[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: Fugen_the_life_preserver.jpg (1.68 MB, 2354x3139)
1.68 MB
1.68 MB JPG
Shingon buddhism is the spiritual successor of Platonism in the east. Both philosophical schools are characterized by a mystical union with the transcendental absolute via meditation and chanting prayers.
>>
File: Nagarjuna.jpg (97 KB, 768x444)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>13756342
>Buddhism
>forms
not so fast

Kaccanagotta sutta refutes it.
>>
>>13756405
thats what the deva realms of form are, they're just not eternal
>>
>>13756421
uhnuh, Nagarjuna Acharya shows how it is totally untenable for there to be any forms.

See chapter 2 of the MMK x, where he reduces to absurdity the notion that there is a form of the concept of motion, separate from things moving.
>>
>>13756459
>where he reduces to absurdity the notion that there is a form of the concept of motion, separate from things moving
That's only an argument against the abstract idea of motion existing as a form but it doesn't present any challenge to the general idea of a transcendental absolute which Nagarjuna never refutes (and which many people interpret him as actually implicitly presupposing)
>>13756405
Were you the guy who posted the thread about Nagarjuna yesterday? I didn't get the chance to reply because I was busy but your response in that thread that awareness can't be unchanging because then it "fails to keep up with the changing universe around you" is erroneous because it conflates awareness and the objects of awareness. When the Self of awareness is just an unchanging light that reveals whatever the mind is doing and whatever thoughts and perceptions the mind is having then it doesn't need to change since all change in experience is accounted for via it taking place in the mind that is being revealed/illuminated by immutable awareness
>>
>>13756535
>That's only an argument against the abstract idea of motion existing as a form but it doesn't present any challenge to the general idea of a transcendental absolute which Nagarjuna never refutes (and which many people interpret him as actually implicitly presupposing)
it absolutely does. the refutation of abstract motion, refutes all abstractions whether motion, the form of a cat or the transcendetal absolute.
>>13756535
>is erroneous because it conflates awareness and the objects of awareness.
so there are two different awarenesses? the awareness of things, and the awareness separate from things?
>When the Self of awareness is just an unchanging light that reveals whatever the mind is doing
how does it undergo the change of having not revealed one thing the mind is doing to having revealed it.
For example, if I start thinking about cats, how does the unchanging self manage this change from not thinking about cats to thinking about them?
>change in experience is accounted for via it taking place in the mind that is being revealed/illuminated by immutable awareness
haha talk about infinite regresses. if all change is contained within the mind, then whichever possibility is actually actualised versus those that are not must still be differentiated or else all experiences would be identical which is trivially not the case in our observed realtiy.
>>
>>13756535
>>13756931
I need to come up with a neater refutation of the 'change is contained within' argument, i've come across this from Christians and now from an Advaitin.

I will try to explain why it still exists in dependence on conditions.The potential changes that the self or the God allegedly contain, must be differentiated by whether they occur or do not occur, or else they are not potential changes. Thus the content basket of potential changes contained within God or the Self, must itself change, so the God or Self must contain a secondary set of potential changes, the potential changes of the potential changes - and this becomes an infinite regress which is unintelligible.

If you try to ignore this you run into a different problem. If the container of the potential changes, is not itself changed by its changing contents (ie potentiated or unpotentiated changes), then it fails to keep up with the changes; or the changes it contains are defective in that they cannot undergo potentiation, in which case it does not pertain to any potential changes as observed in reality. Or if you claim that it does keep up with it's changes, then it must become a new container, as it contains new content with regards to whether the potentials it contains are potentiated (much like a container full of sandwiches is a different thing to a container full of rotting food waste)

as you can see from the spirit of Madhyamaka philosophy, your container of potential changes is untenable.
>>
>>13756931
>it absolutely does. the refutation of abstract motion, refutes all abstractions whether motion, the form of a cat or the transcendetal absolute.
How could that possibly refute other abstract ideas that have nothing to do with the idea of motion? That doesn't logically follow so its a non-sequitur logical fallacy and I'm not sure if you are trolling or if you actually have this poor a grasp of how logic works. But we don't have to rely on that inappropriate non-applicable example why dont you try to instead give an argument that directly refutes an independent self-sufficient Brahman being real, and which is actually talking about Brahman and not an "idea of motion" which is something else entirety
>is erroneous because it conflates awareness and the objects of awareness.
>so there are two different awarenesses? the awareness of things, and the awareness separate from things?
No there is just simply foundational witnessing awareness; when there are "objects of awareness" this just equals witnessing awareness being present along with the sensed content that it witnesses but that sensed content like sight sound thoughts etc are insentient and unaware and so they are not actually awareness by they are revealed by awareness, they are not comprised by awareness in any sense but are known by a separate awareness that differs from them by having the quality of sentience, ie there is only one undivided partless awareness
>>
>>13756931
>When the Self of awareness is just an unchanging light that reveals whatever the mind is doing
>how does it undergo the change of having not revealed one thing the mind is doing to having revealed it.
That's not a change in the actual Self of awareness but is only a change in objects that are seen to be affected by It's radiance, just like when a lamp remains motionless on a table the lamp does not need to move in order to reveal moving and changing objects but it simply remains still and continuously radiates its light outwards and as soon as moving objects come within the range of this light they are revealed without that requiring any shifting or movement of the lamp to another position. In a similar way when our Self is immutable luminous awareness it constantly has the self-disclosure of its own presence as such, and this additonally entails an outward-directed radiance as well which automatically reveals to that awareness whatever mental configuration the mind transforms into; but this transformation is just a changing display being illuminated by an unchanging light which does not require the source of light to change. As soon as the next configuration arises it is automatically revealed for what it is to the unchanging light it is basking in
>>
>>13756931
>For example, if I start thinking about cats, how does the unchanging self manage this change from not thinking about cats to thinking about them?
the Self doesn't think and this is answered above; different thoughts involve no change in awareness itself but are just different object trading places in front of an unchanging light; like actors walking on to and off of a stage while the audience is continuously and consistently looking at the same spot on the stage
>change in experience is accounted for via it taking place in the mind that is being revealed/illuminated by immutable awareness
>haha talk about infinite regresses. if all change is contained within the mind, then whichever possibility is actually actualised versus those that are not must still be differentiated or else all experiences would be identical which is trivially not the case in our observed realtiy.
There is no infinite regress involved in what I'm saying; I didn't say all change IN THE UNIVERSE is contained in the mind but only that change in the mind (but not awareness) sufficiently accounts for CHANGE IN OUR EXPERIENCE; objects outside of our mind still change however. Thus I never said that all changes are contained as potentials in the mind which are actualized but this is a false strawman that is non-applicable to what I'm saying. Differentiation is a form of thought and does not occur in awareness itself; it's part of the content revealed by awareness. Differences in the nature of the content being flashed before the unchanging self-aware presence of awareness are what is responsible for the different nature of one experience from another
>>
>>13757507
>>13757512
>>13757519
I can cut through your religious dogma to the heart of your misunderstanding:
>like actors walking on to and off of a stage while the audience is continuously and consistently looking at the same spot on the stage
this is exactly what is being disputed. this is the crux of the issue.

you are saying that the audience and spot on the stage are constant but the actors are changing.
However, you fail to see that the audience must also change. It goes from an audience that sees romeo, to an audience that sees juliet. They cannot be the same audience, because then romeo and juliet would be the same.
The audience is constituted by what it sees.
>>13757519
>no infinite regress
see:
>>13757015
>>
>>13757519
>I didn't say all change IN THE UNIVERSE is contained in the mind but only that change in the mind (but not awareness) sufficiently accounts for CHANGE IN OUR EXPERIENCE
That's exactly his point though: you ARE saying that all changes are already within the mind. They HAVE to be. The awareness of X must either be:
>In the mind
>Given to it by another thing
>In the mind AND given to the mind by another thing
>Causeless
If it's already in the mind, then you are aware of objects before you sense them. If it's given to it by another thing, then you could be aware of things that you sense and sense thing that you are not aware of. If it's both, then you just inherit the faults of both while being twice as incoherent (you are aware of things before sensing them AND sense them without being aware of them). If it's causeless then it must either be effectless (meaning that you could never be aware of anything) OR you are constantly aware of everything across all spacetime at once.

For what it's worth, Shankara himself took the fourth position, as his nihilistic metaphysics posited that there is actually nothing that exists at all except Atman which is Brahman thereby allowing him to argue that the Atman which is Brahman, therefore Atman which is Brahman is in fact aware of everything that exists (which is just itself) at all times and can never stop being aware of itself. So, the question we have to ask is: do you believe that your hands exist? Because Shankara's answer is entirely dependent upon the non-existence of the majority of reality.
>>
>>13757507
but to be more fair to you:
>How could that possibly refute other abstract ideas that have nothing to do with the idea of motion?
because it is not just a refutation of motion, it's a refutation of the idea that there are abstract ideas or forms that really exist and inhere in reality in certain instances. Motion is just one example of this, but the same arguments and contradictions will be found in anything, from the form of a cat to the atma to 'absolute equality from plato'.
It's the arguments that matter. Motion is just used an example of this underlying argument.
>No there is just simply foundational witnessing awareness; when there are "objects of awareness" this just equals witnessing awareness being present along with the sensed content that it witnesses but that sensed content like sight sound thoughts etc are insentient and unaware and so they are not actually awareness by they are revealed by awareness, they are not comprised by awareness in any sense but are known by a separate awareness that differs from them by having the quality of sentience, ie there is only one undivided partless awareness
this is all unevidenced dogma so i'll ignore this, because this is what is being refuted.
>>13757512
can we stick with example of a lamp:
let's use the lamp as a metaphor for whatever you're calling this immutable awareness/self or whatever.

your idea is that whatever is put into the vicinity of the lamp, is illuminated by it, without the lamp changing.
my disagreement is that the lamp indeed does change when new objects are brought to or old ones taken away from it.
It goes from a lamp that illuminates a pair of keys, to a lamp that illuminates a bottle of coca cola.
It cannot be the same lamp in both instances, because this means it is always a lamp illuminating a bottle of coca cola irrespective if there is coca cola there.
What the lamp is, how we describe/conceive of it, depends on what it acts upon.
>>
>>13757015
>I need to come up with a neater refutation of the 'change is contained within' argument, i've come across this from Christians and now from an Advaitin.
You are best off abandoning the false delusion that Nagarjuna refuted all other philosophies (just read Richard Robinsons famous takedown of him called "did Nagarjuna really refute all views?" if you need a scholar of Buddhism to confirm to you that he failed to refute Hindu schools etc as well as his Buddhist opponents)
>I will try to explain why it still exists in dependence on conditions. The potential changes that the self or the God allegedly contain, must be differentiated by whether they occur or do not occur, or else they are not potential changes.
You apparently don't even understand the context that you are talking about as a "container". I never said the changes are contained in the Atman of awareness; I said the changes inhere/occur in the *mind* which is not the Self of awareness; so to speak about the Self as the "container" of changes is not even relevant to what I'm talking about
>>
>>13757601
>dogma
ignored
>don't even understand
ok sorry i transplanted a christian argument onto you.
Let's move onto what you actually said more closely
>the changes take place in the mind
>the mind is illuminated by the atma
that's fine, even easier to refute, see my point about a lamp illuminating a bottle of coca cola or the audience seeing either romeo or juliet.

this part of the post still applies:
> If the container of the potential changes, is not itself changed by its changing contents (ie potentiated or unpotentiated changes), then it fails to keep up with the changes; or the changes it contains are defective in that they cannot undergo potentiation, in which case it does not pertain to any potential changes as observed in reality. Or if you claim that it does keep up with it's changes, then it must become a new container, as it contains new content with regards to whether the potentials it contains are potentiated (much like a container full of sandwiches is a different thing to a container full of rotting food waste)
>>
>>13757574
based catuskoti user.
>>
>>13757562
>you are saying that the audience and spot on the stage are constant but the actors are changing.
>However, you fail to see that the audience must also change. It goes from an audience that sees romeo, to an audience that sees juliet.
In both cases they are simply a seeing audience, which has not changed, and the actual change is in the object on stage. Even in your description of the change the actual thing different was the observed object while you used “an audience that sees” twice in a row because it didnt change in both instances; so this argument of yours falls apart immediately. You essentially took two instances of A being the same (witnessing audience) and then attributed the change in B (actor) to A willy-nilly without any justification for this move whatsoever. Moreover this uses visual sight as an analogy which is not even a direct 1:1 model of what I am talking about which is different from visual sight. I am talking about awareness that remains the same while exerting a one-way influence upon something else (the organ of thinking and sensing i.e. the mind). It cant be shown that awareness ever changes because it permeates all of our experiences equally in the same manner. It doesn’t need to change ever because it simply unchangingly reveals the actions of the mind, and this “influence” is constant and unchanging and its impossible to show or prove that it ever changes, and its also impossible to prove that it would necessarily have to.

>They cannot be the same audience, because then romeo and juliet would be the same.
Only if you rule out a priori the possibility of someone perceiving two different things at two different points of time which is absurd, irrational and not justifiable. Its like saying “I cannot have tasted both vanilla AND chocolate or vanilla and chocolate would be the same” its just pseudo-logic
>>
>>13757562
>The audience is constituted by what it sees.
No, that’s obviously incorrect because if that were true then speaking of the audience would be meaningless and superfluous because saying “an actor is on stage” would automatically mean an audience was present which is not true at all such as during practice etc. In truth the audience would be constituted by their bodies and sentience first and foremost with what function they are doing “like being an audience for the whole play” is secondary and derivative, and WHAT OBJECTS this function (witnessing) is directed at in any individual instance is even more derivative and non-essential to what the entity is and whether its nature as such changes.


>no infinite regress
>see:
The whole argument there relies on a “container and object contained” analogy which is not actually related to what I am describing; you would first have to redefine your argument and explain how its actually applicable to my position and my conception of awareness etc order for it to be valid (which you have not done so yet)
>>
>>13757574
>That's exactly his point though: you ARE saying that all changes are already within the mind. They HAVE to be.
No they dont thats false, Advaita Vedanta accepts that the phenomenal world is independent of any one person’s mind so there is no basis whatsoever to assert that my position requires me to accept that all changes are contained as potentials in the mind that are actualized. The mind is an organ that exists in a two-way causal relation with the world and it changes in response to this external stimuli while itself as mind being revealed by independent unconditioned unchanging awareness.

> The awareness of X must either be:
“Awareness of X” is just a particular instance of the same eternal background of unchanging awareness (which is independent of the mind) being associated with different things that appear (when the mental configuration is revealed by that light)

So awareness is:
1) Not in the mind - because it is independent and reveals the mind from outside it
2) Not given to it by another thing - because awareness is eternal and without origin so it’s never ‘given’ but just exists everywhere eternally without any change
3) Not In the mind AND given to the mind by another thing - because its independent of the mind as explained

4) Awareness IS causeless, but the awareness that is causeless is the partless foundational awareness of ourselves that remains the same always, not the so-called “awareness of objects” which actually involves speaking about two different things (awareness of ourselves as the knower vs the object) and wrongly conflating them as one
>>
>>13757574
>If it's causeless then it must either be effectless (meaning that you could never be aware of anything)
That’s a completely unjustified non-sequitur response which is thus a logical fallacy. You never provided any reasoning that would show why the Self of awareness cannot exert effects on other things if the Self Itself is causeless; so that can be dismissed as a logical fallacy until you try to substantiate that baseless leap of logic. Vedanta says the Atman is uncaused and independent and exerts its infleunces on things from a position of independence so it would be incorrect that the Atman has to be caused in order for it to reveal objects, there is no reason why this would be the case.

>So, the question we have to ask is: do you believe that your hands exist?
Everything aside from the Atman-Brahman only has relative existence as maya
>>
>>13757599
>because it is not just a refutation of motion, it's a refutation of the idea that there are abstract ideas or forms that really exist and inhere in reality in certain instances. Motion is just one example of this, but the same arguments and contradictions will be found in anything,
That argument is not applicable at all to Brahman though, it has nothing to do with Brahman which does not move and is not a platonic form either. There isn’t any contradiction in the idea of Brahman

>this is all unevidenced dogma so i'll ignore this, because this is what is being refuted.
You have not provided a single argument that refuted any of this so far but as I have pointed out you have used logical fallacies and pseudo logic like non-sequitors. I explained it so you actually knew what my position was so you stopped wrongly attributing ideas to me that Im not arguing for.

>your idea is that whatever is put into the vicinity of the lamp, is illuminated by it, without the lamp changing.
>my disagreement is that the lamp indeed does change when new objects are brought to or old ones taken away from it.
>It goes from a lamp that illuminates a pair of keys, to a lamp that illuminates a bottle of coca cola.
That’s not a change in the physical lamp itself you clown! You are just arbitrarily lumping the lamp and the object together into one even though they are two different entities or objects with different functions and qualities! Its nonsense! The lamp cannot be the same as the object illuminated because it violates the law or non-contradiction (since one emits luminosity and the other does not so its a contradiction to say they are the same) When A and B are two different entities then a change in B does not require any change in A! This is really basic logic
>>
>>13757599
>It cannot be the same lamp in both instances, because this means it is always a lamp illuminating a bottle of coca cola
Wrong, because “illuminating the bottle of coca-cola” is a derivative action and not the intrinsic nature of the lamp; the intrinsic nature of the lamp is just to be an object that has the capacity of emitting light. You are making the logical error of conflating the nature of an entity with temporary derivative actions which it can do or not do, which is wrong because the entity or lamp remains what it is and retains its nature as lamp independent on any on particular set of derivative actions. When its not shining on the Coke bottle and is instead turned off or shining on something else its still a lamp (an object with the capacity of emitting light) regardless.
>>
File: 20220806_113346.jpg (665 KB, 1004x1511)
665 KB
665 KB JPG
I went to a goma fire ceremony and it was cool. The dude was screaming at a Fudo Myoo statue and burning shit. He blessed this for me. It's supposed to help prevent car accidents. Wtf are you guys talking about lol
>>
>>13757631
>that's fine, even easier to refute, see my point about a lamp illuminating a bottle of coca cola or the audience seeing either romeo or juliet.
I already refuted your reasoning since you used pseudo-logic that erroneously conflated the individual action something is engaging in in at a particular moment with the nature of the entity that it remains outside of that particular moment. That’s just a failure of your own definitions. In truth entities have their natures and sometimes they engage in particular actions without their nature becoming reducible to that action alone; hence why a lamp remains a lamp even when object 17 isnt present anymore and why an audience doesn’t cease to be an audience when the actors changes

>this part of the post still applies:
No it doesnt, since its still talking about container vs contained which I already explained is inapplicable, literally the third word in that paragraph is “container”
>>
>>13757806
>That argument is not applicable at all to Brahman though, it has nothing to do with Brahman which does not move and is not a platonic form either. There isn’t any contradiction in the idea of Brahman
t. has not read the argument.
>When A and B are two different entities then a change in B does not require any change in A!
Sorry but an A that acts upon B is not the same as an A that acts upon C. To think they are the same is a joke.

That you posit a lamp, independent of the things it acts on, is a shortcoming in your analysis.
If a lamp is independent of the thing it illumines, how can it be said to illuminate them? In order to illuminate a can of cola, there must be a can of cola, for there to be a lamp that illuminates a can of cola.
>>13757812
>intrinsic nature
there is no such thing. you're getting into theseus boat problems. the lamp is merely a the sum of its explanatory conditions; which include the things it affects.
there is no intrinsic lamp beyond these conditions.

there is no nature, you haven't even read Nagarjuna and yet here you are.
>>13757826
there is no nature/entity, that's the entire charge of sunyata. things exist in conditional dependence on explanatory conditions.

a defined thing depends on its definition; and vice versa.
>container/contained
doesn't matter it sitll applies. let me replace those words, so you being a pedant falls to the way side:
>>
>>13757826
>>13757865
> If the self is the illuminator of the potential changes in the mind, is not itself changed by the mind's changing contents (ie potentiated or unpotentiated changes), then it fails to keep up with the changes occuring in the mind; or the changes it contains are defective in that they cannot undergo potentiation, in which case it does not pertain to any potential changes as observed in reality. Or if you claim that it does keep up with it's changes, then it must become a new illumination, as it illuminates new content with regards to whether the potentials it illuminates are potentiated (much like a lamp illuminating sandwiches is a different thing to a lamp illuminating rotting food waste).
>>
Here's a more greek style refutation of the idea of an inherent nature of a thing:

If a lamp is divided into an immutable portion (its inherent nature) and a mutable one (eg its bulb or what illumines); how can the unchanging part stay related or attached to the changing parts, without undergoing a change?
>>
>>13757923
Eg: how can the inherent nature of a lamp with a led bulb be the same as the one which had a incandescent one?

This is embarrassingly unexplained by realists



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.