/lit/ - Literature

>>18385688
>>18385431
>you can't just start your argument with an axiom buddhist refute,
It was never refuted by Buddhism, can you give an example of how it was refuted?
>you need to prove that the ontology of consciousness could surpass impermanence, which is the fundamental state of everything observable even consciousness,
Consciousness doesn't and cannot observe itself as its own object, until you explain why you believe you can act like it does while accepting Nagarjuna at the same time then your question is completely meaningless. You can either say you are fully committed to all of Nagarjuna's positions, in which case consciousness is unable to observe its own impermanence since he attacked reflexivity, or you can reject Nagarjuna's positions and say that consciousness can reflexively know itself, but since you reject a separate abiding consciousness, what you are really talking about is self-reflexive thoughts and sensory perceptions knowing themselves without any separate knowing consciousness, and this has its own numerous contradictions.

Until you clarify which of these two positions you are taking, none of your arguments have any meaning because you are not explaining how they are not refuting your own positions despite you holding to them. Your own logic stands forth as evidently self-contradictory and its up to you to clarify in order for the discussion to proceed further, right now you are just demonstrating that buddhists are bunch of sophists following contradictory "logic" when you claim that consciousness observes its own changing nature but also then say that Nagarjuna is right to reject reflexivity of consciousness, if he is right then it can't observe its own changing or conditionedness or emptiness.