Is nondualism just a cope?

>we're all one

yes, it's a gay cope and it's not true. non dualism is mental illness

No dualism is. Not as much of a cope as Omnibenevolence but a cope all the same. The idea that God is capable of evil is too frightening for most to digest

>Problem of Other Minds
>Interaction Problem
>Hard Problem of Consciousness
You can claim that dualism is true once you have solved these problems with dualism. Until then, it's a nonsense ideal held by people with no imagination.

He means mind/matter dualism, brainlet.

it is completely non-dual but it isn’t monist
Describing reality as a Unity/oneness is just a perception and thus empty.
But yes shunyata is non-dual, however if you think it means “nothing exists” I doubt you’ve read many texts on the topic

>'insofar as the fundamental aspect of reality can't be found in the realm of manifestation therefore the realm of manifestation is based on and supported by nothing!''.
This is not the teaching. It is not saying “reality is supported by nothing” but rather than phenomenal experience is lacking in self-existence/essence, and that questions of ontology (whether anything exists or does not exist objectively) are effectively pointless because all you have to work with is phenomenal experience, and any thoughts or intuitions of objectivity are also within that phenomenal experience: you cannot get around this. That is why the negative tetralemma goes:
>"It cannot be said to exist. It cannot be said not to exist. It cannot be said to both exist and not exist. It cannot be said to neither exist or not exist."
Objectifying things (not only in a positive way by asserting existence, but negatively as well by asserting non-existence) is the problem in Buddhism, and it is what creates the split of dualism (perceiver-perceived, object-subject).

cringe philosophy 101 garbage kys

>cringe philosophy 101 garbage
Yep, that's dualism.

>phenomenal experience is lacking in self-existence/essence
in a phenomenal sense of course (not objective/ontological) as in all phenomenal experience is transitory, dependently (on other phenomena) arisen, lacking in any lasting stability.

are you implying that OP is a Buddhist trying to shit on non-duality because of insecurity? Or that Buddhists are insecure in their own doctrine of non-duality and that is why one of them made this thread?
Buddhism teaches non-duality, by the way. Though instead of Advaita (not two, but one), Buddhism has Advaya (not two, not one).

>because all you have to work with is phenomenal experience, and any thoughts or intuitions of objectivity are also within that phenomenal experience
Do you not recognize the different degrees of consciousness in different realms of experience?
More importantly, how could you affirm that
>all you have to work with is phenomenal experience
while claiming that
>phenomenal experience is lacking in self-existence/essence

If Buddhism does not comply with what I asked firstly, how is it any different from a nihilistic point of view?

sure its a cope but what isn't these days. it can help make you feel less heavy

Negation is determination. But all determinations are transient. Nothing has inherent existence, that is, no phenomenon exists in itself and by the virtue of itself, not in representation, not in the noumenon, and not in the mind. The only immutable thing in consciousness is its own negation, that is the mind without activity, without a point of reference.

also, does
>It cannot [not] be said to exist. It cannot [not ] be said not to exist. It cannot [not] be said to both exist and not exist. It cannot [not] be said to neither exist or not exist.
mean anything to you?

What do you take as basis for negating determination; or affirming non-determinantionness of anything at all?

The only non-determined or non-conditioned thing is negation. Though it can be determined by the fact of relative phenomena to it, yet it is what allows for relative phenomena (that is phenomena at all). It remains then non-determined as there is no difference between absolute determination and no determination at all.

Mind you, what I'm telling you is for the most part faithful to the various Buddhist ontologies, though most of them are on common ground.

Help me here, I fail to see how non-d would be the cope. Doesn't that imply that physical is the stone cold end? Wouldn't dualism be the more escapist or cope option?

Should I stick with philosophy for a hobby? I feel a little uncertain.

Attached: 1567310423834.jpg (500x375, 47K)

no, dualism can be subsumed into nondualism but not dualism into nondualism

Neither inherently determines that there is an emotion and behavior registered as coping or escapism in the notion itself, its a question of ontology, the OP is memeing.

If we were to tackle that question, we'd have to talk about ethics which would stem from either being the case. But on a side note, Buddhism, which is a non-dual philosophy and religion--- has which have you directly interface with suffering and unsatisfactoriness. There exist meditations for contemplating corpses and such. The ultimate aim is escape though, absolute escape from rebirth. Mahayana Buddhism has the focus on attaining a high station in liberation, yet returning to aid others before your own ultimate escape.

Okay, thank you, but the rebirth and all the dogma that people like to ignore in Buddhism, isn't that proposing another realm or level to existence not the material? How is that not dualist?

Oh wait, I'm dumb, they probably mean symbolic rebirth, as in "as long as something is conscious" or something. Has to do with that holistic thing I think, which is suspect af.

>the rebirth and all the dogma that people like to ignore in Buddhism, isn't that proposing another realm or level to existence not the material? How is that not dualist?

If you are interested, I suggest going on wikiepdia and then finding direct sources from the summations there. Stuff like this has been debated and explored to death, there is a lot of stuff to read.

What Buddhism proposes is the cessation of karma (action), and the end of rebirth. There are Pure Land Buddhists who wish to be reborn in a Buddha-field so that they could achieve enlightenment in a better condition, there are some easy analogies to make here to contemporary protestant sects or whatever. Especially with stuff like repeating Amitābha a few times and be guaranteed rebirth in a pure land. But in general, the ride doesn't end until full attainment.

Why would realms and modes of being to which we are not privy to imply dualism? Not even those things have a permanent inherent existence. There are sects of Buddhism which are entirely idealist, their ontology is likened to a dream, all sorts of things occur in a dream, there are many subjects, and many worlds-- but there is only one mind, and one substance.

The way Buddhists (its questionable with some traditions) explain rebirth without a soul or something akin to a soul--- is the notion of the mindstream. Everything in your mind is mutable, except the mind in itself which appears as empty. So, try to point to a soul if you can. Theravada Buddhism, which is the Orthodox form-- holds the objective world as existing along with other ''subtle'' worlds, all of these are co-arising and co-dependent, as is the mind which is generated in them through the aggregates of the senses, which may be ''material'' or ''subtle''. None of this necessitates a soul, and under examination no such thing is necessary for the system to function.

No, of course not, we're all One bro, said one man to the other.

you gotta break the conditioning maann

So much so that Buddha had to take his ideas from the non-dualism of the early Upanishads predating him, really activates my almonds

Attached: Untitled2.png (1306x1326, 231K)