[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 214 KB, 1024x683, dubstep-rock.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3550413 No.3550413 [Reply] [Original]

So according to Buddhism, any kind of representation or categorization of reality requires discarding information, is causality an illusion?

>> No.3550420

one school of Buddhist philosophy holds that reality consists of an infinite sequence of atomistic or completely independent moments which have no connection with one another.

>> No.3550419

when it's discarded and you're not being identified with it - yes

so is time and space and etc. concepts derived from human thought

>> No.3550423

>>3550419
i.e. read schopenhauer if you haven't already

>> No.3550425

>>3550423

It's the difference between Augustinian linear time and Buddhist cyclic time

>> No.3550456

>>3550420
that conclusion requires discarding of information

>> No.3550554

>>3550413
>So according to Buddhism, ..., is causality an illusion?
In a word, yes.

>> No.3550558

>>3550554
Pleased to explain

>> No.3550561

The key to Buddhism is to treat life like you treat yourself in your dreams; you must realize the dreamlike nature of reality, and treat it as a dream, instead of treating it as a certainty like everyone else does, rushing to and fro, panicking over spilled milk, making mountains out of molehills. There is nowhere to rush to, there's no milk, and no moles or mole hills.

>> No.3550563

>>3550554
>In a word, yes.
what? you better elaborate in detail on that

>> No.3550565

Doesn't Derrida say the same thing? Isn't this the entire idea behind freeplay?

>> No.3550569

>>3550563
>you better elaborate in detail on that
Or what?

>> No.3550570

>>3550563
>>3550558
Buddhism teaches that causality is an illusion. Simple as that, read the primary sources.

>> No.3550579

>>3550570
I don't have the time to find and read the sources, could you please explain the basic logic behind this

>> No.3550586

>>3550579
>could you please explain the basic logic behind this
Buddhism teaches that what you deem to be 'self', your personality/'soul', doesn't really exist. You don't exist, your sensation of 'selfhood' is just an illusion.

Since causality is an important ingredient in what makes you perceive 'selfhood', presumably causality is also an illusion.

(If there's no 'self' to perceive time, then time doesn't really exist, and if time doesn't exist, then there's no such thing as causality.)

>> No.3550587
File: 18 KB, 389x312, tripitaka.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3550587

so, according to Buddhism -

MONKEY! NO VIOLENCE!

>> No.3550590 [DELETED] 

>>3550579
>there's no 'self'
Is this because of reincarnation?

>> No.3550592

>>3550586
>there's no 'self'
Is this because of reincarnation?

>> No.3550598 [DELETED] 

>>3550570
>Buddhism teaches that causality is an illusion.
i think we already established that in the first few posts; i'm rather interested in how you went from "In a word, yes." to your current explanation?

what the fuck does "In a word, yes" mean?
i didn't know there is a single word in the english dictionary capable of explaining "Causality is an illusion"

what is the word?

>>3550579
>I don't have the time
>mommy spoonfeed me pls
>muh ADHD

read the buddhist scriptures, kant, schoppenhauer, heidegger and other phenomenologists

>> No.3550599

>>3550590
>Is this because of reincarnation?
No, the other way around.

Buddhism appeared at a time when the concept of reincarnation was taken for granted as a fact of life. People just assumed that reincarnation was a real thing, like we today accept gravity or electricity to be real phenomena.

Buddhism denies the self because denying the self is a good way of reconciling the illogic of reincarnation with a rational outlook on how the universe works.

(Also, Buddhism is an atheistic philosophy, and all atheistic philosophies have huge problems with the concept of 'self', for obvious reasons.)

>> No.3550602

>>3550592
10/10

>> No.3550604

>>3550587
Damn, that pussified yaoi Xuanzang. Disgusting.

Why hasn't anyone made a proper screen adaptation yet??

It seems like the perfect source material to make an entertaining anime series.

>> No.3550606

>>3550599
>denying the self is a good way of reconciling the illogic of reincarnation with a rational outlook on how the universe works
Thank you

>> No.3550630

>>3550598
>what the fuck does "In a word, yes" mean?
OP asked a question, I answered. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question, and a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer.

>> No.3551328

>>3550586
>>3550413

>anon can't into two truths doctrine

At least from a Madhyamaka POV, the world is not an illusion, it's more of a useful fiction. Look up Garfield and his fictionalist interpretation of Nagarjuna's two truths.