/lit/ - Literature

>>18430505
Far off. You need several more years of dhyana to understand. Your understanding barely allows one to see a tiny speck of the fundamental nature.

Rip down your curtains.

Buddhism is an annihilation cult.

>>18430505
There is no self. There is no no self. Who is reading this. THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

>Implying you have to do or understand anything

>>18430505
>Rebirth: this is something perpetually happening netween every moment of your life (ie you are undergoimg a constamt reconstitution in terms of the aggregates)
Basically but I don't know why you'd want to say so.

>therefore the difference between the moment of death and any other moments of passing life is nil because both are just the fluctuation of aggregates?

No. There's a big difference between those moments, just like there's a big difference between wanting Wendy's but Mcdonald's is the only option.

>Secondly Nirvana is not heaven

Depends on how one defines a heaven.

>but is to simply see/feel/understand things for what they really are (empty, and ineffably illogical)?

Now you're headed very much in the right direction.

>Ultimately this is no different to samsara its just almost embracing samsara for what it actually is rather than being deluded about it. At this point you're essentially above grasping onto continued existence?

Yes, but there's a step beyond being above grasping onto continued existence, and that is avoiding grasping onto not continuing to exist, to avoid grasping onto avoiding grasping, ad infinitum.

>This understanding allows for a fairly secular buddhism right?

One thing I find interesting is almost every religion has a very "stupid person" exoteric understanding or method, and a very high brow esoteric and mystical understanding. You can compare it to biblical literalists as opposed to christian mystics, literal Pure Landers as opposed to esoteric Pure Landers, Theravada vs Mahayana, straightforward hindu interpretations and more symbolic and sophisticated understandings, Roman philosophers having an esoteric understanding of their Gods as opposed to the plebeian exoteric understanding, and Buddhist cosmology is designed so perfectly to be assumable as either a literal cosmology, a symbolic representation of the mind, body, and secular life, or both at once.

>You dont need to worry about afterlife or reincarnation because you've already died within your own memory

Don't worry one second about anything in this sentence because it's nonsense.

>Nirvana seems more like a mental habit of resistance and understanding than some magical state

You're headed in the right direction. Nirvana is acquiescence into samadhi, samadhi is a state of deeper dhyana, dhyana is just meditation. One can practice dhyana at all times (zen), and maintain perfect buddhahood. This samadhi of perfect acquiescence, even during action, is also called Prajnaparamita.

>>18430505
1. Correct.
2. Acceptable. I would manage only with negative characteristics, any positive ones only cloud consciousness.
3. Something like that.

>>18430515
This. Buddhism is an anti-natalist psyop

>>18430505
Seems pretty accurate. Another good Buddhist book to read is THE ZEN TEACHINF OF HUANG PO.

>>18430505
>This understanding allows for a fairly secular buddhism right? You dont need to worry about afterlife or reincarnation because you've already died within your own memory

>>18430515
good

>>18430505
>therefore the difference between the moment of death and any other moments of passing life is nil because both are just the fluctuation of aggregates?
If this is true there is no purpose to trying to achieve freedom from being reborn because you are not reborn but the thing that is reborn is someone or something else anyway regardless of what you do now

>Secondly Nirvana is not heaven or some special state but is to simply see/feel/understand things for what they really are (empty, and ineffably illogical)?
What about Parinirvana though? The one that occurs after the death of the body? Is this still a special state or is it just the end of the illusory being produced by the aggregates, i.e. annihilation? If it's just the end of the aggregates and that's it then that amounts to a nihilistic extinction.

If you know that everything comes from the mind, don't become attached...
understanding comes mid-sentence, what good are doctrines?

>a fairly secular buddhism
It's already secular. Buddhism isn't a religion or a spirituality. It's basically an ancient, naive form of atheism with some self-help shit attached. The "spiritual" elements like gods, rebirth, karma etc. are vestiges of the time and place it originated from and spread to; and are hardly fundamental to the "religion".

>>18430515
Buddhism only teaches the annihilation of ignorance. There is no person to be annihilated in the first place.

If you envision a buddha, a dharma, or a bodhisattva and conceive respect for them, you relegate yourself to the realm of mortals. If you seek direct understanding, don't hold on to any appearance whatsoever and you'll succeed.

>>18432541
I beg to differ.

>>18432541
>There is no person to be annihilated in the first place.
Memes aside, this is literally contradictory to Buddhism itself. The person is the "aggregate of senses" or whatever, which is temporal but still exists.

>>18432598
You should read about difference between atta and puggala then.

>>18432722
No.

>>18432598
You're right, I need to be more careful with my words. Person is a name given to the aggregates by the ignorant mind, and when ignorance is annihilated this person is too. But the aggregates it refers to remain, which is why the Buddha's body existed after his enlightenment.
But there is no person in the sense of a being that is more than the sum of its parts, as most people view themselves.

ITT: people who read nagarjuna without first developing a solid foundation in the early buddhist texts

>>18430505
If you are trying to conceptualize buddhism you already got it wrong. It's 100% practice.

>>18432829
Interestingly enough this is basically what every le enlightened atheist materialist believes.

Really makes you think

>>18432876
damn...

>>18432876
bros I'm really thinking now

>>18432876
>Interestingly enough this is basically what every le enlightened atheist materialist believes.
that's how you know it's bullshit

>>18430505

To attain Nirvana is to essentially become Buddha. Once you attain Nirvana you aren't reborn in the physical world anymore (you escape the cycle), yet people like Buddha are reborn in the world because they chose to do so one more time instead of moving on, just so he can help other people attain Nirvana.

As for rebirth (I didn't read that much on Buddhsim), but rebirths are literally reincarnations as far as I know, otherwise it would be a washed down version of Heraclitus' explanation of multiplicity (like the river of this second is not the same river the next second because everything is moving).

Why did the Swastika get inverted as Buddhism progressed?

>>18433836
proof?

>>18432515
>karma not fundamental to buddhism
okay retard

>>18432876
>>18433525
then le enlightened atheists are right about that. want to eat my ass now?

>>18433854
I assume the Buddhist Swastika was derived from the Hindu one. The Manji is left facing, the opposite of it, so I want to how the symbol changed?

>>18433927
In Hinduism both the right-facing and left-facing ones occur and are associated with different symbolisms. I'm not aware of how the Buddhist ones changed over time or if there was a pattern of them being a certain way early on that was then reversed

>>18433913
>dude I'm not a person I don't exist and I understand this thats why I'm lol so randum

>>18433948
i am a person u can’t run away from i and ego but if u cling to it like it’s not anatta you will suffer

if you’re guenonfag it’s like clinging to lower self instead of knowing atman is brahman

>>18433942
I know. Left facing is associated with Kali. The Buddha Stupa from Najarjunakonda from early 3rd century (way before Buddhism reached Japan(6th CE)), shows right facing Swastika, so I assumed it changed when it spread. Japan also Manji and Ura-Manji, though I don't know much much about it.

>>18432876
But atheists assume that the nonexistence of the soul implies the nonexistence of life after death. They go a step too far.

>>18433994
>They go a step too far.
??? as opposed to...

>>18430505
>Have i understood buddhism correctly (after reading Nagarjuna, in the buddha's words, what the budfha taught and the dhammpada):
>Rebirth: this is something perpetually happening netween every moment of your life (ie you are undergoimg a constamt reconstitution in terms of the aggregates) therefore the difference between the moment of death and any other moments of passing life is nil because both are just the fluctuation of aggregates?
Yes but birth is coming to be through identification. You would stop being born moment to moment if you stopped assuming self in aggregates.


>Secondly Nirvana is not heaven or some special state but is to simply see/feel/understand things for what they really are (empty, and ineffably illogical)? Ultimately this is no different to samsara its just almost embracing samsara for what it actually is rather than being deluded about it. At this point you're essentially above grasping onto continued existence?
You literally stop existing, because existing is an act that you do based on ignorance.
Nibbana is the end of dukkha.

>This understanding allows for a fairly secular buddhism right? You dont need to worry about afterlife or reincarnation because you've already died within your own memory and Nirvana seems more like a mental habit of resistance and understanding than some magical state
You more or less don't need to concern yourself with rebirth. However don't rule it out either. You might as well assume that it is real and that there are consequences for your actions because it's the safest bet. As long as you are still tethered to being a person, you will never regret being a good person.

>>18433555
Wildly off the mark. Read more.

>>18433964
>The Buddha Stupa
more like buddha stupid LMAO

>>18430515
Not really but some aspects of it I don’t agree with but it leans into this

>>18434346
Because it leans* sorry

haven't been on here in a while. glad /lit/ is taking buddhism more seriously especially the less talked about parts liked nagarrjuna.
Also to the anons talking about looking at a person only as aggregates leads to a sort of athiest materialism they're not completely wrong but this doesn't comprise the whole picture which goes beyond mere syllogistic thinking. You're missing out the big "consciousness" question, and no Im not talking about the momentary risings in awareness I'm talking about awareness itself.

>>18433956
What clings to the I and ego?

>>18434307
kek

>>18434398
Self defeating question. The word "what clings" presupposes an actor. Therefore it is infinite regress

>>18430934
Curious if anyone has investigated whether or not Schlomo and the boys "imported" it to cause more demoralization.

>>18434515

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_Buddhism

>>18434524
Every time.

>>18434515
separate corporate mcmindfulness buddhism with the real deal. If you've ever met actual mayahana or theravada monks in asia they usually dislike the west or capitalistic asian countries that have lost their roots.
This one tibetian monk had a bunch of things to say about his dislike of America, Korea and China. He said Japan is still okay since they've held onto their culture

>>18434418
>stop clinging to I and ego
okay but what clings?
>SILLY QUESTION!
Buddhists I swear...

>>18434291

Typical retard that says "lol no" without bringing any counter-arguments. Read more pseud or don't say anything.

>>18434055
Annihilationism is one of the Wrong Views that the Buddha talked about.

>>18430934
Ironically, it's literally the opposite. Buddhists are encouraged to have children because a human birth (as opposed to rebirth in some other realm) is incredibly precious.

>>18434843
>Annihilationism is one of the Wrong Views that the Buddha talked about
Where Buddha's own teachings differ from annihilationism is not clear

>>18434654
clinging just happens there’s nobody to do it.

when i say you should stop clinging i mean you, the ego and identity that has arisen from this clinging should direct your desire towards ultimate happiness nibanna. we have to speak in convenient terms because ego and self are reality but only superficial reality and necessary to function until nibanna

so stop clinging. who stops clinging? nobody. clinging just happens, it’s a process that is the result of a process before which is also a result of a process that came before it with no beginning

clinging happens. thoughts think themselves.

>>18434869
i’m not that anon but i don’t think the buddha agreed or disagreed with annihilationism because both sides of it are wrong. there’s nothing to annihilate or not annihilate. think beyond duality or atleast try to

>>18434934
>there’s nothing to annihilate or not annihilate
If there is nothing existing whatever that amounts to ontological nihilism

if you are supposed to realize that there was never anything to annihilate because there was never a presence that could be annihilated to begin with, then the transition itself from the state of existing as delusion to a state of non-existence is itself an annihilation.

>>18434869
Well, he doesn't believe that things get annihilated, so I'd say that no his teachings are pretty different from annihilationism.

>>18434961
>If there is nothing existing whatever that amounts to ontological nihilism
Annihilationism is false precisely because things exist, anon.

>>18434974
>Well, he doesn't believe that things get annihilated, so I'd say that no his teachings are pretty different from annihilationism.
I know, my point was that even though Buddha claims in the Pali Canon that its not, we don't know if we can take him at his word, since there are other things about his doctrine that imply it is.

>Annihilationism is false precisely because things exist, anon.
So what happens to them?

>>18434869
There is some debate over whether Nirvana is annihilation within Buddhism. Some Buddhists think there's a special kind of consciousness that is permanent and not suffering, and that it exists after enlightenment.
The Buddha himself refused to answer whether he would exist after death or not, because he saw both answers would lead to clinging, and therefore suffering.

zen is not buddhism
mahayana is not buddhism
theravada is not buddhism
vajrayana is not buddhism
tibetan buddhism is not buddhism

matsumoto shiro is right

>>18434961
things exist though nobody said they don’t. they just exist impermanately. does that mean nihilism? i don’t know but i think you’re imposing a very modern philosophy in a system that cannot fit it. it’s not applicable. if modern philosophers created nihilism and they did and in their view buddhism fits under it, that’s their view not the buddhas or the unchanging dhamma. i do not deny or accept nihilism it’s just a word which i guess is supposed to have negative connotations and discredit us

> if you are supposed to realize that there was never anything to annihilate because there was never a presence that could be annihilated to begin with, then the transition itself from the state of existing as delusion to a state of non-existence is itself an annihilation

that’s not what annihilation is when it’s used as an accusation. if you change annihilationism to mean we want to annihilate delusions, then sure it’s that but we both know annihilationism is the idea that we are annihilating our existence which is impossible based on the premise

you can change or fit the definition of nihilism, atheism, annihilationism and this and that to fit buddhism but it’s just playing with words that don’t really apply to buddhist thought

all i ask is you understand that we are not trying to annihilate ourselves as some accusers like to say. if you want to say we are annihilating ignorance craving aversion and delusion then you are really just agreeing with us but using a word with heavy implications to play a game of interrogation that you suddenly think you won because we “admit” to it

>>18430505
That's just buddhist modernism. Not really how anyone read the stuff prior to the 19th and 20th centuries.

>>18435021
Not really, the Buddha's pretty clear on his doctrines. Start with What the Buddha Taught, then move onto the Heart Sutra.

>>18435021
>So what happens to them?

what happens to what? things that exist? what things? matter? it passes away every kalapa (subatomic particle used in buddhism) exists for a single moment and passes away. modern science says this already but do we say modern science is annihilationist? thoughts pass away, feelings do too. existence is impermanence we all know this not just buddhists

>>18435065
there is no such thing as buddhism, let go

>>18430505
>Have i understood buddhism correctly
People spend their entire lives studying and practicing buddhism and still don't understand it, you on the other hand just read a couple of wiki articles and book summaries, so what do you think?

>>18435109
buddha said buddhism would become a mere shadow of itself in the subsequent years. i guess he was right on that. i dont say these sects are not buddhism in a buddhist sense, it truly believe they are degenerations

>>18435116
you have wrong view. buddhism is not one concept but there’s different kinds of buddhisms. folk buddhists who don’t even mediate are practicing buddhism but this doesn’t mean they understand what the buddha taught

the buddha taught dharma not buddhism. you can be a buddhist who understands this or that school of buddhism and what it teaches but not understand dharma because you haven’t experienced it

>>18435029
>Some Buddhists think there's a special kind of consciousness that is permanent and not suffering, and that it exists after enlightenment.
Although this would indeed make Buddhism not nihilist annihilationism, these Buddhists who have held to this position are a tiny minority of Buddhist thinkers, and they are attacked and derided by the other more influential and widespread Buddhist schools as holding to incorrect, heretical positions that lead to suffering.

>>18435072
>that’s not what annihilation is when it’s used as an accusation.
It would still be accurate in that context because what you are talking about would result in the ending of or the annihilation of our normal sense of being, as living beings in the world.

>>18435096
>Not really, the Buddha's pretty clear on his doctrines.
Okay then if it's so clear answer this, if nothing continues into Parinirvana after the body dies, and if everything we are now comes to a permanent end, how is that not an annihilation?

>but do we say modern science is annihilationist?
Yes modern science is annihilationist insofar as it says our consciousness is a temporary creation of our body which dies and ceases to exist forever

>>18435176
>what you are talking about would result in the ending of or the annihilation of our normal sense of being, as living beings in the world.
Could say the same thing about the mayavadin view. Be careful.

>>18435176
>if nothing continues into Parinirvana after the body dies
This is incorrect, the Buddha does not say this. Anatta=/=Annihilation.

>>18435229
>Could say the same thing about the mayavadin view.
No, because they explicitly admit the eternal existence of something which continues even after this, and Buddhists as a rule don't admit this

>>18435250
>the Buddha does not say this
He never explicitly said "nothing about you continues into Parinirvana", but he did describe a model of the human being that assigned all mental and physical functioning including consciousness to a bundle of transient aggregates which themselves don't continue into Parinirvana, in the absence of his listing of anything that continues, the implication is that nothing does. If there is something that does, why didn't Buddha mention it?

>>18435283
>they explicitly admit the eternal existence of something which continues even after this, and Buddhists as a rule don't admit this
But everything else is an unreal illusion? Sounds like nihilism to me. It would be far less nihilistic to admit to the emptiness of reality than to say god created a fake world to live in that you can just walk away from eventually to get to the real one.

>>18435366
>Sounds like nihilism to me
No, because nihilism in an ontological sense means that nothing has real existence
>It would be far less nihilistic to admit to the emptiness of reality than to say god created a fake world to live in that you can just walk away from eventually to get to the real one.
No that’s wrong, because in denying that anything has real existence you are arriving at nihilism, which is avoided by saying God is real existence and His pristine existence exists forever

>>18435387
>theology is just verbalized fear of reality
Every time

>>18435283
What part of "Eternalism and Annihilationism are both Wrong Views" are you getting hung up on? If all things exist Emptily, then they continue existing Emptily into Nirvana (or enter a state in which they are not Conditioned, to solve the Mahayana vs Theravada implicit in this).
>but how is this thing that's not annihilation not annihilation?
By virtue of it not being annihilation. The entire point of what the Buddha's doing is rejecting both options and positing a third (okay it's actually a fourth, "Nihilism", and there's actually a bunch more that are super niche, but "Eternalism vs Annihilationism" are the only two that really matter here). He's not taking a side in either, he's offering a model by which things can exist without Atmans (as Nagarjuna demonstrates Annihilationism and Eternalism are both really the same thing).

>>18435392
>pointing out the inconsistencies of Buddhism and asking for further clarification without mentioning any other religion leads Buddhist-posters to randomly bring up a superior doctrine (Advaita Vedanta) and start arguing against it to distract from the inadequacies of their own doctrine
every time

>>18435423
still butthurt about getting btfod in that thread you derailed about ibn-arabi, huh?

>>18435423
>thinks Buddhist doctrines are nonsense because "god did it" is absent from Buddhist texts
I'm just doing a public service.

>>18435417
>If all things exist Emptily, then they continue existing Emptily into Nirvana (or enter a state in which they are not Conditioned, to solve the Mahayana vs Theravada implicit in this).
Nice sleight of hand, but the discussion here concerns Parinirvana, not Nirvana; and Buddhist schools as a rule dont admit that anything continues into Parinirvana after the body dies, even if they say that things still exist emptily while the body is alive, so you are right back at square one.

> as Nagarjuna demonstrates Annihilationism and Eternalism are both really the same thing).
How did he demonstrate that completely two separate positions are the same? Through sophistry?

>>18435430
That thread was created by some mentally ill guy who proceeded to derail his own thread when he started to attack everyone replying to his posts and calling them murtads

>>18435465
>the discussion here concerns Parinirvana, not Nirvana
Given your ignorance of the topic, I'd recommend you do some reading on this subject before making these distinctions. If you're still getting hung up on how Dependent Origination works, you're just going to get more confused by Parinirvana vs Nirvana.

>How did he demonstrate that completely two separate positions are the same?
Because they aren't actually separate positions, they're both incoherencies that dip into each other; one implies the other. For example (this is summary, not Nagarjuna's, feel free to read the Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way if you want to see what he actually says, but again I'd recommend you read something like What the Buddha Taught or the Heart Sutra first as you're new to this sort of stuff) if a thing is Eternal then it has an Atman and that Atman can be destroyed in which case it won't exist so it's not in fact Eternal; likewise, if a thing ends, then it must have had a distinct period in which it existed, so it had an Atman, which are eternal and discrete and unable to change or interact with the world; in order for something to fall under Eternalism, it must also be Annihilationism. The Buddha himself does touch on this when he talks about how ultimately much of our fear comes from believing we simultaneously have something that can exist forever but also being really worried about it somehow being destroyed.

>>18435488
> Given your ignorance of the topic, I'd recommend you do some reading on this subject before making these distinctions
way to avoid giving an answer

> if a thing is Eternal then it has an Atman and that Atman can be destroyed
says who? where is the proof that the Atman can be destroyed? You didn’t offer any

>in which case it won't exist so it's not in fact Eternal;
only if the Atman can be destroyed, but whether or not the Atman can be destroyed to begin with has not been established yet by the reasoning you laid out, see what I mean about Nagarjuna being a sophist?

>>18435472
yes, im sure there are many people interested in an obscure indian mystic because an equally obscure french orientalist mentioned him once.

>>18434291
I would say sit more.

>>18435519
>uhh you haven't proven the eternal self (something I made up) can be destroyed, so you're a sophist
You're lucky it's even being entertained.

>>18435519
All things that begin end, and all things that cannot change through time (as an Atman can't) must begin and end. Atmans are simply incoherent, anon. You can come up with trivial solutions like Shankara's where nothing else exists but Atman, but this is demonstrably false otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation because computers aren't real.

Start with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra. Arguing on the internet will only make you more miserable.

>>18435563
>Start with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra. Arguing on the internet will only make you more miserable.
I would say you can't get him to read a book but it's actually not true.
This thread is now blessed by Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso. Understanding that Consciousness and Emptiness are non-dual will rise from the ocean of nectar like a white lotus, but only if you post "/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book" in this thread

>>18435560
Nagarjuna’s whole argument which he uses to purportedly show that eternalism and annihilationism are the same relies on a claim which he offers no proof or evidence whatsoever for, that’s sophistry

>>18435563
>All things that begin end, and all things that cannot change through time (as an Atman can't) must begin and end.
Why should something which doesn’t change in time must have a beginning and end? That doesn’t make any sense. An eternal unchanging thing by definition neither changes nor does it have a beginning or end, you have not offered any argument that refutes the concept of an eternal unchanging thing itself.

>but this is demonstrably false otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation because computers aren't real.
what do you mean? Advaita admits the distinction between appearance and reality, so their doctrine allows for computers to exist conditionally within the world of appearance

> Arguing on the internet will only make you more miserable.
pointing out the contradictions in Buddhism and the sophistic reasoning used by Buddhist thinkers brings me amusement actually

>>18435603
>wtf atmans are incoherent!
thats literally what he just said dude. thats the entire point. thats the entire fucking point of buddhism. atmans are incoherent, here is why, buddha gives you an alternative that makes sense.

>>18435649
>atmans are incoherent,
except that no argument has been provided yet that would support this conclusion, so there is in fact no reason to think that the concept of Atman is incoherent

You gave an example of Nagarjuna's arguments, then I pointed out that Nagarjuna's argument was fallacious because it claims Atmans can be destroyed but without giving any evidence to think this is true

Then you said "but it must be true because if something doesn't change then it must have a beginning and end", and then I challenged this and said "nonsense! an eternal unchanging thing exists forever without end". And then you had no response other than to assert that Atman's are incoherent, but without giving any good reason why.

>buddha gives you an alternative that makes sense.
lol

>>18430505
Buddhisms fatal flaw is teaching people that they have eternal chances, infinite opportunity to ''get saved/Enlightenment'', which convinces most householders and laity to not take it seriously and just enough good to avoid being reborn as a worm or grasshopper, aiming for a slightly better rebirth as a human. They also ignore God, their actual creator and ignore the reality of their soul and it's hunger to seek God.

>>18435851
that was my first post in the thread. maybe you should read what nagarjuna said before you cast judgement on him? hell maybe you should read what the buddha said first. by your own admission you dont know what you are talking about and are just running off of memes here.

>>18435603
>relies on a claim which he offers no proof or evidence whatsoever for, that’s sophistry
Good to know that's your definition of sophistry, theologian.

>>18435938
>that was my first post in the thread
I didn't realize the other person wasn't you

>hell maybe you should read what the buddha said first.
I have already read 'What the Buddha Taught' by W. Rahula and select suttas online on accesstoinsight and have seen Buddhism covered and summarized in countless other articles and book chapters. I still hold the same conclusions about Buddhism being generally illogical and contradictory.

>maybe you should read what nagarjuna said before you cast judgement on him?
I'm calling him a sophist, because he uses evidently sophistic arguments as I just pointed out. I will almost certainly read him eventually because I find eastern philosophy interesting, but he is pretty far down my list because I don't consider him that interesting relative to other eastern thinkers. Other academics with expertise in the subject have called him a sophist before as well (Richard Robinson, among others), I'm hardly the first person to say that about him.

>by your own admission you dont know what you are talking about
I never said that. I don't need to read Nagarjuna to pick apart the "argument" the other anon offered.

You and the other Buddhists still have not answered how Buddhism is not an annihilation of one's being if the aggregates are extinguished and don't continue into Parinirvana. When raising the question earlier the responses I got were

>it's not an annihilation if you didn't exist to begin with
This is wrong because the transition from illusory existence to not existing at all is still an extinction or annihilation of that very being, regardless if it's illusory. Calling it illusory doesn't change that this answer is still tacitly leading to the complete ending (i.e. annihilation) of everything that constitutes our being.

>things aren't annihilated because they still exist... emptily...
This is wrong because it's a sleight of hand that seeks to redirect the question to Nirvana as experienced while in the body and not what happens in Parinirvana after the body dies. Even those who say that things exist emptily like Madhyamakins don't say that the aggregates exist emptily or non-emptily in Parinirvana after the body dies, so that answer doesn't absolve Buddhism of annihilationism

>>18435860
Theism's fatal flaw is teaching people that they have an infinitely forgiving judger to ''let them into heaven'', which convinces most householders and laity to not take it seriously and just enough good to avoid being being sent to hell. They also ignore the Dharma, the actual truth and ignore the reality of the emptiness of their selves, which implies of the futility of hungering and seeking.

>>18436009
>Calling it illusory doesn't change that this answer is still tacitly leading to the complete ending (i.e. annihilation) of everything that constitutes our being.
And yet, the mayavadin's neat trick to avoid this annihilation is the incredulous claim that his atman was brahman all along. Do you have any evidence? Otherwise I'm afraid you may be a sophist.

>>18435951
Sophistry means specious reasoning, as in superficially plausible but actually wrong.

Nagarjuna's argument may seem superficially plausible to people who lack the ability to critically analyze things, but it turns out to be wrong because it purports to prove a claim via relying on another claim which it doesn't prove or offer evidence for; so because of that it fails to prove the original claim which his whole argument is directed towards because the arguments which are supposed to lead to this conclusion are themselves without any force.

>>18436012
>no self
>every experience and phenomena is illusory
>no go on a wild goose chase trying to enlighten yourself (but you have no self)

>>18436031
>And yet, the mayavadin's neat trick to avoid this annihilation is the incredulous claim that his atman was brahman all along. Do you have any evidence? Otherwise I'm afraid you may be a sophist.
When confronted with the contradictions in Buddhism you love to reach out and suddenly talk about Advaita as if that would absolve Buddhism of its problems, it's wont.

The mayavadins aka Advaitins aren't propounding an annihilationism to begin with which they would want to avoid since they say that consciousness is eternal and moksha is realizing your own consciousness as it truly is in its eternal nature without confusing it for anything else or confusing other things for your own self that is consciousness.

> Do you have any evidence? Otherwise I'm afraid you may be a sophist.
I'm not a sophist, because I'm not advancing any argument here about Advaita which I'm attempting to prove via sophistic or non-sophistic means, I'm instead pointing out the contradictions in Buddhism and you are trying to distract from that.

>>18436012
>no self
>God doesn't matter, don't ask how you got here or who made you
>every experience and phenomena is illusory
>now go on a wild-goose chase trying to enlighten yourself (but you have no self)

>>18435540

>>18436057
You aren't chasing the enlightenment of any "self". Enlightenment means letting go of the ignorance that causes a "self" to be created. Enlightened beings don't think that they have enlightened "themselves".

>>18436067
kek. this always BTFOs nerdvana fags.

>>18436086
Who's creating the self through their ignorance?

>>18436036
>I haven't read Nagarjuna, but...
Then your opinion doesn't matter.

>>18436067
Brahmin status: Broken.

>>18436096
Precisely.

>>18436106
>Then your opinion doesn't matter.
You are a hypocrite since you offer your opinion on Hindu thinkers whom you haven't read and you act as if your conclusions and judgements about them matter, when by your own standard they wouldn't.

In any case, I already demonstrated that Nagarjuna's argument against the Atman as laid out by the other anon was sophistic. And I'm not even here in this thread to attack Nagarjuna but was only asking about why Buddhism isn't annihilationism and was subjecting the answers Buddhists gave to critical analysis.

>>18436067
>don't ask how you got here or who made you
Buddhism says you are completely free to ask those things, but the truth is that nobody knows the answer, and you don't need to know the answer to not suffer at all or be perfectly moral.

But in asking those questions you are presupposing that it is ever possible for something to come into being that isn't already existent, which is a view that Buddism rejects as ignorant.

>>18436112
>I'll try psudeoprofundities. That's a good trick!

>>18436096
Parts of the universe that are only superficially separated from the entire universe, and are actually one with the entire universe

>>18436119
See >>18436106

>>18436135
Parts can't be identical (one with) with the whole which is comprised of parts, that violates the law of non-contradiction since you're saying that the same single thing exists both as an incomplete part and as the complete whole, but these statuses are mutually exclusive and cannot be applied to the same thing without violating logic.

>>18436096
Ignorance is an impersonal force. Have you ever said something you didn't really mean when you were angry? It's like someone else shouted out of your mouth. Everyone's mind contains a bunch of different emotions trying to control the whole thing. Ignorance, greed, and hatred use the idea of self to beat down knowledge, generosity and compassion.

>>18436146
I've already conclusively demonstrated that Nagarjuna's arguments are sophistic, and I'm still waiting on someone to explain how Buddhism isn't annihilationism, if you'd like a recap of how the previously given answers to this problem are wrong and insufficient you can find that in the latter part of this post >>18436009

>>18436153
>Ignorance is an impersonal force.
What reason is there to assume that when in our experience we find that only living beings can know things and conversely be ignorant of things?

>>18436148
The parthood of the part is not real.

>>18436058
>When confronted with the contradictions in Buddhism you love to reach out and suddenly talk about Advaita as if that would absolve Buddhism of its problems, it's wont.
"Annihilation" is a loaded accusation that can really only come from theists. "What do you mean you don't personally continue when you die? You're a nihilist. The x is permanent because it has God as its underwriter." There's simply no evidence of this. It is conjecture. It is a product of mentation. It is conceptual. The actual nihilist here is obvious.
>The mayavadins aka Advaitins aren't propounding an annihilationism to begin with which they would want to avoid since they say that consciousness is eternal and moksha is realizing your own consciousness as it truly is in its eternal nature without confusing it for anything else or confusing other things for your own self that is consciousness.
Nothing is real except consciousness? Sounds an awful lot like Yogacara. Just how many Buddhists did advaita-sama rip off?

>>18436171
Real enough to create a self, apparently.

>>18436175
>Buddhist is not only a closet nihilist, he's a pedo too

>>18436175
>"Annihilation" is a loaded accusation that can really only come from theists.
No it's not, it's an accurate description of what Buddhism proposes by saying you are mere aggregates which are ended and which don't continue into Parinirvana.
>"What do you mean you don't personally continue when you die? You're a nihilist.
Nihilism is separate from annihilationism, what you are talking about in this sentence is the latter
>Nothing is real except consciousness? Sounds an awful lot like Yogacara. Just how many Buddhists did advaita-sama rip off?
No, Advaita is quite different from Yogachara, which Shankara refuted in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya. There are very different types of Yogachara, the Yogacharins consider prominent by later Buddhists like Dharmakirti and Dinnaga deny that consciousness is eternal and they say that ideations know themselves without that ideation being known by a separate awareness, Advaita disagrees with both of these positions in addition to numerous other things about Yogachara. Lastly, the Upanishads dating from before Buddha say that Brahman alone is real and that Brahman is consciousness.

>>18436202
The real nonreal dichotomy is an attached view

>>18436238

In his criticism to Vijñanavada, Sankara presents select arguments as the prima facieposition that can be identified as those of Vasubandhu, Dinnaga, and Dharmakirti. They are:

1. Entities cannot be confirmed either as ‘part,’ in the form of atoms, or as ‘whole,’ composed of atoms.

2. Entities are determined due to cognition. This position, as summarized by Ingalls, is that “the particularization need actually be only of the cognition, not of the thing.

3. Since cognition and their correspondents are simultaneous, there exists no difference between them.

4. Just as dreaming does not require the external existence of the dream objects, so also are the entities of the waking state.

5. Consciousness can arise due to the rise of various ‘impressions’ (vasana).

Sankara initiates his response to the above arguments with the statement that an external entity cannot be denied because it is cognized in every act of knowledge. If this criticism were to confirm the reality of the objects of perception independent of Brahman, that would repudiate the very Advaita doctrine that something exists other than Brahman. Advaitins respond to this objection by adopting two or three degrees of reality, wherein the reality of external entities applies only to conventional (vyavahara) or illusory (pratibhasa) states of consciousness and is not applicable to the highest state of non-dual awareness.

The stark contrast between Sankara’s Advaita and Yogacara becomes clearly apparent during an examination of their respective doctrines of perception: The Advaitins understand Brahman to be the highest universal (mahasamanya), and to be directly apprehended in the first flash of perception, whereas the Buddhist epistemology developed by Dinnaga determines that the particular (svalaksana) is the object of perception and that the universal (samanya-laksana) is the object of inference.

It is noteworthy that these two philosophies interpret the universal (samanya) differently. For the Advaitins this is a universal generalization, whereas for the Yogacarins, it is a mental construct. Dinnaga identifies perception as the act that is free from conceptual construction. According to Advaita, only the realization of Brahman is free from conceptual constructs.

>>18436262
It is also noteworthy that Sankara criticizes the Yogacara position that is compatible to the doctrine of momentariness. It is not necessarily the case that all the Yogacarins adopt this position. For instance, the Lankavatarasutra (LAS) of the Yogacara tradition stands apart from the Asanga/ Maitreya position in maintaining that the Alayavijñana is non-momentary insofar as it is pervaded by undefiled factors. The second objection of the Vijñanavadins, that it is actually cognition and not an object that is particularized in the mode of awareness, raises the issue of the self-reflexive nature of consciousness. Just as the doctrines of cinmatra and cittamatra appear similar, so also do the concepts of self-awareness (svaprakasata) of the Advaitins and self-cognition (svasamvedana) of the Yogacarins.

Sankara, however, rejects the Yogacara concept of svasamvedana. This rejection is crucial to understanding the distinctions between the nature of consciousness as recognized in these two schools of thought. Although there are subtle inner differences, all the Advaitins agree that the awareness that is identical to the self is svaprakasa. Sankara’s rejection of svasamvedana, therefore, requires a closer examination. Sankara raises multiple arguments against the concept of svasamvedana. He finds it problematic that the momentary nature of consciousness as recognized in the doctrine of cittamatra can be self-cognizing. He argues, the consciousness that lasts for one moment collapses by just cognizing itself and it cannot find itself in the forms of the subject and object of cognition.

>>18436267
Sankara’s next argument against the self-cognizing nature of consciousness compares consciousness to the flame of a lamp. Sankara argues that there is a contradiction in accepting the cognizing act itself as the object of cognition. To cognize is a transitive action; it is to be aware of something. Sankara finds it problematic to accept this action to also be the object of cognition. He demonstrates this contradiction with the example that ‘fire burns itself.’ What is identified as vijñapti in the Yogacara school and also identified as self-cognizing, is explicitly not the Advaitins’ consciousness (cit) that is self-aware. The vijñapti that is being criticized by Sankara to be self-cognizing is synonymous to pratyaya, vikalpa, buddhi, vrtti, or buddhivrtti. in the philosophy of Sankara. And following the Advaitins, pratyayas are not considered to be self-aware. The awareness that is self-aware in the Advaita doctrine is not the momentary consciousness identified by the Buddhists.

Sankara replies to the Vijñanavada argument that accepting consciousness being revealed by another consciousness leads to infinite regress, with a statement that the witnessing self is not an object of perception and so it does not require another subject to be perceived. Sankara further argues that the self is self-evident and is not dependent upon any means of knowledge for its confirmation. Sankara also rejects the argument that the consciousness that is momentary is also reflexive. The example he provides is the comparison to a lamp, suggesting that in the absence of a conscious self, a lamp cannot reveal anything. This objection relies on the difference between Advaita and Vijñanavada:

>>18436276
According to the Advaitins, there exists a permanent self that witnesses the rise and collapse of mental modifications, whereas following the Vijñanavadins, there is no self as substrate, apart from the very consciousness that is simultaneously grasped as subject and object. The concept of self-cognition, with its terminology of svasamvedana, is attributed to Dinnaga, and most of Sankara’s arguments appear to encounter Dinnaga’s position. Hattori’s translation of the passage from Dinnaga’s Pramana Samuccaya that addresses svasamvedana follows:

There is also mental [perception, which is of two kinds:] awareness of an [external] object and self-awareness of [such subordinate mental activities as] desire and the like, [both of which are] free from conceptual construction.

The self-cognition, as identified here by Dinnaga, includes desire, anger, ignorance, pleasure, pain, etc., that are mental states. This passage does not explicitly address the self-cognizing nature of all instances of cognition. Another passage, explicitly the passage from the Vrtti, makes the broader claim of svasamvedana:

Or [it can be maintained that] the self-cognition or the cognition cognizing itself (svasamvedana) is here the result [of the act of cognizing]. Every cognition is produced with a twofold appearance, namely, that of itself [as subject] (svabhasa), and that of the object (visaya bhasa). The cognizing of itself as [possessing] these two appearances or the self-cognition (svasamvitti) is the result [of the cognitive act].

Both the arguments of Sankara,

1) that the momentary nature of cognition cannot be self-cognizing while manifesting itself in the forms of grahya and grahaka, and

2) that there is a contradiction in accepting a single cognition to be both action and object, can be considered to be the Advaita response to Dinnaga’s position cited above.

Sankara refutes the argument that there is infinite regress in accepting a higher order consciousness that is aware of cognitions. This objection is raised by Dinnaga in this very sequence.

>>18436168
Ignorance is part of the mind, but it's not a developed being. It gathers a bunch of ideas and tells you that that's your self. But every time it brings different ideas and tells you it's the same self.

>>18436280
Sankara’s refutation of the definition of ‘object’ while countering Vijñanavada is explicitly the position of Dinnaga. The definition under consideration is:

Antarjneyarupam tu bhairvad avabhasate so ‘rthah/
The object [of cognition] is that which appears as if outside [although] is inside, in the form of knowable.

The objection of Sankara to this definition is, what is it that is referred to by ‘as if outside’ (bahirvad)? The heart of the objection is that, if there are no real externals, how can there be something that is ‘as if’ external? This objection of Sankara can be compared to that of Bhavya, who says that there is no valid example (drstanta) in Dinnaga’s rejection of external objects. The third argument of Vijñanavadins examined by Sankara is the concept of sahopalambha. In refutation of this concept, Sankara argues that the simultaneity of cognition and its referent is determined due to the relationship of sense–object and its concept as cause and effect, and not because of the identity between cognition and its referent.

Although Sankara does not distinguish between Sakara and Nirakara doctrines of Vijñanavada, the arguments he has criticized up to this point are primarily those of the Sakaravadins, who held that perception does not grasp the object directly but through the intermediary of image (Akara). On the contrary, the Vijñanavadins adopting the Nirakara position held that cognition is free from image. The prominent philosophers such as Dinnaga, Dharmapala, and Dharmakirti are identified with the first school, whereas philosophers such as Asanga, Vasubandhu, and Sthiramati are identified with the second school. Although the two objections that Sankara subsequently raised and are discussed below represent the position shared by all the Vijñanavadins, these primarily represent the philosophy of the Nirakaravadins.

>>18436298
Sankara’s rejection of the identification of the waking state with dream relies on two arguments. One, the contents of the dream state do not exist in the waking state whereas the entities of waking state are not negated the same way. Next, he argues that perception and memory are two different faculties of consciousness, and he compares dream to memory, and consciousness in the waking state to perception.

Just as the analysis of dream is crucial to understanding Sankara’s own Advaita system, it is equally important in knowing the distinction between the application of dream in the systems of Advaita and Yogacara. In refuting the dream analogy of Vasubandhu, Sankara’s critique relies on the notion of ‘externality,’ that if there were no externals as such, any denial of such experience would be implausible. While maintaining the existence of only Brahman in the absolute sense, Sankara posits that the experience of the world is not invalid at the time of that experience.

>>18436280
the advaitins are fools by account. thanks for sharing the name of what that school of thought belongs to, though. ill be sure to mention that it's the advaitins when i come to associate that extremely fallacious and faulty view that there is a permanent self watching impartially as all events collapse onto each other. 0/10 idea.

>>18436308
The final objection that Sankara raises concerns the Vijñanavada response that although there are no externals, it is due to impressions (vasana) that dreams or concepts arise. Sankara argues that impressions (vasana) cannot rise in the absence of external objects, as these are their imprints. He then argues, if impressions (vasana) are independent of external entities for generating impressions, this will lead to infinite regress. Sankara adheres to the existence of external objects in this sequence for the reasons that impressions (vasana) cannot arise in the absence of external objects whereas external entities can be perceived even in the absence of impressions (vasanas). According to Sankara, impressions are properties that require the property holder, the substrate, for them to exist.

Sankara is aware of the Vijñanavada response to the criticism of the momentary nature of consciousness that Alaya consciousness (Alayavijñana) functions as the substrate for the rise of functioning consciousness (pravrttivijñana). Sankara argues that the Alaya-consciousness that in itself is momentary cannot be the foundation for impressions (vasana).

>>18436314
>the advaitins are fools by account.
They are not fools but the opposite, Advaitins like Shankara conclusively refuted Buddhism
>thanks for sharing the name of what that school of thought belongs to,
Your welcome, I quoted that passage to show how Advaita was different from Yogachara after another anon alleged that Advaita was the same or a copy of Yogachara.
>though. ill be sure to mention that it's the advaitins when i come to associate that extremely fallacious and faulty view that there is a permanent self watching impartially as all events collapse onto each other. 0/10 idea.
What's faulty or fallacious about that?

>>18436332
>Shankara conclusively refuted Buddhism
that's not what the book in >>18436322 says and it's recommended by none other than guenonfag

>>18436213
This is an anime website. You still lingering here after 2016 is what is the most ridiculous.
>>18436315
You shat an entire essay of brahminical scholasticism spread across half a dozen character limted posts just to say "no it's not consciousness only, it's consciousness only plus atman-brahman."

>>18436362
>that's not what the book in >>18436322 says
She doesn't rule it out as something which is wrong or impossible, she just states that she can't confidently assign Shankara with singlehandedly driving it from India with his refutations. It was the combination of Shankara's criticisms of Buddhism with those made by other Hindu thinkers like Kumarila and Shaivists that drove Buddhism out of India, Shankara's criticisms just played a large part. Shankara conclusively refuted Buddhism, but his doing so was just part of a larger process whereby Buddhism was vanquished from India.
>>18436372
>You shat an entire essay of brahminical scholasticism spread across half a dozen character limted posts just to say "no it's not consciousness only, it's consciousness only plus atman-brahman."
No, I quoted from an essay mentioned Shankara's refutations of Yogachara Buddhism to highlight how different Advaita and Yogachara are, a more in-depth discussion of how Advaita differs from Yogachara and how Advaita is more logical than Yogachara Buddhism can be found in Sharma's "The Advaita Traditon in Indian Philosophy"

>>18436470
>part of a larger process whereby Buddhism was vanquished from India
Not true, it lives there rent-free to this day in every post-classical Hindu commentary.

>>18436592
based. buddhism will always make brahmins panic and seethe even if they genocided all buddhists

>>18436175
>Yogacara
Yogacara is considered basically wrong view of the highest caliber by Gelukpas and others. Let alone Theravadins.

>>18436592
>>18436671
Based Sankara making Hinduism Buddhist

>>18433555
>To attain Nirvana is to essentially become Buddha. Once you attain Nirvana you aren't reborn in the physical world anymore (you escape the cycle), yet people like Buddha are reborn in the world because they chose to do so one more time instead of moving on, just so he can help other people attain Nirvana.
I think you're wrong.
"bodhisattva" is the term for someone who decides,moved by compassion, to avoid exiting samsara in order to help othe people.
buddha died at 80 yo and then he didn't reincarnate.
you're confusing the definitions of "buddha" and "bodhisattva"

>>18430505
How you understand Buddhism is what I do too. An ordained nun taught me.

But also when I die I won't be aware of anything so that is a change

>>18436332
>They are not fools but the opposite, Advaitins like Shankara conclusively refuted Buddhism
Ironically, most Hindu thinkers disagree.

>>18439255
>Ironically, most Hindu thinkers disagree
The section of Ramanuja’s Vedanta-Sutra Bhasya where he refutes Buddhism has been described before as a réchauffé of Shankara’s earlier commentary on that same section

>>18439291

>>18439291
h

>>18439291
was it ramanuja or madhvacharya the one that came up with the whole
>shankara chose monism because he couldnt count past 1
thing?

>>18439363
I'm pretty sure it was Madhvacharya, yeah. He was the one that popularized earlier criticisms demonstrating that Shankara was a Crypto-Buddhist, and not a very clever one.

>>18439315
>>18439307
The other Vedantins are unironically just coping because Shankara’s Advaita is a straight forward reading of the Upanishads, they feel like they have to call him a Buddhist to delegitimize him to give their own system further legitimacy, but most of them didnt even understand Shankara’s position and it shows.

The primary Upanishads dont talk about grace and devotion at all, and they repeatedly say that rituals are a part of the lower knowledge and that they dont produce liberation (e.g. Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.20) Its not until the secondary texts like the Puranas, Gita, Pancharatra etc that a focus on bhakti emerges, the primary Upanishads are devoid of it. The text known as the Brahma Sutras which are the immediate consolidation of Upanishadic doctrine don’t contain the Sanskrit words for devotion or grace once in their entire text, but they do contain the word maya in verse 3.2.3. If bhakti and grace was essential to Vedanta they would be mentioned by name in the Brahma Sutra. Bhaskara’s comment that the Brahma Sutras dont say that the bondage of the Atman is a false appearance is contestable, according to Advaita the Brahma Sutras say that the individual soul is an appearance (of Brahman) only, which implies that it's existence as such as a delimited individual soul (as other than Brahman) is an deception or illusion, a mere appearance, this occurs in Brahma Sutra 2.3.50-51. which after a prior section talking about the soul says: “And (the individual soul is) an appearance (reflection) only. On account of the unseen principle being non-limitative.”

The nonsense allegation that Shankara agrees with Buddhism is part of the other Vedantins attempt to foster their non-Vedic doctrines derived from Pancharatra etc onto the Upanishads. Bhaskara’s comment that Advaita is subjective idealism just shows he has no idea what he is talking about. Shankara distinguishes his own ontological idealism which accepts the empirical reality of the world from the subjective idealism of the Buddhists which rejects it, Shankara refutes subjective idealism in his works. In Advaita the world appearance exists outside our individual perception and is sustained by Brahman so by definition it can’t be subjective idealism which refers to doctrines where the world doesn’t exist aside from it being crafted by the mind/ignorance of individual beings.

There isn’t any doctrine of Shankara accepted by Buddhists or vice-versa, even the way in which they both consider there to be multiple levels of existence is way different, for one thing Advaita unlike Buddhism admits that the absolute truth actually exists as a changeless, permanent, inexhaustible reality with its own svabhava. In the Isayeva quote she deceptively omits that in his magnum opus the Advaitin Sriharsa explicitly distinguishes Advaita from Buddhism by noting that Advaitins accept the absolute existence of consciousness while Buddhists dont which changes everything.

>>18439678
didn't read

>>18439678
>is shankara crypto buddhist
>everyone in indian history including all other indians: yes
>you: no, if you just read the upanishads like i havent, you will see the truth

>>18439724
Other schools of Hinduism and Buddhism alike are both refuted by Advaita so they bring up the Buddhism allegation in lieu of having good arguments against Advaita, because whenever the two sides are contrasted Advaita inevitably comes out on top as more logically consistent than whatever Buddhist or Hindu school its contrasted with.

>>18430505
>>18439678

This thread was moved to >>>/his/11331601