How do you get all the way to anatta and emptiness and not realize that the only reason nothing exists or acts from its own side is because God alone does? How? Emptiness of svabhava is clearly literally the negative signature of divine unicity.
You're trampling on your own pearls, or maybe shit bits. Lest you stop this activity you won't stop casting shit and trampling on it.These ideas
>The gods: Surely, as an antagonism to the entire world has this Dharma been expounded.
>There is no attainment or reunion through either duality or nonduality; there can be attainment and reunion only where there is neither duality nor nonduality. And why? Because they would otherwise imply an intellectual multiplicity. But in the sameness of Dharma there is no intellectual multiplicity, for the nature of Dharma is without intellectual multiplicity.
>Subhuti: Does, then, the sameness of Dharma lie outside the range also of the Tathāgata?>The Lord: It lies outside the range of all holy men, including the Tathāgatas.
>>42906022To name the Godhead is to create a concept. To create a concept is to create an object in the mind. The moment the Godhead becomes an object, you have stepped out of unity and back into duality, the observer looking at the observed. This is exactly why Buddhism insists on the term Nirvana (literally "blowing out" or "extinction"). It is not a denial of the Divine Reality, it is a fierce, protective refusal to turn that Reality into a mental trap (attachment).The highest mystics within monotheism realized this exact same danger. They explicitly warned that the "God" most people worship is just a mental construct, a trap, and that the true Godhead requires the "Nirvana" of the mind. Meister Eckhart: He famously prayed, "I pray God to rid me of God." He meant that he needed to be liberated from his own concepts of God in order to sink into the unconditioned, silent desert of the Godhead.The Pseudo-Dionysius: The father of Christian mysticism argued that God is best approached through Agnosia (divine ignorance or unknowing). He wrote that the ultimate reality is "beyond all assertion and negation." To experience it, you must leave behind all mental activity.The Tao Te Ching: The very first line hits this exact nail on the head "The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao." The moment you conceptualize it, you lose it.
>>42906369Conceptualizing X does not entail that X is itself a conceptual object. Saying “God” no more turns God into a phenomenon than saying “emptiness” turns emptiness into a substance. So your Madhyamaka warning can simply be accepted: yes, do not reify God. Do not locate Him as some gigantic svabhāva-bearing entity standing opposite creation. That removes a bad conception of God; it does not touch the recognition that the entire dependently generated causal field is transparent to one divine actuality.> The moment the Godhead becomes an object, you have stepped out of unity and back into duality, the observer looking at the observedNot so. Unity does not require abolishing every distinction between seer and seen. It requires denying that either side becomes a second source from its own side. Within a one-source reality there can be real address, response, relation, even covenant. Multiplicity doesn’t disappear. Life goes on. We don’t escape it.Your sentence still assumes a subtle two-pole setup: an observer here, Godhead there, and then worries that conceptualization separates them. But with God, the seeing is already His. Thus, there can be no second self-grounding seer standing outside the divine actuality, looking across a metaphysical gap.Your usual mystical picture—“I, the observer, am trying to attain union with God”—already contains the subtle closure. It grants the observer a little island of independent seeing and then tries to unite that island with God.Dependent arising cuts deeper. If phenomena are empty, the seeing itself opens into conditions. The seer does not close from its own side. If the seer does not close from its own side, then a prayer like “Thy will be done” just names what is already actually true.The deeper move therefore is not: “stop observing God so observer and God can become one.” It is: “even this observing never belonged to a separate generator.”
>Maitreya: What is the Nirvana of the Bodhisattva who courses in the perfection of wisdom and it thus endowed with this kind of comprehension, forsaking, realisation and development?>The Lord : Deep, Maitreya, exceedingly deep is the Nirvana of the Bodhisattvas, the great beings!>Maitreya: For what reason is it so deep, so exceedingly deep?>The Lord: It is because the Nirvana of the Bodhisattvas, the great beings, is both not Nirvana and not no-Nirvana.>Maitreya: How is that?>The Lord: The nonrenunciation of Samsara in the interest of others is not Nirvana. The nonrenunciation of Nirvana in one's own interest is not no-Nirvana.>Maitreya: If, O Lord, the Bodhisattva in the interest of others does not renounce Samsara, how is it that through his nonrenunciation of Samsara he has not also renounced Nirvana? If the Bodhisattva has in his own interest not completely renounced Nirvana, how is it that as a result of his nonrenunciation of Nirvana he has not also renounced Samsara?>The Lord: Here, Maitreya, the Bodhisattva, the great being who courses in perfect wisdom, neither discriminates Samsara as Samsara, nor Nirvana as Nirvana. When he thus does not discriminate, they, i.e. Samsara and Nirvana, become exactly the same.
>>42906594>Conceptualizing X does not entail that X is itself a conceptual objectThe goal is liberation, not metaphysical speculation.
>I come today from the House of the Double Lion, I have come forth from it to the House of Isis, to the secret mysteries, I have been conducted to her hidden secrets, for she caused me to see the birth of the great god.
>>42906022anatta and emptiness means void of thoughttherefore you're calling God close to everything that is Buddhist's emptyfucking dickhead
>Anon ITT haven't even opened or mastered the first chakra and they're trying to lead another.The Blind do some silly things when encountering one of their own.
>>42906989pretty sure the Buddhists would frown on saying you master chakra............one at a time
>>42907018A fly doesn't care what Buddhist think and neither does the Sun.
>>42906847I get that you are saying “I don’t need to answer what dependent arising ultimately is. I need to stop clinging to it.”But if God is merely metaphysical speculation, then why does such theological verse print nectar?For me, grace relationally achieves what an isolated self never can.
>>42907390I'm saying metaphysical speculation is mostly a waste of time, just like philosophy for the sake of philosophy. You only end up arguing in circles about who's right about things we can't fully comprehend anyway, hence speculation. If the 'worshipful lord' is your own true self, Atman being identical to Brahman, why are you worshipping "him"? Simply let go of the false ego that is the illusion of separation.
>>42907568>why are you worshipping "him"?Because love is better than not love.
>>42907568> Simply let goWho is doing the letting go? If the answer is another self-grounding observer, closure has returned. If the letting-go itself arises dependently, then grace-language becomes intelligible.
>>42906022>How do you get all the way to anatta and emptiness and not realize that the only reason nothing exists or acts from its own side is because God alone does? How? Emptiness of svabhava is clearly literally the negative signature of divine unicity.Because atheism is the strongest litmus test for God. Because God isn't something you "know" in a naive limited sense, it is something you experience. Rapture habbens only during rupture.
i think that reading and thinking and logic have their place, but they are not everything.i think we are wicked and lowly in more ways than we know. we have to renounce and pray. we have to give up earthly hope. then, deep in fast and far from others, for a brief moment we may glimpse God's true being, probably for only a few seconds. and then most of us will probably sully the moment with pride, hypocrisy, prelest and despair.
>>42907674> then most of us will probably sully the moment with pride, hypocrisy, prelest and despair.lol guilty, what’s your point anon? One must never give up
>>42907680i think my point is that if youre reaching a cerebral/intellectual block like OP, then there is most likely a moral, physical or "destiny/bravery/life matter" deficit somewhere else.. if you are meditating when you should be confronting an internal or external evil, you will get lost in cerebral labyrinths.. thats just your mind having control over you instead of the other way around..basically, i think op has an unruly mind..
>jeet religious shit Not paranormal. Fuck off.
>>42907594When the illusion of the "self-grounding observer" is seen through, the of the ego dissolve. What remains is a natural, unowned movement toward freedom, an uncaused reality (Nirvana) realized because the "realizer" stopped getting in the way.The letting go is a result of seeing clearly, not a decision made by an observer. Water flows downhill because gravity and terrain allow it, not because the water "chooses" to flow.
>>42909421> a natural, unowned movement toward freedom, an uncaused reality (Nirvana) realized because the "realizer" stopped getting in the wayMagically no longer dependent on conditions? That’s the error.
>>42910927Ain't nothing magical about it. First conditions is ignorance, when you are fully awaken (ie. Buddha) there's no ignorance. Simple as. The chain unfettered, the knot untangled. When this is, that is. From the arising of this, that arises.When this is not, that is not. From the fading of this, that fades.
>>42911257Exactly. That means the awakening-event itself has causal intelligibility through conditions. The state doesn’t suddenly become causally self-grounding just because you call it “natural”. And precisely because even this seeing does not come from a self-grounding seer, it must be received.
>>42911257>First conditions is ignoranceWhose ignorance?Ignorance had a lot of preconditions to even be.You need knowledge to exist first, and a potential knower of it.
>>42913309Whose ignorance is an invalid question.The Buddha explained that if you ask "Whose is this?", you are making a fatal philosophical error. You are assuming that a permanent, independent soul or self exists outside of the process, owning the experience.He stated that if a monk holds the view that there is a "someone" to whom the ignorance or aging belongs, It locks the practitioner into the illusion of a separate "Self".By shifting the question from "Who am I?" to "How does this process work?", the mind stops clinging to identity and can finally dismantle the loop of suffering (Samsara).>The āsavas are deep-seated mental corruptions or intoxicants that leak out from the unawakened mind. The Buddha outlines three primary taints>The taint of sensuality (kāmāsava) the habitual seeking of pleasure through the senses.>The taint of becoming/existence (bhavāsava) the driven desire to be someone, to possess identity, or to maintain a state of being.>The taint of ignorance (avijjāsava) the fundamental lack of clarity regarding reality>Because ignorance relies on conditions, it can be dismantled. By introducing wise attention (yonisomanasikāra) and practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, you starve the taints. When the taints cease, ignorance ceases, and the entire chain of suffering collapses
Kali
>>42915139>invalid questionNonsense. Ignorance is not independent.>The Buddha explainedThink for yourself, parrot.>You are assuming that a permanent, independent soul or self exists outside of the process, owning the experience.No, I am going from what ignorance is.Are you saying ignorance is a context free independent entity?That is retarded.>By shifting the question You fail to answer the question and pretend this isnt a fatal flaw in your philosophy.Whose ignorance?Your answer seems to be>souls arent permanent and independent - ignorance isAnd that is stupid.
>>42915218I don't know how you manage to misconstrue what's being said so badly.Why would ignorance be an entity?
>>42915284>I don't know how you manage to misconstrue what's being said so badly.I am merely breaking the dogmatic supports of your beliefs.>Why would ignorance be an entity?That is for you to answer, as that is what you are setting it up to be.Any normal thought leads to>>42913309>Ignorance had a lot of preconditions to even be.>You need knowledge to exist first, and a potential knower of it.And you had a whole "magic guy said" screed that completely ignored it.
"[...] On the other hand, ascending, we say, that God It is neither soul, nor mind, nor has imagination, or opinion, or reason, or conception; neither is expressed, nor conceived; neither is number, nor order, nor greatness, nor littleness; nor equality, nor inequality; nor similarity, nor dissimilarity; neither is standing, nor moving; nor at rest; neither has power, nor is power, nor light; neither lives, nor is life; neither is essence nor eternity, nor time; neither is Its touch intelligible, neither is It science, nor truth; nor kingdom, nor wisdom; neither one, nor oneness; neither Deity, nor Goodness; nor is It Spirit according to our understanding; nor Sonship, nor Paternity; nor any other thing of those known to us, or to any other existing being; neither is It any of non-existing nor of existing things, nor do things existing know It, as It is; nor does It know existing things, qua existing; neither is there expression of It, nor name, nor knowledge; neither is It darkness, nor light; nor error, nor truth; neither is there any definition at all of It, nor any abstraction. But when making the predications and abstractions of things after It, we neither predicate, nor abstract from It; since the all-perfect and uniform Cause of all is both above every definition and the pre-eminence of Him, Who is absolutely freed from all, and beyond the whole, is also above every abstraction."- St. Dionysius
“For if God is nature, other things are not nature, but if each of the other things is nature, he is not nature: just as he is not a being, if others are beings, and if he is a being, the others are not beings. If you accept this as true also for wisdom and goodness and generally all the things around God or said about God, then your theology will be correct and in accord with the saints. But God is the nature of all beings and is referred to as such, since all participate in him and receive their constitution by this participation, not by participation in his nature, far from it, but by participation in his energy. Thus is he the very being of beings and the form in the forms as the primal form and wisdom of the wise and generally all things of all things. He is not nature because he is beyond all nature, and he is not being because he is beyond all beings, and he is not nor does he possess form because he is beyond form.”— St. Gregory Palamas (The one hundred and fifty chapters)
“Yet the divine Maximus has not only taught that [deification] it is enhypostatic, but also that it is unoriginate (not only uncreated), indescribable and supratemporal. Those who attain it become thereby uncreated, unoriginate and indescribable, although in their own nature, they derive from nothingness.”— St. Gregory Palamas (The Triads)
>>42906022Buddhism is nothing more than experimenting on how to cure egoism, what the fuck does "gaaaawd" have to do with it you filthy fucking larping asshole. as long as you play the identity game, you have no idea what buddhism is about yet.
>>42915139> The Buddha explained that if you ask "Whose is this?", you are making a fatal philosophical error. You are assuming that a permanent, independent soul or self exists outside of the process, owning the experience.> He stated that if a monk holds the view that there is a "someone" to whom the ignorance or aging belongs, It locks the practitioner into the illusion of a separate "Self".Everything belongs to God. No, that doesn’t block liberation. :)
>>42915601> Buddhism is nothing more than experimenting on how to cure egoism, what the fuck does "gaaaawd" have to do with itIf you take out ego, life still goes on, acts continue to unfold. Who is the actor, then, if not the ego?
>>42906022ईश्वरः सर्वभूतेषु निहितः, सर्वभूतानि च तस्मिन्; तथापि स न केनचित् सीमितः।यत्र त्वं स्वस्य पृथक् कर्तृत्वं न पश्यसि, तत्र स एव प्रकाशते—एकः कर्ता, बहुधा वर्तमानः।
>>42915580What a pathetic, completely absent nothing of a God.this comes from strict dualistic thinking, and trying to remove that through negation as that is the only thing a material mind can know.For such a mind, it is either dualisitic, or nothing at all.They cant fathom that god is GREATER than dualism, not less than it.Because he cant see or think of red being blue, he must think you have to choose, and choosing is a limit, and doesnt want to limit God.So they conclude God CANT HAVE ANY COLOR AT ALL.As if that is somehow more colorful than red or blue, no color at all.They try to remove their own limited thinking and ability from God by removing EVERYTHING from God.Silly.They want a nothing, useless God.My God will always be greater.
>>42916170They had the experience you never did, shut the fuck up."[...] Contemplation, then, is not simply abstraction and negation; it is a union and a divinisation which occurs mystically and ineffably by the grace of God, after the stripping away of everything from here below which imprints itself on the mind, or rather after the cessation of all intellectual activity; it is something which goes beyond abstraction (which is only the outward mark of the cessation). This is why every believer has to separate off God from all His creatures, for the cessation of all intellectual activity and the resulting union with the light from on high is an experience and a divinising end, granted solely to those who have purified their hearts and received grace. And what am I to say of this union, when the brief vision itself is manifested only to chosen disciples, disengaged by ecstasy from all perception of the senses or intellect, admitted to the true vision because they have ceased to see, and endowed with supernatural senses by their submission to unknowing? But we intend to show later on, by God's aid, that though they have indeed seen, yet their organ of vision was, properly speaking, neither the senses nor the intellect. Do you now understand that in place of the intellect, the eyes and ears, they acquire the incomprehensible Spirit and by Him hear, see and comprehend? For if all their intellectual activity has stopped, how could the angels and angelic men see God except by the power of the Spirit? This is why their vision is not a sensation, since they do not receive it through the senses; nor is it intellection, since they do not find it through thought or the knowledge that comes thereby, but after the cessation of all mental activity. It is not, therefore, the product of either imagination or reason; it is neither an opinion nor a conclusion reached by syllogistic argument."— St. Gregory Palamas (The Triads)
>>42916336But that's wrong. I have met God several times.That's why I can speak directly, while you can only quote people that have at the very best an indirect and impersonal understanding.
>>42916853... you can't fool everyone.
>>42917587You can call me mistaken, I dont need your acceptance, but I am quite sincere.I have met with God four times, as Impulse, as Sound, as Form, and as Place.
>>42918258
>>42915333Being awake is the condition for falling asleep (ignorance) and become trapped in a dream (Samsara).You crave an origin, a supreme source, to make sense of life. That's just the mind grasping for direction and something to hold on to, or else the mind feels lost. There has to be some metaphysical logically infallible truth to be attached to!So a concept of God is created in the mind, to which you can project meaning of existence and form a parasocial relationship with 'God'. Without this absolute supreme source the worldview collapses into nihilism. Then why do we suffer? We is God so cruel? Why is He letting children die and suffer? And so on.That's why Buddhism isn't concerned about answering questions that can't be known and only perpetuate suffering, grasping and attachments to concepts of the mind. >The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow is a famous Buddhist story about a man shot by a toxic arrow who refuses treatment until he learns impossible answers about the archer.>A man is struck by a poisoned arrow.>His friends want to pull the arrow out and give him medicine.>The wounded man stops them. He says he will not let them touch the arrow until he knows who shot it.>He wants to know the archer's name, caste, height, and hometown.>He wants to know what kind of wood the bow is made from.>The man dies before finding out any of these answers
>>42919093The poisoned arrow only establishes that *some* questions can obstruct liberation. But what if the wound is sin? If the illusion is imagined self-sourcehood, then divine knowledge becomes therapeutically decisive. Negative analysis alone can’t solve it. You can discover through negation: not mine, not from myself. But negative analysis alone can’t arrive at an accurate picture of dependence, and it can’t give you a relationship to God.> That's just the mind grasping for direction and something to hold on to, or else the mind feels lost.> There has to be some metaphysical logically infallible truth to be attached to!Projection
>>42919285Love ya moodsLove ya nudesLove ya dude
>>42919093>falling asleep (ignorance)Ignorance is not falling asleep."Being awake" here is just another way to say there's needs to be a knower and knowledge, exactly as I said.>You crave an origin, a supreme source, to make sense of life.No, you crave an absence to remove purpose, and so must deny what is obvious.Or we can not try and assert internal motive on the other.>There has to be some metaphysical logically infallible truth to be attached to!Like that one? Or the one where there is no source?There are three basic answers to this - they are all irrational, and they are all arbitrary.>So a concept of God is created in the mindWhose mind? This is happening in your ultimate source void of being?>That's why Buddhism isn't concerned about answering questions that can't be known and only perpetuate sufferingSo Buddhism...is NOT concerned with the question "why do we suffer?" That is retardedly wrong.>He wants to know the archer's name, caste, height, and hometown.>He wants to know what kind of wood the bow is made from.>The man dies before finding out any of these answersSounds like the man was wise and didnt take the vax.Are you saying people should just let some jew work on them without asking questions?
>>42919285And what is sin?Buddhism deal in skilled/unskilled, wholesome/unwholesome. It's an analysis why bad behavior is bad, the causes and consequences. Not because God commands it. Buddhism traces all harmful behavior of body, speech, and mind back to three specific psychological causes, known as the Three Poisons or unwholesome roots of greed/attachment, hatred/aversion and delusion/ignorance (of the true nature of reality).Buddhism treats bad behavior as a mistake born of confusion rather than a sign of inherent evil. Because it views harmful habits as learned, causal patterns rather than permanent character flaws, it emphasizes that bad behavior can be unlearned through mindfulness, wisdom, and the cultivation of wholesome mental states.>But negative analysis alone can’t arrive at an accurate picture of dependence, and it can’t give you a relationship to God.It gives you a relationship beyond ego-self, and what is left is 'self'. In Hindu terms the Self, Atman, is identical to Brahman, the Godhead. When this non-dualistism is realized there's no illusion of separate self sourcehood. No separate God or source.
>>42919398>And what is sin?A mistake born from confusion.>No separate God or source.No one said God was separate. Just that He is.You again fall into the dualism of thinking >if union, there cant be separation. is separation, there cant be unionThat's wrong.That's dualism.
>>42919398Sin is “I receive everything, yet live as though I were mine from my own side.” It is imagined self-sourcehood.It’s an illusion, but it has moral consequences. Judgment in that frame is the disclosure of that illusion before God: what was received from Thou is revealed as never having been mine from my own side, and my life is measured by how I lived within that truth.Buddhism can give a serious account of moral transformation without God, I don’t dispute that. So can Advaita. Both can produce real release from ego, grasping, fear, and self-ownership. But both terminate in sin if they don’t finally end with returning the act to “Thou”.A way of understanding it is, if you’re not cleaving to the One, it shakes out as clinging to a separate local centre.> No separate God or sourceGod is not a “separate source” if *there is no other source*. To speak of God as a “separate source” is to speak from the illusion of separate sourcehood in the first place. Relation can exist without separation. I-Thou does not require two independent sources.
>>42919348>there's needs to be a knower and knowledge, exactly as I said.Buddhism is a practice. Whether there is a knower or isn't is irrelevant for the purpose, when you introduce a knower you create an identity and attachment. That's why some questions are deemed invalid to prevent you from chasing your own tail. >deny what is obviousWell, I don't know what that is. >"why do we suffer?"The answer is easy, we suffer because we're born and have a mind and body experiencing the upps and downs of life.The question is: what is suffering and how do you end it. Also, the correct term is dukkha and have a much broader and deeper meaning. Pain, dissatisfaction, unease, restlessness, or incompleteness. Including existential questions.Which takes us back to my point that this craving for meaning is filled with God and apparently some sort of obvious divine purpose.>>42919406>That's wrongI don't know what you're trying to quote.>“I receive everything, yet live as though I were mine from my own side.”>But both terminate in sin if they don’t finally end with returning the act to “Thou”.Which makes it just a cruel game of God punishing and rewarding aspects of himself in a world of suffering for his own amusement. No wonder such theology and doctrine have caused so much suffering among its practitioners that punish sin in the name of God and inspire rebellion among those who don't want to participate, having the opposite effect, making the adversary more attractive. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".
>>42921009>Whether there is a knower or isn't is irrelevant for the purposeYou cant have a practice without a knower. So it is not irrelevant but a vital prerequisite.>some questions are deemed invalidThat's called dogma, and I reject it.If your stance can be destroyed by a question, it deserves to be.>Well, I don't know what that is. You are like a fish wondering what water is.>The answer is easy, You said>Then why do we suffer? We is God so cruel? Why is He letting children die and suffer? And so on.>That's why Buddhism isn't concerned about answering questions that can't be knownAnd NOW you want to say the question is easy.So you arent consistent, and probably are being deceptive.>I don't know what you're trying to quote.I only quoted what you wrote, but I agree it is nonsense.>“I receive everything, yet live as though I were mine from my own side.”>But both terminate in sin if they don’t finally end with returning the act to “Thou”.I didnt write this, claim this, or care about this.you once again are attacking phantoms in your head instead of engaging with what I said.>"Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".So now you want to be Christian?I am not Christian, and I think Christianity is just as stupid and nonsensical as Buddhism.If all you can do is lash out at preconceived tropes you will never advance and worse you will never think for yourself.
>>42921009Judgment is not God amusing Himself by torturing pieces of Himself. Judgment is the disclosure of truth: the creature discovers that what it treated as self-owned was always received dependently.> "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".Spoken like a true sinner.
>>42922990>Judgment is the disclosure of truth: the creature discovers that what it treated as self-owned was always received dependently.And the whole point of that is? If God is all there is, and God creates a separate "child" just to punish it for acting separate, God is effectively trapped in a cosmic psychodrama, inflicting suffering on Himself. Non-dual philosophies bypass this absurdity by removing the concept of a judgmental, personal deity altogether. >Spoken like a true sinnerI'm just pointing out how and why christian teachings can have an opposite effect and have people turning to sin or become satanists.
>>42923199God neither created us, nor punishes us.Funny that you have to focus on Christianity, almost like that's the only paradigm you know how to criticize.>christian teachings can have an opposite effect and have people turning to sinMeanwhile what you are teaching would make people dismiss the very notion and embrace the ultimate Christian sin.Very Satanic of you.Good thing Christians are wrong.
>>42923700>God neither created usThen who did? >Funny that you have to focus on ChristianityI assume the person I answered is Christian since that's the kind of language being used. If that wasn't you then maybe don't act all bent over it.
>>42923796>Then who did?We are eternal, never created.>I assume the person I answered is ChristianSure - you brought up christian notions and terms, so a christian comes in.And you ignored for hours the hard post that counters you while denying christianity.Because it's easier to talk in prescripted thought and paradigm of "boo Christian."it's not anger, it's amused derision.I know you cant answer me and christians are easier to deal with.
>>42923811I've explained my point many times since you keep making these threads, but you're too stupid and disingenuous, not debating in good faith misconstruing what's being said, so there's no point continuing discussion. And then you take what I say and use them as your own arguments.
>>42923909I dont make the threads, but i come into them and spank you around a bit each time.>weak ad hominemYes, we all know you get defeated in each thread.It's a wonder you keep showing up, maybe some sort of masochistic thing.I see you still are afraid to address anything i've said.
>>42906022On his way to the anatta, the buddha had his thoughts filled with Mara's illusions, Mara tempts the buddah by asking..."Would you like annata one"
>>42923995Yes, you won, go stroke your ego because that's what it's all about.
>>42923199“If God is all there is” becomes, for you, “therefore the child is literally God pretending to be separate.” Then judgment necessarily looks like God punishing Himself.But my claim is different: God alone exists from Himself; the child genuinely exists, but not from himself. Dependence does not imply identity. No second source does not mean no real creature.You hear nonduality = no real I–Thou distinction, presumably no more relata in general.I mean nondual unicity = real relation without two ultimate sources.You keep attacking the first while I keep asserting the second.So the child is real; what is unreal is the child’s imagined aseity.Judgment therefore isn’t God punishing Himself for pretending to be separate—it is just true. It is a genuinely dependent creature encountering the truth that it never possessed itself from itself. Buddhism can’t rescue anyone from this.
