/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18800693]

>>Buddhism=nihilism=atheism

[Sage No.18800710]

>>18800693
This looks more appropriate as a snapshot of the evolafag brain.

[Anonymous No.18800795]

I'm almost sure that the Christian mindset is a result of bad karma accumulated from previous lives which makes the poor souls unable to do good without a carrot on a stick in front of their eyes. If you were a rapist for 1000 lifetimes maybe Christianity is being presented to you because there is no other way to make you into a good person beside the threat of burning for literally forever.

[Anonymous No.18800824]

>>18800795
>makes the poor souls unable to do good without a carrot on a stick in front of their eyes
Buddhism has plenty of carrot (good rebirths) and plenty of stick (hells and bad rebirths)

[Anonymous No.18801167]

>>18800824
Fool. Buddhism teaches us to release ourselves from the cycle of fear and desire. Only through this is karma a positive force. Rebirths are not a reward for being a good person as is the case in Christianity because if i am doing it for that consequence I am not doing it for any good at all besides feeding my desires. You're clearly not well read in these systems.
thank you, next

[Anonymous No.18801702]

>>18800693
Who actually calls themselves a nihilist?

[Anonymous No.18801712]

>>18801702
Children

[Anonymous No.18801714]

>>18801167
you sound like a westie convert. People who are born Buddhist from Buddhist countries do treat rebirth in heaven or hell as a carrot/stick.

[Anonymous No.18801717]

>Modern philosophical schools of Buddhism are all more or less influenced by a spirit of sophistic nihilism. They deal with Nirvāṇa as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract. They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvāṇa is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.

>According to them the soul enjoys in Nirvāṇa neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither annihilated nor non-annihilated. Nirvāṇa is to them a state of which nothing can be said, to which no attributes can be given; it is altogether an abstract, devoid alike of all positive and negative qualities.

>What shall we say of such empty useless speculations, such sickly, dead words, whose fruitless sophistry offers to that natural yearning of the human heart after an eternal rest nothing better than a philosophical myth? It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.

- Ernst Johann Eitel

[Anonymous No.18801732]

>>18800693
These brainlet images always make me laugh

[Anonymous No.18801739]

>>18800693
Buddhism is ninhilism with rituals and rites.

Nice religion there buddyyrw0j.

[Anonymous No.18801753]

Buddhism=partial, forced and indirect revelation about the moral law=filling up the holes with pre existing paganism=mess of superstitions=karma used as spook and to ignore the suffering of the others=seeking refuge in the void=cult of the void=crypto death cult=onions religion in the west because it doesn't assert divinity=actual religion of hedonistic wealthy ppl enjoying their karma points earned in the 10.000 previous lives

[Anonymous No.18802878]

>>18801714
Plebs does, indeed. Also Christian spiritual patricians ascend beyond sticks and carrots of their religion. The difference is that in Buddhism you have to be explicitly retarded to interpret it in such way while in Christianity you have to be explicitly brilliant to see through this rhetoric of reward and punishment and treat it accordingly.

That's why westie converts, who fall somewhere in the middle, become, well, converts. Why should they insist on learning to scratch left ear with their right hand when Asians show them the normal way of scratching ears?

[Anonymous No.18802998]

>>18801714
yawn
>>18801717
written by one who belongs to an even more meaningless church than Catholics
>>18802878
>Plebs does, indeed. Also Christian spiritual patricians ascend beyond sticks and carrots of their religion.
The fear of God finds its way into every argument on the merits of Christianity.
>while in Christianity you have to be explicitly brilliant to see through this rhetoric of reward and punishment and treat it accordingly.
>you need to be brilliant to understand the thing which I am not going to explain

[Anonymous No.18803109]

>>18801717
Buddhism is a school of radical introspection. The kind of introspection which pulls you out from the river of words and other mental symbols mr Eitel likes to splah in so much. What he calls intellectual suicide is the practice of sitting on a shore and observing the swirls and currents instead of being carried on by them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas#Final_days_and_%22straw%22_(1272%E2%80%931274)
> On 6 December 1273, another mystical experience took place. While he was celebrating Mass, he experienced an unusually long ecstasy.[65] Because of what he saw, he abandoned his routine and refused to dictate to his socius Reginald of Piperno. When Reginald begged him to get back to work, Thomas replied: "Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me"[66] (mihi videtur ut palea).[67] As a result, the Summa Theologica would remain uncompleted.

[Anonymous No.18803122]

>reincarnation exists because….
>it just does, ok!

[Anonymous No.18803158]

>>18801702
14 year olds and mentally challenged people

[Anonymous No.18803168]

>>18803109
very nicely said anon

[Anonymous No.18803179]

Buddha rejected both eternalism and voidness/nihilism.

[Anonymous No.18803208]

>>18803122
that's when the crypto-materialist Buddhists who are more conscious and accepting of their condition, compared to those who are unawares, come out of the woodwork and say "well uh, you so rebirth is really just metaphor/upaya etc since "you" and consciousness don't any continuance in the next life and a totally new conscious is created with no transition of subjective experience from one to the other and in each life the stream of conscious experience faces an obliteration equivalent to the physicalist conception of death."

This doesn't seem to be the actual meaning of Buddhism, as so many of the parables, lessons etc from the Pali Canon would be completely nonsensical if it were true. The crypto-materialism of Buddhism is more subtle than that...

[Anonymous No.18803225]

>>18803179
I reject buddha

[Anonymous No.18803228]

Christianity is basically nihilism if you look at it from a practical perspective.

[Anonymous No.18803237]

>>18802998
> The fear of God finds its way into every argument on the merits of Christianity.
Maybe into arguments, but not necessarily into motivation.
It's a speculation of mine - I'm not a Christian. I'm repulsed by this religion, actually, but at the same time I refuse to believe that it's not able to provide a path for some people to touch the divine.
Perennialism? That's how people call it, I guess.

>>18803168
thx

[Anonymous No.18803243]

>>18800693
>atheism=nihilism=gay and retarded

[Anonymous No.18803246]

>>18803228

In the sense that the god described is plainly a tyrant, and we may as well just go along with his arbitrary caprice as we cannot do otherwise, or...?

[Anonymous No.18803279]

>>18803228
>>18803246
It is nihilism in Nietzsche's sense of being world-denying or negating. He also thinks Buddhism is a nihilism as well, but does not consider Buddhism to share the ressentiment he characterizes Christianity with. One could assume Nietzsche may not have gotten very far with Buddhist literature or did not understand it, as the Mahayana sutras in particular make it clear that nirvana is not a negation of samsara in the manner of Christian heaven being a denial of the lived world.

[Anonymous No.18803288]

>>18801732
Same, theres a real charm to them

[Anonymous No.18803320]

>>18803288

[Anonymous No.18803329]

>>18803320
What kind of subhuman watermarks a wojak?

[Anonymous No.18803332]

>>18803320
kek iv never seen it as a gif before

[Anonymous No.18803336]

>>18803109
>Buddhism is a school of radical introspection.
If there's no Soul or Self, there's nobody to introspect to begin with
>dude the empty delusive occurrence of a unified center of experience introspects its own unreality lmao
>>18803243
supremely based

[Anonymous No.18803346]

>>18803336
Why would a soul or a self be permanent? Is anything else permanent?

[Anonymous No.18803357]

>>18803346

[Anonymous No.18803363]

>>18803357
I have seen the face of god and I scribbled on it with a marker.

[Anonymous No.18803369]

>>18803357

[Anonymous No.18803465]

>>18800795
>>18801167
Ah yes sure, kenotic reciprocity, doing good for and from the Good itself is obviously the same as the underlying purely ethicist philosophy of buddhism. See how impregnated you are with this very karmic menace. Stop denying life, buddhism is an allegory.

>>18803279
We have to understand that Nietzsche affirms a more natural state of life, obviously that anything interposing such a state will be counted as life-denying, resentful, etc. Nietzsche saw good fruits in resentment too (after all he praised the Old Testament). But even from the nietzschean point of view Christianity is not founded on resentment ('resist not evil', etc.). Nietzsche takes a valid path of life, really its purest expression. But we know that this is a never ending cycle, a purely dionysian revolt—marking the very constitution of culture, creation and destruction, the Victim, Violence.
Nietzsche is laudable for his love of life, love of evil and suffering, for these are, in the christian view, also divine.

[Anonymous No.18803520]

>>18803329
yep, that's cringe. almost made me not post it

>>18803336
> If there's no Soul or Self, there's nobody to introspect to begin with
That's some fine example of intellectual peasantry.

This "self" or "soul" might as well have many levels, with those lower being observed from the higher ones, and the whole divergence coming from talking about different entities. This "soul" might as well not be "self", but a collective eye, shared by many "selves". Finally this "soul" might be something fluid and not clear-cut, like a wave in the ocean, and thus not being easily segregated from "non-soul" and put in its own category, as a distinct entity (where tf are the boundaries of the wave? isn't the notion of wave just a trick of mind that is used to operate on solid objects?). And that's only assuming Buddhism denies people having any soul (does it? never heard of it). And that's only sticking to linguistic forms and logic which might as well be just an emergent product of physical brains in this physical world and not apply to the metaphysical. And that's all just what my mind could come up with in the last 5 minutes.

[Anonymous No.18803528]

>>18803465
>even from the nietzschean point of view Christianity is not founded on resentment
Based didn't-even-read-the-book poster

[Anonymous No.18803542]

>>18800693

When he (Nāgārjuna) claims that all entities lack svabhāva (self-nature), Nāgārjuna probably means, not simply that no entities originate independently of conditions but also, that no entities originate independently of the constructing activity of the mind. There are no basic, unanalyzable existents out of which the prajñaptisat (conceptually constructed) world is formed. Thus, all entities whatsoever are, for Nāgārjuna, simply conceptual constructs. When Nagarjuna says that entities with svabhāva would be uncreated and independent he must mean, in fact, that such entities would be uncreated by and independent of the constructing mind. Nagarjuna's denial of svabhāva is not in fact a statement of the truism that all entities dependently originate, but is rather an assertion that all entities originate in dependence upon the constructing mind. It is arguable, however, that Nagarjuna's general tendency to equate lack of svabhāva with dependence on causes and conditions, rather than specifically with dependence on parts, indicates a subtle shift or broadening in the meaning of svabhāva.

As I have explained, the Ābhidharmika had argued that entities which can be analyzed into their parts are simply conceptual constructs, i.e. they lack svabhāva. But dharma-s, though in most cases dependently originating, are partless and thus are not conceptually constructed, i.e. they have svabhāva. Perhaps by contrast Nāgārjuna is claiming that any entity which originates in dependence upon causes- be these causes the parts of the entity or external to the entity - can be analyzed into these causes, and is thus simply a conceptual construct imposed on the concatenation of causes.

Thus, for Nāgārjuna, even if there were partless saṃskṛta dharmas as the Ābhidharmika says, because these dharmas are dependently originating, as the Ābhidharmika claims, they can be analyzed into - and are thus (according to Nāgārjuna) conceptually constructed on the basis of their causes. Svabhāva and dependent origination are—contrary to the Ābhidharmika understanding—incompatible. According to Nāgārjuna, if the Ābhidharmika persists in attributing svabhāva to the dharmas, he cannot also say that they dependently originate. To be dependently originated is to be conceptually constructed.

[Anonymous No.18803550]

>>18803542

So Nāgārjuna arrives at his often stated position that any entity which is posited as having svabhāva must also be independent of causes, i.e. permanent (despite what the Ābhidharmikas maintain). And there are, of course, no such independent, permanent entities for Nāgārjuna. If this interpretation is correct, the ultimate' truth is for Nagarjuna that there are no ultimate truths in the Ābhidharma sense. By this Nāgārjuna does not mean simply that there are no independent, permanent entities. Nagarjuna means, in addition, that there are no unanalyzable, more-than-conceptually constructed entities.

In the language of later Madhyamaka philosophy, no entity whatsoever is found under analysis. Whatsoever entity one examines, one finds, according to the Madhyamika, that it is simply a concept (or name) attributed by the mind to a concatenation of causes. If the causes are themselves examined, they are themselves found to be simply concepts attributed by the mind on the basis of their own causes. And so on. There are no foundational more-than-conceptually constructed entities. Nāgārjuna's advocacy of universal. absence of svabhāva is thus equivalent to the notion that everything is just conceptual construction (prajñaptimatra)

I think that the evidence which I have collated below demonstrates that Nāgārjuna does indeed employ the Ābhidharma notion of svabhāva, and his denial that any entities have svabhāva does entail, for him, that all entities are prajñaptisat. In which case, Nāgārjuna's claim that emptiness does not entail nihilism, because emptiness means simply that entities lack independent existence, is untenable. Nāgārjuna's superficially convincing argument completely fails to address the real criticism which his opponents are making of his philosophy.

Nāgārjuna's does not in fact deny only that there are independently existing entities. Nagarjuna denies also that there are any entities which arise independently of conceptual construction. Nāgārjuna's opponents do not think that the universal dependent origination of entities would result in nihilism. But they do consider that, if all entities were to have, as Nāgārjuna contends, conceptually constructed existence, then nihilism would indeed be entailed. As I shall explain later in this chapter, I think that they are right.

- David Burton, "Emptiness Appraised"

[Anonymous No.18803627]

[Anonymous No.18803644]

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthi in the Jeta Forest in the private park owned by Anāthapiṇḍika. There the Blessed one addressed the monks thus: ‘Monks!’ Those monks responded thus: ‘Blessed One!’ The Blessed One said this:

"Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you."

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

At this time, a Brahmin named Sugatasūdana who had joined the audience of monks stood up and said to the Blessed One:

"Oh venerable sir, you proclaim that from ignorance as a requisite condition comes fabrications, but I ask you, from whence arose this ignorance?"

The Blessed One replied to Sugatasūdana:

"Oh Brahmin, a first point of ignorance, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it came into being"

Sugatasūdana pressed the Blessed One further:

"Venerable sir, if there is no first point of ignorance, does that mean the causal chain of dependent co-arising has been active continuously without any beginning?"

The Blessed One replied:

"That is correct, oh Brahmin"

[Anonymous No.18803647]

[Anonymous No.18803648]

>>18803644

Sugatasūdana pressed the Blessed One still further:

"Oh, Blessed One, but what is the cause of the mutual aggregation of the 12 links into such an arrangement which allows them to impart casual efficiency to the next link in the chain in an orderly manner? For the aggregation of things into specific arrangements is an activity, and as activities are effects, a cause for them must necessarily be presumed. For, in the world we see that threads do not form an aggregation of threads in the form of a cloth unless they are acted upon by the spinner at his loom."

The Blessed One replied to the Brahmin:

"Oh Brahmin, do not think that you can fool the Tathāgata, from dependent co-arising springs all causal relations, Brahmā and the rest of the gods are subject to its sway, there is no Deva who is the cause of the aggregation of the links of dependent co-arising. All is dependently co-arisen, including the relationship of the links to one another."

Sugatasūdana smiled and replied for the last time:

"Oh Blessed One, but how can dependent co-arising be the cause of the aggregation of the 12 links of co-arising when it depends on the aggregation of its links for its own existence and orderly functioning? For a daughter is never seen to give birth to her own mother, and smoke is never seen to give rise to fire. But when the Blessed One says that dependent co-arising is the cause of the aggregation of the links of dependent co-arising on which dependent co-arising relies for its functioning, that is no different from saying a daughter gives birth to her own mother, whom that daughter depends upon for her existence to begin with".

The Blessed One frowned and paused for several moments, then he opened his mouth as if he were about to speak, but then he closed his mouth and remained silent. After a length of time, the Blessed One said:

"Oh Brahmin, you have bested me, I do not know how dependent co-arising can be the cause of its own aggregation when it depends on aggregation to function, as you say it is a paradox."

At this moment a murmur of voices started up among the monks surrounding the Blessed One, the voices quickly grew louder and some of the monks began to display anger. At this moment the Blessed One's attendant Ānanda stood up and shouted to the monks:

"Oh monks, this devious demon in human form has dared to show the Blessed One's doctrine to contain contradictions, how dare he! We must stop him from further questioning the Blessed One's doctrine."

Then all the monks gathered up sticks and rocks and began to menace Sugatasūdana, who taking notice of the situation stood up and quickly left the Jeta Forest before the enraged monks could do him harm.

[Anonymous No.18803652]

[Anonymous No.18803655]

>Gautama, Siddhārtha. Dislike him. A cheap nihilist, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about remembering past lives seriously.
>Majjhima Nikāya. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Yājñavalkya's "Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad"
>Dīgha Nikāya. Dislike it intensely.
>Dhammapada. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole

[Anonymous No.18803656]

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.18803662]

BUDDHISM IS A FATALISTIC CULT; PESSIMISM LEADS TO FATALISM; FATALISM LEADS TO NIHILISM.

[Anonymous No.18803668]

An American Vegan druggie low-test 'kinda-bi' crypto-materialist Buddhist professor was teaching a class on Gautama Buddha, known subverter of the Tradition. "Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Buddha and accept that he was the most brilliant individual the world has ever known and that he proved that there is no such thing as self!" At this moment, a brave, wise and virtuous autodidact former-NEET who had read all of Śaṅkarācārya and achieved atma-jñāna and who understood the necessity of combining positive descriptions of the Absolute with apophatism stood up and asked the professor "If the Self is just an illusion, then who or what is directing my body to ask this question?". The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied "a fleeting and changing bundle of mental aggregates which have no inherent existence, you stupid eternalist". "Wrong", the absolute madman replied, "the subject precedes its own negation, if Atma is an illusion with no reality sustaining and underlying it, then it wouldn't be consciously experienced as awareness, there are no examples of illusions such as mirages being self-aware like we are, you cannot have a dream without a dreamer, a illusory snake is never mistakenly seen in an empty room, but only where there is an existing real such as the rope upon which the idea of the snake can be superimposed. The Buddhist model contradicts empiricism, logic and common sense and as such must be rejected".

"T-t-this is all wrong, you just haven't meditated enough, if only you had you would understand that I'm right!" the professor screeched in a state of panic. "Meditation is a fool's errand my friend" the student wisely replied, "only knowledge leads to liberation as it's only knowledge which is mutually incompatible with ignorance just as light is to darkness, whereas meditation belongs to the sphere of action which can exist without opposition alongside ignorance". The professor was visibly shaken and dropped his copy of Mulamadhyamakakarika. He stormed out of the room crying those Buddhist crocodile tears. The students all applauded and began to recite Vedic verses. A eagle named 'Dharma' flew into the room and perched atop the shoulder of the brave student and shed a tear of joy. The works of René Guénon were read aloud from several times, and Kalki himself showed up and ended the Kali Yuga. The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day, he it made him want to kill himself, and it was at that moment that he realized the self he wanted to kill does exist and is unkillable. ॐ

[Anonymous No.18803676]

>>18803627
>>18803647
>>18803652
>>18803656
Based.

[Anonymous No.18803707]

>From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

- Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh), Brahmasūtrabhasya 2.2.32.

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain (pratītyasamutpāda) could ever be the cause of aggregation (of its constituents into a united whole that can produce nescience etc) when it depends on (that) aggregation for its own existence?

Sri Śaṅkarācārya (pbuh) - Brahmasūtrabhāṣya 2.2.19.

[Anonymous No.18803720]

[The Acharya invites a learned Buddhist Monk to a cup of coffee and of course, debate over respective Schools of Thought!]

Acharya: How was your day?

Buddhist Monk: The question is immaterial and irrelevant.

Acharya: Oh! Will you kindly state why do you say so?

Buddhist Monk: The workaday life is just a passing illusion. The so-called “manifold world” of material and mental elements arises solely through the causal co-operation of the transitory factors of existence (Called Dharmas) those depend functionally upon each other. Since, the material and mental universe arises through the concurrence of forces that are not permanent, the so-called World is not permanent. Everything that we call “world” are illusory, momentary. [He lays down the Sarvastivada, or, Sautrantika view of Buddhism]

Acharya: Oh. Heavy fire! Let me rephrase you. So what you are basically saying is that the perceived World is momentary; just an illusion – ever changing, and that there is no permanent essence of anything anywhere of the empirical Universe, be it mental or material, cognitive or non-perceptive.

Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]

[Anonymous No.18803723]

[Anonymous No.18803724]

>>18803720

Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement?

[Anonymous No.18803727]

>>18800795
I really hope this post is a joke

[Anonymous No.18803728]

[Anonymous No.18803729]

>>18803724

Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved.

Buddhist Monk: Even if there is any Witness, that entity; material or intellectual will be momentary, ever-changing, always in flux. So, one can’t say there is any witness at all.

Acharya: You seem to insinuate that everything is momentary and transitional – the flux keeps on changing every nano-second, the reality changing every nanosecond just like waves of sea erase the previous impressions in sand made by the preceding wave. So, who is there who perceives and makes this claim that Nothing is permanent?

And, against what standard you measure permanence relative to impermanence? Everything is impermanent relative to what? If everything if temporary, then how would the concept of any sort of permanence even arise? What is the ground for you to stand on? What is the reference point? Against what measuring rod will you judge impermanence? Monk, Even to say Nothing exists, there has to be a relative plane of Existence. Else against what would you say Nothing exists, if you don’t know what Existence is? And when you say non-being is there – so logically, non-being exists – impermanence is permanently there, you are putting yourself in serious logical snare. Don’t you think by negating everything you are caught in an absurd redux? The entire Theory of Impermanence is erroneous.

Agreed what one sees or perceived is fleeting, transitory. But then how do you create your own locus standi for the transitoriness to be perceived? Who is the witness, the spectator? There has to be One. The primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis of everything and from which the whole world has arisen (the Brahman of the Upanishads). There is no void, all that exists is Fullness, Brahman. The world is not non-existent (Asat), but it is illusory (Mithya) meaning, it exist, but appears to us other than what is really is because of Ajanan (Ignorance), Avidya (Nescience) and Maya (Illusions).

[Anonymous No.18803730]

[Anonymous No.18803736]

[Anonymous No.18803737]

>>18803729

Buddhist Monk: (Causes digression because there is no reply to this argument) Come on, then where is the proof that there is something permanent, some ever-present continuum?

Acharya: Yes, I will. The answer is in anusmrteh cha [Brahm Sutra - II.ii.25:] meaning “In memory too”. All of us have memories of good experiences, bad ones, many-a-times shared memories. Now let me ask you something Monk. If you say everything is momentary, how do you explain memory? Memory falsifies your entire base. The [Buddhist] doctrine of momentariness must imply momentariness of the perceiver as well as of the perceived, an implication which the phenomenon of memory proves to be wrong and completely false. If both perceived object and the perceiver change, there would be no connect – and there would not be any case for memory! Because the entire scene changes – so every moment Man should rise and ask Who am I? Where am I? If the man who remembers is different from the man who apprehended we would never have such notions as "I saw it." – both ‘I’ (Subject) and ‘it’ (Object) would have changed over the moment. Phenomenon of memory shows that your basic tenets are wrong. The theoretical edifice has been created on a false foundation.

Buddhist Monk: Ok. Fair Point. I can’t argue against that. If I say there is perception, there has to be a perceiver. That’s exactly why I say there is neither an object of perception nor a perceiver. The World is unreal. Do you deny the unreality of the outer world?

Acharya: No. Here I am in full agreement with you. The so-called world is unreal to the extent of what we ordinarily see. The names and forms (Nama-Roopa) are fleeting.

But it does not mean that there is no basis to this unreality. Not “Sarvam kshanikam kshanikam - Sarvam Shunyam Shunyam”!

[That is the fundamental difference between Acharya’s Advait (Singularity of existence) Vedant and the Buddhist Nihilistic (Absence of existence) view]

You are wrong again Friend, because in Vijnanavada, you dwell on ‘only & mere’ perception to make the entire conscious Universe. If you have presumed perception, then whose perception? Perception of what? How can you presume and base your theory on the effect only, without looking at the causes? Such a theory is inadequate, inaccurate and false. The Great Gotama too fell into that trap of not inquiring deep enough. To formulate a simple theory, he ignored to delve into the true cause of suffering – the cause of suffering is not desire or attachment per se – but those are intermediate causes. Like a link in a chain. There is still another layer to the inquiry into desires, attachment, and bondage – that is Avidya and Ajnana. The nescience and ignorance cause desire and attachment. Gotama failed to see the true enemy.

[Anonymous No.18803739]

[Anonymous No.18803742]

>>18801714
People born into Buddhism are more superficial. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu has touched on this before. I shouldn't have to explain why, just think on it if you don't understand.

[Anonymous No.18803743]

>>18803246
>>18803279
It is nihilism because it's "moral system" defeats itself by making everyone a sinner and treating all sins the same, and giving you a free pass for everything if you say some words. There are no rules, there aren't even ethical guidelines since the main idea is "this world is fucked and nothing matters (apart from saying some words)"

[Anonymous No.18803744]

[Anonymous No.18803745]

>>18803737

Buddhist Monk: [Fuming) How can you question the Tathagata? He was omniscient.

Acharya: What proof is there that Tathagata Gotama was omniscient? I say No, he was not. And look at me, I am beyond suffering. So, how do you refute me? This Buddhist axiom is completely wrong.

Anyways, our coffee has arrived. Take this cup in your hand Shaman. What do you see?

Buddhist Monk: I see nothing actually. This apparent cup with apparent coffee in it, these, at the deepest layer are made up of discrete individual particles. The deepest level of both the material world and our consciousness is considered to be discrete, separate entities. Thus when we introspect into the deepest layer of our consciousness, we will find that it is composed not from a single homogenous whole but of discrete ‘particles’ – always in flux, always changing – never permanent.

Acharya: (Smiles) Oh, Dear Friend. I get your point. True there is no real cup – the cup is nothing but made up of clay – clay given another form and shape with heat. So, there is clay inside the cup. The cylindrical object (roopa) is the mere appearance which we have named a cup (Nama), there is no Cup as such, but clay in another form. I fully agree when you said You didn’t see a cup. But I disagree when you failed to see the clay in the cup. You can never assume clay out. No matter how deep will you go, there has to be a smaller and smaller entity which will exist. You can not extend the hair-splitting to non-existence. In the final split, something has to exist. And it does exist. Whatever it is, Quantum calls those particles, String people call those Strings, Relativists call those Energy – whatever name you may call, there has to be something that exists. It was there when the Universe started with Big Bang, it was there before it too (else how could the Big Bang singularity have started), it was always there, it is there in everything, it will always be there. We are all made up of Star dust. That star which existed in Big Bang, from which elements got created, from which Space came out. That is the Truth Dear Friend, you can’t assume that out only because you don’t see the subtlest level. You have stopped your quest before you reached the ultimate stage. Yes, particles may be there (Vaishesika friend tells me), particles may be in flux where you wont know what exactly is happening to them (Mister Schrödinger will tell you after 1300 years); but don’t get deluded – there is something that is still more subtle, and pervades everything. Everything can not come out of Nothing. The deepest Truth is Single, homogenous, a whole (Purnam).

[Anonymous No.18803749]

[Anonymous No.18803752]

>>18803745

Buddhist Monk: Oh. What is the proof, Acharya?

Acharya: Proof. I can offer you Shruti pramana (Scriptures as proof). But you and Tathagat are heretics, you don’t believe in the primacy of Shrutis.

To us, words of Shruti are unquestionable. Even the other day, Mandan Mishra (The great MImanshak) agreed to the same. The Vedas, the Shruti Shastra, the Puranas, Smriti, all teach an ens realissimum (an entity of highest reality) as the primordial cause of all existence, from which everything has arisen and with which it again merges, either temporarily or forever. And that sub-stratum always exists. Know my friend, that is the Only Truth, and Nothing but the Truth – the Sat-Chit-Ananda – the Brahman. “Sarvam khalvidam brahma' that is “All this is indeed Brahman” – and not Sarvam Shunyam Shunyam.

But for you My Friend, here is the argument. Everyone has the notion "I am"; no one can deny the self, because when you go to deny – there would be the self of the denier – who would scale up the denial.

The Acharya Continued:

Brahmaivedam amritam
Purastad brahma pascad brahma
Dakshinatas cottarena
Adhas cordhvam ca prasritam
Brahmaivedam visvam idam varishtham||

Translation:

“That Brahman is Eternal. Brahman in front and Brahman in back, In the South, on the North, Also Overhead and Below - expanded, This Brahman is the Universe, this is the Greatest.”

-Mundaka Upanishad, Mundaka II.Khanda 2.Shloka 12

In other words, that supreme Brahman effulgence spreads throughout both the material and spiritual

That Brahman is known by multifarious names My Friend! People see it as Atma, as Ishwara, as Aum - the Pranav, as Prjnanam, there are many names. But there is nothing in those names. [Om Tat Sat]

I will add here my Friend, your Mahayana Buddhist scripture preaches the existence of the "Tathagata Garbha" (Buddha-Matrix/Essence) within all sentient creatures. This Mahasanghikas (Sect of Buddhism) notion of Tathagata Garbha is so close to Advaitic concept of Atman – the manifestation of Brahman in jeeva. This does not differ from a permanent Atman, though you never accept it!! You accept the Advaitic view by altering the nomenclature!

[Anonymous No.18803756]

>>18803752

Buddhist Monk: (Started to leave the debate in fury. Acharya requests him to finish coffee). By Gotama! It’s so hot. My lips are burnt.

Acharya: Stop here. What did you say? Your lips are burnt? You are suffering, are not you? But at the same time you say there is no Soul. So, who is suffering? Buddhaghosa (Classical Theravada) has said that “there is only suffering, but nobody who suffers”, Mahayanist Shantideva has interpreted Buddha that “the person who experiences suffering does not exist”. Is not that a ridiculous proposition? So why all these teachings? For whom? Who were Tathagata’s subjects?

Buddhist Monk: Come on Acharya! You too teach the unreality as cause of suffering and grief and pain. The world is nothing but an idea – a dream-like construct where nothing is real (Idealism in Buddhism/Vijnanavada). And now why do you criticize our unreality while professing yours?

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advait then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”.

The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

[Anonymous No.18803762]

>>18803756

Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists?

I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms, not causes. But the Vedas and the Shruti inquired deeper – into the Source of suffering, and the method of Vedant interprets Shruti correctly by pointing out the real causes being ‘Avidya’ (Nescience), and false imputation (Adhyasa) due to Maya.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!

Acharya: No, don’t say Nothing ever again! The Great Buddhist teachers did ‘exist’ and so did Tathagata. If you firmly believe in Tathagata; then you believe in his existence too! Their mortal embodiments were temporal, but teachings eternal, their thought eternal. That Jnana is eternal. That’s where Brahman shines. It is the light by which everything is seen, the light of which the sun and moon are pale reflections. It is not only real but so egregiously real that the work-a-day world fades into mist beside it.

Buddhist Monk: Starts to leave muttering No, No, No…..

[The end]

[Anonymous No.18803771]

The Chad Advaitin:
>yeah bro you're like Atman and like Atman is Brahman and like everything is Brahman bro so you're like yourself experiencing yourself bro cuz everything is Brahman bro

The Virgin NPCddhist:
>n-nooo not my heckin feelerinos o god i am soofering aaaaarrrrhgghhhh must not desire must not attach i am nothing i dont exist nothing exists that is why gautama preached liberation because nothing can get totally liberated liberation does not in any way imply something being liberated from something nothingness is totally non conceptual nothingness a thing

[Anonymous No.18803779]

>>18803771
>the Chad Advaitin

[Anonymous No.18803785]

>>18803528
I literally showed an example of its action (and not reaction) not being founded on resentment in the words following the ones you quoted you dishonest piece of shit. Take into account the point of that post that is the significance of the very resentment in Nietzsche. Are you capable of this?