]

>>23126179
You wouldn't know rigor if it hit you in the face, clown.

[Anonymous No.23126208]

>>23126194
go jack off over euclid lol

[Anonymous No.23126210]

I think it’s true that the reasons some Westerners gravitate to Buddhism is because they’re mired in a self-destructive nihilism. A lot of these people would find better ground if they just read Rushdoony’s The One and the Many.

[Anonymous No.23126212]

>>23126190
If their metaphysics are retarded, they deserve to be attacked and dismantled. You don’t get to just posit whatever you want because you want it unchallenged. You’ve failed to give an account for what is if that’s the case.

[Anonymous No.23126216]

>>23126210
>I think it’s true that the reasons some Westerners gravitate to Buddhism is because they’re mired in a self-destructive nihilism.
Westerners who gravitate towards buddhism are women who just want to hear they are good people deep in their heart and men who love to dwell on the nature of the universe and koans. It's really disconnected from a basic practice like the precepts.

[Anonymous No.23126221]

>>23126175
The irony of Buddhism is that it’s something a lot like the complete rejection of all truth, including the truth in Buddhism, but Buddhists don’t go deep enough to get it. I think that one of the reasons they fail is because they unironically never consider the Christian belief that they can delude themselves by intuition, be swayed by demons, all these things. They really believe that if you just meditate and intuit some truth, it really must be true. They never consider there’s some possibility that their intuitive truth is actually just bullshit.

[Anonymous No.23126225]

>>23126186
> yeah
So you are admitting they are dogmas then and you contradicted your previous statement, that was easy. Next time think before speaking and you wont make a fool of yourself again.

[Anonymous No.23126228]

>>23126221
>>The irony of Buddhism is that it’s something a lot like the complete rejection of all truth
that's another lie from you, phew You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, clown.

[Anonymous No.23126229]

>>23126216
Well, there’s definitely the problem of this sort of hippie California Buddhism and that fits your description, but there are people who take it more seriously as something other than that. Seraphim Rose is a perfect example. He started as a sort of hippie orientalist but took it very seriously at some point. I think ultimately people are attracted to Buddhism because it at least attempts to answer the challenge of nihilism. I mean, there are really only a small number of faiths that even attempt to do that. People are attracted to Islam for a similar reason sometimes.

[Anonymous No.23126231]

>>23126225
you're such a moron it's hilarious

so again, they're not dogmas and you follow the path and you get all the knowledge the buddha's talking about

[Anonymous No.23126232]

>>23126228
It’s not a lie. You just fail to grasp this. Buddhism, all Buddhism, is ontologically and epistemologically incoherent. It fails to give a coherent account for how any knowledge is possible at all and in fact is incoherent precisely because Buddhists accept that which renders knowledge totally impossible as if that were knowledge itself. As a Buddhist, you naturally would not even realize this, but it’s still true. That’s kind of the sick joke of Buddhism. It’s like an inverted Plato’s cave.

[Anonymous No.23126233]

>https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/92fire-pokerzen.html
Translation: it's all bullshit you dimwits. Stop wanking over nonsense and do something serious instead. The 10th pupil who escaped her beating was only there for tea. Therefore, stop with the insectoid navel-gazing: it's nonsense.

You have now been enlightened.

[Anonymous No.23126237]

>>23126194
> The Greeks might just as well have been gods
retroactively refuted by Guenon (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.23126240]

>>23126229
yeah but historically, nihilists were never popular, and the buddha attacks way more the belief of eternalism

[Anonymous No.23126248]

>>23126231
> so again, they're not dogmas
Yes they are, I gave you a long list of dogmas and you ignored most of them to only focus on suffering, which even if your point was correct would still not establish that the other Buddhist dogmas I listed (besides the ones about suffering) are not dogmas.

>and you follow the path and you get all the knowledge the buddha's talking about
This is itself another dogma that cannot be verified, it’s no different from saying “The Christian heaven isn’t a dogma because when you die and go to heaven it can be verified”. From our perspective as human beings with limited abilities to verify supra-sensuous things it’s an unverifiable dogma, and furthermore there has never been a single person in recorded history who has demonstrated this and shown supernatural powers that confirm that they have infallible knowledge of all these non-empirical matters, so it’s all just a dogma that you blindly believe in without verification just like any other form of religious faith.

[Anonymous No.23126249]

>>23126232
>It’s not a lie. You just fail to grasp this. Buddhism, all Buddhism, is ontologically and epistemologically incoherent. It fails to give a coherent account for how any knowledge is possible at all and in fact is incoherent precisely because Buddhists accept that which renders knowledge totally impossible as if that were knowledge itself. As a Buddhist, you naturally would not even realize this, but it’s still true. That’s kind of the sick joke of Buddhism. It’s like an inverted Plato’s cave.
none of this is true. The buddha says there are truths, like the 4 noble truths. The buddha gives the method to get those truths. The buddha says his method is not restricted to some caste of special people.

[Anonymous No.23126253]

>>23126248
>>This is itself another dogma that cannot be verified, it’s no different from saying

another lie from you, so again
everything the buddha says about suffering can be verified

[Anonymous No.23126254]

>>23126240
I reject this idea that one has to affirm nihilism to be nihilistic or a nihilism. I consider those who abandon traditional meaning or find it impossible to cling to them and so internalize modern meaningless to be nihilists also. Nihilism is almost a necessary step before adopting some Eastern philosophy. If you weren’t a nihilist and were a Westerner, you’d be a Christian. Once you abandon Christianity, you’re a nihilist. If you accepted Buddhism without being a nihilist first, you’d just be like a Rosicrucian or something. So all Western Buddhists are actually just nihilists.

[Anonymous No.23126258]

>>23126249
You’re still not getting it. Everyone understands the Buddha says there are truths. The question is about how truth, any truth, can be know at all. Buddhism fails to answer that question and this method renders it impossible to answer. If you posit an impersonal absolute, knowledge is not possible given that impersonal absolute. Period. That’s the absurdity of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.23126259]

>>23122796
>you know that isn't true
the only reason you have any fragments of Parmenides is because Platonists have quoted him approvingly, as testimony of harmony
yours is the extra-literary interpolation

[Anonymous No.23126262]

>>23126254
Historically the first people who accepted buddhism were brahmins and random peasants and those were never nihilist to begin with

Whatever atheists do with buddhism 2500 years after the buddha has no bearing on buddhism and only atheists care about this part of history because they love to think they are the center of the universe

[Anonymous No.23126269]

>>23126253
> everything the buddha says about suffering can be verified
I gave a long list of other things he teaches as dogma which aren’t about suffering which refutes your previous claim that there are no dogmas in Buddhism. Whether rebirth and karma and heaven realms exist is a dogma that isnt directly connected with teachings about suffering, even if you practice Buddhist meditation and feel like it has eliminated your suffering that doesn’t shown that Buddha’s teachings about karma, rebirth and a bunch of other things aren’t dogmas (they are dogmas). That fact that you are refusing to address the other dogmas and are only talking about suffering is just proving my point, you are incapable of having an honest conversation and you are incapable of showing there are no dogmas in Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.23126274]

>>23126269
>>I gave a long list of other things he teaches as dogma which aren’t about suffering which refutes your previous claim that there are no dogmas in Buddhism. Whether rebirth and karma and heaven realms exist is a dogma that isnt directly connected with teachings about suffering,
the buddha says knowledge people can get the knowledge about karma and rebirth just like he did. He never said only him can have this.

[Anonymous No.23126275]

>>23126258
> If you posit an impersonal absolute, knowledge is not possible given that impersonal absolute
This is a completely nonsensical, unproven and indefensible claim, and I’m not even Buddhist. Are you OP btw because Plotinus (and Plato) posits an impersonal absolute but I dont see you whining about them.

[Anonymous No.23126279]

>>23126274
> the buddha says knowledge people can get the knowledge about karma and rebirth just like he did
I know you retard, my point which I’ve already said is that this has never been confirmed or verified and that there is no reason to think that it can be, and so since it can’t be verified it’s just another dogma. Your claim that its not a dogma is based itself on another dogma that people who successfully practice Buddhist teachings can have a supernatural insight of these things but this is itself another unconfirmed dogma. All you have is unproven dogmas resting on other unproven dogmas.

[Anonymous No.23126283]

>>23126279
to be confirmed there needs to be people who at least tried beforehand, so compile a list of people who tried first, i'm waiting

[Anonymous No.23126287]

>>23124656
> For a thing to be produced from itself is illogical, because once something exists with its own particular identity, it is pointless for it to arise once agai-

imagine being refuted by milk

pssst.. nothing personal kid

[Anonymous No.23126291]

>>23126283
> so compile a list of people who tried first, i'm waiting
literally everyone who has ever tried to become a Buddha or follow Buddhism

[Anonymous No.23126292]

>>23126291
can you prove it or is it one of your dogma?

[Anonymous No.23126303]

>>23126287
If milk were self-produced from milk, why would it ever go sour?

[Anonymous No.23126306]

>>23126292
>>23126292
It’s a demonstrable fact that nobody has ever been verified through any scientific study to have supernatural powers and supernatural insight that would grant them the ability to confirm that Buddhism’s dogmas are true. And even in pre-modern times before science, there are only myths about people having particular powers or miracles but no record of anything having all the same supposed powers and abilities of Buddha like omniscience etc.

[Anonymous No.23126308]

>>23126303
Curds happen when milk produces another form of itself out of itself.

[Anonymous No.23126313]

>>23126254
Christianity is nihilism par excellence. The problem lies with people who only abandon their Christianity outwardly. Inwardly, so long as they still believe the world to be false or fallen and deny it, they are nihilists. Slapping heaven or skydaddy or undead corpses on top of it does not change the rejection of reality being made.

[Anonymous No.23126316]

>>23126306
Scientific studies were created by atheists only a few centuries ago, why do you want people now to study scientifically people who have been dead for thousands of years?
Also how do you know atheists who do science lead you to truth?

[Anonymous No.23126319]

>>23126308
yeah it's not like exposure to the air or to more moisture over time matters, it's milk drawing down its astral power of lactose to transubstantiate itself through curdogenesis

[Anonymous No.23126328]

>>23126092
Not that guy, but you have to be dogmatic at some point and this is where the Madhyamikas decide to be, else the system fails. I agree with that guy, but ultimately whether you believe it or not is up to you.
Now prove to me, and without relying on axiomatic statements in revealed scripture, that the Absolute exists.

[Anonymous No.23126341]

>>23126316
Okay, once again you refuted yourself and are forced to admit that none of the dogmas of Buddhism have ever been verified and that there is no evidence that they ever have been, so you move the goalposts by complaining about science, it’s just too easy kek.

[Anonymous No.23126346]

>>23126319
Having catalysts in production doesn’t contradict whatsoever the point that the curds are another form of milk produced out of the milk.

[Anonymous No.23126356]

>>23126341
Also NTA, but why does making dogmatic statements matter? For Buddhists, the value of Buddhism is its coherent analysis of truths taken as commonplace to reach a liberating conclusion. Details like karma and such are nor contradictory to this for me (Indian), but may be seen as such by westerners. I don't see then issue when science has axioms, and can coexist with Buddhism

[Anonymous No.23126358]

>>23126346
>Having catalysts in production
>curds are another form
Your very language betrays your position—curdled milk is a change in state produced by the introduction of external causes. If rancid milk is the same self-produced substance as fresh milk then have a drink!

[Anonymous No.23126375]

>>23126356
> Also NTA, but why does making dogmatic statements matter?
Im only saying all of this to point out that a common talking point that is commonly spread on /lit/ and other boards by one of 4chan’s resident Buddhist midwits that “there are no dogmas in Buddhism” is demonstrably nonsense, but I don’t think that dogmas in their own proper context are inherently bad things, almost all worldviews and belief systems involve dogmas of one type or another, either intentionally or unintentionally.

[Anonymous No.23126376]

>>23126085
Have you ever empirically experienced something outside of the six senses?

[Anonymous No.23126395]

>>23126375
The statement you complain about is essentially a soteriogical statement indicating that Buddhism does not contradict common-sense beliefs. Since ultimately it is only faith that can let you believe in something, this is meant to reassure others of the veracity of Buddhism. Of course according to strict logical standard there are dogmas, but I hope you get the idea. Of course, if you're worried about that level of logical rigour then there is a problem, but tou must remember that Buddhism is a religion also meant for lay people who do not worry so much about this stuff. I hope this cleared things up.

[Anonymous No.23126402]

>>23126358
All you are doing is trivial quibbling about language without making any real philosophical point or logical argument.

> Your very language betrays your position—curdled milk is a change in state produced by the introduction of external causes.
The satkaryavada view and ones similar to it that are supposedly the target of the original argument raised by Buddhists are able to explain the preservation of identity despite the change as occurring due to the same substance, material, energy or entity in question undergoing a partial change that shifts some of it it properties (such as flavor or shape) in producing the new type of that thing while retaining other properties.

>If rancid milk is the same self-produced substance as fresh milk then have a drink!
>but if you say that something changes some of its properties in producing a new form or type while at the same time retaining its overall identity then how can it have properties before and after that are not completely identical, that’s le silly!
This is what you sound like.

[Anonymous No.23126411]

>>23126395
>The statement you complain about is essentially a soteriogical statement indicating that Buddhism does not contradict common-sense beliefs.
None of these 10 Buddhist dogmas (some of which are entire categories inclusive of multiple other dogmas) listed here >>23126151 are “common sense” lol. The only thing that needs “clearing up” here is your self-awareness and your ability to make a good argument.

[Anonymous No.23126429]

>>23126346
Curd is not the same as milk, and treating them as a continuum of one substance is just an imputation.

[Anonymous No.23126441]

>>23126411
Karma, rebirth, and attainable enlightenment are commonly accepted as true in Dharmic religions, and the stranger parts for an empiricist are an offshoot of the priestly nature of the religion, not much you can do about that. I think you are just too worried with the end conclusions of Buddhism without being able to accept that its foundation is common sense based and practically applicable, which are its great success.

[Anonymous No.23126442]

>>23126402
>any real philosophical point or logical argument
curdled milk is not self produced, you are just a retarded armchair theologian

[Anonymous No.23126445]

>>23126376
The notion that all lived experience can be reduced to knowledge made available by the 6 senses is itself a common dogma accepted unquestionably by many materialists and sometimes by Buddhists too, but it’s not empirically confirmable through experience or logically provable by any argument and so it’s really just an embarrassing argument for someone assert it as being true in an uncritical manner as if it weren’t some form of unproven dogma being blindly accepted. Simply because you find the aggregate theory of skandhas and the related Buddhist theory of mind stuff like sense-bases to be reasonable doesn’t actually make it any more true or any more of a “default” than plenty of other conceptions of live and experience both west and eastern that disagree with it and which posit other things besides the senses as being involved in every day experience in some way. We can’t even step out of experience to prove that there is really matter or objects that truly exist, much less even so is it possible (that is to say it’s impossible) to step out of lived conscious mental experience and say “yup, nothing here besides the senses and their knowledge”.

[Anonymous No.23126449]

>>23121726
Then how many parts the chariot can lose before it stop being a chariot?when the essence dissapear? There's no real answer, when you try to solve tbe problem with such shallow mereology you end up in the sorites paradox

[Anonymous No.23126452]

>>23126168
>No one outside Europe has actually sought out the truth in any serious manner.
Based and haplogroup redpilled

[Anonymous No.23126465]

>>23126287
Dude the pic you just posted explicitly said that sour milk isn't produced from itself but thanks to an external acidic agent

[Anonymous No.23126466]

>>23126442
> curdled milk is not self produced
It’s a transformation that milk brings about in itself through its own ability to do so if the right catalysts are present, i.e. it is self-produced by the material of the curds being produced out of the milks own material. If your argument is now to say that the only kind of self-production is self-production in the absence of all catalysts then this is not only further trivial quibbling over language but its also engaging in a blatant fallacy by trying to restrict the other persons position to something which is not their position to begin with and which doesn’t even necessarily follow from what the language the position calls itself. Sad! Yet another case of Buddhist sophistry! Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.23126468]

Reality is not discrete

[Anonymous No.23126469]

>>23126445
Show me a convincing argument for knowlege and experence that isn't reliant on or derived from the senses or brain activity

[Anonymous No.23126470]

>>23126469
Brb gonna haunt your house when I die

[Anonymous No.23126475]

>>23126151
None of them are dogmas because the buddhist practice rely in you finding them in your own experience, those are not "things to blindly believe" but existential notions to find in your own

[Anonymous No.23126478]

>>23126465
The bottom of the pic says that milk does it on its own naturally too, it doesnt need the sour agent; and even when there is a sour agent it is the material of the milk itself remaining the same material while undergoing a change in properties, that milk does it on its own naturally refutes the point that the satcaryavada position that the Madhyamaka argument is supposed to refute isn’t actually “superfluous” since there are plenty of examples of self-production that can be found to happen.

[Anonymous No.23126482]

>>23126466
>It’s a transformation that milk brings about in itself through its own ability to do so if the right catalysts are present,
You are just coming down on the side of the milk having curdle power instead of the catalysts, but in reality neither the milk nor the external causes are able to self-produce curds. If you believe there is some permanent "milk" that changes over time it's on you to explain why you won't drink expired milk, it is after still milk since being expired doesn't really deviate from its holy lactopotency

[Anonymous No.23126486]

>>23126466
Milk need special conditions to go sour, temperature, oxygen etc, milk don't just go sour because it wants it

[Anonymous No.23126491]

>>23126478
>change in properties, that milk does it on its own naturally
I'm no farmer but surely there is bacteria or something in the milk breaking down or multiplying or whatever, milk is not the pure substance you are praying that it is, flowing from god's teat eternal

[Anonymous No.23126498]

>>23126469
Leveling that as an objection doesn’t make the claim about 6-senses any less of an unproven dogma. Because you are floundering, you are seeking to reach out and ask me to establish some contrary thesis that you can also complain about me not establishing, but this is irrelevant to the substance of my argument which was simply to point out the fact that the idea of the 6-senses being what all knowledge and experience are reducible to is yet another unproven dogma, and so it’s just engaging in fallacious thinking to say “well it’s just true until proven otherwise, I’m not like the other dogmas”. I don’t have to asset any contrary epistemological or metaphysical claim in order to simple point out that what you are saying and (and implicitly arguing) is wrong.

[Anonymous No.23126507]

>>23126445
>but it’s not empirically confirmable through experience or logically provable by any argument
It's self evident, just like i'm aware of my awareness, each form of experience is experienced trought the senses, there's no reason to believe there's anything more,so the burden of proof is on the people who claim the opposite, and of course they can't prove that tjere's anythi g beyond the senses because as said before, everything is experienced trought the senses, so the only way they can cling to something outside the senses is by dogma

[Anonymous No.23126511]

>>23126498
> an unproven dogma.
It's not an unproven dogma, it's an empirical reality

[Anonymous No.23126512]

>>23126475
> None of them are dogmas because the buddhist practice rely in you finding them in your own experience
You cant find those things in experience, since they pertain to things beyond known limits of mind and body like stuff that happens after death and how rebirth after death works, so you cant speculate about verifying them without positing some supernatural means of knowledge which has never been proven to exist, which is just another dogma until its own objectively to be otherwise.

[Anonymous No.23126525]

>>23126482
> You are just coming down on the side of the milk having curdle power instead of the catalysts,
Yes, but you complaining about this is not refuting or demonstrating any actual logical contradiction in the satkaryavada view like Buddhists claim to do but which is really just a bunch of hot-air and fart-sniffing.

>it's on you to explain why you won't drink expired milk
I just explained why when this is a formal fallacy when translated into an actual argument, that you just repeat it again really says it all about your ability to argue.

[Anonymous No.23126528]

>>23126511
> it's an empirical reality
More unproven dogmas lmao

[Anonymous No.23126537]

The only thing this thread is proving is that Buddhist posters are the only decently behaving peoples in the philosophy threads we have in this shithole

[Anonymous No.23126539]

>>23126512
You can find all of them in experience, things like karma amd dhammas are not trascendent things outside of this world

[Anonymous No.23126548]

>>23126507
> It's self evident, just like i'm aware of my awareness
more unproven dogma that its self-evident

>there's no reason to believe there's anything more
This very assertion is disproved by the existence of other philosophies and epistemological models which give their own reasons for why they involve other things.

> so the only way they can cling to something outside the senses is by dogma
They aren’t making the mistake of claiming that its fully verifiable and not a dogma like you are though, so there is difference since it is you and not them who are committing the actual error and failing to realize a dogma is a dogma

[Anonymous No.23126551]

>>23126528
How so? Can you prove that? How the senses are not empirically self evident?

[Anonymous No.23126556]

>>23126539
That’s just engaging in the fallacy of goal-post shifting since merely observing how what you think are karma and dhammas (people disagree if these categories even exist) doesn’t tell you anything about what they do after death until you posit supernatural means of perception as an unproven dogma.

[Anonymous No.23126561]

>>23126548
> disproved by the existence of other philosophies and epistemological models
And none of those models can prove anything, thus they rely on dogma, so there's still no need to believe in something beyond the senses and the burden of proof still is on the people claiming otherwise

[Anonymous No.23126571]

>>23126551
If you can two, three or four or more unproven positions being discussed, the non-ability of any or all of them doesn’t make any of the other true. So you saying that doesn’t make it any less of an unproven dogma that the 6 senses are all that there are, whatever anyone else says about their own position is irrelevant to whether the 6-senses claim is an unproven dogma or not, this is a very simple logical point but your arguments suggest that you don’t understand it.

[Anonymous No.23126574]

>ITT a neophyte Theravadin fights a selectively ignorant troll
I miss Guenonfag, at least he put in effort while being clowned on

[Anonymous No.23126578]

>>23126561
> so there's still no need to believe in something beyond the senses and the burden of proof still is on the people claiming otherwise
see>>23126571
you are just blindly asserting more unproven dogma as an a priori true. Sad!

[Anonymous No.23126586]

>>23126525
>just a bunch of hot-air and fart-sniffing.
go chug expired milk if you are so confident that it's the same self-produced substance as fresh milk

[Anonymous No.23126587]

>>23126556
You're the one moving the goalpoast, i don't need to exist in a place beyond time to see how karma works, the fact that things and actions create other things and actions can be experienced on this life, buddhist concepts are all immanent, no trascendent experience is needed

[Anonymous No.23126588]

>>23126574
>>23126574
>when your side is getting btfo so hard that it makes you remember someone else who also btfo your side

[Anonymous No.23126595]

>>23126586
That’s the same formal fallacy that I already did you the favor of identifying. Sad! Here I am casting pearls before swine.

[Anonymous No.23126598]

>>23126588
I think both arguers are neophytes who need to learn more about their respective positions before you try and emulate others. Guenonfag was fun to speak with from the few threads I actually argued with him, sad he stopped posting or I would have had another several day argument thread

[Anonymous No.23126617]

>>23126587
> st, i don't need to exist in a place beyond time to see how karma works
You have to exist in a place beyond death to see how it effects rebirth after death, so you cant do that without positing some supernatural means as an unproven dogma. The longer you keep ignoring this the more you're highlighting your own ignorance.

>buddhist concepts are all immanent, no trascendent experience is needed
This is engaging in the fallacy of goal-post shifting by ignoring how lots of stuff in Buddhism is an unproven dogma about stuff that happens after death which is not immanent since we….. *aren’t dead*.

[Anonymous No.23126626]

>>23126571
I think you're the one not understanding what an empirical truth and the burden of proof are, if you do you would be able to actually engage with my point instead of repeating that everything is an uproven dogma, when, the existence of the six senses is empirically self evident and no philosophy ever established the contrary without relying on dogma, i don't need to prove that everything outside of the senses doesn't exist, is the people claiming that something outside the sense exist the one that have to prove their argument, since the empirical world present itself as somethint to the senses and the experience

[Anonymous No.23126635]

>>23126617
Death doesn't really exist on buddhism, you changing lufe is categorically the same as the changing of days or seconds, there's no ontological difference in the act rebirth from one life to the next and rebirth from one second to the next, we don't need death as a final arbiter here, that's a vedanta framework, so you're the one who's moving the goalpost from karma to some hindu notion of rencarnatiob

[Anonymous No.23126634]

>>23126595
>"that's a fallacy you dumb buddhist," said a voice reverberating from the lavatory

[Anonymous No.23126663]

>>23126598
Guenonfag was really bad arguig tho, he would beg the question all the time and rely on his guenonian concepts and call you a sophist if you didn't agree with them, i heard his mother die tho, i hope he's okey and found a true iniciatic path, it's kinda crazy because all he ever needed was to let go of his fanatism with Guenon and embrace the dogzchen path which is pretty much the next best thig to practice if you like advaita vedanta, but his irrational hate of buddhism that he inherited from Guenon unskilfull lecture on buddhadhamma cut his possibility to engage in a tradition that's actually really close to his heart, since it deals with reflective awareness and non-dualism like no other spiritual practice

[Anonymous No.23126677]

>>23126274
>the buddha says knowledge people can get the knowledge about karma and rebirth just like he did. He never said only him can have this.
wtf, are you a literal bot? You're just repeating this without addressing any of that guy's points.

[Anonymous No.23126713]

>>23126663
I mean, I argued with him over Hinduism which he is certainly more familiar with and found him interesting, if extremely misguided. He could at least support his evidence with quotations, which most here cannot, so he's at least somewhat learned if ultimately rudimentary.

[Anonymous No.23126728]

>>23126663
I think after a certain point he mostly kept up the anti-Buddhism thing out of habit and because he hated the way "the Buddhists" argued on 4chan, and even then he sort of knew that he was just arguing with particular retards who are arguing just as bitterly and motivatedly as he is.

He seemed to grow as a poster and person, I'm not surprised he posts less or left.

I was similar myself, I argued with him not even because I disagreed with his positions but because he was sometimes so mean in dismissing others' positions. But then I argued with the Buddhists and others in the same way. I just don't like dogmatists. Can't stand most Christianity posters for the same reason despite having tremendous respect for Christianity. They come across like such smug cunts.

[Anonymous No.23126745]

>>23126713
To specify, I agree that his unfamiliarity in Buddhism was evident from those threads, but he wasn't terrible when he knew the subject.
>>23126728
I must agree, I argued with him because he annoyed me with his almost prosletysing tendencies rather than hating Advaita (one of my favorite Hindu schools to study)

[Anonymous No.23126792]

>>23126728
I forced him to read Mipham which was fun

[Anonymous No.23126810]

>>23126259
Your initial claim was that "ancient Platonists" had better access to the original source material than we do, and nobody challenged their conclusion that Plato and Parmenides were in agreement.

I pointed out that Plato himself acknowledges in his own dialogues that he is different from the "Parmenideans and Melisseans". He also tries to wrestle with the goddess' revelation and reintroduce "non-being" as a way of (unsuccessfully) preserving his account of change.

Your post doesn't respond to this. It's just cope.

[Anonymous No.23126814]

>>23126792
I think I remember that thread lol, it looks like this thread is turning into the guenonfag era reunion

[Anonymous No.23126835]

>>23126445
Not accepting any Dharma outside of the 18 dhatus is not materialism. Beings of the form and formless also have sense organs and do not experience anything outside of them.

[Anonymous No.23126836]

>>23126814
i believe we were looking for a historical buddhist response to his specific medieval advaitan version of atman, so a digression in Mipham's commentary on one the later Indian Madhyamikas was the closest thing I knew of

[Anonymous No.23126849]

If gnosis and/or enlightenment are real, how does dementia work? Can brain disease make you lose your mystical insight and doom you?

[Anonymous No.23126848]

>>23126677
He says it's impossible to get the knowledge about karma and rebirth. are you dumb or what?

[Anonymous No.23126857]

>>23126849
>Can brain disease make you lose your mystical insight and doom you?
Normally it can't, and enlightenment can't be lost no matter what happens to the body.
In reality, nobody knows what happens to an arahant who loses half his brain in a freak accident.

[Anonymous No.23126862]

>>23126728
>>He seemed to grow as a poster and person, I'm not surprised he posts less or left.
He really doesn't grow. He was on /pol/ last week saying the same thing here.

[Anonymous No.23126867]

>>23121487
Very based. Parmenides made sure to describe the trip on the carriage and the way the gate looking and everything, so we'd know it was true.

[Anonymous No.23126901]

>>23126205
>An impersonal absolute
there's no 'absolute' besides the individual in that sense in Buddhism. Wrong ideas of the absolute come from aggregation and essentially thinking a pile of rocks is eternal.

[Anonymous No.23126910]

>>23126849
aggregation. the brain and most of your thoughts are aggregate. were you to comprehend the unconditioned this would not be a practical problem, but from what I gather this in application requires deeper knowledge of metaphysics and Buddha says that such a pursuit can sidetrack you from enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.23126918]

>>23126810
>I pointed out that Plato himself acknowledges in his own dialogues that he is different from the "Parmenideans and Melisseans".
No he doesn't. Inb4 "the Eleatic Stranger = Plato", which is refuted by the fact that the Stranger is presented as calling Socratic philosophy sophistry the very day of Socrates' trial. The high honor Plato affords Parmenides is that the dialogue Parmenides is the only dialogue depicting a conversation between Socrates and other philosophers.

[Anonymous No.23126921]

>>23126194
Greeks jerked themselves off after the Indians and especially Buddhists lmao

[Anonymous No.23126958]

>>23126728
>having tremendous respect for Christianity.
I can see this for certain Gnostic schools or Unitarianism, but the traditional Nicene/Chalcedonian creed, which includes Catholicism and Protestantism, is the dumbest tradition in the history of humanity, worse than Salafi radicalism or Talmudic Supremacism. It is so dumb that I think everyone with a long lineage of Nicene/Chalcedonian Christians were selectively bred to be pompous, demonic, hypocritical, and etc. In fact, I agree with the Jewish desire to want to eliminate such "people".
This is not to say I like Islam or Judaism, but at least they can be reformed in certain respects (e.g., esoteric Islam is effectively equivalent to Neoplatonism or Corpus Hermeticum). Nicene/Chalcedonian Christianity is not possible to reform unless it becomes Unitarian, which is estimable.
I have never met a good Protestant or Catholic man, excluding Unitarians, because they have an ingrained sanctimoniousness, but most of the time they have nothing impressive to show for it. I am surprised more people do not point out such sanctimoniousness since when I read the history of Nicene/Chalcedonian creed that's all I see.
There is more to life outside of the human face.
>>23126221
>they unironically never consider the Christian belief that they can delude themselves by intuition, be swayed by demons, all these things.
You are unironically a demon though, a humanist demon.

[Anonymous No.23126981]

>>23126194
Low IQ post. Also, Europe barely has any cultural continuity to Ancient Greece. Even Buddhists retained more Hellenic elements in a more authentic manner in their tradition compared to your haughty Christcuck garbage. Stick to worshiping prepuce. It suits you better.

[Anonymous No.23127019]

>>23126918
You need to read the dialogues more thoroughly. If you pick up the Theaetetus and give it a read, you will find Socrates identifying "Parmenides, Melissus, and their followers", and then trying to step in between them and the radical advocates of motion/change. Socrates and pals are third parties in that dispute. In fact, in that specific dialogue I mentioned, Socrates explicitly says he does not favour the Melissean Eleatic tradition, and has trouble deciding what to make of the revelation.

Plato is very aware that there is an older interpretation/school of thought regarding the goddess' revelation. This is demonstrated in several places; I gave one example for you. The dialogues do not endorse the Eleatic tradition Plato encountered. Rather, Plato seems to be trying to achieve some new development that will allow him to preserve his bullshit metaphysics/system of change.

As for paying respect, I am not saying that Plato treated Parmenides with explicit disrespect or scorn. Plato does have his sock puppets talk up Parmenides. The point is that he fails to understand the revelation and therefore slips into incoherence. Further, to the claim that Plato and Parmenides were in agreement and nobody said otherwise, obviously that is bullshit because in Plato's own dialogues we can see there is an older and contemporary tradition that Plato criticises and distances himself from, and Plato tries to introduce new arguments and developments in order to accept what wisdom he sees in Parmenides while preserving his own athenoid nonsense.

[Anonymous No.23127081]

you guys do realize there's still eternal things in Buddhism, like Mahayana storehouse, as well as Nirvana itself

[Anonymous No.23127160]

>>23125770
Why is constant flux wrong given >>23125793's critique?

[Anonymous No.23127162]

>>23127019
>You need to read the dialogues more thoroughly. If you pick up the Theaetetus and give it a read, you will find Socrates identifying "Parmenides, Melissus, and their followers", and then trying to step in between them and the radical advocates of motion/change. Socrates and pals are third parties in that dispute. In fact, in that specific dialogue I mentioned, Socrates explicitly says he does not favour the Melissean Eleatic tradition, and has trouble deciding what to make of the revelation.
That's not what he says, you need to read the dialogues more thoroughly. The introduction of Melissus and Parenides is at 180e, where he speaks of them diplomatically as needing to be assessed alongside the proponents of change, not to dismiss them, and then at 184e:

"Although *I'm ashamed before Melissus and everyone else, who speak of the all as one at rest, lest our investigation be vulgar and common*, *I'm less ashamed before them than before Parmenides* who is one. Parmenides appears to me at once, in the saying of Homer, "as awesome to me as uncanny." In fact, I once got together with the man when I was very young and he very old, and he appeared to me to have some altogether grand and noble depth."

Literally the opposite of your claim.

>Plato is very aware that there is an older interpretation/school of thought regarding the goddess' revelation. This is demonstrated in several places; I gave one example for you.
My only post besides this is >>23126918, I'm not the anon who made whatever initial claim. But when I point out that the Eleatic Stranger != Plato, pointing back to the Sophist doesn't refute my claim, which, again, is backed up by the fact that Socratic practice is called sophistry from 226a-231b, in the context of a conversation taking place the same day as Socrates goes to trial and receives the death sentence.

>The point is that he fails to understand the revelation and therefore slips into incoherence.
Which you haven't shown by pointing to the Sophist, per my argument above. You have to point to the dialogue Parmenides and say clearly what Plato thinks Parmenides and Zeno to be up to, and whether the misunderstanding is unqualifiedly present there. Sophist and Statesman have the purpose of showing why the philosopher will be mistaken for a foolish pretentiious sophist, on the one hand, or a wise lawgiver, on the other. They are not doing straightforward doctrine, otherwise Plato would've written tracts under his own name. Even Aristotle lies in the fragments preserved of his dialogues, pretending to be in support of one kind of account of the soul in his Eudemus, while arguing for something wholly different in De Anima. Plato takes Parmenides' warning about the lying senses of the many seriously.

[Anonymous No.23127168]

>>23126449
>Then how many parts the chariot can lose before it stop being a chariot?when the essence dissapear?
Depends on which parts you take away. If you strip off the paint, it'll still work, it'll just be an ugly chariot. If you take off the wheel, it stops being a chariot and it starts being a fancy chair. Just look at the function and you'll do okay.

[Anonymous No.23127170]

>>23127081
alaya consciousness is not considered eternal; an "enlightened" person isn't storing up seeds to ripen they are done with that so to speak; to attribute eternalism to the alaya is to mistake it for a self
if that's convincing or not is up to you but that's what the literature says

[Anonymous No.23127184]

>>23127168
And how many spokes does a wheel need to still be a wheel? Come to think of it, the wheels won't move the chariot without an axle to connect them. And if there is no mount for the driver to stand on it's hardly useful to have an axle with two wheels. Could it be that the chariot really requires a driver to "be" a chariot? Hmmm

[Anonymous No.23127208]

>>23126810
Plato doesn't "introduce" non-being as a being. That's like saying that Parmenides "introduced" the path of it is not as a path of it is. Plato mentioned it, then dealt with it by saying that true non-being can't be spoken of at all, and that what people meant by non-being is actually a being (leaving the concept analogous to the path of it is not untouched as it should be).

Tweetophon, you should really read the fucking Sophist dialogue instead of telling lies and exposing yourself as a poorly read pseud. I've been telling you for months to re-read the dialogue. Now that you've finished writing your book, you should have all the free time in the world to correct your deficiencies.

[Anonymous No.23127218]

>>23127019
>Further, to the claim that Plato and Parmenides were in agreement and nobody said otherwise, obviously that is bullshit because in Plato's own dialogues we can see there is an older and contemporary tradition that Plato criticises and distances himself from
Given that the Eleatic school was already beginning to branch into multiple schools of thought, who's to say that Plato was criticizing all of them and was instead criticizing one or a handful of wrong Eleatic interpretations in favor of the right one?

[Anonymous No.23127220]

>>23127168
Then the chariot as an object never really existed, only a set of material that someone momentarelly arranged for a particular function, you're proposing a subjective and relative existence to the chariot, you're actually proving the buddhist point that nothing exist by itself and everythig is relative, since if the chariot exist thanks to it's functionallity , i'm the one imputing that function to the chariot and it's elements, so is a functional existence relative to myself and my needs, and my needs are relative to my surrondings and so on and so on, you're agreeing with the buddhist metaphysics

[Anonymous No.23127232]

>>23127162
>Sophist and Statesman have the purpose of showing why the philosopher will be mistaken for a foolish pretentiious sophist, on the one hand, or a wise lawgiver, on the other.
>They are not doing straightforward doctrine, otherwise Plato would've written tracts under his own name.
>Even Aristotle lies in the fragments preserved of his dialogues, pretending to be in support of one kind of account of the soul in his Eudemus, while arguing for something wholly different in De Anima.
Damn... three claims which are incredible enough to deserve their own thread and wish to know more about... don't massacre Tweetophon like this G

[Anonymous No.23127246]

>>23127184
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Think about function and your confusions will be solved.
>>23127220
>momentarily arranged
There you go with that eternalist bias.
>you're proposing a subjective and relative existence to the chariot
Please explain to me how you aren't doing the same thing by privileging the eternal over the ephemeral. Things are things, full stop.
>you're actually proving the buddhist point that nothing exist by itself and everythig is relative, since if the chariot exist thanks to it's functionallity
Apparently not, because Buddhists don't take chariots to be a being, even after it has obtained persistent structural integrity aimed at performing a certain set of functions. I do. Let's not pave over these serious differences in thought.

[Anonymous No.23127274]

>>23127170
From what I gathered this is not exactly the logic, conditioned association and identification with it is wrong but it itself doesn't get destroyed, so much so that the karmic associations/mentalities over it are purified. Once purified from an infinite state of clinging one reaches wisdom.

[Anonymous No.23127277]

>>23127246
>Think about function
yeah a chariot is useless to a non-charioteer, you might use it as a coat rack, a beaver might destroy it to make a dam, termites would feast on it, a bird might perch on it, my neighbor might call the police if I had one in my driveway harnessed to a pair of horses with an archer standing on it

[Anonymous No.23127279]

Doesn't the pursuit of total Nirvana require an infinite regression in regards to the action of applying skill
Say you are reach nirvana free from mental obstruction or w/e, so you use one mind to let go of another, then you let go of all minds but the last one used to remove the others. How does the last mind know to remove itself? Is this not contrived? Or is there some kind of attained knowledge-gnosis at play?

[Anonymous No.23127282]

>>23127274
once it's purified it doesn't "do" anything anymore, it ceases to operate, there are no more karmic retributions, no ripening of actions, and so on

[Anonymous No.23127291]

>>23127282
The purified helps the rest purify which is the 'correct' application, in the sense of not being discrete.

[Anonymous No.23127310]

>>23127232
>Damn... three claims which are incredible enough to deserve their own thread and wish to know more about... don't massacre Tweetophon like this G
The Aristotle bit is easiest to confirm. If you download the 2 vol. complete works and compare the fragments for Eudemus or On the Soul with his De Anima, you can see pretty clearly that he asserts personal immortality in the Eudemus and denies it (leaving only an obscure part immortal--all the elements that make up personal immortality, like memory, are destroyed at death) in the De Anima. My other two "theses" would take too long to go over, since it requires a retarded amount of comparisons, but the first one about Sophist and Statesman can start to be worked out when you realize that the dialogue we expect to follow those two, The Philosopher, is unwritten, and that the dialogue immediately after Statesman that takes the expected dialogue's place is the Apology, where Socrates is both accused of being a sophist and makes claims about civic life that seem to make him appear to be a statesman. The latter can be seen to be true for Plato too, since his two longest writings are on politics and laws.

I don't think there's any massacre to be acknowledged. Even though Tweetophon regularly interacts in a friendly way with people with similar takes to me (Athens_Stranger), I don't think they discuss this stuff, ad he regularly rerains from acknowledging that dialogues imply a dramatic element that needs interpreting to be put together with the explicit arguments.

[Anonymous No.23127350]

There is a Divine Chariot (Arma) and a Irrational Vehicle (Ochma-Pneuma), but both are unnecessary when one has arrived at the other shore (Nirvritti=Nisbandhu=Nibbana/Nirvana) as the boat to get there is left behind. Tattha Atta va Sarathi, the Soul is the Charioteer, neither the Divine Chariot nor the Irrational Vehicle. Divine Providence (Dibbacakkhu) is that which is aware of Alokasanna (non-location based perception) without being percepts nor aggregation of perceptions, and it is that which is the Tathagata, that comprehensor which has arrived at the true meaning of "That thou Art", comprehends "Tat tvam asi" which also comprehends what "bhava nirodha nibbanam" and "yogas chitta vritti nirodha" means, as such signs are for the signlessness (animitta). There is the Tathata that is asankhara, uncompounded/non-form/undetermination, and it does not perpetuate the Ochma-Pneuma of living beings and it only temporally uses the Arma to cultivate the rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas before realizing there is nothing to realize, no truth to seek, no lies to refute, one must let go of their primordial agnosis, for that grasping onto it is the problem done out of the lack of wisdom to uproot that delusion. The Mind finds refuge in That very Self has thus gone away from the heaps and thus come unto the Absolute not as any other one apart from nor participating of the Absolute, but is none other than the Absolute prior to distinctions of One or Many or All.

[Anonymous No.23127400]

>>23127162
We are clearly looking at different translations of Theaetetus, for mine says explicitly that Socrates does not have reverence for Melissus and others, but would feel ashamed of approaching Parmenides improperly.

But now I have to wonder why you even bothered posting at me, given that you now say you that you are not the anon who raised the initial claim. Namely, that Plato was in agreement with Parmenides and nobody would say otherwise. Obviously, these contemporary traditions would say otherwise, as evidenced in his own dialogues. Its a daft thing to claim.

But you aren't the one who made the claim, you apparently don't hold to the claim, and you are trying to awkwardly argue something about the Sophist. I've read and reread it, it's a total disaster. I have not changed my opinion on it. If you want to discuss how we should spend our free time, you should go read my book instead of wasting our time by surreptitiously inserting yourself into a discussion you don't even hold to in order to cry about the sophist more.

[Anonymous No.23127429]

>>23127218
I can accept that there may have been multiple contemporary eleatic schools. It is one way of interpreting why an ancient dialogue would divide Parmenideans and Melisseans. My point is that the original anon's claim was retarded, but of course now we have some unrelated anon who denies the original claim but is now ranting and responding to himself about the sophist. Which is indeed a dialogue where Plato goes off the rails with incoherent assumptions about things like motion and a terrible attempt at messing with Being in order to preserve his failed account of change.

Anyway, the original claim was answered. Schizo anon is free to read my book and/or present his account of what he thinks Plato was doing in the sophist and how his argument fits together. Of course, this is probably the same anon who previously disappeared when he tried to explain the One, and is generally incapable of presenting an affirmative case/answer questions. Because Plato is a joke when it comes to metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.23127484]

>>23127400
>We are clearly looking at different translations of Theaetetus, for mine says explicitly that Socrates does not have reverence for Melissus and others, but would feel ashamed of approaching Parmenides improperly.
The Greek of the passage for comparison:
"μέλισσον μὲν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους, οἳ ἓν ἑστὸς λέγουσι τὸ πᾶν, αἰσχυνόμενος μὴ φορτικῶς σκοπῶμεν, ἧττον αἰσχύνομαι ἢ ἕνα ὄντα Παρμενίδην."

(https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0172%3Atext%3DTheaet.%3Asection%3D183e))

>But now I have to wonder why you even bothered posting at me, given that you now say you that you are not the anon who raised the initial claim. Namely, that Plato was in agreement with Parmenides and nobody would say otherwise. Obviously, these contemporary traditions would say otherwise, as evidenced in his own dialogues. Its a daft thing to claim.
>But you aren't the one who made the claim, you apparently don't hold to the claim, and you are trying to awkwardly argue something about the Sophist.
Because I was arguing with a concrete and specific claim at >>23126918 (a misreading based off an apparently poor translation of Theaetetus, as the Greek above shows), and because your overall assessment is grounded in taking the Stranger in the Sophist to be the same as Plato? The most diplomatic take on Plato's treatment of Parenides is that he affords him respect, and then *doesn't tell the reader what he otherwise thinks, and even makes it more obscure*, just as the dialogue Parmenides ends on a head-scratcher, and just as that dialogue makes it unclear what to make of the Forms. You would prefer that Plato be a "big bad" or your project, then have at it, but your takes would be to Plato as Aristotle's takes are to Parmenides, and you could as justly be called a mere coping and seething polemicist.

>I've read and reread it, it's a total disaster. I have not changed my opinion on it. If you want to discuss how we should spend our free time, you should go read my book instead of wasting our time by surreptitiously inserting yourself into a discussion you don't even hold to in order to cry about the sophist more.
You don't take the time to address my specific claims, then I'm certainly not going to waste my time with your book. How about you ask your buddy Athens_Stranger what's going on in the Sophist? You're certainly happy to buddy up to students of Plato if it'll give you clout in Twitter circles.

[Anonymous No.23127553]

>>23127484
>How about you ask your buddy Athens_Stranger what's going on in the Sophist? You're certainly happy to buddy up to students of Plato if it'll give you clout in Twitter circles.

What has this got to do with clout or people on twitter like Athens_Stranger? Its an anon board and you are the only one naming people. You sound mentally ill/obsessed. I also see that despite trying to force some discussion of the Sophist, you ignore any responsibility for stating what it is that you think Plato actually does there. Given your failure when trying to describe the One and other topics, I dont think you have anything to add in your own right.

I like discussing things here and on twitter with Platonists, Catholics, and many others. But this thread is unpleasant now and I'll wait for the next one, whatever "clout" that costs me. Seek help/take a deep breath and try to come up with a coherent and affirmative account of what you believe in/the Sophist. Maybe theb you'll have something valuable to add in the future.

[Anonymous No.23128537]

>>23127310
>If you download the 2 vol. complete works and compare the fragments for Eudemus or On the Soul with his De Anima, you can see pretty clearly that he asserts personal immortality in the Eudemus and denies it (leaving only an obscure part immortal--all the elements that make up personal immortality, like memory, are destroyed at death) in the De Anima.
Wait, so we actually have substantial fragments of Eudemus? And they're in English? I've been looking for them for a while.

I have some more things to say, both in general and about Tweetophon and his pseudery, but frankly I don't have the time right now. Hopefully the thread will still be up later.

[Anonymous No.23128544]

>>23127277
All these things are true. Though, I wouldn't say it would be "useless", but rather if you were a non-charioteer and tried to use the apparatus for what it was designed to do, then you would probably do a poor job of doing it. For every other creature you mentioned, it would be "raw material" of some positive or negative kind. I'm reminded of Heidegger's concept of enframing here. But I think my point still stands in a broad sense.

[Anonymous No.23128672]

>>23121487
>>23121790
kek

[Anonymous No.23128773]

>>23127350
>jhanas and arupa jhanas before realizing there is nothing to realize, no truth to seek, no lies to refute, one must let go of their primordial agnosis, for that grasping onto it is the problem done out of the lack of wisdom to uproot that delusion. The Mind finds refuge in That very Self has thus gone away from the heaps and thus come unto the Absolute not as any other one apart from nor participating of the Absolute, but is none other than the Absolute prior to distinctions of One or Many or All.
that part is not buddhist at all

[Anonymous No.23128780]

>>23127279
there's no ''sequence of minds'' or things like that. Once ignorance about the aggregates is killed, ie when the aggregates are properly seen as not-self and unfit for happiness, well then there is no grasping at them, there is no arising of them, so there is no suffering, and for good this time.

[Anonymous No.23128817]

>>23127429
>Anyway, the original claim was answered. Schizo anon is free to read my book and/or present his account of what he thinks Plato was doing in the sophist and how his argument fits together.
I'm not paying you any money until you actually read Plato's Sophist (for free) and give a fair account of *what he actually says*.
>but of course now we have some unrelated anon who denies the original claim but is now ranting and responding to himself about the sophist.
I'm responding to the retarded claims that YOU are making and NEVER address fully. It's infuriating how you live in a bubble, nay, a completely different universe where Plato says the complete opposite of what he actually *wrote*. And every single time I call you out on it, you either ignore it (like here: >>23127208) and call the people "schizo" (even if their points are perfectly cogent), you shrink back and say something like your memory has faded, you simply repeat yourself without ever engaging the argument, or you embrace some other stratagem that prevents you from fully confronting the issue.

Let me make this clear. I will NEVER read your book, and I will recommend that other anons not read your book, until you give Plato the fair treatment that he deserves: a criticism of the points he *actually* made, not the straw man that you made of him. Because the ironic point (and this pisses me off the most) is that you and Plato agree on the same topic that you criticize him for being incorrect about!

It's fucking maddening. Like, what the fuck do you get out of being a lying shill? Do you want to be different? Do you think of yourself as a philosophical crusader? Are you shameless and just want money and a clique of yes-men? Are you vain and think of yourself as better than some of the greatest thinkers to have ever lived? What's your fucking problem, bro?

[Anonymous No.23128818]

>>23128773
Neither does the term Buddhist ever get used within the Pali Niikayas, disregarding the sectarian commentaries in the Abhidhamma and redactions in Theravada Sinhala Nikayas and additions in Mahayana Chinese Agamas. You've conveniently disregarded the earlier part of the post but regardless, as addressed in https://ia902505.us.archive.org/11/items/theurgy_202203/THEURGY.pdf :
Tathagatassa hetam, adhivacanam brahmabhuto itipi)-“The Tathagata
means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'” [DN 3.84].
(brahmabhutam tathagata)-“Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata” [It 57].

[Anonymous No.23128827]

>>23128818
ha yes the brahmin cope that the buddha loved vedism

[Anonymous No.23128853]

>>23128827
Buddhists are those that never ever read their own core corpus, no better than the Catholics they mock.

[Anonymous No.23128903]

>>23126921
Retarded revisionism from a retard. The people who try to claim that Greek philosophy comes from Egypt at least have some evidence to back that up. You orientalist fetishists have literally nothing. Pure wankery.

[Anonymous No.23128908]

>>23128853
sure dump more copes

[Anonymous No.23128911]

>>23126958
>because they have an ingrained sanctimoniousness
How ironic. Have you ever gazed into the mirror with sincere eyes? You might see something which you hate. Your post reeks of sanctimoniousness. (Not the guy you're replying to.)

[Anonymous No.23128914]

>>23126981
You're a know-nothing. Be silent.

[Anonymous No.23129107]

[Anonymous No.23129114]

>>23128780
What about things that aren't aggregates, that is knowledge of Nirvana itself? Does that auto-destroy everything but only things it doesn't like until it destroys the last thing? What about Buddhists idea of "Nirvana achievers waiting to liberate others from Samsara" and shit like that. Even if we take Nirvana as some kind of isolated stillness, it makes no sense in how reaching it requires knowledge while claiming all things besides Nirvana as conditioned as you would fundamentally never reach it.

[Anonymous No.23129118]

>>23128903
no you baka Im not saying it came from there, Im saying the Greeks jerked themselves off during Alexander the Great's reign and interaction with the subcontinent.

[Anonymous No.23129135]

>>23129114
things which are not aggregates are constituted of the 5 elements [earth, water fire and so on] and those elements are conditioned too

>>23129114
>What about Buddhists idea of "Nirvana achievers waiting to liberate others from Samsara" and shit like that.
that's mahayana fantasy and enlighten,emt cannot be delayed, because enlightenment has nothing to do with desire or will power or wishes or taking vows. Mahayanists don't understand how the path is conditioned [ie it's about ''causes and effects''] and yet leads to the unconditioned.


>>23129114
>Even if we take Nirvana as some kind of isolated stillness, it makes no sense in how reaching it requires knowledge while claiming all things besides Nirvana as conditioned as you would fundamentally never reach it.
knowledge is super important because it's wrong knowledge about the aggregates which generate suffering. The whole path consists of destroying this evil view about taking the aggregates as the self, as some permanent entity surviving death (especially consciousness), and instead forcing the right view about the aggregates, ie that they are conditioned and that grasping them leads to suffering.

Once you know for yourself the aggregates are unfit for happiness and craving for them is detrimental to you, you literally stop being interested in them, that's called dispassion. It's this wisdom which triggers dispassion.
And when dispassion occurs there's no longer any emotional involvement from any sensory input. And at death there ''is no fuel remaining''.

>This experience of the goal — absolutely unlimited freedom, beyond classification and exclusive of all else — is termed the elemental nibbāna property with no 'fuel' remaining (anupādisesa-nibbāna-dhātu). It is one of two ways in which nibbāna is experienced, the distinction between the two being expressed as follows:

'Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbāna property. Which two? The nibbāna property with fuel remaining, and the nibbāna property with no fuel remaining.

'And what is the nibbāna property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant whose effluents have ended, who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five [sense] faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he experiences the pleasing & the displeasing, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the nibbāna property with fuel remaining.

'And what is the nibbāna property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an arahant... released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the nibbāna property with no fuel remaining.'

— Iti 44

[Anonymous No.23129138]

>>23129135
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/2-1.html

The phrase referring to the range of feeling as 'growing cold right here' is a set expression describing death as experienced by one who has reached the goal. The verse following this passage states explicitly that this is what is meant here.

These two proclaimed
by the one with vision
nibbāna properties the one independent
the one who is Such:
one property, here in this life
with fuel remaining
from the ending of [craving],
the guide to becoming
and that with no fuel remaining

after this life
in which becomings
entirely stop.

Those who know this unfabricated state,
their minds released
through the ending of [craving],
the guide to becoming,

they, attaining the Teaching's core,
delighting in ending,
have abandoned all becomings:
they, the Such.

— Iti 44

[Anonymous No.23129164]

>>23129135
>things which are not aggregates are constituted of the 5 elements [earth, water fire and so on] and those elements are conditioned too
>Once you know for yourself the aggregates are unfit for happiness and craving for them is detrimental to you, you literally stop being interested in them, that's called dispassion. It's this wisdom which triggers dispassion.
And when dispassion occurs there's no longer any emotional involvement from any sensory input. And at death there ''is no fuel remaining''.
I know of the aggregates and the investment people get, I speak of principle knowledge that would characterize the cumulative response of being to any stimuli or need/want, as I don't want to fall into the trap of Nirvana as an 'untouchable stillness/blissful disappearing wherein one holds onto only one piece of knowledge that is for some reason considered more unconditioned just because it involves the topic'. Or for better words, it seems this idea of hypothetical stillness is making it seem like what defends Nirvana as being unconditioned in how it is applied, a sort of stasis rather than liberation. If hypothetically one were in this stillness of Nirvana and decide to 'move' or think something else, would they not fall back into Samsara, thus meaning that a person's reaching of Nirvana itself is susceptible to impermanence. It seems that the impermanence of Nirvana is too focused around the nature of 'Nirvana always exists' rather than 'if one reaches Nirvana one will never have to worry about Samsara as there is no way they can un-Nirvana no matter what they try, because if they were someone who'd try they wouldn't have reached Nirvana'.
>>23129138
>Those who know this unfabricated state,
but what makes knowledge of the unfabricated itself unfabricated and unconditioned? It seems like there's a "preferential treatment" to knowledge of the nature of the fabricated and unfabricatedas being itself more eternal than knowledge that concerns other things. Why wouldn't knowledge of mathematics (should we avoid the theorems about it's axioms) also have this feature? Is it because Nirvana is "absolute" in some sort of way (even though it's something that is only 'sort of' inherent to being as it needs to be discerned)? If so, why not other things that can be derived from absolutes?
The logic I see implies a sort of rippling untouchableness of Nirvana that also constitutes knowledge on 'everything' (as everything besides Nirvana itself is seen as conditioned) yet if such were it's nature there would be no need for it's isolation would it? Someone who'd attained Nirvana wouldn't need to isolate from mortality as the unconditioned nature, remainder or no, would be Eternal.

[Anonymous No.23129291]

>tfw the Buddhists scurried away when I pointed out their preference for the eternal in their metaphysics and that it is subjective
sad, wanted to have more of a conversation about it

[Anonymous No.23129338]

>>23129291
>when I pointed out
no you didn't I did lol

[Anonymous No.23129433]

>>23129114
There's nothing outside of the skandhas. Knowledge and thoughts belong to the samskara skandha. All matter belongs to the rupa skandha, because it actually refers to the five senses and their objects, not just your body.

[Anonymous No.23129440]

>>23129433
Then how do you prevent infinite regression in regards to actually achieving Nibbana besides saying 'knowledge of Nibbana is special because it's actually nothing rather than something'

[Anonymous No.23129452]

>>23129433
doesn't nirvana works against itself by removing knowledge of wisdom that would be used to attain it then?

[Anonymous No.23129457]

>>23129452
or there is pure knowledge (which is not monopolized by being about Nirvana) that is purified by unconditioning from skandha but does not have to be impermanent, ergo Nirvana is not the only "eternal" prospect.

[Anonymous No.23129718]

>>23128853
in english einstein

[Anonymous No.23129864]

>>23129291
>their preference for the eternal in their metaphysics
yeah everything being in a state of birth and death from moment to moment is totally eternalist metaphysique

[Anonymous No.23129971]

>>23129457
Yes, Buddhist practice is about removing afflicted mental factors and cultivation unafflicted ones. These burn up the afflictions which leads to birth in samsara
https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Thirty-seven_factors_of_enlightenment

[Anonymous No.23130042]

>>23129864
except apparently only knowledge of Nirvana is eternal according to anons
>>23129971
explain this guys statement then
>>23129135

[Anonymous No.23130094]

>>23130042
Is "knowledge" an entity which could be capable of permanence in the first place? Seems like a badly posed question. The other anon is giving you nikaya focused pith intruction, not really doing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23130123]

>>23130094
>Is "knowledge" an entity which could be capable of permanence in the first place?
The one that gives way to Nirvana seems to be, while the ones that don't are not permitted to be. Otherwise you fall into infinite regression of knowledge and 'true eternals' as stated in >>23129164

[Anonymous No.23130183]

>>23126507
Well, there is something more, awareness. I think Buddhists try to define awareness as another sense, but that's very strange (awareness is the thing that senses)

[Anonymous No.23130207]

>>23130123
I don't think it makes sense to reify knowledge or turn it into a form of theological speculation, especially given typical Buddhist exposition such as the teachings being a raft used to cross a river.

[Anonymous No.23130218]

>>23129338
I literally wrote like a dozen posts in this thread about it, and you certainly did not write those posts lol.
>>23129864
Yes, because it privileges the eternal as the only thing that has being. You walked right into that one.

[Anonymous No.23130229]

>>23130218
>privileges the eternal as the only thing that has being
what eternal?
what being?
can you cite anything in scripture or tradition or is this some kind of autistic revisionism

[Anonymous No.23130255]

>>23130229
That's what you're implying, not me. Do you have a problem with your own position?

[Anonymous No.23130282]

>>23130183
In buddhism awareness is one of the skhandas, not something outside the senses and deffinitly not something that can exist by itself, your notion of awareness is just an abstraction, calling awareness "something" outside or different from the senses rely on a metaphysical unproven dogma, you can't take for granted that awareness can exist by itself, since we have no proof of such thing or any instances of awafeness just existing without being aware of something

[Anonymous No.23130296]

>>23130255
Not that anon, but there's no way that a metaphysics were everything is in a state of birth and decay can privilege the eternal, by deffinition there's nothing eternal, i think people is not responding to you because you're missing the point on the core aspects of buddhist ontology

[Anonymous No.23130309]

>>23130296
Exactly, where does "being" and "eternal" enter into this? He insists it does, and then says I must show otherwise. Perhaps he thought this thread was actually about Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.23130320]

>>23130296
If the consequence is that nothing has being, that there are no essences, that names merely imply convenient mental categories, etc., then it is privileging an eternality that is also not present.

[Anonymous No.23130327]

>>23130320
And brown cows make chocolate milk

[Anonymous No.23130339]

>>23130320
How? You're just falling into a non sequitor, a realli bizarre one since your conclusion is an "non present eternity" wathever that means

[Anonymous No.23130345]

>>23130327
I don't know what you're talking about.
>>23130339
How is that my conclusion? I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

[Anonymous No.23130355]

>>23130345
>I don't know what you're talking about.
How is non-being evidence of being? You are claiming that is what I said, I can see very plainly it isn't what I said. So you are trolling, lying, or retarded or some combination

[Anonymous No.23130365]

>>23130345
I dunno that's why is a non sequitor, there's nothing in the negation of essences that lead to an "eternality that's also not present"

[Anonymous No.23130372]

>>23130355
>How is non-being evidence of being? You are claiming that is what I said,
Unpack that for me please.
>>23130365
Because you're saying that essences must be eternal in order to exist. That's the argument in a nutshell. I'm pulling the reverse card by asking you why does an understanding being have to prioritize the eternal in such a way. Even a philosophy that says "everything is in flux" is prioritizing the eternal if it also carries nominalist baggage.

[Anonymous No.23130376]

>>23130320
Being and essence are not the same thing, only in a substance based ontology that rule apply, but buddhism is a process oriented ontology, so you're trying to apply the metaphysical concept of a system to a totally different type of ontology, you're doing a petitio principii fallacy

[Anonymous No.23130382]

what's the best french translation of plotinus ?

[Anonymous No.23130391]

>>23130376
All process ontologies can be rewritten as substance ontologies. Potency/act was a higher operating principle than matter/form in Aristotelian metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.23130394]

>>23130372
If "essences" are not eternal then you're just agreeing with the buddhist system,"nothing is eternal" (anicca) that's the whole point, they call this "non eternal essences" dhammas

[Anonymous No.23130395]

Awareness is not Perception, Perception is not Awareness, they're both not truly synonyms in Prakrit and Sanskrit but are conflated deliberately by the Buddhist sectarians and Vedantic sectarians alike.

Awareness = Atman = Attamano or the mentation from the Atta (Self, "Soul") = Attano (very Self/Soul)
Mano ka vinnanam = mentated consciousness, as if it (vi-jnana, dual knowing, the lowercase m mind that self-objectified itself as the other than itself into its being, the false subject-object relationship) is composed of mentations
Sanna = Perception

The sheer irony of all of this is that Advaitins doesn't get why the Buddhists prioritize Citta moreso than Atman, for the Atman is more akin to the Psyche rather than the Nous, while the Citta is the Nous that can potentially be purified (vishuddham) but the Aggregation of the Psyche as its instantiated individual lower soul that is formed the same time as the body is not the undescended higher soul that is ultimately the Citta/Nous. The liberant that attains liberation becomes-Brahman/Absolute/The One/Unity.

The "Buddhists" are right in the sense of the lower soul is not the subject of liberation but are wrong when they deny the reality of the undescended subject of liberation that cultivates wisdom (not phronesis nor episteme but gnosis/jhana)

The Advaitins (and other vedic schools) are wrong in conflating the lower soul as the higher soul but are still right if you realize it is the Citta that is the true subject that seeks to be purified of all that which is not the true self that is Nicca (Eternal in the sense of ultimate Permanence), Anasava (Taintless), Adukkha (Not-Suffering), etc.

Citta + Avijja = Vinnana
Citta + Avijja - Avijja = Citta Vimutti, Brahmabhu, Buddha, Arahant, Bhagavan, Tathagata, etc.

Both Buddhists and Vedantists blame each other for claiming the other used "Brahma" in the Deva/Ishvara sense as they go to Brahmaloka or whatever. Both are being petty pathological liars, typical of Indians.

If "doing philosophy" means ignoring the truth behind the myths, you aren't doing philosophy at all, for Platon and Gotama borrowed analogies from their mythical traditions to convey something truer than the words that they have borrowed from. True philosophy has to be concerned with truth exegesis, and avoiding citations of the truths from philosophers as mere mythicists and appeal to words and authority are projecting their own faults upon others.

Modern man cannot grasp the truth of the panchanikayas without drawing parallels from the Platonic tradition, namely the Plotinian paradigm as a bare minimum.

[Anonymous No.23130400]

>>23130372
>Unpack that
Have you considered reading anything Buddhist at all whatsoever on the subject? Or are you doing what this guy says >>23130376 and demanding the brown cow give you chocolate milk? Why is it illegitimate for Buddhism to be "nominalist" with regard to denying "being" to entities and considering them transient, impermanent, momentary, etc.? I get that you feel this is wrong because you prefer thomism or something, but why should the Buddhist care that your god has guaranteed eternal being? Next you'll tell me Digimon games aren't Pokemon games because there's no Pikachu—true, but I wasn't asking!

[Anonymous No.23130418]

>>23130391
>>23130391
No, process ontologies were a reaction against substance ontologies
Aristotelian metaphysics had 4 different possible moments, what we today know as the metaphysic is a mix of the sifferent periods of aristotles studies and systems,so there's no real established aristotelian metaphysics, or established hierarchy, the substratum is a different thing from matter/form which are the "different names of being" and potency/act that was a way to study movement, trying to mix all that together considering aristotle changed ideas all the time and there's lots of things we don't know about his system, is irresponsable

[Anonymous No.23130425]

>>23130183
Awareness is just the mind. It takes the direct perception of the five senses and processes it conceptual

[Anonymous No.23130440]

>>23130425
The Subject that engages in "Awareness" is that which can become the Absolute through Self-Awareness that comes after the purgation of what is not-the-self (Anatta) which is not non-self (Natthatta) which those who affirm Natthatta as the absolute truth get sent to avici

[Anonymous No.23130493]

It doesn't make sense that Nirvana is the only 'singular' unconditioned thing, to me it seems like there's principles besides that that involve something eternal and unfettered but Buddhism focuses purely on the Nirvana as a state of bliss because that's what Buddha wanted and he was conditioned (lol) by his Indian cultural upbringing relevant to their local tradition, and that the pursuit of Nirvana is itself supposed to be a way of purification, rather than the bliss monopolizing eternity.
I think this discussion issue stems from Buddhists not wanting to defile the purity tradition and only speaking of terms that condone the pursuit of Nirvana rather than metaphysics, so even if you tell them "the individual exists" referring to a conventional singular individual, most will deny this and it's discussion not because they disbelieve it but because they fear 'wrong view' too much as an epistemological threat.
There's also a supernatural absurd in that knowledge of Nirvana can only be passed on by absurd measures as Nirvana's unconditioned nature meant to be religiously undefiled made it a state of untouchable isolation, a consequence I feel due to the anti-deity nature of the Buddhists.
So, buddhanons, would you for the sake of correct philosophy argue for or against that
>there are principles besides Nirvana that are unconditioned
>Nirvana is a purified state of these principles
>conditioned things arise from unskilled use of the principles
>confusion within the scope of 'idealism' might arise due to 'wrong view' but does not coincide with the philosophy itself, or in other words the pursuit of practical view is in conflict with more objectively correct metaphysics under the pretense of not risking clinging
>Buddhism is just a concise path rather than a complete theorem of these topics

[Anonymous No.23130512]

>>23130493
>Buddhism is just a concise path rather than a complete theorem of these topics
yeah that's the idea, there's no need to affirm or dispute with baroque platonic theology unless it is a hindrance

[Anonymous No.23130535]

>>23130512
>there's no need to affirm or dispute with baroque platonic theology unless it is a hindrance
There is in regards to 'what is considered eternal' because it has implications on the pursuit itself, Nirvana being minimalistically described. My issue is simple as
>if Nirvana is blissful, does it include a perfected version of every state of bliss or is it the same bliss?
>if different bliss's, what makes them different and how does someone who has achieved Nirvana attain 'new bliss'
>if the same, doesn't this posit a metaphysical limitation on what is considered 'genuine' with prospects like infinity being inherently limited while Nirvana having some kind of metaphysical precedent that makes it special? Just this one supposedly agreed to experience?
>if either of these, why is rhetoric over Nirvana limited and this dichotomy never mentioned. Doesn't this lead to a solipsistic issue over real Nirvana? With Nirvana being a practical blissful pseudo annihilation rather than liberation, you are simply being limited into a singular bliss which is supposedly perfect but does not describe it's interaction with infinity

[Anonymous No.23130544]

>>23130418
>No, process ontologies were a reaction against substance ontologies
They're a reaction to misunderstandings of Aristotelian metaphysics and poor imitations of Aristotelian philosophy (e.g. Cartesianism). Substance philosophy and process philosophy are indistinguishable from each other at a high enough level of understanding.
>he substratum is a different thing from matter/form which are the "different names of being" and potency/act that was a way to study movement,
Act/potency is "higher" than form/matter, and the latter is based on the former. Aristotelian commentators from Alexander of Aphrodisias onward recognized that the "active/passive" is chief in Aristotle's first philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23130618]

>>23130544
>Act/potency is "higher" than form/matter,
Again, you can't really prove that since there's not ONE aristotelian metaphysic, and even if we follow this, that doesn't turn the process ontological system into a substance ontology, on the contrary, is almost a nominalist position since essence is barely anything more than a word, at most a quality or function

[Anonymous No.23130644]

>>23130618
>Again, you can't really prove that
Yes you can, read Aristotle's Physics and Metaphysics and other snippets of Aristotle's work here and there where the concept of substance standing alone as a framework is problematized so thoroughly to the point where Aristotle explores other frameworks in which to situate substance within.

I mean, at this point, there's a clear knowledge gap here, so I'm just going to tell you to read Aristotle, chiefly Metaphysics but other things too.
>at most a quality or function
And why is that a problem? A qua-lity literally means a "what-ness" to something. Something's function is also a key part of the total explanation of something according to Aristotle. What are you trying to look for when you look for essence? Bring your expectations down to reality.

[Anonymous No.23130650]

>>23130183
Awareness is the act of sensing

[Anonymous No.23130651]

Eusebia = Dhamma, denial of the Absolute-ness of non spatio-temporal beings or "gods"/devas has nothing to do with Brahmayana (Brahman+ayana, path to the Absolute, not the path to the Brahmaloka/"heaven"). There is no conjoinment of any sort of heavens to the Tathagata, for such heavens are merited and all merit by finite being when redeemed is of finite rewards, hence, those who partake of the apotheosis into Mount Olympus will in due time descend from it, as the gods are in perpetual warring with each other, as the old gods get thrown down and replaced by the new gods, likewise are the new gods also will be thrown down back down to earth, for heaven and earth and hell are all within the conditional existence, within the hypostasis of the Psyche and haven't really even reached to the noetic cosmos, let alone, the summit of the kosmos noetos which is the "Monad" or "Unity" that's neither Peras (limit) nor Aperion (not-limit).

There's only one fundamental principle, and one fundamental attribute of that principle, and there are many non fundamental attributes that arise out of that one fundamental attribute, but they don't pre-exist within the one fundamental principle. Any principle without any attributes whatsoever is itself an attribute of some other principle and so cannot be a principle for it has no productive attributes that arise effectually from its attribute.

"The One is and is not the One" of Plato's Parmenides has been contorted to various ends with the shifting of terms to justify circular recursion. The One is not a Unit of measure nor a magnitude nor a limit nor a not-limit nor a name given to a measure of a same unit as "One", nor is the One a Union of Principle and Attribute as some inseparable Holon, nor is the one a Holon.

Adukkhamasukkham, Neither suffering nor bliss, that is the fourth jhana of the eighth fold of the noble eightfold path.

Eidos is of the descent, Idea is of the ascent, neither Eidos nor Idea is the "Absolute One".

The Radiance of the One is not an original sin, nor some mentated cognitive causation. To blame fault to the Supreme Principle for having at least one attribute is to forget that the One can extend itself from itself without lessening itself nor being greater than itself. Gotama isn't concerned with the procession from the One as much as the reversion back to the One. The Aoristos/Aoriston is akin to a sort of liminal space between the Nous and Monad and similar to Damascius's Henads (not Proclean Henads) and is poorly translated as the "Indefinite Dyad" but the Late Neoplatonists didn't grasp what Plotinus was on about every time Plotinus mentioned Aoristos/Aoriston. It might have been a doctrine that existed in Pythagoreanism but in its mature state is expressed in Plotinus's work the best.

Everyone who get caught in the nonsense of Aristotelian contextual terms that persists even within Neoplatonism will not going to grasp Plotinus's Platonization of Aristotelian terms.

[Anonymous No.23130686]

>>23130644
As said before If an essence is something subject to change and becoming, then you're just agreeing with buddhist metaphysics, so what's your point? How you wanna refute something that you actually are agreeing with?

[Anonymous No.23130689]

>>23130282
Awareness is simply the beholder of the senses. Surely it's incoherent to assert the senses can exist independent of awareness, but I will grant that awareness without senses is also incoherent. This seems related to dependent origination, no? Something like awareness and the senses interdependently give rise to one another.

Though I feel it's more KISS to go with the Ashtavakra Gita:

> 1. Consciousness is definitely there
> 2. No one knows what the hell it is, so who cares what the learned and the yogis say about it.
> 3. Enjoy the long dream!

Bam, anyone who internalizes that is saved.

[Anonymous No.23130693]

>>23130651
>"The One is and is not the One" of Plato's Parmenides has been contorted to various ends with the shifting of terms to justify circular recursion. The One is not a Unit of measure nor a magnitude nor a limit nor a not-limit nor a name given to a measure of a same unit as "One", nor is the One a Union of Principle and Attribute as some inseparable Holon, nor is the one a Holon.
then what the fuck is it nigga

[Anonymous No.23130697]

The One does not know "what" it is for it is not a "what". To even reduce it to words is blasphemous.

[Anonymous No.23130699]

>>23130686
Because it still acknowledges that essences exist, even if some (or perhaps all) of them lack permanence.

[Anonymous No.23130705]

>>23130699
Is just a matter of names, buddhist call them dhammas, not "impermanent essences"

[Anonymous No.23130724]

>>23130705
Saying it is just a matter of names means that we still disagree then and returns us back to the point that Buddhists privilege eternality as a criterion for being. I thought we were on the same page, but now you've reverted back to the original point as if we made no progress towards mutual understanding. Dunno what else to say.

[Anonymous No.23130737]

>>23130724
>Buddhists privilege eternality as a criterion
How so?

[Anonymous No.23130749]

>>23130737
>How so?
BRUH. Did we not go over this in detail for like 20 posts?

[Anonymous No.23130761]

>>23130400
>Why is it illegitimate for Buddhism to be "nominalist" with regard to denying "being" to entities and considering them transient, impermanent, momentary, etc.?
There's nothing necessarily illegitimate about it. It's just a subjective criterion. Something doesn't have to exist permanently in order to have being. This is an implicit claim you are making when you say that 1) everything is transitory; AND 2) there are no essences, hence they are merely convenient names. You can have transitory essences which names still point toward in a meaningful way. But Buddhist doesn't do this because it implicitly privileges the eternal as a criterion for being given the "sum" of its metaphysical framework.
>I get that you feel this is wrong because you prefer thomism or something
It would only be Thomist if I asserted that there were eternal beings to begin. Otherwise, my critique has nothing to do with Thomism. You can take or leave God or whatever the fuck from it and it wouldn't make a difference.

[Anonymous No.23130767]

>>23130749
No, you never explained that, you pretty much never really explained anything, most of your arguments fall into non sequiturs, so articullate logically how the notion of buddhist impermanence rely on eternalism please, because no one here see it

[Anonymous No.23130774]

>>23130761
>hence they are merely convenient names
Nope, they are dhammas, that's the "fabric of existence" in buddhism

[Anonymous No.23130786]

>>23130767
Just in the past couple hours, I said it here:
>>23130218
>>23130320
>>23130372
>>23130699
>>23130724
>>23130761
And I also went over it towards the beginning of the thread multiple times but I'm not going to waste my time combing through those posts too.
>>23130774
If dhammas are essences of some kind then Buddhism isn't nominalist. Which is fine with me. I'm mostly concerned about keeping the systems consistent and fully incorporating the implications that they make.

[Anonymous No.23130795]

Sassata+vada is not Nicca+vada, though there's no "Niccavada" compound used from what very little I know of.

Sassata(Perpetual) is poorly conflated with Nicca (Eternal) and deliberately translated by sects as means to ends of conjoining Perpetualism with Ucchedavada (Annihilationism) and vice versa, which is the whole delusion tied with Nagarjuna in reciprocating Nirvana with Samsara.

Nirvana is not a condition, it is like unlearning delusions, like thinking you have to know something to be saved, or like thinking you have to not thing at all to be saved.

Namarupa anattati, Name and form are not the Self

[Anonymous No.23130928]

>>23130761
>You can have transitory essences which names still point toward in a meaningful way
No you can't. What is at stake here in Buddhist phil is whether there is a permanent self-substance kernel or essence or atman to entities, and if there is how is it possible that we observe entities arising and ceasing? How would unchanging things change one another? If essences behave like non-essences as you are suggesting, then what use are essences?
>>23130761
>It would only be Thomist if I asserted that there were eternal beings to begin.
So you assert there is non-eternal being instead? Is that like a plant-based hamburger? Imitation crab meat? You ask a lot of bad questions in this thread, I think you should read more of the actual literature if you want to do an informed critique

[Anonymous No.23130972]

>>23130218
What do you think being means?

[Anonymous No.23131009]

>>23130786
Abhidharma proposes ultimately existent dharmas, Madhyamaka says that they are also empty
>>23130699
Madhyamaka doesn't deny essential properties on the conventional level. Fire is essentially hot, water is essentially wet, but the understanding of phenomena as discrete entities that possess properties does not hold up to analysis. These are just conventional categories.

[Anonymous No.23131044]

>>23130972
he seems to think being is non-eternal, impermanent, transitory, and unrelated to supernatural agents, as a way to own the Buddhists for arguing against being because of things being non-eternal, impermanent, transitory, and unrelated to supernatural agents

[Anonymous No.23131249]

>>23130928
The problem is that you're far more wedded to permanent substance-based metaphysics than you could ever believe. You're clinging so tightly to a pastiche of Platonism that you use it as a reference point to organize the entire world around it, including even ostensibly anti-Platonic philosophies like Buddhism.

Read Heidegger, he might be able to cure you of this disease.
>>23130972
>>23131044
No, I just hold being qua being as a starting point of all metaphysical investigations. Everything you add onto it is either a hypothetical that must be demonstrated in some way or subjective baggage that you've chosen to adopt on faith. All I ask is for you to be clear and consistent with what you put forward as an answer to the question of being. Instead, what you've done is create a straw man to attack me with (I'm a Thomist blah blah blah) because you don't understand the implications of your own metaphysical position.

Personally, being called a Thomist when I'm advancing a Heideggerian position is highly amusing to me lol, as they can't be further apart. It's like you're so confused and angry with the points I'm raising that you lashed out in the only way you possibly could, comparing my views to some other philosophical position solely on the basis that it makes you angry. Literally child-like thinking.

[Anonymous No.23131263]

>>23131009
I like the train of thought you've been advancing the most, since you seem to be grasping what is going on the best. But how can something be extant but also empty? And why do you seem to adopt that there's both essences but that they're also conventional categories? That seems to be two contradictory positions.

[Anonymous No.23131279]

>>23131249
>you're far more wedded to permanent substance-based metaphysics than you could ever believe.
no you, literally, no you
>>23131249
>I just hold being qua being as a starting point of all metaphysical investigations.

[Anonymous No.23131319]

>>23131279
>nuh uh, that's ackshually you!!!
>non sequitur
We're gonna play this game now, huh? You've further regressed from the mind of a 9 year old to the mind of a 6 year old.

[Anonymous No.23131340]

>>23131319
>guys what if heidegger though
zero interest in him sorry, if you are arguing being is actually non-being and that's why buddhism is wrong about how it internally conceives of and argues against being, fine, now you can play the esoteric master of handeggerism and define it to suit your needs

[Anonymous No.23131358]

>>23131340
>if you are arguing being is actually non-being
I'm not arguing anything of that sort.
>now you can play the esoteric master of handeggerism and define it to suit your needs
And I've spelled out everything I needed to in plain English. It's not my fault if you're so wedded to the idea that
>the only real things are the ones that are permanent forever!!!
because Plato left a dump in your head which has been living rent-free ever since to the point where it colors your interpretation of every other philosophy. For all I know, Buddhism could be right, but it appears that you are only capable of understanding Buddhism through a lens defined by Platonism (in the sense that it is a reaction against Platonism). That's a grave habit that you need to break if you want to make any progress in metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.23131385]

>>23131358
>progress in metaphysics
your brain is completely rotten by germgroid idealism
the buddhist literature itself is anti-platonism insofar as it is anti-brahminical, plato never has debates with zeus or hermes trismegistus where he dunks on god for being ignorant like in the nikayas

[Anonymous No.23131441]

>>23131263
Everything is a clearly appearing non-existent, like a dream, an illusion, a hallucination, a mirage, an echo, a city of Gandharvas, a reflection, or an apparition. Appearance and emptiness are inseparable. Madhyamaka refutes existence, but that doesn't mean it asserts non-existence. It refutes the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither. It does not propose any annihilation, it describes they way things have always been. Nagarjuna says
>As for saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, these two do not exist. However thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa.
Madhyamaka also doesn't argue with ordinary beings' understanding of reality. Chandrakirti says
>Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees, houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things that common people designate dependent on their parts, accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!
The conventional truth of Madhyamaka is entirely identical with the conventional understanding of ordinary beings, so it is fine to speak of the essential properties of existent phenomena at the level of no analysis. A fire is intrinsically hot because you will never find a fire that isn't hot, but heat isn't a universal property that can exist apart from any specific instance of heat. This rejection of truly existent universals is one of the main points of emptiness. Under analysis, fire and its heat are identical. Conventionally, fire arises in dependence upon its fuel, but under analysis, arising from self, other, both, or neither are all found to be impossible, so the fire is ultimately nonarisen.

[Anonymous No.23131532]

>>23131385
>heidegger
>german idealism
ngmi, and it'll be the most not making of it in the history of not making it
>plato never has debates with zeus or hermes trismegistus where he dunks on god for being ignorant like in the nikaya
apparently you've never even read Euthyphro, which is entry tier. should have realized I was speaking with an illiterate pleb from the beginning.

[Anonymous No.23131539]

>>23131441
What is emptiness?
>It refutes the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.
I'm kind of reminded of the hypotheses in Plato's Parmenides.

[Anonymous No.23131611]

>>23131539
Emptiness is freedom from the four extremes. Anything that is dependently arisen is empty.

[Anonymous No.23131852]

>>23131611
What extremes? And is there anything with an independent existence? What is that made up of?

[Anonymous No.23132144]

>>23131852
>It refutes the extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.
Existence and non-existence is the position of Jains, neither existence nor non-existence was the position of the Ajñana school.
>And is there anything with an independent existence?
No

[Anonymous No.23132343]

>>23121483
>believes in infinite regress
If you can provide a single real example of a finite regress I’ll stop believing in it

[Anonymous No.23132355]

>>23132144
How did the first thing come into existence? And if you became enlightened, wouldn't you have an independent existence of some kind?

[Anonymous No.23133017]

>>23132355
>>How did the first thing come into existence?
Mahayanists have never been to answered. That's one of the big flaw in Mahayana, Vajrayana, and even Hindusim.

For the buddhists, they don't care about this because there's no need for this knowledge to end suffering

[Anonymous No.23133034]

>>23130535
Nirvana is the end of suffering, nobody enlightened gives a shit what happens afterwards, because their goal was simply to end suffering. The job is done and ''que sera sera''.

[Anonymous No.23133037]

>>23130395
>Awareness = Atman = Attamano or the mentation from the Atta (Self, "Soul") = Attano (very Self/Soul)
Yeah that's rubbish.

also presupposing there's and atman, typical behavior by liars and deceiving people

[Anonymous No.23133194]

>>23132355
There is no first phenomenal thing that can be known phenomenologically speaking.
>>23133037
Tathatta = Nirvana