idk whats the difference between anataman and atman, they sound very similar
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
idk whats the difference between anataman and atman, they sound very similar
Indian philosophy seems like such a waste of time to me. They literally believed that reality is mere illusion. If that’s the case you can’t possibly make sense of anything so why bother? There is no reason.
There are many different interpretations of both. Anatta is interpreted variously as either a denial of any self or a denial that X object like body or intellect is a self; the latter not denying any self whatsoever. Every school of Hinduism posits its own version of an Atman many of which are totally at odds with one another and which don't resemble each other at all. The common thread that unites different schools Atman is somehow constituting or forming the basis of the conscious experiencer. And even when anatta is interoperated as denial of all self there is great disagreement about what this means in practice for consciousness and experience etc
>They literally believed that reality is mere illusion.
No they don't and the very statement is contradictory, what you mean is that the Advaita school says that the physical cosmos and its conditions like space and time *isn't reality*, and that God or the Absolute alone is actually reality, that's not saying reality is an illusion but there is a crucial difference
>If that’s the case you can’t possibly make sense of anything so why bother? There is no reason.
Its illusory in the sense of not having the actual real existence that the Absolute does but when it's all grounded in the Absolute casting it then part of that casting is humans being endowed with minds with power of understanding that can understand things correctly about the universe; and ultimately the true reality is our own immediately self-evident self or knower according to Advaita and so that's not unavailable to us either. The mind is able to know and understand things on the level of maya where its situated and Reality is immediately self-evident to us as our own awareness with no thinking even required; thus there is no issue; also when you have supernaturally revealed scriptures that reveal information about supersensuous truths like the Upanishads they can just directly connect people to the truth.
so i read upanishads, if self=lord of love=compansionate transcendental expierence and in Buddhism realization no self will lead you to something similar
Does Buddhism claim there is an impersonal absolute? If so, then it’s ridiculous to think you can posit anything in particular about it or reality at all.
I mean Indian philosophy generally
>it’s ridiculous to think you can posit anything in particular about it or reality at all
Yeah they arrived at this position; it's called Madhyamaka. Look into Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, and Chandrakirti.
Most based, my brother
they're post-modern neo marxists??????????????????
"Post-modern neo-marxists" don't believe in an absolute that is void of any discursive thought, let alone exist in a meaningful way other than as slur among teenage neo-nazis for everyone they dislike. The pomos all basically reject the ability of marxism to deliver on its soteriology for various reasons, even when they pay lip service to the dominance of marxism in modern continental philosophy. What you are doing is confusing (your contempt for) cultural pluralism or relativism with a refined system of metaphysical skepticism.
How can you arrive at a position you can’t arrive at?
Well... (You) don't.
Exactly. So Indian philosophy doesn’t know anything.
You don't have any understanding of what you're talking about, why even remark on the subject at all?
>Indian philosophy seems like such a waste of time to me.
I find them to be than the greeks.
Anatman is a concept that is much more related to the aspect of impermanence (anitya) and of emptiness (shunyata) on Buddhism
There are two philosophical extremes Buddhism intends to escape from, which are the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism, i.e., of believing things are subjected to something eternal or to a complete meaninglessness. Usually, Hinduism falls under the first extreme, with both the idea of an self (atman) and of absolute (brahman).
When you study (and practice) meditation on emptiness based on the Madhyamaka Prasangika, you can apprehend quite easily the difference of meditating based on a self and on the negation of the four logical extremes (eternalism, annihilationism, both, neither). The latter is one of the distinctive features of Buddhism.
This happens because, once Buddhism has a strong focus on the "seeing things as they really are", going beyond conceptuality, the vision of emptiness (which relates to anatman, once it has relation to the interdependence of all things, i.e., the non-inherent existence) has to go beyond the four kinds of conceptual thoughts possible.
That is also why the formless realms (arupadhatu) are conceived on Buddhism: because even if you achieve an apprehension of neither existence nor non-existence, for example, you are still under something that could be conceptualized. Nirvana, thus, would only be possible once "you" achieved complete realization of emptiness, which is beyond the four logical extremes of existence, non-existence, both and neither.
i thought atman and brahman are basically the same thing
In Advaita Vedanta, they are
how could you read upanishads and gita without thinking differently?
Well, ask the dvaita and vishishtadvaita vedantins. I don't agree with neither them nor the advaitins, once I'm a Buddhist lol
in the atman the man is at the man and in the anatman the man not at the man.
the point is realizing where the man is when he is not at the man.
this means realizing that the man being at the man is in the end the man not being at the man, both at the same time.
Buddhism is atheism with bells and smells for deracinated Westoids
>deracinated
Oh!—he doesn't know. That's not actually your volcano you've been worshipping for ~1700 years. It belongs to another tribe, whose writings were used to justify what would today be considered culturally genocidal policies toward indigenous Italic/Greek/Germanic/Celtic/Syrian/Egyptian etc. peoples in the late Roman empire and beyond
>He doesn’t know about the crimes and genocides perpetrated by Buddhists.
I feel embarrassed now.
I don't see how that relates to charge of one being "deracinated" for not worshiping a foreign ethnic group's war god
Are you a bot? Come up with a new line homosexual
If you take Mahayana metaphysics to its logical conclusion, there is nothing to do. So why practice Buddhism? Why meditate?
When you read the actual texts, Emptiness with an E starts sounding a LOT like the more sophisticated non-substantialist elaborations of atman tbh. It's like people pointing at the same experience except explaining it trough different lenses
Antman is a Marvel character.