Blessings to you all

The absence of objectification
>Those whose mind has transcended
>Existence and non-existence and abides no more [in them],
>They’ve realized the meaning of conditioned existence,
>The profound absence of objectification.

Attached: nagarjuna.jpg (200x200, 21K)

Not this guy, but not a bad response. Our worldview is too limited to put everything (including stuff we don't know shit about, which is a lot) into the concepts we created.

Kesh Temple Hymn
The Epic of Gilgamesh
The Book of the Dead
The Atharvaveda

>he isn't into Bear Worship

Yeasss, user, give him the yellow pill.

Thus, monks, a Tathāgata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24

Attached: buddha.gif (466x625, 205K)

non-duality is not a position, it's gibberish that eats itself and undermines coherent discourse.

Anime vs Western

which one?
I know they're "fake" (some are actually real parts of other books put togheter and named Necronomicon, some are just made up)

That would be circular training more than anything

>bro our thoughts are actually like a rube-Goldberg machine in our heads

Attached: Leviathan Hobbes.jpg (1000x525, 186K)

Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Jorge Luis Borges (1940)

you're right it isn't a position that's the whole point
>I prostrate to Gautama who through compassion taught the true doctrine, which leads to the relinquishing of all views
- MMK XXVII.30

>true doctrine
>leads to relinquishing all views
*fart*
relinquishing all views would implying getting rid of the good and true ones as well.
Must be a bad translation. Buddha promoted right-view, not no-view. discernment, not non-discernment.

Nah, was just memeing.

My sincere apologies.

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,101010_01c5ca27c6.jpg (750x1000, 33K)

Are you familiar with the Buddha's comparison of his teaching to a raft?
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html
Of course right view must be developed, but at the point of realizing Nirvana, even the Dhamma as the Buddha taught it must be let go of to realize the unconditioned. The unconditioned (Nirvana) contains no concepts, no positions, no views, which would all be conditioned.
Of course to get to the point of realizing Nirvana in the first place, Right View and the rest of the Eightfold Path must be cultivated diligently, but at the point of realization, even that must be let go of.
Ajahn Chah once said "The teaching of Buddhism is about giving up evil and practising good. Then, when evil is given up and goodness is established, we must let go of both good and evil. We have already heard enough about wholesome and unwholesome conditions to understand something about them, so I would like to talk about the Middle Way, that is, the path to transcend both of those things."

Buddha never "let go" of right-view, he didn't become some faggot who didn't discriminate between right and wrong or pain and pleasure.

Tbf Buddha when it came to morality Buddha referred to things as "skillful" and "unskillful," "wholesome" and "unwholesome," - morality was taught on the basis of how conducive actions were to the goal of the cessation of suffering. Not as some metaphysical and ultimate rightness vs wrongness in their own right.
Also
>13. "I shall show you, monks, the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to. Listen, monks, and heed well what I shall say" — "Yes, Lord," replied the monks. and the Blessed One spoke thus:

>"Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: 'This is a vast expanse of water; and this shore is perilous and fearful, but the other shore is safe and free from danger. There is, however, no boat here for crossing, nor a bridge for going over from this side to the other. Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.' Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like?'

>"What do you think about it, O monks? Will this man by acting thus, do what should be done with a raft?" — "No, Lord" — "How then, monks, would he be doing what ought to be done with a raft? Here, monks, having got across and arrived at the other shore, the man thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, and laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not pull it up now to the dry land or let it float in the water, and then go as I please?' By acting thus, monks, would that man do what should be done with a raft.

>"In the same way, monks, have I shown to you the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to.

>14. "You, O monks, who understand the Teaching's similitude to a raft, you should let go even (good) teachings,[14] how much more false ones!
- MN 22

>raft analogy
the point was to stop seeing practices and views as "means to an end", because in truth Nirvana is unconditioned and uncaused so you can't get to it by any "means"
it really comes by Grace, and it's best to be moral and speak the truth and so forth for their own sakes, not for the sake of nirvana, which would be counterproductive to the goal, but that's a fundamental contradiction in Buddhism

Based and buddha-dharmapilled

>the point was to stop seeing practices and views as "means to an end", because in truth Nirvana is unconditioned and uncaused so you can't get to it by any "means"
I don't know, the Buddha was pretty clear about practices and factors leading to Nirvana.
ex:
>"Kassapa, these seven factors of enlightenment are well expounded by me, cultivated and much developed by me, and when cultivated and much developed, they conduce to full realization, perfect wisdom, to Nibbana. What are the seven?

>"Mindfulness. This, O Kassapa, is well expounded by me, cultivated and much developed by me, and when cultivated and much developed, it conduces to full realization, perfect wisdom, to Nibbana.

>"Investigation of the dhamma...

>"Energy...

>"Rapture...

>"Calm...

>"Concentration...

>"Equanimity, O Kassapa, is well expounded by me...

>"These seven factors of enlightenment, verily, Kassapa, are well expounded by me, cultivated and much developed by me, and when cultivated and much developed they conduce to full realization, perfect wisdom, to Nibbana."

>"Verily, Blessed One, they are factors of enlightenment! Verily, O Welcome One, they are factors of enlightenment!" uttered Maha Kassapa. Thus spoke the Buddha, and the Venerable Maha Kassapa, rejoicing, welcomed the utterances of the Worthy One. And the Venerable Maha Kassapa rose from that illness. There and then that ailment of the Venerable Maha Kassapa vanished.

— SN 46.14

I think the contradiction of "conditioned practices leading to the unconditioned, ie Nirvana" is reconciled by the teaching that Nirvana is not something attained, but rather it is an ever-present reality, and practice leads not to the attaining of things, but to dropping of delusions and obscurations that prevent the realization of it.

>Nirvana is not something attained, but rather it is an ever-present reality
This would also line up with Nagarjuna's most controversial lines:
>19. There is not the slightest difference
>Between cyclic Existence and nirvana.

>There is not the slightest difference
>Between nirvana and cyclic existence.

>20. Whatever is the limit of nirvana,

>That is the limit of cyclic existence.

>There is not even the slightest difference between them,

>Or even the subtlest thing.
- MMK XXV
Since Nirvana is empty (canonically not-self in the PC), it is empty just as samsara is. Nirvana is moreso a difference in perspective, in seeing things as they are, the ultimate nature of things and not some magical heavenly place or unconditioned but existing element apart from samsara.

For me it was Shankaracharya

This

Attached: sdf.jpg (850x400, 52K)