The Mulamadhyamakakarika just can't be refuted and it makes everyone seethe

>There is no dharma whatsoever taught by the Buddha to whomever whenever, wherever.[39]

Buddha says otherwise

>There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing (it) from nirvana.
>There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.

Buddha says otherwise

>Whatever is dependently co-arisen / That is explained to be emptiness.
>That, being a dependent designation, / Is itself the middle way.
Buddha says otherwise

Not what Buddha says

>What is the nature of the thus-gone one (the Buddha), that is the nature of the world.

Not what Buddha says

>Nirvana is like phenomenality, unarisen and unstopping.

Buddha says otherwise

>To say "it is" is to grasp for permanence. To say "it is not" is to adopt the view of nihilism.

>Therefore a wise person does not say "exists" or "does not exist".[36]

Incomplete to be true. Buddha says dharmas are conditioned.

It's always the same thing with Mahayanists. They take the bits they suit their purposes and they leave out the bits which fuck up their own retarded take on buddhism.

But dependent origination kills their prajnaparamitas so the Mahayanists created ''interdependence''. An when they are pointed to their fallacies that they do on purpose, Mahayanists start screeching lol.

Why do people still eat up this Nagarjuna's diarrhea?

Stfu, icchantika.

ah yes taking individual lines from the MMK and then saying 'Buddha teaches otherwise' without retaining the full meaning of the chapters and verses they're in.

Nihilistic corruption of the doctrine

>can't be refuted
>well written, but insanely cryptic
pick one

>it's not about spirituality or anything. it's just about living in accordance with the truth.

Attached: 1600196316347.png (800x750, 159.53K)

Buddha said in 500 years doctrine would be lost to a shadow of doctrine. Nagarjuna was born 500 years later and taught novelty

how can it be refuted if it can't even be pronounced? q.e.d.

Nagarjuna has been a disaster for Buddhism.

>Buddha said
His compilers said he said this. Idk why people trust that the suttas we have the pristine unaltered words of the Buddha.

Buddhism is literally just mereological nihilism for the ‘spiritual but not religious crowd’.

Attached: 00C4AF07-E6C9-4FF6-84AA-51D15C4E06CD.png (800x750, 109.86K)

Are you Christcoping?

>you
Isn’t this a violation of anatta??

Attached: 2149EC01-2618-4F8C-8541-3B88499685AC.jpg (1200x674, 168.67K)

Nagarjuna was born 700 years later, dumbass

>The Mulamadhyamakakarika just can't be refu

Except for the part about Nagarjuna's denial of the reflexivity of consciousness leading to an infinite regress that makes knowledge impossible

And except for the part about how Nagarjuna is unable to demonstrate the emptiness of consciousness since according to his own admission consciousness cannot examine itself or have awareness of itself and hence cannot detect its own alleged emptiness

And except for the part when Nagarjuna tries to refute the existence of akasha his argument presupposes the denial of real things having extension, even though this claim cannot be considered proven until the existence of akasha as ubiquitous and indivisible has been disproven, i.e. he puts the cart before the horse and uses the circular reasoning fallacy.

And except for the part where Nagarjuna claims to refute his opponents without advancing any empirical propositions which are not accepted by them, but this is not true in fact and he asserts dogmatically the empirical proposition that perception is marked by conceptualization which falsifies

And except for the part when samsara and nirvana are equated by Nagarjuna it violates the law of non-contradiction by ascribing two mutually exclusive statuses to the same thing at once (suffering vs absence of suffering); and if in an attempt to rescue this from contradiction one says the suffering is just an incorrect view of nirvana, then this suffering has to be different from nirvana which falsifies the original thesis, or if this isn't done then it continues to violate the LNC. And if you try to back away from this and say they are equated conditionally while ultimately Nagarjuna takes no position on their sameness or difference, then this isn't even Buddhism anymore and is a heresy since Buddha identifies skepticism and having 'no views' and 'no positions' as a heresy and as not his teaching in the Samaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya

Attached: 1650383607788.jpg (499x512, 30.25K)

>makes knowledge impossible
To think otherwise is folly

>>makes knowledge impossible
>To think otherwise is folly
It's self-evident that we have knowledge, which is what allows us to be communicating with each other online, and which allows us to be aware of that. It's impossible to refute the self-evident truth that knowledge or awareness is taking place. Therefore, taking as your perspective something that would make this self-evident knowledge impossible is mere folly

> To think otherwise is folly
Do you have knowledge of this?

700 years later is still 500 years later

Cliffs?

>Madhyamaka monasteries
Madhyamaka is the tradition of interpreting the commentaries created by Nagarjuna on the Prajna Paramita Sutra and other sutras of the second turning of the wheel. Monasteries, on the other hand, were formed on the basis of the transmission of the line of monastic initiation and the Vinaya code. Do not confuse the lines of interpretation of texts and the lines of monastic initiation, these are different things.

How the FUCK is this digshit allowed but not ranking the Gospels?

This

>If there were modern day Madhyamaka monasteries around I'd join them.
So... any Mahayana monastery? Well you're in luck, friend, there's LOTS of those

If knowledge did not exist, then surely a thousand years in hell would be fine with you? Since you would lack knowledge of the tortorous pain, of the felt passage of time, of the change in scenario apparent in the memory, you should be indifferent to such a scenario, yeah?

lmao wtf

This is a very nice Christian thread, but are there any Buddhists here?

Seethe harder

> cannot be refuted
Being untestable is not a selling point.

>systems other than apophatic non-duality
ngmi

>And emptiness in never ever taught by the buddha.
Then why does the Buddha teach it?

Why have an opinion on a work that you haven't read?

there's any good seminar or course on youtube that give a good analysis of the madhyamaka? i liked the bob thurman videos but i think he prefer to just do an introductory analisis

>Except for the part about Nagarjuna's denial of the reflexivity of consciousness leading to an infinite regress that makes knowledge impossible
infinite regress can only be possible on an outdated substance based ontology, buddhism on the other hand uses a relationship based ontology, so it doesn't have to deal with those traps of logic, since all usbtance base dontologies end up sooner or later on paradoxes and contradictions

the gospels are well known by english speakers and there's only 4 of them you fucking retard
you were probably spamming the board too

>Infinite regress can only be possible on an outdated substance based ontology,
It doesn't have anything to do with substances or non-substance ontology, the point is that a visual sight or thought with no consciousness present that has first-hand access to its own knowledge of that sight or thought is the same as there being no knowledge of anything at all, if nobody knows that knowledge is going on then it's like it never occurred at all. This cannot be saved by adding additional consciousnesses observing the prior one, since if they are also not reflexive (don't have access to themselves), they require further to no end, and because of this nothing ends up being known

> apophatic: pertaining to knowledge of god
> knowledge
> of god
Lol. Lmao.

You tell me.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are more than four English speakers. There are at least twelve.

It's not theological if the absolute principle beyond discursiveness isn't identified with a volcano demon that collects foreskin, keep seething

What the fuck are you talking about, Jesse.

An Infinite Regress is an infinite series of steps between two finite points. What you're getting at is an Infinite Causal series.

user's point is that if you can have a chain of mental states, then you can make an argument against needing an Atman. Shankara is proposing a trivial solution to the point that the Buddha (and also Parmenides) were asking, wherein if something is discrete and unchanging then how can it ever interact with anything (and thereby change)? Shankara's (trivial) solution is that there aren't multiple existing things, there's just one thing, Atman which is also Brahman, and it does nothing other than reflexively be aware of itself. To that end, he has to first argue that you can ever have something that can engage in reflexive action, but then you he also has to argue that things CAN'T actually engage in reflexive action (because the inability for, as an example, a hand to touch itself or a mind to be aware of itself, is a demonstration of the unreality of the hand or the mind, as the only thing that exists is Atman which is also Brahman). Because things other than Atman which is Brahman cannot engage in reflexive actions, they don't exist, but because Atman which is Brahman can (ultimately because it never does anything else, unlike the hand or mind), it exists, and as such is the only thing that exists, and the problem is solved.

But what if the hand or mind come from something else?

And what made that? And that? And that? Eventually you'll have to admit an infinite causal series or you'll have to come to something that can engage in reflexive action, but it can never do anything but that one single reflexive action. If it can only ever engage in that one reflexive action, then it can't make the first thing in the series to the hand or mind. Thus, the hand or mind does not exist.

>It doesn't have anything to do with substances or non-substance ontology
yes it does

>the point is that a visual sight or thought with no consciousness present that has first-hand access to its own knowledge of that sight or thought is the same as there being no knowledge of anything at all,
this presupouse a rez cogitans, a substance made of consiousness that give substantiality to the world, such substance isn't a neccesity, if you start your argument from that you're just doing circular reasoning, using your own point to prove that your point is right

The Buddha teaches that the aggregates are empty, nothing else. The Buddha does not teach emptiness. DWT.

why do you guys study all this weird foreign stuff instead of being Christians?

Attached: 1623974413974.jpg (612x716, 89.55K)

Because that was retroactively refuted

They're rejecting obviously false versions of Christianity that has infected the west, but think that the obviously false versions of Christianity, like megachurch prosperity gospel Christianity, or Pope-ism, are the highest forms of Christianity.

They want something that brings them into direct contact with reality, so they're attracted to Buddhism/variants of Hinduism that openly acknowledges the faculty of their own awareness and self-awareness, and brings attention to the reality they are currently living in, instead of what they see as western Christianity's obsession with postponing real interaction with reality until the afterlife.

t. Orthodox Christian

>Orthodox
You are the same as the others, but moving at a slower pace

Wrong.

Then change my mind, bayraktar bait

Back up your assertion that Orthodoxy is the same as others, but moving at a slower pace, first.

All Christianity comes from the same stock, and has been planted among various peoples. You like the more conservative ones but that is merely a relative question. Why is eastern Christianity more conservative than western? The short answer is oriental despotism. You know that's true, that's why you despise the more demotic or presbyterian Christianity that developed out of a geopolitically fractured northern Europe with a market economy. But that's a debate for people who believe in Christianity and want to select among the copies of it for which they think is the most authentic copy. Someone who rejects it wholesale will not be moved by a defense of one version of it as having more fidelity than the others, and supposing it does, what is to prevent it from following the trajectory of the others with whom it shares its essence? If it is so divergent there must be something at work to drive this. Perhaps the degenerated varieties (from your perspective) are actually the most pure, and your ideal version is the most corrupted, the most influenced by the neoplatonist pagan doctrines which render the scriptures and events of Christianity as little more than a baptized Odyssey? But maybe you are right and they are wrong, but we are back to lamenting the cultural situation of the west and it becomes a problem of the eastern Christian to avoid becoming him despite reading the same book.

>You like Orthodox Christianity more because it is more politically conservative

>Marxist dialectical materialist reading of history

I don't believe in the Marxist interpretation of history.

The only way to even begin changing your mind, is to convince you that the Marxist-materialist understanding of history is false, because spiritual influences are the most important aspects of history, since they shape the political climate. If you're hard committed to an atheist interpretation of history, and think that religions are just conditioned responses to political situations, and you're looking for purely atheist solutions to spiritual problems, then there will be nothing in Orthodoxy that will appeal to you.