Is there a reason I've seen?

Lotsa nondual systems say good karma must also be abandoned for creating attachments as well. It is not just aversion but desire as enemy. Plus oft times nondualists will engage in prima facie unethical behavior under guise of overcoming aversion.

>not one's self a
buddha said there's no such thing as a self

>buddha said there's no such thing as a self
That's probably the single most popular fake Buddha quote

It shows up first in the Abhidharma literature but it's not said by Buddha anywhere.

>“There is no self” is the granddaddy of fake Buddhist quotes. It has survived so long because of its superficial resemblance to the teaching on anatta, or not-self, which was one of the Buddha’s tools for putting an end to clinging. Even though he neither affirmed nor denied the existence of a self, he did talk of the process by which the mind creates many senses of self—what he called “I-making” and “my-making”—as it pursues its desires.
>The Kathavatthu, an Abhidhamma text attributed to the time of King Ashoka, contains the earliest extant version of the answer “no.” Two popular literary works, the Buddhacharita and Milinda Panha, both from around the first century CE, place this “no” at the center of the Buddha’s message.
https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

Lastly, saying what you wrote doesn't even contradict anything I said in that post, since I was pointing out the contradiction in how someone writing from an apparently Buddhist POV was saying "you are the body" when Buddha actually says "you are not the body, don't identify with it"; that point still remains true regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the idea that Buddha taught that there is no self at all.

the article you posted don't promote the idea of a "self" instead just like Nagarjuna, pose that the idea of a non-self also comoes from a notion of self, so it should also be discarded
> Buddha advises all the monks to avoid getting involved in questions such as “What am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” because they lead to answers like “I have a self” and “I have no self,” both of which are a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that get in the way of awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 2).
>But when there’s no more clinging, you have no need for perceptions either of self or not-self. You see no point in answering the question of whether there is or isn’t a self because you’ve found the ultimate happiness.
he's never proposing the idea that buddha hinted at a "true self",thanissaro bhikku elaborate further in his translation of the Alagaddupama sutta:
Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates — form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness — he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1) all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine."

The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:

Based
From what I understand, much of philosophy generally wrestles with providing answers to the fundamental questions of the human condition: “What am I, and what is the world/reality? Do I exist, do I not exist, does the world exist, does it not exist? Is the world merely a part of me? Am I merely a part of the world?” Different philosophies provide different answers, but Buddhism undermines the question, by undermining the cognition of a self-and-a-world in the first place, via realizing dependent arising, which reveals the questions themselves to be based on false and self-contradictory premises.

>does not deny that any Self exists in that Sutta or any other ones
well the horns of a rabbit and a barren woman's child need not be disproven either

Which consequently, does render these ontological questions about the self and the world, to be equivalent to asking ‘what colour eyes does the barren woman’s son have?’ or ‘how many horns does the rabbit have?’
To just outright explicitly answer the question “does the self exist or not exist” (even by saying “the Self does not exist!”) would not be in keeping with the Buddhist motive to undermine the question. It would be a mere answer, and it would lend credence to the notion of Self by treating it as a coherent notion that could even be negated with an answer.

>buddha never said that, that sounds more like a life denying vedanta thing, buddha said that you're not only your body and that you shouldn't only identify with the desirible aspects of your body,
That's completely false, he says that you are not the body or anything else comprised of form in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. It comes as no surprise that vapid crypto-materialist ""Nietzschean"" ""Buddhists"" like yourself would prefer to downplay this element of Buddha's teaching that contradicts your gross distortion of it.

>The Blessed One said this. "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. ...
>"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

Authoritative Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula Thero wrote, “Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of ‘me’ and ‘mine.'”

>Authoritative Buddhist scholar Walpola Rahula Thero wrote, “Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self or Atman
And yet he is unable to produce a quote from Buddha where the existence of the Self is explicitly denied, how amusing.

the article you posted don't promote the idea of a "self" instead just like Nagarjuna, pose that the idea of a non-self also comoes from a notion of self, so it should also be discarded
> Buddha advises all the monks to avoid getting involved in questions such as “What am I?” “Do I exist?” “Do I not exist?” because they lead to answers like “I have a self” and “I have no self,” both of which are a “thicket of views, a writhing of views, a contortion of views” that get in the way of awakening (Majjhima Nikaya 2).
>But when there’s no more clinging, you have no need for perceptions either of self or not-self. You see no point in answering the question of whether there is or isn’t a self because you’ve found the ultimate happiness.
he's never proposing the idea that buddha hinted at a "true self",thanissaro bhikku elaborate further in his translation of the Alagaddupama sutta:
Two mistaken inferences are particularly relevant here. The first concerns the range of the not-self teaching. Some have argued that, because the Buddha usually limits his teachings on not-self to the five aggregates — form, feeling, perceptions, fabrications, and consciousness — he leaves open the possibility that something else may be regarded as self. Or, as the argument is often phrased, he denies the limited, temporal self as a means of pointing to one's identity with the larger, unlimited, cosmic self. However, in this discourse the Buddha explicitly phrases the not-self teaching in such a way as to refute any notion of cosmic self. Instead of centering his discussion of not-self on the five aggregates, he focuses on the first four aggregates plus two other possible objects of self-identification, both more explicitly cosmic in their range: (1) all that can be seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect; and (2) the cosmos as a whole, eternal and unchanging. In fact, the Buddha holds this last view up to particular ridicule, as the teaching of a fool, for two reasons that are developed at different points in this discourse: (1) If the cosmos were "me," then it must also be "mine," which is obviously not the case. (2) There is nothing in the experience of the cosmos that fits the bill of being eternal, unchanging, or that deserves to be clung to as "me" or "mine."

The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:

>the article you posted don't promote the idea of a "self"
I never said they did

>unable to produce a quote from Buddha where the existence of the Self is explicitly denied
What's your point? Do you need a quote about water being wet too? If the buddha wanted to affirm the Vedic philosophy he could have, and then there would be no system called Buddhism or buddha-dharma. Instead we are told in the canonical discourses you can't find this "Self" anywhere in the actual experiential factors of lived reality or existence, so imagining otherwise is not conducive to liberation from the bonds of transience, ignorance, suffering and so on. It is a rejection of atmavadin Indian philosophy, not a crypto-endorsement of it. Even in later Mahayana literature where the converted brahmins have influenced the debate and systems similar to an atmavada are presented in which some concept appears to perform the same role, it is either subordinated or assimilated to the doctrine of emptiness—that is to say whatever atman or pseudo-atman we posit is in essence anatman, because all elements/entities/dharmas are lacking any permanent kernel to which they adhere.

>statements even by so-called 'authorities' actually have their basis in nothing
ah it sounds like you are beginning to understand though your determination to capitalize Self and rent-free fixation on Buddhism gives you away as a flavor of cyberhindu and so you still have some snares to untangle

> he doesn't said that, he said that the notions you have of your body are rooted in wrong views, you are your body insofar you recognize i as something impermanent and interdependent with the rest of the skhandas
He doesn’t say that anywhere, that’s just bs you are making up which contradicts his explicit statement that any form “whether in oneself (ones body) or external” is to be regarded as “This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself”, he doesn’t make any sort of special exception that allows for identifying with something impermanent, what you are claiming is a gross distortion of his explicit statement.

> After death this ‘I’ will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’—Isn’t it utterly and completely a fool’s teaching?”
That’s just calling it a fool’s teaching but without saying anything about whether a Self exists or not, he does not deny that any Self exists in that Sutta or any other ones.
> then your point is moot
No, it’s not, because I was correctly refuting a false claim about what Buddha said and taught

Those are by their very formulation an impossibility while the Self isn’t

Not a Buddhist either but dabbled extensively.

There is a self in a relative or conventional way just like there is a body. It is just that both are subject to rising and passing and are impermanent. It's more about there not being an eternal, abiding, immortal soul / self.

>Because the very notion of self as the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unfelt feeler, the unknown knower, is entirely dependent on there being this impermanent experience in the first place.
Those are only incidental descriptions of what happens when the Self is illuminating the mind and its functions, those are not intrinsic or essential attributes of the Self which depend upon anything else, the Self remains what It is both in the presence and absence of mental functions. The Self is not in Itself really a “hearer” etc but it’s the self-luminous and partless light of pure consciousness that directed mental states have as their basis.

>The Self as that which is prior to, possesses and knows form, feeling, perception, consciousness and conditions - is incoherent without that very qualifier
No, it’s not, since the Self remains self-luminous pure awareness-presence both in the absence and presence of those qualifiers. When the Self is said to “know” things besides itself that is speaking about the Buddhi’s acts (when illuminated by the Self) being figuratively attributed to the Self.

> And if the Self, by its very definition, is dependent on the presence of that which is impermanent and subject
It’s not

Not that anon but good points and furthermore, AV would also say, in contrast to earlier, that the the perceiver does not require perception at all to perceive itself in its perfect luminosity hence the equivocation between dreamless sleep and samadhi.

> awareness-presence would be entirely dependent/contingent on that which it illuminates (appearances)
In some schools and sub-traditions of Tibetan and Ch’an Buddhism it’s not

> Let me know if I’ve accurately described the Advaita position
I would say it is accurate except for that said awareness-presence doesn’t have to be abstracted or inferred because it’s self-evident and known directly and immediately in all moments

> Name-and-form here being equivalent to ‘appearances’ and consciousness being equivalent to ‘awareness-presence’ in our discussion.
I would question that assertion, because Buddha lists different types of consciousness like ear-consciousness and eye-consciousness, so he seems to rather be talking about a specific kind of mental operation associated with particular organs and functions and not pure reflexive awareness-presence (which there are not distinct “types” of for each organ)

> Longchenpa
In ‘The Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomena’ he says that awareness is spontaneously present, which literally means present without being caused, not arising on the basis of something else but simply being naturally present. It’s a contradiction to say that awareness is spontaneously present and yet arises on the basis of or depends on something else. I haven’t read all his works though so IDK if he tries to reconcile that elsewhere, I wonder though if what you said about him is the viewpoint of later writers who read earlier Dzogchen texts in ways that reflect their anxiety about being accused of heterodoxy.

> sinnce by deffinition any experience of awareness without an object of aawareness is impossible
There isn’t one single definition of awareness that everyone agrees on so that argument is not worth anything at all. Plenty of meditators disagree with that claim of yours and they claim to experience objectless awareness in samadhi and other meditative/yogic states. Reflexive awareness is a kind of awareness that is just naturally self-aware of itself as sentient presence in a way that doesn’t involve the subject-object duality, when it’s just naturally abiding in itself it doesn’t need anything to be aware of itself because it’s self-aware by nature.

>being aware of nothing is by deffinition being unaware
Reflexive awareness is self-aware of itself by nature; it’s just not aware of anything presenting itself as otherness/objectivity.

Esp insofar as how can the unenlightened understand the enlightened? The qutub problem. Platonic anamnesis is best answer IMO

>There isn’t one single definition of awareness
then by your own deffinition you can't prove the existence of the self using the notion of awareness since it's a relative term with different meanings and without a concensus

yes you were, you only brought up the "self luminity " of awareness as part of your argument defending the idea of a Self, now we can agree that as a form of argumentationis pretty weak since you can't defend it when is put into question

>Defending an idea is not the same thing as claiming to prove that it’s true
yes it is, you can't defend an idea while claiming is false

>Defending an idea means defending it against criticisms and attempts to refute it,
you're using dogmatic "truths" to defend it, so the truth claim is already implicit, i'm just saying the thing you're defending and the thruts you're using to defend it are both not truth but dogmatic nonesense

>never said I was trying to prove it

One reason as to why one may claim that the Buddhist understanding of the anatman pales when compared to the surety of the Hindu concept of the self, or the atman as well as the Self, or the Atman, is that if one takes his/her existence, in the Hindu illusory world of maya, or the Buddhists illusory realm of loka, it is still the case that what he/she senses in either realm, must derive from a source that can sense, or oneself, or an atman. Moreover, even if one peels away this self, or atman, as does the Buddha, he/she may claim that this too is an err on part of the Buddha. That is because one still must admit that when he/she is dismantling the self, or the atman even if it is for the sake of emptying, or voiding oneself, to be the clearest channel for raw consciousness to come forth, as akin to the beliefs of the Buddha, he/she must still admit that he/she is untangling something rather than nothing. In other words, one major flaw of the Buddhist idea of the anatman is that if there were genuinely no self at all, then how can it be that what one takes to be his/her perceptions are indeed his/her own? At the same time, an even more pressing flaw of the Buddhist idea of the anatman is how can it be that one ought to empty oneself for clarity of mind, while nevertheless failing to acknowledge that there must be a self, working toward its own emptying, that is previous to an emptied self, for that self to be emptiable?

Also, the idea that a perpetually abiding Self, or Atman, as being, in fact, impermanent, and hence defying the very truth of a Self, or an Atman cannot be the case either, thus defying the Buddha’s assertion of the anatman. That is because in Hinduism although individuals may find that even the natural order and all of reality is impermanent, it is permanently impermanent, or that it is the very essence, or nature of the Self, or the Atman to renew itself through the periodic clearing away of all that is only for the reemergence of itself after such episodic conflagrations. One need only look to the idea of Brahma as that which creates all life, and Vishnu as that which sustains all life, and Shiva as that which is the destroyer of all life, that is, the Hindu Trinity itself, to know that these three guises of the Self, or the Atman calls forth change in a way that is everlasting. Thus, there is not a true anatman that can ever come to be, for, even the Self, or the Atman despite appearing to undergo change, is verily that which causes and ensures the eternity of existence through its self-regulating nature. In other words, and as the philosopher Leibniz once wrote “... the universe which will be changed but not destroyed,” the Self, or the Atman alike may alter the cosmos, as effects of its nature, but it itself will eternally and unchangingly be.

>the surety of the Hindu concept of the self, or the atman as well as the Self, or the Atman
it's true, you've only sputtered dogmatic utterances in what is most assuredly a bad faith exchange

>Reflexive awareness is self-aware of itself by nature
if reflexive awareness exist by itself, then there's nothing connecting it to our awareness of objects, thus we wouldn't be able to perceive anything, if it's part of oirgeneral awareness, then reflective awareness can only exist as an abstraction developed thanks to particular instances of awareness that create the general notion of awareness that lead itself to be aware, thus a reflective moment, in that case, reflective awareness is not something that can exist by itself, instead is relative to general awareness

> if reflexive awareness exist by itself, then there's nothing connecting it to our awareness of objects
Wrong, this has already been explained in this thread, let alone countless other threads. The intellect is what has the sensation of perceiving objectivity. Because the basic space of self-luminous awareness is the stage upon which the intellect and its functions dance, they are ‘connected’ in this way.
> thus we wouldn't be able to perceive anything
That would only be true if humans were devoid of intellect/mind, which is not the case since they have an intellect/mind, since they have it they can perceive objects even though their immediate self-awareness at the core of their being is just peacefully aware of itself.
>if it's part of oirgeneral awareness, then reflective awareness
Im talking about reflexive awareness and not reflective awareness which is something else entirely, kek
>can only exist as an abstraction >developed thanks to particular instances of awareness that create the general notion of awareness
No, the reflexive awareness is always known and self-disclosed and thus is already self-evident without having to be “abstracted”, its impossible to have any sort of conscious/known experience without the self-disclosure of reflexive awareness as its basis or there is an infinite regress involved, Dharmakirti, Shantaraksita and Mipham all agree with me on this point btw; there is a long history within Buddhist thought of BTFOing non-reflexive models of awareness. Mipham completely trashes Tsongkhapa’s understanding of awareness and runs circles around it.

> you can't prove it, so that dogma does nothing to help your argument
When you are confusing reflexive and reflective awareness you are not even talking about the same thing as me anymore, and I was just pointing out that when something is already known it doesn’t have to be abstracted.

> is not already know, is just a dogma you can't defend, so it's better for you to say that "is alreay know"
I disagree and think it’s already known, and this is quite easy to defend as a reasonable idea, and so do many Buddhist thinkers like Dharmakirti, Shantaraksita and Mipham all think this, in fact the general trend in most of Tibetan Buddhism outside of the Gelug school is to consider awareness as being reflexive and already known in a self-evident way.

> then you're no longer defending the Self, but the Dzogchen doctrine
No, because I was defending the general idea of awareness already being known and self-evident, Advaitins make the same point.
>the problem is when awareness is used for the sake of the reification of a self
all the arguments for why this is bad are just circular buddhist dogmas

> Git laid, gay
I’m 6’5, its extremely easy for me

>because I was defending the general idea of awareness already being known and self-evident
is irrelevant to defend that becauseno one is attacking it, what is attacked here is that such an awareness can happen in the context of the atman doctrine

Demons are not incoherent. Not does a sense of self imply a lasting much less everlasting self. Sorry. You're just goin off your gut.

>on the contrary, if you add an atman into the equation awareness stop making sense, since you create a second order ontology, awareness is divided on awareness on itself and awarenss of the atman
That’s not true at all, that’s just some strawman bs that you made up. The Advaitic Atman is completely partless and undifferentiated, there is no “division of awareness” in it. The Atman *IS* awareness itself, awareness itself and the Atman are not two different things. And in that Atman of pure reflexive, partless, unconditioned spontaneously-present awareness there are no parts or divisions or bifurcations or mentation or volition.

>which awareness is substantially empty
In Shentong doctrines the awareness is only empty of mundane phenomena but is not empty of its own supramundane Buddha qualities/nature.
>and just let the object of awareness manifest without resisting it
The Advaitic Atman is without thoughts/mentation and does not resist or accept anything, it’s beyond acceptance and rejection.

> then the avdaita form of awareness can't explain how phenomena manifest, since if there's only awareness then the object of awareness can't exist
This has already been answered countless times, the object of awareness doesn’t truly exist, it’s only avidya-maya appearing as the world of plurality, this can be so because awareness is the basis of samsara and allows it to manifest as the illusory non-exist phenomena by its inherent power.
>and if the object of awareness can't exist awareness itself becomes moot, you're never aware of anything
Awareness is automatically aware of itself as being a peaceful sentient presence, a pure stainless and unconditioned light. The intellect manifesting as a part of samsara allows the living being to have the knowledge of inner and outer phenomena.
>awareness is not awareness at all,
Yes it is
>shentong doctrine is refuted by all the shcools of vajrayana, nothing to take seriously there
I dont take that claim seriously, Shentong is a part of Vajrayana and is taught by the Jonang school and specific Kagyu masters. All the arguments against it that I’ve seen have been weak and unconvincing.
>how can the taman accept something that can't even exist?
The question is pointless because the Atman doesn’t accept or reject anything anyway but if it theoretically had the capacity to do so then we would be speaking about choosing to accept or reject things which have an illusory and contingent appearance while lacking real existence.

>the object of awareness doesn’t truly exist,
if it doesn't exist hen awareness is useless or even worst doesn't exist either, it's like saying movement can exist without the need of space

>is like saying there is another sentient entity inside you which is something besides yourself, like a parasite or demonic possession.
how can a demon inside you exist if not even a self exist?

>was saying it was being abstracted from experience instead of already being known, which is what I said was wrong
awareness as a thing outside this world, as a manifestation of the atman is indeed something created from an abstraction of the mind, the basic luminosity of awareness is just a fancy way of saying that awareness has the quality of awareness on itself, which is so inconsecuentail it has no merit in this conversation
you were not talking about the basic notion of reflexivity in awareness but awareness as a manifestation of the atman, here:

>Because the very notion of self as the unseen seer, the unheard hearer, the unfelt feeler, the unknown knower, is entirely dependent on there being this impermanent experience in the first place.
Those are only incidental descriptions of what happens when the Self is illuminating the mind and its functions, those are not intrinsic or essential attributes of the Self which depend upon anything else, the Self remains what It is both in the presence and absence of mental functions. The Self is not in Itself really a “hearer” etc but it’s the self-luminous and partless light of pure consciousness that directed mental states have as their basis.

>The Self as that which is prior to, possesses and knows form, feeling, perception, consciousness and conditions - is incoherent without that very qualifier
No, it’s not, since the Self remains self-luminous pure awareness-presence both in the absence and presence of those qualifiers. When the Self is said to “know” things besides itself that is speaking about the Buddhi’s acts (when illuminated by the Self) being figuratively attributed to the Self.

> And if the Self, by its very definition, is dependent on the presence of that which is impermanent and subject
It’s not

so the buddhist notion of self luminosity of awareness is in no way related to your point, since the self luminosity of awareness in buddhism exist thanks to the emptiness of all things that let existence be open to itself

>awareness as a thing outside this world, as a manifestation of the atman is indeed something created from an abstraction of the mind
No it’s not, it’s actually a basic element of our experience and people just habitually attribute their intellects functions to awareness by mistake, but if you pay attention to awareness itself you’ll find that it doesn’t ever actually do anything, it just peacefully remains in itself.
>the basic luminosity of awareness is just a fancy way of saying that awareness has the quality of awareness on itself, which is so inconsecuentail it has no merit in this conversation
No, the self-revealing or self-disclosing (reflexive) nature of awareness is extremely important to properly understanding awareness, as many major Buddhist philosophers happily admit and insist themselves. Saying “X has the quality of something on itself” is not grammatically correct English and it doesn’t mean anything.
>you were not talking about the basic notion of reflexivity in awareness but awareness as a manifestation of the atman
No, I’m not, awareness is not a “manifestation of” the Atman. The Atman is itself pure awareness.
>so the buddhist notion of self luminosity of awareness is in no way related to your point
It is since they agree that awareness is already self-evident and known already and some of them go further and say it’s spontaneously present (uncaused) and pure and untainted by anything.
>since the self luminosity of awareness in buddhism exist thanks to the emptiness of all things that let existence be open to itself
That’s not true, the self-luminosity doesn’t exist because of sunyata, it exists because awareness has the attribute or nature of being self-revealing. Awareness having that quality by its very nature is the reason why it is that way.

> You are just dumping presuppositions and getting mad that people
That’s where you’re wrong kiddo, I enjoy posting in these types of threads, thats why I continue to do it

I have never claimed to be fully enlightened

I find it funny that when I just make regular posts about topics that I find interesting that it sometimes causes people to chime in and say “nuh uhhh you aren’t enlightened!!” even though I never claimed to be, it really says more about them than it says anything about me.

I meant “regular” as in “ordinary” as in “not claiming to be special or enlightened” and not as in “on a regular basis”

>the rest of your post
just proving my point

>your bullheadedness
>if you are confident in what you talk about… then you have autism!
lmao
>and inability to comprehend the objections raised by others
like what? I address in good faith most posts that posit an argument and try to understand and reply to their argument, even when those posts are clearly not made in good faith, what objection have I not understood?

Is this below supposed to be a good fairh post:

>Self-luminosity for yogacara is the self-luminosity of appearances. Appearances are described as self-luminous, sights, sounds, sensations, tastes, smells, thoughts, are all each ‘illumined by themselves’ without any consciousness or awareness apart from the presence of appearances.
Dharmakirti and Dinnaga don’t posit any additional separate awareness beyond the purportedly self-luminous mental acts of seeing, hearing, thinking, but if you actually read their works and pay close attention they actually split the awareness-appearance into two aspects, the object form (arthākāra) and the subject form (grāhakākāra), the former is what possesses the phenomenal content being conveyed and the latter is the subjective witnessing aspect of the cognition as the ‘grasper’ of the objective content of the same cognition.

Upon inspection, the grāhakākāra just turns out to be pure reflexive awareness without any parts or phenomenal content, and the arthākāra just turns out to be that is which is other than the witnessing subject, i.e. the insentient phenomenal content. Dharmakirti thus makes the mistake of lumping insentient phenomenal content together with awareness as one thing, even though he admits that it has two qualitatively different aspects into which it splits, only one of which can truly be said to be the “knower” or “sentient” or “aware”. The argument that Dharmakirti uses in an attempt to establish the identity of the arthākāra and the grāhakākāra is that they always occur together and so they should be assumed to be the same. This argument doesn’t hold water because there are examples of things which always occur together despite being different (e.g. gravity and mass). To use an expression of Shankara, it cannot reasonably be accepted as “a hard and fast rule.”

What’s more, this conception is unable to coherently explain our experience, because the separate and transient subject-forms associated with each particular cognition of a sound, a sight, a thought etc would have no way of combining to produce our smoothly integrated conscious experience whereby sounds, sights, smells etc all flash forward in a display that is known all at once, because the individual subject-forms have no means to know each others respective object-forms, and there is also no separate awareness/knower in whom they are all integrated, or for whom they all appear.

Shankara refutes the Yogachara explanation of conscious experience on this point by noting in Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2-2-28 that “To claim that a cognition is like a lamp, and that cognitions are therefore able to manifest of their own accord without depending on anything else to illumine them, is as much as to affirm that they are inaccessible to any means of knowledge and have no one to know them. It would be like talking of the radiance of a thousand lamps that were enclosed invisibly (and individually) in the hallows of a thick mass of rock.”

>To use an expression of Shankara, it cannot reasonably be accepted as “a hard and fast rule.”
It's not meant to be. Are you stupid?
>What’s more, this conception is unable to coherently explain our experience, because the separate and transient subject-forms associated with each particular cognition of a sound, a sight, a thought etc would have no way of combining to produce our smoothly integrated conscious experience whereby sounds, sights, smells etc all flash forward in a display that is known all at once, because the individual subject-forms have no means to know each others respective object-forms, and there is also no separate awareness/knower in whom they are all integrated, or for whom they all appear.
Are you idiotic? I hope this was not written by you. This is no more of a problem for the Buddhists than the problem of how the absolute atman experiences relativity either.
>Shankara refutes the Yogachara explanation of conscious experience on this point by noting in Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2-2-28 that “To claim that a cognition is like a lamp, and that cognitions are therefore able to manifest of their own accord without depending on anything else to illumine them, is as much as to affirm that they are inaccessible to any means of knowledge and have no one to know them. It would be like talking of the radiance of a thousand lamps that were enclosed invisibly (and individually) in the hallows of a thick mass of rock.”
This is pure nonsense of a metaphor and definitely "cannot be accepted as a hard and fast rule"

>And failing to understand when you stop arguing basing on axioms the other person doesn't agree.
I don’t argue solely based on axioms but I also draw from empirical experience and logically analyze the idea being proposed by the other person and its implications. Just because both sides of a debate have axioms that neither accepts doesn’t mean that engaging in debate in fruitless.

>You should know from experience that neither Buddhists or Hindus will budge on certain points, and that argument is a waste of time for either side by that point.
I disagree, you should stop trying to be the karen hall-monitor of what people choose to debate about, if you dont like it then go to another thread
>since you're more concerned with not losing than actually arguing.
Its not a matter of concern, I do it because I actively enjoy it, just like I have other leisurely pursuits that I also enjoy

>I don’t spam threads shilling it
>And now you've made me post it.
That’s a schizo image, and if you actually look up said thread in archives, someone posted the “you’s” showing that it was two different posters, also, that’s an anonymous poster from 4 years ago lol.

You are a liar.

I didn’t copy and paste that, I wrote all of that myself by drawing on my own knowledge. I am free to express my disagreement with Yogachara if I want to
>read the room
its not a social event lmao! Its a thread about non-dualism with anonymous posters, im just here to talk about the ideas themselves.
>>x refutes y
>This is how brainlets think of philosophy
Noooooo! we have to accept everyone’s viewpoint and hold hands and sing kumbaya!

It's social media. You degrade the quality of convo.

that image is even more schizo lol

There's probably multiple AV posters just like there's multiple people here telling you you are a pest but regardless you fit the mold.

>It's not meant to be. Are you stupid?
What Dharmakirti literally writes is “Because they are invariably apprehended together, blue and the cognition of it are not different.” My point that I was making is that this is not a strong argument when things are found to occur together that are different from each other, because if that’s true then the mere co-occurrence of blue and the awareness of oneself as perceiving blue is not a valid grounds on which to conclude their identity, especially when both are qualitatively different from each other.

>I hope this was not written by you.
It was
>This is no more of a problem for the Buddhists than the problem of how the absolute atman experiences relativity either.
Its a huge problem for Buddhists who subscribe to that theory, but that’s not a problem for Advaitins at all; the Atman *doesn’t* in fact experience relativity (this was already pointed out in this thread) but rather its undivided light illuminates all the workings of the intellect at once and allows them to occur in a united experience for the human being, there is no separate illuminating light performing this function in the standard Yogachara model.

>are you stupid
>are you idiotic
>you liar
are you the same guy who whined about me “disparaging” others? lol

>This is a pure nonsense of a metaphor
I disagree, but either way you saying that is not addressing the actual philosophical point being made which I made clear
>t's social media. You degrade the quality of convo
By effort-posting? lol. By disagreeing with people, unlike everyone else on IQfy who agrees with eachother? lol
>there's multiple people here telling you you are a pest
Ive had countless people thank me, ask for my contact info and praise my posts before, I dont really care if people react positively or negatively but I post because I enjoy it.

Lastly, I have not lied about anything.

>then does that make it fine?
I dont care if you do and so whether it’s “fine” or not is a pointless hypothetical to me, you can do what you want, I dont waste time whining about others but I just post about what interests me.
>Your logic is silly.
Not at all

> The Buddhist framework can provide a perfectly logical answer based on the non-self thesis.
uhhh…. like?

>So far the Hindus have not shown
Your own immediate self-awareness has been pointed out to be the Atman-Brahman, thus, it HAS in fact been shown to you, but you refuse to accept that this is what the Atman-Brahman is, but that’s not the same as it having not been pointed out to you.
>Secondly, by observation, there is nothing called a self in any realm
The luminous pristine awareness at the center of all experience deserves to be called a Self because it stands at the heart of our being and conscious experience, illuminating all functions of the mind and body. It alone is really conscious and nothing insentient can be a Self of a living being, so it alone can and should be called Self.
> because whatever aggregates there are in those realms, they remain conditioned, consciousness included
The light of consciousness is completely unconditioned, there is no way to show that its conditioned in any way because its beyond objectification, when you try to find some evidence of it being conditioned all you end up doing is using the mind to examine insentient phenomenal content whether interior or exterior, none of which are the Self. There is no plausible epistemic account that can demonstrate that this inner luminous consciousness is conditioned in any way.

that was already critiqued here as being untenable

>Self-luminosity for yogacara is the self-luminosity of appearances. Appearances are described as self-luminous, sights, sounds, sensations, tastes, smells, thoughts, are all each ‘illumined by themselves’ without any consciousness or awareness apart from the presence of appearances.
Dharmakirti and Dinnaga don’t posit any additional separate awareness beyond the purportedly self-luminous mental acts of seeing, hearing, thinking, but if you actually read their works and pay close attention they actually split the awareness-appearance into two aspects, the object form (arthākāra) and the subject form (grāhakākāra), the former is what possesses the phenomenal content being conveyed and the latter is the subjective witnessing aspect of the cognition as the ‘grasper’ of the objective content of the same cognition.

Upon inspection, the grāhakākāra just turns out to be pure reflexive awareness without any parts or phenomenal content, and the arthākāra just turns out to be that is which is other than the witnessing subject, i.e. the insentient phenomenal content. Dharmakirti thus makes the mistake of lumping insentient phenomenal content together with awareness as one thing, even though he admits that it has two qualitatively different aspects into which it splits, only one of which can truly be said to be the “knower” or “sentient” or “aware”. The argument that Dharmakirti uses in an attempt to establish the identity of the arthākāra and the grāhakākāra is that they always occur together and so they should be assumed to be the same. This argument doesn’t hold water because there are examples of things which always occur together despite being different (e.g. gravity and mass). To use an expression of Shankara, it cannot reasonably be accepted as “a hard and fast rule.”

What’s more, this conception is unable to coherently explain our experience, because the separate and transient subject-forms associated with each particular cognition of a sound, a sight, a thought etc would have no way of combining to produce our smoothly integrated conscious experience whereby sounds, sights, smells etc all flash forward in a display that is known all at once, because the individual subject-forms have no means to know each others respective object-forms, and there is also no separate awareness/knower in whom they are all integrated, or for whom they all appear.

Shankara refutes the Yogachara explanation of conscious experience on this point by noting in Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2-2-28 that “To claim that a cognition is like a lamp, and that cognitions are therefore able to manifest of their own accord without depending on anything else to illumine them, is as much as to affirm that they are inaccessible to any means of knowledge and have no one to know them. It would be like talking of the radiance of a thousand lamps that were enclosed invisibly (and individually) in the hallows of a thick mass of rock.”

I'll try it with my own experience (feel free to doubt it).
The person most responsible for you thinking that there is a relative point is exactly Māra, here as an allegory for the persistence of the point of view. Which is ultimately illusory.
By the way, I'd like to bring up two other problems that have already been exposed by philosophers of mind.
1- You don't know if the other person is a sentient being or not.
2- Although the "I" (as a point of view) points to what no-dualists call the Atman. Analysis shows that there is no such thing as Atman.
3- Atman as a representative of the relative point of view is ultimately false.

?si=NohLiJPfh5oG_Xzr
(I don't know who this guy is, but if he doesn't convince you, I don't think you ever will.)
4- For those who believe in samsara, reality already has everything that can be real or not, regardless of physical or mental form.
5- The Buddha contradicts himself by affirming contact as a basic principle, even though he says there is nothing more than the 6 senses.
This leaves open speculation about duality (which still exists in some Buddhist lineages) or panpsychism.

Continue...

1-Watch the video
2- meditation
3-personal experience
4- Watch the video

Yes, but it's already better dengue people are conjecturing about.

Exactly. He knows it's wrong. But he insists out of sheer religiosity.

> Very dubious,. Hindus don't know anything about buddhism.
Nonsense, plenty of Hindus have studied Buddhism and written books and essays on various forms of it.
> Also the hindus still haven't shown to anybody this famous atman they keep talking about.
You are already aware of it as your own immediate and self-evident self-awareness of your own consciousness, but you disagree that this should be considered an Atman. You are also probably confusing it with the intellect and vice-versa despite having some level of immediate and intuitive knowledge of it. You already know it at this very moment, but in a way where you confuse it as having something else’s properties and vice-versa.

Relax, I'm your friend here.

NTA but I think he is saying neither Buddhists nor Hindus really have a problem if kbe accepts their axioms

>t you are autistic by consistently failing to read the room through shilling your favorite as superior (don't act coy, you do this regularly)
I’m posting in non-dualism in a thread about non-dualism, which is the right place to post about it, I don’t spam threads shilling it, even in threads about other topics I usually don’t even mention it unless its replying to another anon who already did, since they opened to door to talking about it.
>and disparaging other religions.
Being rude isn’t autism, and when I disparage things its almost invariably expressing my disagreement with a philosophical idea that I also explain why I think it’s wrong, or I am disparaging the behavior and statements of certain people without ascribing that to the religion as a whole. That it has come down to calling anonymous posters autistic for making detailed posts defending a subject they enjoy studying is so petty and childish.

>And failing to understand when you stop arguing basing on axioms the other person doesn't agree.
I don’t argue solely based on axioms but I also draw from empirical experience and logically analyze the idea being proposed by the other person and its implications. Just because both sides of a debate have axioms that neither accepts doesn’t mean that engaging in debate in fruitless.

>You should know from experience that neither Buddhists or Hindus will budge on certain points, and that argument is a waste of time for either side by that point.
I disagree, you should stop trying to be the karen hall-monitor of what people choose to debate about, if you dont like it then go to another thread
>since you're more concerned with not losing than actually arguing.
Its not a matter of concern, I do it because I actively enjoy it, just like I have other leisurely pursuits that I also enjoy

>I don’t spam threads shilling it
>And now you've made me post it.
That’s a schizo image, and if you actually look up said thread in archives, someone posted the “you’s” showing that it was two different posters, also, that’s an anonymous poster from 4 years ago lol.

>So do Buddhists.
And I generally respond and point out what I think is erroneous in their empirical analysis, hence I dont just argue by asserting axioms
>You also spend much your time flinging around words like Atman around when the only source you can defend its existence with are the Upanishads.
I can defend it as being consistent with logic and how human life occurs, that the Upanishads are the source of the idea itself is not a bad thing and every religious doctrine is comparable in this regard since they all derive teachings from scriptures or “magic men” about the supra-empirical.
>Why not chill out instead?
When I’m posting here, it’s because I am in the mood to do so, and this is a form of “chilling out” for me, when I want to chill out in other ways not online, then I do so.
>And now he shifts to complaining about someone getting annoyed at his regular displays of autism
>Noooooo you cant reply to posts criticizing non-dualism in a thread about non-dualism or… or… you are autistic!
lmao
>Then why not let others enjoy calmer discussion of high quality?
Im not the one casually throwing insults around here
>Why don't you firmly prove you're not that poster instead of calling it a schizopost?
Literally all its based on is that some swedish guy on IQfy admitted to posting a bait thread about Guenon on IQfy once. There are IQfy-affiliated Traditionalist and Platonist Discord servers with dozens of people from all around the world who speak many languages and who have all read some of Guenon, in plenty of Guenon threads you see people posting content about him from essays and other mediums in other languages. It’s completely ridiculous to assume that I am that simply because I am posting about non-dualism here (and not even Guenon) when so many international IQfyners have read him. Its kind of sad that I even have to point out how schizo and tenuous that connection is.

>Using the Advaita framework based on Brahman, cool.
That doesn’t invalidate the points about empirical experience that are made or make them cease to be empirical, basically nobody argues for something while not accepting or using in their arguments at all the framework which said thing utilizes, Im not sure why you even thought it would be a good idea to post that because it’s just silly.
>Also, nice strawman below.
What strawman? Its not a strawman to say other religions rely on scripture or the purported supernatural insight of Buddha/Mahavira/etc
>I gave a reason for calling you autistic
The reason given as justification was laughably weak and you also were saying insults like stupid, idiot etc. If anything you are the one who is acting autistically by obsessively focusing on me as a poster and writing more and more posts obsessing about me instead of the topic of the thread, I mean I know that my posts are interesting but geez! Im not gay btw so dont even think about it
>So go and tell me which one of those myriad guenonposters you were in the relevant thread,
Why would I waste my time doing that lol?
>You also didn't explain the other pic.
I dont need to, it was an anonymous post from 4 years ago held up claimed but unproven evidence of samegayging, on a board with at least a hundred people who have read and posted about non-dual stuff and probably hundreds who have posted about Guenon. It’s completely silly and even talking about it is a waste of time.
>as shown by my pics
No they dont lmao, those are anonymous posts from years ago, and they dont even show clear proof of what you are claiming about them.

> Because you need to accept this fact and not needlessly prolong debate by repeating axioms.
It’s a flat-out lie to claim that I’m just arguing by repeating axioms
> That's not what I was addressing with that post
You just said “below” which was vague, why dont you just say what you meant then? I didnt strawman anything.
> It wasn't,
It was, effortposting about the topic of a thread has nothing to do with autism, also no caring about what anonymous people think on IQfy is not autistic either, you must be new here if you think everyone is polite
>I never called you stupid or an idiot once so don't make things up
I thought you were the same poster who wrote that, I sometimes get confused when two different weirdos are obsessed with me
> It would take a few seconds at most, very telling response.
That was a big thread and I would have had to reread the whole thing to answer the question, doing would be pointless since I dont care about assuaging the schizo concerns of random people lol

> at which point debate becomes worthless.
Its not worthless as long as one can continue to make points and arguments relevant to the debate beyond merely citing axioms, and I do this and make these additional points, I never just rely on axioms.
>In this post (

> then by your own deffinition you can't prove the existence of the self

I never said I was trying to prove it lmao #), you admit that the basis of several of your statements are axioms.
At the basis of every philosophy are axioms anon, literally nobody else is any different! Lmao. Me saying in that post that I wasnt trying to prove the Self is not a case of me arguing by asserting axioms, especially in that context you cited where I gave non-axiomatic statements in this thread and have before as to why its more reasonable to take one’s innermost awareness as ones self
>All I'm saying is that you should stop making samegayging threads
I dont do that you schizo! lol
>You claim you don't make these, but keep avoiding actually having to defend yourself in an extremely suspicious way.
Because its a waste of time from my point of view and most schizos and unhinged people such as apparently yourself are not convinced by reasonable arguments anyway
>What about the last pic I posted? Pull yourself together.
Its completely laughable, its a waste of time to even address it, I actually find those images funny and I kek when I see them. I saw one guenonposter once say that he found out about IQfy because he was searching Guenon on google images and came across them lol.
>I meant that you should understand when further argument becomes worthless
I dont see it as worthless and neither do many of the other people in these minds of threads or they wouldn't post the arguments based on logic and/or epistemology that they do. Stop trying to control what other people post about, it’s weird and suggestive of an unhealthy mind.
> I know enough to say that anons hate overly aggressive schizos.
You are being an aggressive schizo right now by making post after post obsessing about 1 anonymous poster instead of the thread topic

> 1. Ignore conventions of debate despite engaging in it, among which keeping a civil tone is included (yes informal debate too)
IQfy debates dont follow the same standards as real life debates, bitterness, rancor, mocking and multiple levels of irony is the norm for much of the conversation here unless two people already agree, Im actually more polite and respectful than many of the people that I engage with here in fact. I rarely insult people unless I perceive them as being blatantly dishonest liars in which case I call them out for it.
> Ignores the ignores nuance of other posts and strawmans frequently to portray them as bad,
There was no nuance, you were just complaining about me making multiple posts debating others and being confident about what I wrote and for not politely deferring to others when there is no obligation on me to do so and its absurd to suggest that there is, nobody else on IQfy is held to the same unrealistic standard and it shows that you are just obsessed with me personally to an unhealthy degree that is suggestive of mental illness.
> Pretends he never posts threads directly insulting Buddhism
I dont you schizo
> Calls clear contrary evidence schizo
because it is schizo you schizo, none of those images show prove that me personally was samegayging, none of the posts in those images were even mine except for the one asking about where to start with Shankara and I didnt even create that thread but I just saw it and answered the OPs question in good faith from my POV. None of the other images have anything to do with me.

You're playing particularly coy today, so have this as well Herr der Schwuchtel.

>there is a long history within Buddhist thought of BTFOing non-reflexive models of awareness.
buddhist reflexive models are based on the emptiness of awareness, that's why all of those thinkers follow nagarjuna's madhyamaka, the awareness in this case is the opposite of a self, taht's why the inifnite regress doesn't happen, because there's no instance of two substantial things reflecting themselves, is when you add a Self into the equation that reflective awareness makes no sense

>No they aren’t, they are based on epistemological arguments
those epistemological argumetns are part of madhyamaka episthemology, so yes those are based on emptiness
>reflexivity == reflection
both imply a reflection, you're saying it can reflect itself which makes no sense, just like a knife can´t cut itself a mirror can´t reflect itself or an eye can't see itself

Actually, Buddhist ‘self-luminosity’, borrowing from Yogacara, is not a pure awareness that is aware of itself. Self-luminosity for yogacara is the self-luminosity of appearances. Appearances are described as self-luminous, sights, sounds, sensations, tastes, smells, thoughts, are all each ‘illumined by themselves’ without any consciousness or awareness apart from the presence of appearances. In this model, awareness is precisely only the presence of appearances, and appearances are just that-which-is-present. But neither presence or appearances are coherent in the absence of the other (they are both mere implications of each other, and nothing more).

Why copypasta this? As said by:

NTA, but you are proving his point that you are autistic by consistently failing to read the room through shilling your favorite as superior (don't act coy, you do this regularly) and disparaging other religions. The level of self-confidence in these posts is considered by most posters to imply that you are aware of what is correct (which is what enlightened means), and you yourself recognize this by pointing out how often you are criticized here. Failing to grasp the nuances of what others mean when saying something is telling of autism.

[...]
Essentially said the same thing as me lol.

read the room!
>x refutes y
This is how brainlets think of philosophy.

>would have no way of combining to produce our smoothly integrated conscious experience whereby sounds, sights, smells etc all flash forward in a display that is known all at once, because the individual subject-forms have no means to know each others respective object-forms, and there is also no separate awareness/knower in whom they are all integrated, or for whom they all appear.
I think in a Buddhist model, the ‘thing’ which coordinates experience and makes it unified between all the senses, is the mind
But the mind, as that which coordinates & organizes experience, is still not independent, and is mutually dependent/contingent with (and inconceivable/incoherent without) the sensory appearances it coordinates. There could be no coherent experience without a unity of apperception, nor could there be that mind which unifies & coordinates apperception without those appearances which it unifies.
No movement without stillness, no stillness without movement. They’re not the same, but they’re inconceivable independent of one another (they rely on each other for existence).

good point

>The whole point of Buddhism is that they are not enlightenment, so Buddha abandoned those teachers and went further.
The whole point of the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta is also that the jhanas aren’t enlightenment, enlightenment is the realization of the true Self and the related cessation of the false identification of Self with non-Self (which is a form of ignorance), this isn’t reached or attained through formless jhanas or jhanas with form. Jhanas are the product of meditation but ignorance can only be ended/negated by knowledge (which is its contrary) and not meditation, just as only light can erase darkness.

Buddha never rekt the Vedic doctrine because he omits any reference to the most important component of it, which already existed by his time, namely the early Upanishads.

> Dilthey already refuted the idea that reflexive awareness can be directly linked to the self
No, he didn’t
>the inner experience through which I obtain reflexive awareness of my own condition can never by itself bring me to a consciousness of my own individuality. I experience the latter only through a comparison of myself with others. (1900/SW.IV, 236)
Advaita is talking about a supra-individual omnipresent and undivided Self inhabiting all living beings equally and not the individual egoistic ‘self’, so that argument doesn’t challenge their position at all, since they agree that reflexive awareness is not an individual that is distinct from other individuals, it is instead the supra-individual or trans-individual Self. Advaita agrees with Dilthey that the reflexive self-disclosure of consciousness does not involve anything which suggests that said consciousness is an individual entity that is distinct from the inner consciousness of others. If anything Dilthey’s argument here is an argument against Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita arguments for an individual self but not Advaita. The reflexive self-awareness of consciousness just makes consciousness automatically known to itself always as a consciousness presence but without any component of individuality, thoughts about individuality occurs in the mind/intellect and not consciousness itself.

>it does because that supra-individual self can't be infered trought awareness
That doesn’t refute anything because said supra-individual awareness is not inferred, it is instead known directly, immediately, self-evidently, always and without interruption.
>there's nothing in awareness that can explain or sustain the idea of such a being
Incorrect, since awarenesses itself is free of parts or limits that can be said to limit it as individual (and in the absence of these its wholly consistent to regard it as supra-individual), it is only insentient unaware phenomena that appear as other-than-awareness that can figuratively be said to be a kind of “”limit”” on awareness, but their appearance doesn’t actually demonstrate any sort of boundary or limit to awareness similar to how an object floating in space doesn’t demonstrate that space ends at that particular point instead of being omnipresent; it’s impossible to determine the extent of thing A simply by the presence of thing B, because nothing about the presence of B demonstrates that A ends at that point and doesn’t extend far beyond B.

>The intellect is what experiences individuality
>the intellect is what experiences
>the intellect experiences
if that's the case then the intelect is already "the knower", the atman/awarenes is no longer needed

>, because the intellect is insentient
if is insentient then it can't "experience" individuality
>incapable of perceiving in the absence of any illuminating awareness.
if it can perceive thanks to awareness thenit should be able to have the same supra individual omnipresent awareness

>It can because “experiencing” is just the transformation of the subtle matter within the intellect into different material configurations,
if the intellect can perceive thanks to the transformation of it's own matter, then it doesn't need any light

>while these configurations receiving the exterior light of the Atman is what allows this to give rise to conscious experience
now theres two experiences at the same time, the one with the intelect perceiving itself and the atman perceivig the intellect, so again, why we need the atman if the intellect is already perceiving itself?
also it's good to point out none of this is self evident, so we're working with pure dogma now

> such a thing is not self-evident, awareness is self evident, a supra individual awareness is not
The awareness that is self-evident is without any measurable boundary or limit that shows that it is individual, so it’s perfectly coherent to maintain that it’s supra-individual, that’s the point. People don’t think of their own awareness as supra-individual typically because they assume its limited to the body, but if you pay attention to awareness itself there is nothing about it that shows its actually limited in this way.
> this is also not self-evident
So? It doesn’t have to be in order to be philosophically coherent

>The awareness that is self-evident is without any measurable boundary
that's because it's a concept, matter also can be measurable, only portions of matter can be described in terms of quantity, the same ca nbe said abotu awareness, moments of awareness are determinated and bounded
but even if we follow your logic, that doesn't mean that is actually beyond any limit i just can't know it, so still is not self evident that awareness is supra-individual and omniprescent
>So? It doesn’t have to be in order to be philosophically coherent
well if it'snot self evident that the intellect perceive individuality, then is not self evident that awareness is supra-individual, which is the main argument here

>supra-individual awareness is not inferred, it is instead known directly, immediately, self-evidently, always and without interruption.
such a thing is not self-evident, awareness is self evident, a supra individual awareness is not

Also, I can already anticipate your next question, which is answered easily:
>but if awareness is supra-individual and omnipresent, then why dont I experience other minds perspectives?
The intellect is what experiences individuality and the intellect is unable to perceive the perception of other minds except possibly in very rare cases of yogic perception or telepathy. Awareness being omnipresent doesn’t mean that your inner awareness would know the contents of other minds as its object because awareness doesn’t even do that with your own mind, it instead just passively illuminates the workings of the mind/intellect without its own non-duality ever being disturbed by the subject-object divide, that same non-dual supra-individual awareness abiding in itself peacefully illuminates all minds of all living beings simultaneously. The perception of individuality and individual subjective perception is wholly on the side of the individual intellect only, while it is the same undivided omnipresent self-luminous Atman illuminating all of these intellects and their perceptions at once.

>The intellect is what experiences individuality and the intellect is unable to perceive the perception of other minds except possibly in very rare cases of yogic perception or telepathy
this is also not self-evident

>which do not entail engaging in some apophatic exercise that lends support to the Advaitan ‘True Self apart from the aggregates’.
Idk why you have some sort of complex about this that makes you feel the need to repeat this but I have already stated multiple times that I’m not alleging that Buddha is secretly teaching some apophatic Self.

>so why argue so fervently and act like an authority here?
I’m not arguing fervently but I’m simply pointing out when factually incorrect statements are wrong, why does that bother you?

>since I too understand Buddhism as viewing the ‘Self’ to be precisely a contradiction-in-terms just like the son of a barren woman, as a direct consequence of dependent
That’s only if you accept another Buddhist dogma in circular manner, but to an unbiased impartial observer who doesn’t accept Buddhist dogmas there is no reason why the Self would be an impossibility.

> that doesnt imply that a relative,interdependent body can't exist, that would be nihilism which the buddha refutes,
That’s not what I wrote, trying paying better attention. I simply said that Buddha says not to identify with any form in any way, including the forms that constitute the body. He doesn’t say “just dont think of it as a Self”, but he says “it’s not my self, it’s not me, it’s not mine”, which rules out other kinds of identification with the body besides regarding it as an Atman.
> he's sayng that i should identify with a relative body because it's impermanent
No he doesn’t, that’s bullshit. I already provided a quote where he explicitly disagrees with that and you have not provided any quote where Buddha instructs people to identify with the body.
>he just did, you just lack reading comprehension, he said that an eternal self out of this life is a dumb idea
That’s not saying that the Self doesn’t exist, that’s what you are inferring is his intent but he never actually states that. Just because I disagree with your specious inference has nothing to do with reading comprehension.

>the self does not exist
I exist now and argue with you.
>in this life or the next
The buddha exists after death through his words
>relative is not identification
So a relative self is okay? A relative mind/soul/spirit?
>imaginary argument
Aren't they all? Take yr meds. Wake up. You've been dreaming. I've heard them say we've reached Morrowind. I'm sure they'll let us go...

>I exist now and argue with you
the word "I" points to the fact that the human being who said "I" is speaking, not to the existence of a self
pic related, the npc one is everyone's experience, we just are able to form the illusion of the person in the chair, but really it's like an auditory hallucination. have any anons here read Julian Jaynes's book? I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts

>No they aren’t,
yes they are, the suttas in which buddha does that are on this very thread
>, identification just means saying “x is y”
yes and both X and Y are permanent abstract mathematical entities, both have mathematical "being" while a relative body hasn o intrinsic being but is a form of becoming, you can't fully identify whith that which is always becoming

>“X does not exist”, h
he said that an eternal self is a impossible idea, so pretty much the same thing

>That is wholly besides the point
no is not, impermanence and itdentity are the main points of buddhadhamma

*you are NOT directly addressing the part

> it's already posted on this thread
Then cite it, why are you scared to directly post the passage?
> not at all, if you reject any form of identifcationwith your body you'll end up paralized
No you wont, because the body and mind continue acting even if you dont identify yourself with then, they are basically on autopilot
> buddha rejected the identification with your body as something substantial, doing things like walking, eating and saying "i'm feeling tired" are completly normal things to do, because none of that reify the body as a permanent substantial thing
This is all nonsense that you are inferring on no basis, but what Buddha explicitly says contradicts that

>Post the exact sentence and its source then
here:
Alagaddūpama Sutta (MN 22) “After death this ‘I’ will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’—Isn’t it utterly and completely a fool’s teaching?

>whether a self exists or not;
he's saying thay is fool to believe that exist, it's teh exact same thing as saying it doesn't exist, he just added an insult to the people whoe believe such nonsense

Yeah an like you said, All of this stemming from intellectuals means it misses the point of buddhism.
And the idiocy of emptiness by the Madhyamikas is only corrected by the idiocy of emptiness being empty. And before this, idiocy of emptiness is a mistake trying to correct the mistake of the svabhava.

The whole idea of svabhava is rubbish in itself and by its consequence of only triggering a chain of mistakes by subsequent intellectuals. There is nothing smart about creating a mistake in order to correct a previous mistake.
Intellectuals just don't understand buddhism.

not that anon but svabhava lead to an infinite regress, the whole notion of a "needed" substratum to reality contradict itself, if everything that exist "needs" a substratum that substratum would also need it's own substratum ad infinitum, if the substratum has the quality of not needing a substratum then you're already posing the existence of a quality of self suficiency, so the notion of a substratum becomes useless since the quality of self sufficiency can just exist in the thing itself no need for a mediator between them, this is the old problem of a second order ontology, end up being useless both ways

>Brain and mind are two different things.
Wrong.
>Brain and mind are one thing.
Wrong.
>Brain and mind are codependent.
True.
>You are your brain.
Wrong.
>You are your mind.
Wrong.
>You are the co-dependent brain and mind.
Wrong.
>So what happens?
>transmigration

The are a realms where their is no form, no body, they are called the formless realms.

We're talking about mind-body dualism you schizo. The existence of the soul isn't relevant in this discussion.

>Mind body problem is solved
It wasn't a problem until some French gay brought it up. I don't have any issue with the existence of the soul, just this idea the mind isn't intrinsically connected to the body.

It's a gateway to transhumanist garbage too, like this idea of transmitting your mind to a computer chip or whatever.

But why is the experience of making one of the self/not-self sets empty (and thus experientially proving that all qualia have the same nature) important? Isn't it enough to just believe that you can do it, like materialistic atheists do?
For practical, everyday purposes, the boundary seems fine exactly where it is. (except for small, therapy-level interventions like "i am not my anger" aka basic self-help mindfulness)

I have to question whether all those things you describe would actually occur due to merely relabeling qualia as "self" or "not self". The autonomous mental processes of volition would still continue to occur the same way, presumably, whether you identify with them or not. Why is knowledge not enough to influence your decision-making? If I know the bus schedule I can get to the bus stop at the right time; I don't need to literally see the bus first.

I also question that this relabelling provides an insight into "deterministic nature of reality". Many neurological processes are unconscious while others are experienced only through their byproducts like production of qualia and physical movement. Meditation can demonstrate this but it can't provide any insight into the unconscious processes themselves. The complexity of it all obscures any determinism. You can relabel everything as not-self but still think: "I am not my qualia, I am the mental processes which work behind the scenes to produce qualia". In Buddhism you are not really allowed to say that because Buddhism rejects materialism; but as a materialist, that's a pretty natural position.

Maybe materialism and nondualism are different after all.

I don't believe this is a "truer" state than any other is;
the truer state is the buddhist extinction of the taints

>pic
Do any meditation-based systems actually do anything to explain the explanatory gap?
It's unironically a pretty strong argument for theism and souls