There's any flaws in Buddhism? What some of biggest criticism to Buddhism?
>>17439923>Life is bad, not existing would be betterSounds like loser talk tbqh
>>17439930It ain't wrong do, antinatalism has a pretty good argument, only breeder have the onus to prove life is le good
>>17439954Life is good because it has fun sensual experiences and epic struggles in it among other good things which non-existence doesn’t have.
>>17439923>There's any flaws in Buddhism? Plenty, heaps of them. These problems are pointed out not only by non-Buddhist religions and by modern scholars, but even by Buddhist schools of thought themselves which try to debunk the other Buddhist schools as having incoherent teachings. When you add all these Buddhist schools refuting each other togather its like a group of gunmen who all shoot each other, leaving nobody standing.>What some of biggest criticism to Buddhism?Well, for starters there is a completely untenable vicious infinite regress in their understanding of the universe, and such a regress would prevent a universe from ever existing. The universe cannot be eternal, for that would violate the Buddhist dogma of anicca, but there cannot be a universe comprised of temporary phenomena giving rise to eachother in mutual dependence, since there is never any source permitting them to enter into existence to begin with. The source giving the entire chain original existence cannot itself be another dependent temporary phenomena or there is an infinite regress that makes the whole chain impossible.Secondly, the Buddhist denial of any persisting entity called the Self is contradicted by the constant persistance of awareness throughout all experience, and all the Buddhist attempts to explain this away don't make any sense. People who get deep in Buddhism often take Madhyamaka, and especially the Chandrakirti intepretation as being the most "philosophically refined" position, but even Madhyamaka/Chandrakirti endorses things and makes claims that are on their face retarded and clearly wrong. For example, Chandrakirti tries to refute the Yogachara argument for self-knowing awareness (which argues its necessary for memory) by saying that a memory only needs to be caused in the right way by a previous cognitive episode, but this is plainly wrong since we are unable to remember things which we have no awareness of experiencing at the moment in which they occur.
>>17439923well they know how to deal with refugees and protest, christcucks would never
>>17440020Chandrakirti is not considered th most philosophically refined of any tradition of Buddhism. He only appears in the Indo-Tibetan tradition and they consider Dharmakirti and Śāntarakṣita to be the most important. Buddhist's have a type of metaphysical antifoundationalism because they have a totally different ontology. Not only are infinite regresses not conceptually always a problem, Buddhist ontology is a relational process ontology where there are not metaphysical grounds. Pic is of an academic text exploring that.
>>17439930Technically the goal of Buddhism is to go beyond non-existing and existing, which they see as processually connected. Dukkha includes not just physical and mental pains, but birth, rebirth and metaphysical impermanence.It is about stopping the process by which one misperceives oneself as existing as an essence, which for them is soteriologcially significant. The first video lays out some misconceptions. The second is academic and lays out their ontology a bit and the whole rebirth and redeath thing. Pic explains this from the view of their soteriological goals.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaMum5f398&t=151shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-hfxtzJSA0&t=4s
>>17440056I’ve heard Buddhists offer multiple contradictory opinions on this. It’s like Christians trying to articulate what exactly heaven is.
>>17439923> There's any flaws in Buddhism? What some of biggest criticism to Buddhism?The self-evident eternal divinity of Christ
>>17440041>Chandrakirti is not considered th most philosophically refined of any tradition of Buddhism. I'm pretty sure that's wrong, since the standard Tibetan presentation takes Chandrakirti as emblematic of "Prasangika Madhyamaka" and Bhaviveka as emblematic of "Svatantra Madhyamaka", and 90% or almost all Tibetan schools take Chandrakirti's Prasangika as being the higher truth and claim to be Prasangika themselves while viewing Svatantra as a lower teaching.>He only appears in the Indo-Tibetan tradition and they consider Dharmakirti and Śāntarakṣita to be the most importantThe dominant school of the Gelugs preferences Chandrakirti over both those authors. The Gelugs just adopt Dharmakirti's logic but utilize it within their (claimed) prasangika viewpoint, while denying Dharmakirti's and Shantaraksita's models of reflexive awareness as both being wrong. The other non-Gelug schools mostly accept the latter two author's position on awareness, but within the context of also claiming to be prasangikas (i.e. Chandrakirtians).>Buddhist's have a type of metaphysical antifoundationalism because they have a totally different ontology. Not only are infinite regresses not conceptually always a problem, Buddhist ontology is a relational process ontology where there are not metaphysical groundsSaying this doesn't actually do anything to remove the problematic regress. The philosophical problem still remains that in the absence of anything eternal, phenomena would not just exist "by default", but in the absence of anything that exists by default that permits the temporary phenomena to initally arise, that there would be no temporary phenomena and not samsara whatsoever.
>>17440064Buddhism is pretty strongly anti-realist metaphysically is the conceptual reason why that is. Even the most realist metaphysically in Buddhist are anti-realists by western standards. Either way, those views are supposed to drop away anyhow upon the achievement of ending dukkha.In terms of their practice, the idea is that the perspective approach the general view differently. There are scholastic in terms of Buddhist clerics and monks that map everything. This is explored in various tenet systems that allow for mapping all that though but is only really explored by specialized monastics or professional clerics. In Far East Asia, you have people specialized in panjiao for example. Although, everything always goes back to dependent arising. Pic is of an easy text on that idea and shows how to read that into various practices as well.At the core, the general view is that enlightenment its he cessation of dukkha, and cessation of the links of dependent arising continuing. That is described in different phenomenological terms which never capture that reality , partially because any phenomenological view can only be a kinda miscognition.
>>17440081What you are getting at is that all Tibetan Buddhists hold that Prasangika Madhyamaka is the highest philosophy. What they mean by that is actually in terms of method but not argument.Specifically it is the unique method of reasoning, which relies on prasanga (consequential reasoning) rather than establishing a thesis of its own. This means they uphold an unaffmirative negation as the highest product of reasoning and not the reasoning itself. Gelugpa hold that he is not the highest philosopher but that he is the most precise in terms of notation commentator. However, that is as he is understood by Tsongkhapa.Pic is a good book explaining that view.
>>17440081Here is a comparative academic philosophical work that explores Buddhist philosophy but also analytic philosophy the infinite regress. Basically, you have to already buy into an ontology of substantial causation to have that type of problems. It starts on chapter 3.
>>17440065Christian cope
>>17440081If you want to get more precise about it. It is not really an issue about Buddhism either. Secularly it also happens because of a specific metaphysical view of explanation and historically was connected to views about point geometry. Below is one example from that angle. Pic is of a book exploring this is in metaphysics and epistemology. Alexandre Billon (Université Charles-de-Gaulle - Lille 3), "Are infinite explanations self-explanatory?https://newworkinphilosophy.substack.com/p/alexandre-billon-universite-charles
>>17439923Unobtainable principle teachings meant to keep you chasing a dream forever. A carrot on a stick that leads to nowhere.
>>17440092I think this is over intellectualising what is essentially Bronze Age mythology and committing the Cathodox error.
>>17440123Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Cope and seethe
>>17440121>Basically, you have to already buy into an ontology of substantial causation to have that type of problems. That's just factually incorrect, simply saying that you accept a non-substantialist, relational-based anti-foundantional worldview does nothing to actually remove the logical contradiction. Even in such a worldview, the following simple logical steps still apply fully, in themselves these logical steps are actually neither substantialist nor are they anti-substantialist.1) Buddhists as a consequence of accepting the dogma of anicca must hold that all phenomena are temporary2) Due to being temporary, no phenomena exists by default or exists forever in a way that is uncaused3) This means that any specific phenomena (X1) requires in a logically necessary manner that a necessary precondition of its existence is that it arises in dependence upon another phenomena (X2)4) This means that without X2 existing, it's logically impossible for X1 to exist/arise5) X2 face an identical problem viz. its own existence that requires an X3 and X3 requiring an X4, and X4 requring and X5 ad infinitum6) This involves a vicious infinite regress that makes the whole thing impossible, because there is no existing thing that just exists by default and which can ground the chain of relations, and without there being a grounding that can allow dependent things to be produced and existing, they wouldn't exist to begin with as they are non-eternal and don't exist by default until caused.>Jans WesterhoffNothing I've seen by him actually addresses this, you are welcome to post what you think his argument is though. I've seen him try to cope with David Burton's criticisms of Nagarjuna by laughably arguing in an article that the dependent phenomena can be "self-grounding", apparently unaware that this would contradict the very premise of them being empty.
>>17440168Buddhism always talks in terms of a conventional and ultimate level of reality. This resembles secular accounts much like geology is not false even when we accept physics. It is similar way with impermanence. Here is an academic talk on that. Further, it helps to note that Buddhism holds to a coherentist and reliablist epistemology. Basically, simply a priori truths reflect the human mind. Much like Immanuel Kant. However, unlike Kant they focus on the empirical experience of said conditions which change. In this sense, they are closer Willard Van Orman Quine. Sutra and Stuff Podcast: Neil Mehta on the Links Between Indian Buddhist Philosophy and Contemporary Philosophyhttps://podtail.com/en/podcast/sutras-and-stuff/s3-e7-neil-mehta/
>>17440186Here is an excerpt from Westerhoff's Book. It is cheaper to get the audiobook version. He has multiple chapters critiquing the idea of an infinite regress.""One way spelling out what seems to be wrong with the infinite descent of existential dependence is the following. What seems to be happening in the case of existential dependence is that the dependee inherits its existence from its basis. It is only due to the existence of the individual parts of the bicycle that the whole of the bicycle, the dependent entity, acquires its existence. But if this goes on infinitely, we have a chain of inheritance without a source, and this seems impossible. If Peter inherits his wealth from his father, and his father from his grandfather, and so on, there must be someone down the line who has not inherited his wealth, but acquired it by other means. Otherwise, where would it have come from? And if I copy a book from the library, which is a copy of a manuscript, which is a copy of another manuscript and so on, there must be some token of the work down the line that has not been copied from somewhere else, but composed by an author. Otherwise, where would the contents of the manuscript have come from? Readers may differ with respect to the intuitive pull they feel from these considerations, but let us accept them for the sake of argument. It seems to me that they will still not be able to give us strong reason to dismiss infinite regresses of existential dependence without further argument. First, it does not seem to be the case that existential dependence going infinitely backwards per se is a problem. A chain can go backwards infinitely and still have a beginning (the sequence of predecessors of 1 in the real number interval [0,1] regresses infinitely—the interval contains infinitely many real numbers smaller than 1—yet it also contains a smallest member, 0).29
Presumably this kind of infinite regression would also be acceptable in the case of existential dependence, as there is still a source from which the existence of each member is inherited. Second, even an infinite regress without a source is likely to appear unproblematic if there is no inheritable feature involved. The regress of every negative number having a predecessor is not regarded as problematic, even though there is no first member, as there is in the case of the real number interval [0,1]. This is because we do not think that –1’s ‘having a predecessor’ is a property –1 inherits from –2, which in turn got it form –3, and so on ad infinitum. Rather, the axioms of Peano arithmetic establish the underlying structure all at once, with no need for a property being passed along an infinitely regressing chain. It may then be the case that those who see an infinite regress of existential dependence as unproblematic might not believe that inheritance is the best conceptual framework for thinking about existential dependence.
Existence might not be passed on like a baton in a relay race. Trogdon has recently questioned the feasibility of ‘inheritance of existence’ by arguing that it is either underspecified or inconsistent. If we assume that the ‘inheritance of existence’ is a primitive concept then we cannot rely on the fact that because other cases of inheritance (the inheritance of wealth, the inheritance of bodily characteristics, etc.) imply the presence of a source where the inherited entity comes from, the same is true of ‘inheritance of existence’.Even though ‘inheritance of existence’ and ‘inheritance of wealth’, for example, are both referred to by the term ‘inheritance’ they might not have much to do with one another, and might not share all structural properties. In particular, ‘inheritance of existence’ might not imply the presence of a source of existence. As such the notion is underspecified, since we appear to be only able to stipulate, but not to justify the existence of such a source. On the other hand, if ‘inheritance of existence’ is a composite concept, it will be a composite of whatever structural properties we extract from ‘inheritance of wealth’, ‘inheritance of bodily characteristics’, and so on, applied to the case of existence. But then the question arises whether the resulting mix is actually consistent. For in the case of inheriting wealth we have two entities, two persons, and a property that is transferred from one to the other.
But in the case of ‘inheritance of existence’ we do not have two entities, an existent and a non-existent one, such that existence is transferred from one to the other. There are no non-existent entities, and as such we end up with the problem of a two-place relation with only a single relatum. Given the difficulties with the idea of ‘inheritance of existence’, one alternative would be to see existence not as inherited or transmitted, but as emerging from a chain of dependence relations, parallel to the way some epistemologists see justification as not inherited or transmitted, but as emerging from a regressing chain of reasons. And once this notion of emergent existence has been taken on board, it is no longer clear why the emergence of existence from an infinitely regressive chain of existential dependence relations should be particularly problematic."Jan Westerhoff, The Non-existence of the Real World, pg.159The reason why philosophers and scientists explore these views is often because even if Buddhism is false it still provides a conceptual tool kit that makes sense of a processual reality without any essences.
>>17439923>mfw Buddhists say "life is suffering">imagine starting philosophy with big sad>like fish declaring water problematic>water just being water>suffering just being suffering>why label it?Main issue:>trying too hard to escape cycles>literally making cycle of escaping cycles>chasing enlightenment is still chasing>like dog chasing tail to stop tail-chasing>absolutely_samsara.scroll>tfw they say "kill the ego">ego hearing that ego needs killing>ego trying to kill ego>who's killing what?>like sword trying to cut itself>perfectly paradoxical
>>17440191>>17440202All of those arguments were really weak, and none of them conclusively addressed the logical issues pointed out here >>17440168. Notably, none of them involve clear and direct logical steps, but they involve comparisions from analogy that "seem" to vaguely validate Jan's metaphysical sympatheites without giving a clear logical justification for them, it's basically nice-sounding coping attempts, some of which make invalid analogies.>>17440186>Buddhism always talks in terms of a conventional and ultimate level of reality. The problem remains for the ultimate explanation unless you are explicitly holding that anicca isn't true at the ultimate level>>17440191> First, it does not seem to be the case that existential dependence going infinitely backwards per se is a problem. A chain can go backwards infinitely and still have a beginning This is a false analogy (which is a kind of fallacy when it underpins an argument) because quantity is something that be increased indefinitely or decreased indefinitely, but doing so presupposes the presence of a kind of quantity already that one is working with like the initial sum one is multiplying. In the Buddhist example there is no "initial sum" already present that can be increased or decreased indefinitely, because nothing exists by default and nothing is eternal, so this "initial sum" cannot be present as something that can be subtracted/increased unless and until there is something else present which allows it to do so, and this is where the regress is; so the example of quantity as a category being indefinitely increasable or decreasable doesn't in fact verify the premise that there is no problematic regress in the Buddhist model, because the mathamatical example has already accounted for the initial premise of the thing in a non-problematic way while the Buddhist model doesn't (being unable to accout for the initial premise is the whole issue!), so the former cannot justify the latter.
>>17440195>Second, even an infinite regress without a source is likely to appear unproblematic if there is no inheritable feature involved.This doesn't help the Buddhist position as they *ARE* holding that there is an inheritable feature involved, namely the manifestation or existence of any given phenomena, i.e. one phenomena is enabled to manifest or existence by and through another phenomena having that same category of existing/being manifest.>>17440199>Existence might not be passed on like a baton in a relay race.The Buddhist model does explicitly propose that the existence of any phenomena is dependent on another one that is distinct from it. If they were the same one thing, then there would be one thing which is uncaused, self-grounding and eternal, which violates anicca and sunyata.>>17440202>There are no non-existent entities, and as such we end up with the problem of a two-place relation with only a single relatumThis doesn't resolve the Buddhists's issue, since as pointed out above, they don't hold that all phenomena are the same uncaused non-contingent thing, and if they did it would violate the other central principles of Buddhism.The steps laid out here >>17440168 start from the accurate stated position of the Buddhists themselves, and goes from that to "and the existence of the universe and phenomena would then be impossible" using clear logical steps. If anything in there was wrong or incorrect, you would be able to point out exactly which step is wrong or mistaken, but you haven't, nor does any of what Jan writes there do this.
>>17440302As state there is no need for any final explanations and one of the elements the Buddhist view is getting at is that ultimate explanations, as found expected in the metaphysical perspective of principle of sufficient reason, are errors created by us. The reason why is because they are just connected to substances or essences.The whole point of the Westerhoff piece is to show exactly that there are no essences. Phenomena aren't grounded in them.Basically, you are trying to always add another step for some reason and then posit some metaphysical thing behind it. This academic lecture captures the Buddhist view well. The section at 1:21 on up is all relevant all though it is a good idea to actually get the ontological view in it. The Conventional are not the same same as ultimate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E1_ZeKQ81c
>>17440342I should point out that the rejection of essences or substances is not unique other than Buddhist philosophy either. The Buddhist view has an account of process but is much more than that. It is fundamentally a soteriological world view. Reality is composed of processes and certain processes produce certain consequences and we can relate to those consequences in different ways. There is now a history of process philosophy in western philosophy as well. It is the standard in philosophy of physics and biology for example.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAQ3NM_fQhc&t=1916shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_tNisb1vrs&t=896shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-L0JDX3jyo
>>17440342>As state there is no need for any final explanationsIt's the Buddhists themselves who posit something that involves the illogical regress. Even if you don't say "its the final explanation made of essence/substance", the Buddhist position is still propounding something illogical either way, so that's just a red herring.>The whole point of the Westerhoff piece is to show exactly that there are no essences.1) Nothing he writes there actually establishes this as true2) Even if it did (it didn't), that wouldn't in itself resolve the logical problem of the regress, since this still happens in a relational ontology. >Basically, you are trying to always add another step for some reason and then posit some metaphysical thing behind it. Wrong, this is you committing a strawman fallacy by attributing an argument to me that I'm not actually making. Nothing I'm saying involves propounding a metaphysical essence as opposed to relation, it's just taking the stated Buddhist position and showing that it has logical consequences which means that the universe/phenomea would never have arisen/existed and that samsara itself would be impossible, which is illogical given that Buddhism accepts that samsara is present. Can you directly answer the argument without committing a strawman fallacy, and without raising some other topic as a red herring without actually addressing it?
>>17440530You keep on making the claim that they doing something when they openly reject that. You stated"This is a false analogy (which is a kind of fallacy when it underpins an argument) because quantity is something that be increased indefinitely or decreased indefinitely, but doing so presupposes the presence of a kind of quantity already that one is working with like the initial sum one is multiplying. In the Buddhist example there is no "initial sum" already present that can be increased or decreased indefinitely, because nothing exists by default and nothing is eternal, so this "initial sum" cannot be present as something that can be subtracted/increased unless and until there is something else present which allows it to do so, and this is where the regress is; so the example of quantity as a category being indefinitely increasable or decreasable doesn't in fact verify the premise that there is no problematic regress in the Buddhist model, because the mathamatical example has already accounted for the initial premise of the thing in a non-problematic way while the Buddhist model doesn't (being unable to accout for the initial premise is the whole issue!), so the former cannot justify the latter." There are no metaphysical essences or substances in their account and you keep on trying to insert one into their view. You are stating there is a logical problem but logic does not imply any ontology there are multiple logics out there. Video are two academic lecture on that. No logic implies anything metaphysical. When you state it is a problem you are really stating it is metaphysical problem and somehow the conceptual logical space is a real metaphysical and ontological one. There is no reason to believe it is. It is and has been your burden to proof to show me a real essence or substance, (not a nominal substance as found in science either)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQJA8v8jeNohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhUa2wfO5c
Basically, an infinite regress involves you to have to belief in some type of susbtantial metaphysical view and really is a left over of theistic accounts. Here is the physicsist and philosopher of physics talk on it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn9JUyc4Gc8Here is why it is really just a metaphysical view.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB50VBgCm1k
It is worth noting that there are models of cosmology that take their processual views into account and model based upon their views. This is because in the context of the observable universe, the assumption of unchanging physical laws has been highly successful at the level we experience it. The constancy of these laws allows for precise predictions and technologies, such as GPS systems that rely on relativity. One major problem is we can't actually measure well what reality looks like for them to change because our measurements assume they don't. This is especially a problem might vary over vast timescales or under extreme conditions such as big bounce conditions, inflationary periods such as in the early universe or near black holes. Things like "heat death" of the universe or cyclic models suggest that space and time might have a beginning and an end or undergo periodic changes. Researchers in fields like cosmology and theoretical physics (e.g., through studies on string theory, quantum mechanics, and cosmological inflation). Lucky for us we don't have try using GPS during the heat death of the universe or under very very small scales across a large period of time. There is also evidence we could possibly change the laws of physics too. You may want to look into The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene or Time Reborn by Lee Smolin. Below are some academic talks on that. Some views of quantum loop gravity such as Karlos Rovelli's actually share with Buddhist views metaphysical antifoundaitonalism. Below is an academic talk on that.The Evolution of the Laws of Physics - Lee Smolin (SETI Talks)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QIJtICy-vETheoretical physicist speaks about Nāgārjuna view of Reality as Emptiness and Quantum Mechanicshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWBz_c8X4SAAdam Brown – How Future Civilizations Could Change the Laws of Physicshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhB3qH_TFds
>>17440546>There are no metaphysical essences or substances in their account and you keep on trying to insert one into their view.Nothing I said there specifically involves or presupposes a metaphysical essence, so you are committing a strawman fallacy when you claim that. Everything in that quote is still true in a non-substantialist ontology based on relations. Please address the argument instead of commiting fallacies. If you can't address the argument itself without a fallacy then that's a tacit admission of your failure.If one phenomena is one essence-less bundle of relations, and another phenomena is another similar bundle, there is still a logical impossibility that prevents them from existing if they depend only on similar non-eternal and contingent bundles of relations, because none of them are capable of allowing all the others to exist in dependence on it, and since none exists by default they wont exist absent anything permitting them to. That's why I said the problematic logical contradiction is independent of whether you accept a substantialist or non-substantialist ontology, its present either way.So, far, you have no response but to commit a strawman fallacy where you accuse me of presupposing metaphysial essences which my argument demonstrably does not."Non-substantial relational" doesn't mean "whatever contradictory bullshit that I want can be true", it has a very specific meaning, and even under that meaning the same illogical problem results as the above shows.>there are multiple logics out thereNone of that refutes or shows to be wrong the logical argument that I clearly laid out. >. It is and has been your burden to proof to show me a real essence or substance,Wrong, because I'm not arguing for one and my argument doesn't depend on the existence of one. This is just a juvenile misdirection attempt that doesn't address my argument, and if you accuse my argument of presupposing essence then you're commiting a strawman fallacy.
>>17440614If something needs grounding to exist, it is a metaphysical essence. Your claim that "quantity as a category being indefinitely increasable or decreasable" for example is only a problem if we assume it is an essence. Qualities don't suffer that problem neither do processes. For example, an earth process does invalidate a chemical or a physical process. In fact, this is how contemporary sciences work. It is not a contradiction or problem at all. Since Buddhists have a relational process ontology at a conventional level, they don't have problems with that. Wheras a Galenic smokeless fire element or earth element being unchanging would. Same with a soul or God for example. This is because of the a priori metaphysics assumed.
>>17439923Just go by evidence. A lifetime of Dzogchen meditation leads to the attainment of the rainbow body which is where the body shrinks to a small size or sometimes out of existence leaving only hair and nails behind, accompanied by divine bliss (although over the course of the life of a monk the bliss increases and meditation becomes addicting). Pic related, someone who attained it.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_body>https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Rainbow_body
>>17440630If you want to get precise, it is because Aristotle and Plato set up a model where subject predicate in language mirror a relationship between substennce/essence and inherence. This view combined with later views and often basically held that the essence, substance or formal cause was the source of potentiality and reality of a thing. This is what leads to the foundaitonalist that characterizes a lot of theistic views and even non theistic western views. The idea being that that essence puts things in motion. All of this was positioned via a priori reasoning. This is also where there is a pre modern categorical logic was seen as reflecting metaphysical reality.
Early Medieval philosophy for example held that language had a direct corroposdene to reality but over time in the west this started getting chipped away. Languages change as well. This is also why philosophy fragmented around language so often. The idea became there was a trasnscedental ideas that reflected some divine and metaphysical reality however, this kept on getting shorter and shorter. This is what medieval philosophy was really about. In this sense, someone like Immanuel Kant and later someone like Ludwig Wittgenstein was just the terminus or end of the view, a kind realization that language had no direct relationship with reality and metaphysics created from conceptual analysis of language made no demands about how reality is.
>>17440634Oh also Pure Land Buddhism, which leads to rebirth in Sukhavati, is a MUCH easier path. Everyone should know the name of Amitabha Buddha. Don't go into the white light tunnel, either.
>>17440630> If something needs grounding to exist, it is a metaphysical essence.Completely false, the question of the causation for an objects existence is entirely separate from its formulation as either essenceless or possessing an essence. For example, an essence-less bundle of relations can either exist in an uncaused manner or its existence can be caused by or exist in dependence on something else. That essencelessbundle having its existence be caused by something else does not mean that this cause is the essence of that bundle, it just means that the essenceless thing is caused by something else. “Cause” and “Essence” mean two completely different things, you are falsely equating them. That is why the same illogical problem still results from the starting Buddhism position even if essences dont exist and you adopt an essenceless relations-based ontology. You have failed to address this and keep committing a strawman fallacy in response which I have already refuted. Every time you reply with more fallacies you are just giving a further demonstration of the fact that you have already been refuted.>Your claim that "quantity as a category being indefinitely increasable or decreasable" for example is only a problem if we assume it is an essence.A total non-sequitor response, I didn’t say that was a problem but I affirmed it as a scientific and mathematical fact that quantity is indefinitely increasable or decreasable, and I simply pointed out that this was a faulty analogy for Jan to point to math since that doesn’t absolve Buddhism from the problem which math deals with numbers that are already present, while unlike math Buddhism posits a starting position that illogically would prevent anything at all from existing or being present, due to the regress. It’s like you aren’t even paying attention to what you are replying to but you are going off on unrelated tangents or making false claims.
>>17440020>since there is never any source permitting them to enter into existence to begin withThe idea that something cannot come from nothing is a materialist belief.With true nothing, there are no rules including no rules that something cannot come from nothing.
>>17439923As an "-ism", the criticism are many cultural and historical rituals/dogmas. As a religious-philosophical doctrine itself, there's not many that I can think of. The "antinatalism" argument is just a pro-hedonism argument. Which is an invalid criticism unless you consider hedonic lifestyle to be "good" or somehow more correct. But generally, the biggest "criticism" is public/people are shallow. Extremely shallow so they wont understand Buddhism. 99% of criticism is just shallow misunderstanding of basic tenants by both non-Buddhists and casual buddhists.
>>17440660Buddhist "medieval" philosophy was that conceptual formations corresponds with what we know as "reality." That is the reality of seemingly permanence/solidity/separateness/uniqueness/differences. This grasping of this "permanence" is seen as an error. In particularly, Buddhists argue its not the language that is creating problems, but the primal conceptualization, the primal grasping/permanence function, the primal comparative function in the brain after the grasping, that which distorts our reality. Idea of language = reality was never a Buddhist thing, they bypassed that entirely down to cognitive functions to the base level. I mean phenomenology in the west is chasing that aren't they? They're just skipping the language and just going for the function of experience itself, rather than the experiences.
>>17439923As far as I or anyone can tell it’s incoherent. They will speak to its usefulness like a flawed system of physics that is close enough but the reality is Buddhism is flawed in its understanding of nirvana and therefore the entirety of existence
>>17439923>There's any flaws in Buddhism?correctly understood, no.>What some of biggest criticism to Buddhism?that there are a lot of buddhisms, and now people do not know what is wrong and what is right.
>>17441108Okay well explain your coherent version of Buddhism if you’re not just larping? I’ve yet to hear one. Explain what I am, what you are, what’s going on in existence and how you know that according to a your version of Buddhism
>>17441134Depends on where your starting point is, but proper buddhism isn't about "existence", its about over coming suffering. Thats the natural entry point into Buddhism as every proper Buddhists should be going into. However there are other entry points like philosophy/cultural-historical/etc. And even those 2 are huge area of coverage because Buddhism is really expansive and is one of the "theory of everything" type -ism. The chase towards ending suffering led the Buddhists into the nature of atoms, time, causality, conceptual frameworks, nature of mind/s, nature of consciousness, nature of identity, nature of reality/existence, etc. If you're asking what buddhist take on existence is, then the answer depends on the scope of the explainer and the listener/reader. I could say existence in Buddhism precludes the notion of cognition, a mind, that which which conceptualizes and reifies objects into existence in their mind. As a conscious being, our entire existence is tied to conscious mind, and thus to our understanding conceptualization is existence. The apple that you imagine when you close your eyes, the apple that you see on the table when your eyes are open, they're all conceptual phenomena that are formed in the mind, perceived in the mind, rationalized in the mind, given weight in the mind. That is existence of natural/default degree for Buddhism for conscious beings.
>>17441182Okay but suffering isn’t an issue for me? I’ve literally felt the entire pain response my nervous system was capable of and it was limited? Again I’m asking what am I, what are you, and what is going on right now?You seem to have started to answer in that you seem to think all there is is the “mind”? Do you believe other “minds” exist and if so what is the nature of them and why is suffering so important to their existence that when I ask of existence you bring up suffering?
>>17441134hi, I did not write this >>17441182.> your coherent version of Buddhismbasically what is in the suttas, the correct discernment of dependent origination.> Explain what I am, what you are, what’s going on in existence and how you know that according to a your version of Buddhismyou are a person, so am I. about what is going on in existence, I don't care to know, and I think the suttas also don't have an answer. they only answer what is unease and how to uproot the causes of unease in one's experience.
>>17441194Suffering is an issue for all conscious/sentient beings, regardless of whether or not they understand the magnitude of it. And Buddhism strictly doesnt focus on physical pain, but the general suffering that starts with the mind. Suffering is anything that brings the feeling of dissatisfaction, of unease, of feeling of always looking for the next chase, that which the mind bears. Whether that is wanting for a better answer like we are doing, of feeling that you'll never get an appropriate answer, of the feeling of loss of sanity/inconclusiveness of discussions, etc. Even things like the feeling like shit when you get up too early or fearing the loss of your hair or feeling like your fashion isnt up to date, etc. The function of mind that which reifies things and then compares things is whats at the root of the cause here. Common meme about Buddhism is "buddhism says desire causes suffering". "Desire" in this case is the function of the mind that which reifies and which compares, creates distinction-ness and holds permanence of the impermanent, etc. And confuses unreal for real, causing the foundational collapse at the axiomatic level. Its not that I seem to think all there is is the mind, its just one entry point of Buddhism. As to why Buddhists start with the suffering, well its just where Buddha entered into Buddhism. The mastery over the state of the mind is what Buddha was taught by sages when he sought out for answers to the nature of suffering of the world and how to face them. Really, you should pick up Dhammapada and you'll get a decent grasp of Buddhism. These are basic foundational stuff that most people just dont seem to have the patience to understand or just skip them over. Including myself. It took years to get the basics right.
>>17441265Okay so your path to enlightenment is being to cool to care? I’m asking your understanding not some books which can be interpreted in a million different ways.What is a person and where did it come from?>>17441304Okay well I don’t suffer for desire, I suffer as as a consequence of my limitations and it is a good tool for me to test against my capacity for willful ignorance. It seems your understanding of Buddhism is just a fetishization of suffering.So there isn’t just the mind? If it’s an entry point does the full progression include, asking again, what we are and what’s going on?
>>17441389>What is a person and where did it come from?so you know what? where did it come from?
>>17441389>Okay well I don’t suffer for desire, I suffer as as a consequence of my limitationscope, you suffer for desire. You want to live with your jesus. So you suffer.
>>17441423But I am pleased with knowing that without Jesus I am worthy of nothingness? Cope that you fetishize dead babies so you don’t have to live >>17441421The word what? It’s a linguistic term developed by humans to help convey ideas?
