Nagarjuna states that all things are dependently arisen. There is nothing, such as a soul, that is self-arisen, independent, immortal and unchanging.For anyone that disagrees with this, why do you think this?Can you give an example of something that is not dependently arisen?"All the dogmatists have been terrified by the lion’s roar of emptiness. Wherever they may reside, emptiness lies in wait!""Just as it is knownThat an image of one's face is seenDepending on a mirrorBut does not really exist as a face,So the conception of "I" existsDependent on mind and body,But like the image of a faceThe "I" does not at all exist as its own reality.”
>>42231333My disagreement is that this belief system ultimately ties literally everything back to emptiness. You’re talking about dependent emergence, which is a very legitimate and defensible point, and then rattle off into making it about nothingness and emptiness and desire. Yet again.>oh the sun comes up every day?>that’s true. Life is just so empty. Nothing is ever worth holding dear
>>42231333You are not a drop in the ocean, you're the ocean in a drop. Everything that is, is in you. Every drop in this everlasting mystic sea of being is an illusion in this sense, as every drop is ocean, but in the same sense, the ocean is very real and so is every drop. It's all just "I AM" for eternity, always has been. Everything else including emptiness is an illusion.
>>42231333Buddhism only knows of the material. By design.It can get you to 0 from the -1.It cannot get to +1.>all things are dependently arisenYes. The material is the relative. The dependent.>Can you give an example of something that is not dependently arisen?Oh most things are eternal and never "arise."The limited self, the Unlimited Superself, the spiritual realm, and even this material realm, but everything IN this material realm is relative and temporary. Arising and destroying.
>>42231333
>>42231361Emptiness, like a blank canvas, holds infinite potential to portray anything. For anything to be portrayed there has to be a will and desire arising to shape and form out of emptiness something. What is valuable is subjective. Good or bad, wrong or right is irrelevant and dualistic thinking and give rise to suffering when you desire a different outcome from another. It's not about good or bad, it's about understanding that you are responsible for what your own suffering. Pain is a physical sensation it comes and goes.
>>42231333>Non-buddhists, what is your answer to Emptiness?Who cares lol. You're gonna die nigga, it aint that deep. Just live a life you're happy with.
>>42231436Spiritual or physical realm doesn't exist outside or independently from the original emptiness out of which it rose from. Spiritual beings are not permanent, they change or they'd be static and they wouldn't need to feed on our loosh/life force or whatever.All things material are in its essence vibrations and empty space.
>>42231854Yes indeed. It is about wrapping absolutely everything back into explanations about your own suffering.Just how Christians frame everything in their belief system. It is impossible to dispute anything when you believe it to be absolutely true and intend to wrap literally everything back into your self contained system.
>>42231872what dies will livewhat lives will die
>>42232152The Buddha taught the source of 'suffering', dukkha, more appropriately dissatisfaction and how to end it. When desire and craving arises you chase satisfaction to end the state of dissatisfaction, you'll always be moving towards this goal until you let go of desire, craving and clinging. The Dharma is there for those who wants to get off that carousel.>literally everything back into your self contained systemWhat exist outside it? You don't accept it because you desire there to be more.
>>42232285There's nothing wrong, it explains why things exist. What is god and why is god moving and creating and what is the creation and why does it keep creating/recreating?
>>42231333>Nagarjuna states that all things are dependently arisen.Well, if Nagarjuna says it, it must be true.
>>42231333My mind is so empty I don't even get what he wanted to state.
>>42231436Fancy cosmology, a prime example of dependent origination as illustrated by your picture, is still part of Samsara.
>>42231333From a Thomistic point of view, the soul is neither self-arisen, independent, nor unchanging. The only substance with such attributes is God, but it is also asserted that God is neither an individual substance nor anything with a determinate nature, but rather, anything predicated of God, including Being, is proposed by analogy with known creatures. Essentially there is no contradiction, only a difference in perspective. Whether that difference constitutes a disagreement is purely a matter of sentiment, which ought to be discarded for the purposes of metaphysics anyway.None of this verbiage is necessary to realize what the terms are actually gesturing at.
>>42233675>is still part of SamsaraNo. That is exactly what the image is portraying. You seem to have trouble understanding.
>>42231886>from the original emptinessNo such thing. Something is the eternal default.
>>42231333buddhism and their concept of emptiness is a nihilistic death cult. there is an individual soul in every one of us, very much like what jainism preaches
>>42234002You're clinging to a mental construct. >From a Madhyamaka perspective, the moment you label something "Svarupa Shakti" and define it as an eternal, blissful essence, you’ve built a "conceptual nest."In Buddhism, especially in the teachings on Sunyata (Emptiness), the trap is that the ego loves to replace material attachments with spiritual ones. If the mind clings to a definition of a "Divine Potency," it is still functioning within the realm of Prapañca (conceptual proliferation).>By calling it a "shakti" or an "internal nature," you are treating it as a thing (an inherent essence). Buddhism argues that even the most sublime spiritual state is empty of intrinsic existence.>the Buddha’s Noble Silence wasn't just being coy; it was a pedagogical tool. To answer "Is there an eternal essence?" with a "Yes" fuels eternalism (clinging to a self); to say "No" fuels nihilism. Both keep the ego engaged in a "view.">A Buddhist would argue that "Svarupa Shakti" is a map, not the territory. Clinging to the map (the mental construction) is just more Samsara—specifically, the "higher" realms of delusion where the ego feels spiritual but remains unliberated.Essentially, while the Vaishnava view sees Svarupa Shakti as the ultimate shelter, the Buddhist view sees it as one last concept to be let go of to truly reach the "unconditioned.
>>42234005>Something is the eternal default.And that is?
>>42231333>Non-buddhists, what is your answer to Emptiness?That it is wrong as an statement of the nature of the the ultimate reality, but it has some provisional use at severing attachments to believing in the real existence of a plurality of independently-existing things.Advaita Vedanta is a more metaphysically complete worldview, and it's capable of easily answering all of Nagarjuna's arguments which are moreso directed against naive realism and not non-dualism.Some of Nagarjuna's arguments against svabhava are flawed themselves too, like the argument from self-production is fallacious because it just presumes that svabhava would not just exist intrinsically and permanently as the ultimate ground reality that depends on nothing and no conditions.Even within Buddhism itself for example, Nyingma Dzogchen sees normative emptiness as being completed by Maha-madhyamaka that discloses the nature of the Dharmadhatu that is unconditioned emptiness and luminosity inseperable. Regular Madhyamaka teachings by themselves are neither spiritually very useful as a path (unless completed by some path of Yoga etc as in Tantric Buddhism), and nor do they decisively refute all substantialist forms of Svabhava.>Can you give an example of something that is not dependently arisen?Yes, the Supreme Self (Paramatman) of the Upanishads taught by Advaita Vedanta is not dependently-arisen. It has unconditioned self-sufficient uncaused existence and is the ultimate non-dual reality of which all phenomena are its appearance. It is spontaneously- and effortlessly-present in all moments and is always known in an immediate and self-evident manner as the self-disclosing, self-illuminating, self-presenceing space of numinous awareness in which all mental phenomena are displayed.
>>42236779You are of the nature of the substratum of all. You are of the nature of the Light of all. You are devoid of all differences of meaning. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.Indeed, you are Brahman, devoid of differences and devoid of disturbance. You are peaceful, devoid of differences. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.You are devoid of the term “exalted knowledge.” You perceive your own nature. You abide in your own nature. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.You are left with your nature. You recognize only your nature. You are immersed in the waters of your own joy. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.You alone exist in the kingdom of your Self. You bow only to your own Self. You are of the nature that is full. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.Rooted in your own joy, you are yourself. You do not perceive anything outside yourself. In your Self you shine and are like space. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.You do not swerve from your nature. You do not perceiveanything outside your nature. You, in your own nature, are nectar. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.You shine with your own nature. You blossom with your own nature. You are no different from your own nature. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this.You are ever yourself. You see yourself everywhere. You enjoy yourself in yourself. You are Brahman. There is no doubt of this- Ribhu Gita, Chapter 2
Buddha is no-view it is a really simple and default religion
>>42236779>Yes, the Supreme Self (Paramatman) of the Upanishads taught by Advaita Vedanta is not dependently-arisenIt is not dependently arisen because it is not arisen at all. Whatever arises and subsides is ignorant of Atman, and Atman itself has from all eternity beheld only itself and no other, ekam eva advitiyam.
Buddhism is just anal about words cause of language trapsBuddhism ends up confusing a good bit of people into thinking it's purely atheistic and phsycial
>>42236913>language trapsWell Russell and the positivists concluded ALL philosophical problems were tricks of language, such as the cogito born of subject-predicate grammar. This is the sense in which all conceptual thought is rooted in ignorance, but ignorance is rooted in Void, which has no root
>>42236872Correct
>>42236919If you were smart you'd know how say things without sounding so retarded
>>42236930I didn't really know Jeffrey Epstein
>>42236942Wouldn't know it if his egg shaped chode somehow managed to make it down your throat I bet.
>>42237017We'll just keep it a secret between us
