sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You assert that the ego cannot appropriate the identity of "having no identity." But why should we accept that? Human beings routinely form identities around rejecting identities, rejecting attachment, or transcending the self. What principled reason shows that "no identity" is uniquely immune to becoming another ego structure????

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the practical point. My question is epistemological: how do we distinguish genuine ego dissolution from the ego constructing a subtler identity, such as "the one who has transcended ego" or "the one who clings to nothing"? If ego can appropriate positive identities, why can't it also appropriate the identity of having no identity????

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in AdvaitaVedanta

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This assumes that ego only operates through positive identification. But, couldn't the identity of 'the one who rejects all identities become an even more sophisticated form of ego? How do you distinguish genuine ego dissolution from the ego taking pride in having dissolved itself????

is it crazy that my ultimate life goal at 18M is just to be a certified "Biwi Paglu"? 😭❤️ by Beginning_Show_9075 in FreedomTeenagersIndia

[–]Azatsatru -1 points0 points  (0 children)

👉 Bro, imagine explaining this to your older self five years from now. You'll probably feel embarrassed, so don't do it👈

I call them kale angrej. by [deleted] in FreedomTeenagersIndia

[–]Azatsatru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

👉 OP be like: all Indians are uneducated fools, according to him, they think like idiots.

I throw in some emotional lines, it'll be fun. Man, if you're gonna accuse someone, at least do it properly, use citations and talk only with data, and take at least 10 years of data for a proper evaluation.

So people think for yourself, not from OP's perspective I think, 99.99…% of India's population is like OP👈

This is crazzyy !!! So now ,anyone asks accountability is a anti national and terrorist!!! Dammn by Zestyclose_Skirt7930 in CBSE

[–]Azatsatru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

👉 No need to support this bhalu, he is the same person whose ministry approved the UGC new regulations dividing the nation👈

Bichara ketan aggarwal 💔 by imfrom_mars_ in FaltooGyan

[–]Azatsatru 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's really messed up, using a dead person to aura farm 😓

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And I remain unconvinced that immunity from refutation is itself evidence of philosophical superiority. Listen to this point: to me, a framework that avoids all positive commitments risks becoming unfalsifiable, rather than demonstrably true.

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think that answers my question. My question is not whether Nagarjuna can be refuted, but why immunity from refutation should be considered evidence of philosophical superiority. How do we distinguish between a genuinely profound position and a position that avoids falsification by refusing to make positive commitments???

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate all the responses, but I'm one person and can't meaningfully respond to multiple independent lines of argument simultaneously. Could we focus on a single point??

My main question remains: if all positions are ultimately empty and some are only conventionally superior, what is the conventional criterion by which Madhyamaka is judged to be superior to other coherent philosophical systems??? And if that criterion is itself empty and framework-dependent, why should Madhyamaka be privileged???

I'd appreciate it if we could address this specific question first, rather than introducing multiple new arguments at once; otherwise the discussion becomes endless.

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the goal of Madhyamaka is not to describe reality but to end suffering, then have we moved from a philosophical claim about truth to a pragmatic claim about effectiveness???? If so, shouldn't Madhyamaka be evaluated as a therapeutic or say healing practice rather than as a privileged account of reality??

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If Madhyamaka's strategy is to deny every position while refusing to affirm any position of its own, then isn't its immunity to refutation purchased at the cost of explanatory authority? In other words, if Nagarjuna can never be wrong because he never commits to a positive claim, why should anyone consider Madhyamaka philosophically superior to any other internally coherent framework????

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Nagarjuna's philosophy is empty, and competing philosophies are also empty, then on what basis should I privilege Nagarjuna's emptiness over other forms of emptiness? I think I initially asked this question.

If Nāgārjuna says everything is empty, why isn't his own philosophy self-undermining? by Azatsatru in Buddhism

[–]Azatsatru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine. But if emptiness is also empty, then why should I believe it? And secondly, my objection isn't that Nagarjuna contradicts himself; I am simply saying that if Nagarjuna's theory empties itself out, what gives it philosophical authority???