That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:

Counsciousness can realise it's own emptiness precisely because it's individual instances become objects of contemplation to succeeding instances.

>It's what you get for using english words for Buddhist concepts
If you talk about samjna or vijnana taking itself as its own object and thereby observing its own emptiness it still involves an illogical contradiction once you analyze the details of exacting how this occurs.

>Counsciousness can realise it's own emptiness precisely because it's individual instances become objects of contemplation to succeeding instances.
Then that consciousness its not realizing its own emptiness but is only realizing that of prior consciousnesses that have already inevitably past away from the present moment and ceased to have being, so in that situation it still never has direct confirmation of its own emptiness and voidness, that is of the consciousness existing in that very moment.

Whatever sort of judgement one can make about a past moment of conscious-experience cannot be extended automatically to the present moment because there is a qualitative difference between the two. Moreover what you are describing sounds more like a fallible and ideologically-influenced inference as opposed to any sort of direct experiential realization (which cannot even be had in relation to past moments as they are defacto no longer within our experience or they wouldn't be "past moments")

>Whatever sort of judgement one can make about a past moment of conscious-experience cannot be extended automatically to the present moment
This is called inference from the datum of experience, the ultimate tool of philosophical investigations.
>because there is a qualitative difference between the two
source?

>source?
Same as any inference about cognition: Made the fuck up.

>it still involves an illogical contradiction
does having awareness of no object, and this awareness of nothing being awareness that you are literally god, not contradiction common sense?

>cannot be both the subject and object of a subject-object relationship?
Why not? Things can be "self begotten", relying on themselves instead of something external to maintain them and be aware of themselves without needing to re-envelop themselves. I thought that was the point of Anatta and the illusion of self.

Nah

>This is called inference from the datum of experience, the ultimate tool of philosophical investigations.
If you are only ever analyzing past moments and never the present moment of consciousness, then you are making an inference (which is fallible) about past memories (which are also fallible) instead of you directly validating and directly observing/detecting the emptiness or voidness of the consciousness existing in this very moment. The problem with this is that there is no confirmation whatsoever in experience or otherwise of the dogma that is sought to be proved (the voidness of the consciousness of the present moment), but you are only evaluating something else, the past moment, and then making questionable assumptions about it that another non-Buddhist observer could draw entirely different conclusions from. Since there is a difference between them, statements about the one are not automatically true about the other.

>because there is a qualitative difference between the two
>source?
The demonstrable difference is that only one is actually experienced in the present moment and is immediately known to us without memory and the other isn't and can only be accessed via memory! In order for you to deny this you'd have to absurdly deny that there was any difference between the past and present. When you are evaluating a past memory of a moment of conscious experience there is no grounds to say that the memory proves the voidness of the present moment of consciousness experience because they are not even similar in nature but one is something that is called up by discursive memory while the other is immediately and spontaneously self-evident, non-discursive and doesn't have to be recalled.

>does having awareness of no object, and this awareness of nothing being awareness that you are literally god, not contradiction common sense?
Logic isn't the same thing as common sense, when it comes to questions that the masses get wrong then the latter (common sense) can sometimes be devoid of the former (logic). I'm not sure exactly what that sentence is referencing, Advaita Vedanta teaches that the Atman's awareness is reflexively and partlessly self-disclosing by nature, and this does not violate logic like how the idea of consciousness being both a subject and object of itself does violate logic. Why does it not violate logic? Because there is no split of the same thing into observer and observed.

>>cannot be both the subject and object of a subject-object relationship?
>Why not?
Because they are defined in contrast to the other, and so when its one it cant be the other. If consciousness is taking itself as the object, then its not the subject because its the object, but if its the object there is nothing to be aware of it anymore.

>then its not the subject because its the object
What you're inferring is not an issue of theory I believe, it's an issue of practice. The subject-object division is a bit arbitrary but what you're looking for, from my experience is puzzling because of a "bad idea" of what an object has to be in the form of a perception, and the issues of "insight" and "movement". Don't just think about what it is, meditate on it as well.

Attached: captcha PRANA.png (293x81, 2.96K)

"That's the way it goes:
it's a magic trick,
an idiot's babbling.
It's said to be
a murderer.
No substance here
is found."
Dismissed

hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahaha
>bro only sanskrit will save your soul
hahahahahahah
>Emptiness is form, keep seething brahmanoid
For satan, sure.

>reflexively and partlessly self-disclosing by nature, and this does not violate logic
Of course it does. Why would it be logical for something to only be explicable in terms of equaling itself? There would be nothing to communicate or argue for or against, just a broken record going atman atman atman atman atman. You are using "logic" as a tool of sophistry

nothing reflecting on nothing is nothing? Contradiction to contradiction is truth?
>Things can be "self begotten", relying on themselves instead of something external to maintain the
Wrong in the extreme. Nothing does make the illusion of something.

>PS: about “choosing” a tradition, I fully agree. It is rather the “tradition” that should choose us, cither by the circumstances of our birth or by a subsequent personal illumination (cf St Paul’s).

>I quite agree that as a rule (to which there are individual exceptions) it is undesirable to exchange one religion for another.

>How often I respond to Western inquirers by saying “Why seek wisdom in India? You have it all in the tradition of your own which you have only forgotten. The value of the Eastern tradition for you is not that of a difference, but that it can remind you of what you have forgotten

>The modern young Indian (with exceptions) is in no position to meet the really cultured and spiritual European.”

Ananda Coomaraswamy

>satan
keep your toddler ontologies to your own threads christling

>using religion as an ethnic identity
Israel is down the hall and to the left.

>picking up the religion that appeals to your taste the most
gotta love consumerism!

wrong
Exceedingly correct. Buddha is satan.

How would you then divide between a man choosing a philosophy in your bizarre meaning, and a man choosing a philosophy based on what he sees as true?

>What you're inferring is not an issue of theory I believe, it's an issue of practice.
I respectfully disagree, I think the claim that consciousness can observe its own voidness and/or emptiness is just not logical. The subject is what reveals the object and the object is what presents itself in opposition to the subject, so it's logically impossible for the same thing to be both at once, like how its impossible for a fire to provide cooling. If anything is being presented as a distinct content with observable traits like voidness etc then it's because that content is presenting itself to us as something other than our consciousness, and so the traits in those things like voidness won't be true of the revealing consciousness.

When the underlying theory is illogical, why not just jettison the underlying theory to settle for one instead that's amenable to reason? You won't *have to* say it's a problem of practice and not theory to begin with if your theory is good.

Big brain man needs big words to save his extra big soul? Please. A sucklinv toddler is used an example as someone who goes to heaven. If you want to intellectualise feel free, but Christ is the door and Buddha is the pit.

>I respectfully disagree, I think the claim that consciousness can observe its own voidness and/or emptiness is just not logical.
It's not only illogical but a fabrication for those who hate this world and themselves.

>Of course it does. Why would it be logical for something to only be explicable in terms of equaling itself?
That's not what was written, nor is that what 'reflexive' means, nor is the concept of reflexivity inherently illogical.

If I'm understanding correctly, the issue is your division between a void and an observation of the void that serves as a reflection of said void. Yet, if that void is your own and not someone else, there is no reason you need to observe it through a reflection rather than "on it's own"? I don't think it is correct that everything is just reflections, a missunderstood Indra's net. Rather, I think that that which observes, which can do so through reflections, can work without them, and that is the emptiness. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding.

> is rather the “tradition” that should choose us, cither by the circumstances of our birth or by a subsequent personal illumination
Is this bait?
>I quite agree that as a rule (to which there are individual exceptions) it is undesirable to exchange one religion for another.
Why? No reasons, just sophistry.
>Why seek wisdom in India? You have it all in the tradition of your own which you have only forgotten
Because at the soul of Western civilization is the sweat-ridden terror that Christ was actually the Son of God. We search for another Christ. The deepest parts of us are horrified that it is true - and having search and not found, we return to our crosses in humiliation at our own folly and admit that all wisdom is from man except for One.

In the "present moment" there is only ever experienced a snapshop of the previous state of counsciousness, modified according to what other conditions contributed to the arising of the snapshot.

>In the "present moment" there is only ever experienced a snapshop of the previous state of counsciousness, modified according to what other conditions contributed to the arising of the snapshot.
Yes we think it time. You've conflated time with nothingness and then applied it to thought. It's a clever trick but a trick by Buddha nonetheless. The thought itself is soul which is real in so far as it is Truth.

>We search for another Christ.
why?

What? I think you're misunderstanding the argument here, and then misunderstanding the argument you think is happening about conditioned thought and no permanent unchanging thing called self.

Because I am weak and need to confirm your own faith. I look into the world and everything I see is made by man, for man, with the sole purpose and predication as man. Buddha is negative from Christ's presence on Earth, the knowledge that the a cult had overrun Rome and named someone the Son of God would fill every culture with the desire to find an alternative - and so they shut their eyes inward to never see the light. This is why that Indian was confused - because those who seek seek in vain, and they may intuit that, but they do not know yet. Take Christ as a fact and then view world history. You can even see technology as a direct result of protestantism and giving the Gospels to people individually.

That makes no sense, rethink your statement, then your religion, then your life instead of preaching. Literally only degenerates and fools need to preach.

Counsciousness changing in time shows it's lack of inherent nature, that is coumsciousness is void of self nature.

I genuinely have no idea what the fuck you are even saying, your post reads like word salad

>The deepest parts of us are horrified that it is true
speak for yourself, the real horror is that you got away with this for so long; truly ignorance is the root of disquiet

> Literally only degenerates and fools need to preach.
And what are you doing by disagreeing? What is your dogma? None? What is the belief in nothing but the hatred of others?

He's saying that if you believe in Christ "as a joke", and keep doing so you'll eventually believe in Christ for real and should do so, otherwise everything you do is in relation to your lack of belief in Christ. Christianity has proselytizing ingrained into it that gives people confidence in "doing a good deed" when they're being run of the mill retards on Yea Forums.

>20180632
I'm in a Buddhism thread on Yea Forums to discuss concepts with other anons, not in a born-again Christian thread. Your framework of human interaction is incredibly limited.

>Counsciousness changing in time shows it's lack of inherent nature, that is coumsciousness is void of self nature.
Change does not negate being
>speak for yourself, the real horror is that you got away with this for so long; truly ignorance is the root of disquiet
Got away with what? Yes, silence, the true marker of a man who has learned there is no Truth on Earth.

>everything you do is in relation to your lack of belief in Christ.
This part is true

>"My thoughts and perceptions really are me!"
>goes blind or gets brain damage or dementia
What now?

>I'm in a Buddhism thread on Yea Forums to discuss concepts with other anons, not in a born-again Christian thread. Your framework of human interaction is incredibly limited.
You posted random dogshit and expect no one to notice.

>Change does not negate being
Not conventional being. But it negates the ultimate being that Advaita likes to superimpose on counsciousness.

>nor is the concept of reflexivity inherently illogical
It is if you only introduced it to weasel away from subject=object by moving words around.
>Oh well you see my special absolute concept doesn't have the problem of a subject being an object because I've defined my absolute as reflexively known to itself and therefore no subject has taken any object to be known at all because i don't believe in subjects and objects
You think no one has noticed this? Think again—it is very obvious. Cry about logic all you like but your awareness is a subject and it has an object

Totally agreed but applying it to consciousness is just dishonest. Change in states of mind means there's still a state internal which doesn't change

>there is no Truth on Earth
nihilistic import from your christkek theology

The tragedy of the religions, as Romano Guardini so clearly Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions saw, is wishing to persist once revelation has arrived. This is what Guardini called "the tragedy of the precursor.” We may say that there was a time when Buddha was right, and Guardini dares affirm that Buddha was perhaps a great precursor of Christ. That is to say that there was a moment when Buddha, through his experience, in his natural mysticism, interpreted that which was accessible of God through His revelation in the world. But from the moment when this God whom Buddha was seeking manifested Himself, the precursor, whose very mission was to prepare, had to efface himself. This is why Guardini says that Buddha was perhaps a great precursor of Christ, and that he will unquestionably be His final enemy. There is a moment when the precursor becomes the enemy.

>internal
why internal?

What?
Beautiful post

>Change in states of mind means there's still a state internal which doesn't change
I disagree

it is from Jean Daniélou

buddhism is a religion of nihilism

Fair could be external in soul - but still there's a quiddity which change is referred back towards

>my religion trumps all others because it says in the book
Hackish, boring and derivative. Next

>from the moment when this God whom Buddha was seeking manifested Himself
Do you even understand Buddhism? Did you even bother to try? At least try. Try to understand that not everyone other than the Christian is just doing an incomplete version of your religion. You'll learn absolutely nothing with that attitude. None of those other religions care one mote about what events you think happened in the backwater provinces of the Roman empire

helpful haha :)
thank you!

If you are a Christian in this thread trying to preach you need to realize you're on Yea Forums, and are instead being annoying while failing to convert, thus sinning against your neighbor. In other words, make your own thread.

Why would there be no truth on earth? Where are you going to escape to that is true? Do you not see the genealogy of this assumption? Why do you need to negate reality to have "truth"

Christianity seems more true if you presume a bunch of shit. Buddhism seems more true if you stop presuming.

Editors note: belief counts as presuming

>At least try.
>None of those other religions care one mote about what events you think happened
I won't be mean but dude come on now

>being annoying while failing to convert, thus sinning against your neighbor.
don't think this is how that works
agreed

do you guys think the doctrine of expedient means as expounded in the lotus sutra is the reason why Chinese people are down to cheat and lie constantly

Positing something that doesn't change, something outside causality, which is essential for experience, is of no value. Anything can be posited as such, but without a valid ground for it, it doesn't lead anywhere.

>Why would there be no truth on earth?
If Christians didn't invent science I'd probably have a difficulty with this.
>Where are you going to escape to that is true?
Christ :)
>Do you not see the genealogy of this assumption?
A boulder is not more true than a pebble, it merely is heavier because it relates to gravity - the truth is outside of man but we can bend into it

Buddhism could be bootstrapped by anyone who has an insight into non-duality and teaches others about it. Buddhism is not about waiting for God to reveal himself as a historical event in order to fulfill previous revelations. When miracles are peformed in Buddhist sutras it is meant to teach this nonduality. When miracles are performed in Christian literature you are meant to swear that the miracles happened in order to be allowed access to the great country club in the sky. It is entirely different in that regard.

>Do you even understand Buddhism? Did you even bother to try?
i try. so far i've read the dhammapada and the milinda panha. i see that the only logical consequence of buddhism is Christ. marco pallis who told a tibetan lama about christ got in reply "i see he was a very Buddha"

>what events you think happened in the backwater provinces of the Roman empire
it goes way more humbler than that. consider the birth, the entrance at jerusalem etc

>For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
Matthew

>The Sage puts himself last and finds himself in the foremost place
Tao Te Ching

there’s no valid ground for anything at the end of the day. what’s interesting is not the ground or the absence of ground but the fact of our continual grounding, our making do

>Positing something that doesn't change, something outside causality, which is essential for experience, is of no value.
It might stop you from killing homeless people for being smelly

>"NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST THINK FOR YOURSELF AND NOT BLINDLY OBEY MY SPECIFIC HOLY BOOK"

Attached: le demiurge.jpg (441x539, 58.68K)

Expedient means mean teaching that things like soul and causality are real to people who are still unable to grasp the highest truths but could still do some progress on the path, not cheating at dice.

you are conveniently ignoring spinoza’s interpretation of the Bible which was incredibly influential

Why are you affirming Christianity after I pointed out that your initially posted but not-explicitly Christian beliefs had a Christian underpinning? The scent was very obvious from the whole world-denial thing. I know you believe that. Get your own thread.