How does dependent origination make sense?

Why do pajeets believe in this shit? It's literally impossible according to classical logic

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you are imprisoned in an ocean of suffering
    >but what about muh logic

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >everything has a cause
    >except for... the first cause
    bravo westoid

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddhism: Infinite regress isn't a problem
      >ok so that means monotheism is correct in claiming god has infinite attributes
      >Buddhism: wait no....err...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Buddhists are still one "god", there are many or no "gods".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        buddhists don't say infinite regress isn't a problem

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          How do you solve infinite regress without a prime mover

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            solving infinite regress is not needed to solve suffering, so buddhists literally don't care

            Infinite regress is a problem created by intellectuals and it's not the job of the buddhists to solve every idiotic puzzle created by rationalists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but anytime I get into debates with Buddhist about god they seem so adamant about refuting his existence. Even forms of pantheism

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This isn’t an entirely objectionable and uninteresting hypothesis or possible axiom to start from (that of “ontic structural realism”, or the belief that structures themselves are real existing entities and the world is fundamentally composed of them), but what is objectionable is that there was neither serious reasoning or arguments put forward as to why this should be believed, nor investigation of its necessary consequences and their deeper meaning.

            To seriously argue this, you’d have to inevitably get into the weeds of Platonic questions, the same questionsthat occupied Socrates and Plato in their day (yet another example of just how much thought goes all the way back to Plato, even some of the sophomoric ones elaborated over a bong-rip in a college dorm at night). Namely, you’d have to ask, “Are so-called ‘IDEAS’ or ‘CONCEPTS’ as fundamentally real as what we call ‘solid real-life material objects out there’?” Then, like Plato, come up with an answer to this question, explaining at least something of how/why some abstract concept or structure like “a times table” exists as much as (or maybe in a different way from) a literal physically empirically-observable thing like the structure of a computer does (its hardware).

            Do the abstract or conceptual structures exist in some ‘higher immaterial intellectual or spiritual realm’ like Platonic Forms/Ideas do? Are they what material structures making up reality are mere reflections of? If so, how did this framework itself and the universe it describes come to being (forming the link between conceptual and physical structures/idea and matter). Etc.

            Plato may not give the best possible and most satisfactory answers to all these questions (for instance, to explain his cosmology, he gives way to speaking of a Creator God and a Demiurge, and recourse to mystical/spiritual phenomena such as a posited metempsychosis/transmigration of the soul, or mythology inspired by Greek culture generally, etc.), but the depth into which he dived at least into arguments for his ideas at least makes it coherent to speak of “Platonism”, and of arguments for and against it, natural consequences of it, etc. But just dropping something like “ontic structural realism” is really interesting and compelling an idea, but doesn’t give enough meat to chew on without getting into deeper elaboration about it (e.g. about arguments for it, or further natural consequences of it that make sense and fit with our experience of or rational thoughts about the world).

            [...]
            There is some of Buddhist tradition (or even Taoist, for that matter) and its mythology and legends that can be taken as suggesting something like “apatheism.” I.e., “even if there is a God or gods, it’s not the entirely most relevant thing to this teaching and to your own potential for spiritual development though overcoming/eradicating suffering”.

            (Continued)
            Like legends in the Pali Canon that even the Devas (Gods) went to listen to the Buddha’s teachings and bowed down before him. You can take a plausible and reasonable interpretation of Buddhism, as saying that it does believe in supernatural and miraculous phenomena, as well as remains agnostic or apathetic on the existence and provenance of a God, basically saying its teachings are relevant and helpful transcendental wisdom for one’s own personal path and life regardless of whether a God exists. Or basically even saying in its own mythos, “Even the mythic angels/demigods/gods (or their equivalent in Dharmic mythology as Devas etc.) can learn from this teaching, having bowed down to its transcendental wisdom in our own stories.”

            Basically, it would still say that “What you take to be a ‘self’ and unchanging and permanent like a solid object actually isn’t so and this can be shown by deconstructing it down to its various aspects and a meditative practice concerning this”, “This process will give you release from suffering, and this suffering is what it a fundamental aspect of ordinary phenomenal unenlightened life”, etc. — all the basic axioms and teachings of Buddhism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Negating causation itself, lime Nagarjuna and Hume did

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would you be correct about something being infinite or not? Did you measure something that would by definition be measureless? Stupid godposter

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >"Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same."

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The uncaused cause still creates an infinite regress, since you can never arrive to a cause and effect relation from an uncaused cause, even Aristotle realise that, that's why he creates the idea of a middle mobile that mediates betwen then, but in doing so he fricked up since tbat still creates an infinite regress, only with 3 parts instead of 2, but this notion of mediation is what will pretty much decide the agenda of western philosophy to this day

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Classical logic has problems too

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Buddhist places religious faith in the belief that Buddha has superhuman insight into the nature of reality, this enables them to feel justified in handwaving away all such contradictions and problems.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "When this is present, that is present; when this is not present, that is not present". It is as simple as that. Things depend on other things in order to originate. But there are no "things" giving origin to things. It is all but one energy, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, shifting around. The point of the doctrine of dependent origination is to realize this, which means realizing non-self.

    Your feeling of "self" is based on the body being in its regular state and on memories. Take some consciousness-transforming substances and watch that feeling of "self" go away for a few hours. Or go to sleep and experience no sense of self while asleep. You suffer because of the body. If there was no body, there would be no suffering.

    But you are not smart enough to realize such a simple concept. Just go sedate yourself, watch TikTok all day, and relax.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why are boodists obsessed with suffering. I'm not some street shitting pajeet who bathes in shit soaked gange water.
      My life is pretty good as a first worlders and if I do suffer it's good because it builds character

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >>Why are boodists obsessed with suffering.
        because they can. Plenty of normies are autistic about moronic topics, and buddhsits are autistic about suffering.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhist metaphysics is not supposed to make perfect sense, they say it explicitly in the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. Buddhism is first and foremost a self-help system, everything else follows from it.

      Buddhists make a false dichotomy: either one believes in (metaphysically) rock-solid "things," or one follows their own interpretation of what things "actually" are.

      They just ignore that there's a bunch of other positions against which their arguments are not effective. Take "self," for example. Yes, self is unstable and fleeting. Yet one can claim that it does exist as a structure - if we borrow the view of ontic structural realism. If you assume that the world is fundamentally composed of structures, not "things," then there is no problem about the self existing. It exists, and so do the screen on which you, anon, are reading this, the Solar System, the multiplication table, the country of Spain.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >They just ignore that there's a bunch of other positions against which their arguments are not effective. Take "self," for example. Yes, self is unstable and fleeting. Yet one can claim that it does exist as a structure - if we borrow the view of ontic structural realism. If you assume that the world is fundamentally composed of structures, not "things," then there is no problem about the self existing. It exists, and so do the screen on which you, anon, are reading this, the Solar System, the multiplication table, the country of Spain.
        The buddha doesn't give a shit about some metaphysics created by atheist rationalists 2500 years after his death.

        What the buddha cares about is solving suffering and it turns out a big part of solving suffering is ceasing to view the 5 aggregates as an atman. And an atman is not defined by some atheist rationalist thousands of years after the buddha, but as being some impermanent thing.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)

        It's always the same thing with atheists, they change the definition of the words to fit their intellectual ramblings and then they claim other people got it wrong. Atheists can't even be intellectually honest.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >a big part of solving suffering is ceasing to view the 5 aggregates as an atman
          If your criterion of truth is whether it helps to solve the problem of suffering or not, you may as well embrace theism. The argument about this being harmful for your future rebirths does not hold, because the theory that we get reborn again and again (yeah, I know Buddhists make it complicated, but at least something does get reborn, according to their view) is just as good as the theory that we face God after death. Both are unprovable and require faith.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The self absolutely exists. I admit that memories, identify etc... is bullshit
        But the fact that you think means you exist. That is proof that being exists

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >relative thing is absolute
          lol, lmao even

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >subjectivity is subjective
            Ok moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't claim it was absolute but it's proof that the Buddhist notion of the self being non existent is moronic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It has no absolute, permanent, or independent existence, or none you can demonstrate. It is conventional, apparent, or causal in the way a chair or an apple would be. Dependent arising is an epistemiology not ontology

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >absolute, permanent, or independent
            Ok but I never claimed existence holds these attributes . I just said that being sentient means you exist, because it's undeniable. Therefore refuting the Buddhist notion that there is a self doesn't exist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >by exist i mean "appears," so buddhists are wrong to say the self is merely apparent and not permanently existent
            uninformed poster giving his opinion on technical vocabulary in a religious philosophical tradition, got it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If the religious philosophical tradition is moronic then I'm allowed to point it out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But if you agree with said morons that there is no permanent unchanging self then what is your excuse from being moronic?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >some moron claims the self is non existent
            >I say it's literally impossible because cogito ergo sum
            >they flip back and say but Buddha never said the self doesn't exist only that's it's not permanent or unchanging or whatever
            Ok bro whatever

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhists are really funny, they take an obvious thing and says it doesn't exist, and insist it doesn't exist to the point of contradicting reality itself.
            No wonder their "philosophical tradition" is seen as a joke by the entire world and their religion is deader than Christianity at this point. Even their most famous thinker Black personjuna argues most of his point using paraconsistent logical framework that is laughably dismissed by modern academia

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >laughably dismissed by modern academia
            When do you ever otherwise appeal to departments of western academics for advice on spiritual, religious, or philosophical matters?

            >some moron claims the self is non existent
            >I say it's literally impossible because cogito ergo sum
            >they flip back and say but Buddha never said the self doesn't exist only that's it's not permanent or unchanging or whatever
            Ok bro whatever

            >doesn't do the reading
            >gets mad at explanation
            as you were, then

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it's not my job to educate you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Western philosophical tradition, including christian and Muslim tradition relies on classical logic dating Aristotle. It's a rigid system that works. It forms the very basis of modern computing.
            Paraconsistent frameworks have no real life application outside proposed theories by fringe academics.
            Buddhism's claims relies on the latter, making its philosophy very dubious

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no real life application
            yes that would include "Western philosophical tradition," not as if Islam or Christianity or being French have been proven

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but it proves there is a conscious observer

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the self is proof there is a conscious observer
            you need two of the same "thing" to argue against the buddhist notion that said things are transient and arise in dependence on other such things?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >or none you can demonstrate
            This isn't a logically-consistent basis to reject an idea when Buddhists accept supernatural things which are not observable like rebirth and karma affecting future lives. All you are saying is really "my a priori axioms disagree with a Self but they allow me to accept all this other supernatural non-observable stuff" which is not a serious argument against said thing like Self or anything else.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This isn't a logically-consistent basis to reject an idea
            You are deliberately using "logic" to fabricate concepts anyway; why should I need to comply with a system built to arrive at an end I oppose? You are capitalizing "Self" so you've tipped me off as to what your dogmatic beliefs are, and your support for them is entirely faith-based while my rejection of them comes from analysis. That I might hold other faith based claims has nothing to do with the denial of your particular faith-based claim, you are being dishonest in your own argument. Your own beliefs admit metempsychosis and karma as possible so where is the dispute on those?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why should I need to comply with a system built to arrive at an end I oppose?
            You don't have to, I'm simply pointing out that your argument there is unserious and inconsistent, and in being such it is just a demonstration of your narrow-minded dogmatism. You can react to this fact in any way you want.

            >That I might hold other faith based claims has nothing to do with the denial of your particular faith-based claim
            You are applying an inconsistent standard which you waive for yourself when accepting specific non-empirical claims that are ideologically preferable for you, but you resent being open and honest with yourself and others about this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your argument there is unserious and inconsistent
            uhhh where's the Atman

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, it's logically inconsistent for you to cite that argument as a reason to reject the notion of Atman while at the same time waiving that standard when you want to accept non-empirical claims of Buddhism.

            Someone who accepts the Atman would in most types/schools say that the Atman is already present and known in ordinary experience and that your claim that you don't know or find it right here and now is based on a faulty understanding of your own lived experience,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >based on a faulty understanding of your own lived experience
            you believe in an eternal unchanging self despite being born twenty years ago

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you believe in an eternal unchanging self despite being born twenty years ago
            A trivial argument since if you don't commit the mistake of considering the physical body to be your self then the birth of the physical body within time is not incompatible whatsoever with the absolute existence of an eternal immutable self.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            language is a disease. you're probably both talking about the same thing at the end of the day - some kind of locus or center or knowingness or beingness or whatever it is that that persists through change. it just can't be a personality. which is what Buddhism has always been about. they just deny what we take to conventionally be the self

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the birth of the physical body within time is not incompatible whatsoever with the absolute existence of an eternal immutable self
            What source of knowledge do you have beyond what you can acquire and reason by the senses? Revelation? So you have no argument and shouldn't accuse me of being illogical for rejecting what you cannot demonstrate. A "Self" unrelated to the body could just as well be changing and impermanent. How do you know otherwise? Did you open your third eye?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So you have no argument and shouldn't accuse me of being illogical for rejecting what you cannot demonstrate.
            False, since whether or not I have any argument is actually immaterial to the fact of you being logically inconsistent in using empirical confirmation or lack thereof to reject non-empirical claims you don't like but then waiving this standard for non-empirical claims that you like. I don't have to have any argument for my own views to correctly observe that you are logically inconsistent for doing this. I'm not committing the same logical inconsistency that you are so this has nothing to do with me personally. Because you don't like that someone pointed out your logical inconsistency you are now flailing around and trying to make it about the other person, which it's not. The mature thing to do would be to just grow up and stop using logically inconsistent arguments and to stop lashing out when people point out the inconsistency.

            >A "Self" unrelated to the body could just as well be changing and impermanent, How do you know otherwise?
            Someone defending the classical Upanishadic Self position would say that the Self is directly known to Itself through the constant self-revelation of its own presence as awareness and that the empirical fact of awareness continuously disclosing its own presence without deviation throughout all experience invariably (the proposed interruption of this is not even confirmable but can only be posited as a hypothetical notion from the vantage point of awareness being present) is what is empirical evidence of it being unchanging and without interruption, since it remains present without signs of either.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >mature thing to do would be to just grow up and stop using logically inconsistent arguments
            So when are you going to drop revelation for empirical reality? If logic is just handmaiden to lawyerly deceit then what use is complying with your terms to parse out what is true or false? You are fundamentally dishonest. I am not talking about Buddhist dogma I am talking about yours. Your whataboutism is blatant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So when are you going to drop revelation for empirical reality?
            Again, this is not about my personal beliefs, I have not said anything that is logically inconsistent, only you have. You can try to muddy the water by making this about my personal beliefs but it's transparent that you are doing this and it just makes you look worse to everyone else who is reading this.
            >If logic is just handmaiden to lawyerly deceit then what use is complying with your terms to parse out what is true or false?
            Whether what you said is logically consistent or not is an objective fact, it's not "my terms" but it exists independent of my personal beliefs. If you want to be taken seriously or have people be more open to things you support and argue for like Buddhism then it's a good idea to at least be logically consistent instead of blatantly contradicting yourself.
            >You are fundamentally dishonest.
            You have not given any example of anything I've said that is dishonest.
            >I am not talking about Buddhist dogma I am talking about yours. Your whataboutism is blatant
            Nothing I've said was 'whataboutism'.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I have not said anything that is logically inconsistent
            If that's true, then why are you wrong? There's no eternal unchanging Self. So if it is "logical" that there is, something is wrong with logic. It couldn't be that all the logicians were theologians, surely they wouldn't have allowed dogma to impede their ultra-rational quest for a systemic and impartial logic! What you have is a hypothesis you can't test. Faith. The "logic" is merely obfuscation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If that's true, then why are you wrong? There's no eternal unchanging Self.
            To just state that as your argument is engaging in the fallacy of question-begging.

            Fallacies on top of logical inconsistency. Yikes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i've written some rules here so i always win, care to play?
            Because i am not a denizen of late antiquity i shrug at the notion that you have access to a truth which you cannot demonstrate and which i cannot access except by agreeing with you; you are not a real priest and can either demonstrate that there is an eternal unchanging Self unrelated to your lived experience of being born, ageing, and dying, or not. You can't and won't, and your howls of indignation about how illogical it is for me to be less gullible than you are merely that, howls. The deeper you retreat into using "fallacies" to criticize the rejection of what you have plainly fabulated, the clearer it is to those with eyes capable of detecting change and passing it up to a consciousness capable of responding.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >howls of indignation about how illogical it is for me to be less gullible than you are merely that, howls.
            What as specifically illogical was you trying to dismiss another person's view in a manner and using a specific argument which you don't accept as valid when applied to your own beliefs, this is logically inconsistent.

            >Self is directly known to Itself through the constant self-revelation of its own presence as awareness and that the empirical fact of awareness continuously disclosing its own presence without deviation throughout all experience invariably
            You can't prove that awareness is in fact eternal, so you're the one question begging here

            >You can't prove that awareness is in fact eternal, so you're the one question begging here
            I'm not claiming to prove it's true so there is no question-begging involved. I merely gave an account of how empirical experience could be analyzed in such a way as to find evidence in support of something but without affirming that this evidence is necessarily proof of it being true. Please read about what question-begging actually means before you incorrectly accuse someone of doing it again.

            I mean if you don't have an argument, then you're the one logically inconsistent

            >then you're the one logically inconsistent
            I did not say a single thing that was logically inconsistent.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you trying to dismiss another person's view in a manner and using a specific argument which you don't accept as valid when applied to your own beliefs
            I can believe whatever dumb shit I want and it doesn't make your shit any less dumb. You are pretending your dumb shit is "logical" because you said so or something, and I'm not convinced that the rules developed by theo-logians to argue for theo-logy easily lead to a rejection of it. I'm not going to bother to try to convince you that emptiness is logical in terms of Hindu theology, I am waiting for you to explain how you have knowledge that an eternal unchanging Self unrelated to your embodied experience exists which is then admissible to this system of so-called logic as it it were water being wet or the sun being bright. If it is through revelation, just say so, and admit you don't believe logic needs to have premises a non-magical person can accept equally as a magical person. Just admit you are starting with the premise of complete divine knowledge and the rest of the "argument" is to edify and impress to impress less scrutinizing persons and serves no real purpose otherwise since nothing is proven only revealed. If you won't then we'll have to agree to disagree.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not claiming to prove it's true
            The vedas are, so they're question begging, so posing that the atman is self evident is a fallacy, so the other anon is right in just negating the existence of the self, something which existence can't be proven, since the burden of proof is on the people saying that the self exist, so he's logically robust on his argument, he doesn't need to entertain the idea of a self since there's no proof whatsoever of even the posdibility of it's existence, in trying to do that, he would also have to entertain the idea of 2 different selfs existing, or 3,4,5 and an infinfte number of metaphysical theories, that's why the burden of proof is on the side that pose the existence of something, ignoring that actually create illogical articulations, so asking for proof of the existence of the self is a valid logical argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I mean if you don't have an argument, then you're the one logically inconsistent

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Self is directly known to Itself through the constant self-revelation of its own presence as awareness and that the empirical fact of awareness continuously disclosing its own presence without deviation throughout all experience invariably
            You can't prove that awareness is in fact eternal, so you're the one question begging here

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but then the self exist as a moving changing, made of parts, thing, which is no longer the self buddha is negating

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This isn’t an entirely objectionable and uninteresting hypothesis or possible axiom to start from (that of “ontic structural realism”, or the belief that structures themselves are real existing entities and the world is fundamentally composed of them), but what is objectionable is that there was neither serious reasoning or arguments put forward as to why this should be believed, nor investigation of its necessary consequences and their deeper meaning.

        To seriously argue this, you’d have to inevitably get into the weeds of Platonic questions, the same questionsthat occupied Socrates and Plato in their day (yet another example of just how much thought goes all the way back to Plato, even some of the sophomoric ones elaborated over a bong-rip in a college dorm at night). Namely, you’d have to ask, “Are so-called ‘IDEAS’ or ‘CONCEPTS’ as fundamentally real as what we call ‘solid real-life material objects out there’?” Then, like Plato, come up with an answer to this question, explaining at least something of how/why some abstract concept or structure like “a times table” exists as much as (or maybe in a different way from) a literal physically empirically-observable thing like the structure of a computer does (its hardware).

        Do the abstract or conceptual structures exist in some ‘higher immaterial intellectual or spiritual realm’ like Platonic Forms/Ideas do? Are they what material structures making up reality are mere reflections of? If so, how did this framework itself and the universe it describes come to being (forming the link between conceptual and physical structures/idea and matter). Etc.

        Plato may not give the best possible and most satisfactory answers to all these questions (for instance, to explain his cosmology, he gives way to speaking of a Creator God and a Demiurge, and recourse to mystical/spiritual phenomena such as a posited metempsychosis/transmigration of the soul, or mythology inspired by Greek culture generally, etc.), but the depth into which he dived at least into arguments for his ideas at least makes it coherent to speak of “Platonism”, and of arguments for and against it, natural consequences of it, etc. But just dropping something like “ontic structural realism” is really interesting and compelling an idea, but doesn’t give enough meat to chew on without getting into deeper elaboration about it (e.g. about arguments for it, or further natural consequences of it that make sense and fit with our experience of or rational thoughts about the world).

        Yes but anytime I get into debates with Buddhist about god they seem so adamant about refuting his existence. Even forms of pantheism

        There is some of Buddhist tradition (or even Taoist, for that matter) and its mythology and legends that can be taken as suggesting something like “apatheism.” I.e., “even if there is a God or gods, it’s not the entirely most relevant thing to this teaching and to your own potential for spiritual development though overcoming/eradicating suffering”.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Derrida straight up copied dependent origination lmfao all of postmodern linguistic theory is just re-packaged Buddhist metaphysics

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Derrida
      Who cares what that pedo israelite thinks lol

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Parmenides is the consistent version of dependent origination, the next step in thought. Depend origination is just post-LSD tier ponderings.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Parmenedis was a monist who directly influenced the notion of prime mover

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but if you think about "all is connected" stuff you realize "there is just one" is the more consistent form of unity since it doesn't posit separation of objects which it then tries to undo. Theres no inter-connectedness then, just one block of being.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          But you are one block of being. Dependent on a lot of shit. We're not some sort of hivemind

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, there are no different things and there is no dependence, and there is no "we".

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It's the weekly Nagarjuna seethe thread
    Wait till illiterate natural theology cliff notes enthusiasts discover Semiotics! The discourse on this board is REALLY going to hit a high point then!

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't buddhists understand that suffering is not some profound problem? Its trivial. Stop doing dumb shit and you won't suffer. It doesn't mean desire or the body or whatever is somehow wrong.
    >aaaaah people get sick and get old and die save me nggerman
    Buddhism is a 3rd world midwit trap

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's not that deep bro
      >t. sub-25 dudebro
      Thanks bud, really scintillating

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The uncaused cause is even more ilogical, at least dependant origination makes sense on a phenomenological level

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *