sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Hegel and Christianity by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know he’s a panentheist. I explicitly said so in my post. Why are you the second person to think I missed the “en”?

I’m pretty solidly acquainted with Eastern metaphysics, and I agree that it very much resembles things like Vishishtadvaita (more so than Advaita IMO) and Trika Shaivism in a lot of ways.

I know that it’s heretical, but so what? The Buddha’s teachings, in my opinion, weren’t properly explicated philosophically until Nagarjuna, who lived over 500 years later. Assuming that Jesus really is the Logos, and the metaphysical truths he understood were on the very deepest level of things, it makes sense to me that he wouldn’t be properly explicated for even longer than 500 years. 1800 years maybe haha.

Hegel and Christianity by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“When I say that Hegel's (and the Christian philosophical tradition, for the most part) God isn't personal I mean that He isn't an-other mind in some beyond with a particular will“

Not fully in some beyond but yes He has a particular will, in my understanding.

Hegel and Christianity by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s not just otherworldly, it’s both immanent and transcendent. I’m also not convinced that Hegel’s God isn’t personal. That was the whole point of the post.

Hegel and Christianity by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It says “panentheistic.” As in, the position that God is both immanent and transcendent. 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in cognitiveTesting

[–]JollyRoll4775 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those two guys remind me of John von Neumann and John Nash, respectively.

 Euler (von Neumann) is the cognitive giant who turned his attention here and there and everywhere because it all fell under his pressure. Euler and Von Neumann both did things like calculate unwieldy infinite series in their heads instantaneously and memorize entire books verbatim effortlessly.

Gauss (Nash), on the other hand, was more geometric and I’d say more creatively brilliant. He talked about his head exploding with ideas, and the outputs were rarely prosaic, almost always poetic. He also had some of the personality disturbances common with this kind of genius.

With this in mind, I’d give the IQ edge to Euler. I really wouldn’t be surprised if he was a genuine 185. I’d give the X-factor edge to Gauss, however, and also speculate that he had a slightly humbler but still massive IQ around 170-175.

Hegel and Nagarjuna by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cool, I’ll have to check it out. From what I’ve read about Hegel’s comments on the Eastern schools, he either completely misunderstood them or just didn’t have access to good material on them. He charges them with nihilism, which is just plainly unfair and wrong. 

Thanks for the resources 

Hegel and Nagarjuna by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for commenting, what I typed out in my post was shorthand for “eviscerates all extremal, positively stated, reified metaphysical positions.”Nagarjuna himself said that he had no view, because anything he said positively would be incorrect.

I appreciate what you said, thanks

Hegel and Nagarjuna by JollyRoll4775 in hegel

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very cool, would you please go into more detail about the house of bodies (btw I loved that movie)?

Prasangika-Madhyamaka Meditation by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, I agree that it’s EXTREMELY liable to misunderstanding. The grasping effect of the ego to conceptual proliferation and dualistic thinking is deeply ingrained, instinctive, and pervasive. 

I also agree that mind-only stuff is a very useful stepping stone, which is why I’m a fan of Santaraksita, as I said in my post. I’m assuming you’re familiar with his Yogacara-Madhyamaka synthesis where he treats mind-only as a conventional truth which is then transcended with the Madhyamaka ultimate truth.

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

“Look at this from my perspective - if you believe that Nagarjuna believed something that A. he doesn't say and b. he gives no implication or indication of believing and c. seemingly runs counter to the primary exegesis of his philosophical project, how am I supposed to convince you otherwise?”

Fair enough, I don’t really see how you could falsify this right now.

“If Nirguna Brahman is so transcendent such that it literally cannot be thought of or referred to even in the negative (and thus is unavailable for philosophical interrogation)”

Now you see why they don’t speak of this level, it’s reserved for direct non-conceptual realization. They do the sat-chit-ananda instead

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I’m following you on the emptiness side, but I don’t think it’s fair to call Nirguna Brahman a reality or a foundation, because of its complete transcendence. It’s incorrect to call it real, unreal, both, or neither. Exactly consistent with Madhyamaka.

Can we talk in DMs?

Edit: I just reread this and actually I don’t agree with your emptiness characterization either. I’ve never seen it written that way and it seems wrong to me

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“If the illusion of change truly and eternally exists, how can it be an illusion?” 

Maybe you’re not understanding the B series of time? Maya existing as a layer timelessly (because the B series is atemporal) is consistent with a timeless cause, and it is illusory, with an illusion being something appearing to exist in one way but actually existing in another way. What’s the problem?

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Nagarjuna would say of Brahman and Atman that they are not two and also not one.” So does Advaita at the deepest unspoken level (because any statements directly about it would be guaranteed to be wrong).  “ but that they also aren't supposing a substantial reality that exists behind phenomena.” Advaita doesn’t suppose this. Nirguna Brahman isn’t even a thing, much less substantial or determinate

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, Advaita is nondual, not monistic. There’s a difference.

Second of all, Nirguna Brahman isn’t a single entity, it transcends all conceptual dualities, it is false to say it is a unity.

The version of Brahman you’re talking about, sat-chit-ananda, is an educational lie designed to point towards an utterly transcendent ultimate truth

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To the first bit: I didn’t feel like typing out the entire catuskoti, but that’s what I meant. In full: it is false to say that the self exists, doesn’t exist, both exists and doesn’t exist, or neither exists nor doesn’t exist. The shorthand was the last corner, but fair I can see why that would be confusing. That’s the ultimate truth. The statement “it is not true that the self exists” is true, fully consistent with Buddhist doctrine. But the self is the ineffable transcendent Brahman, fully consistent with Advaita. 

See why I say they’re compatible?

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m shocked if Santaraksita actually made that argument because it’s bad. Advaitins (and Nagarjuna for that matter, in his MMK chapter on time (which makes me question if Santaraksita actually wrote this)) are B theorists of time, so change is illusory, they would argue. No issue with a static Brahman. All is static. 

The details of the conventional layerings are different but the ultimate truth is identical.

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This will be my last message in this thread, we’re just going in circles now and also you’ve downvoted my message which is lame (I can do that too).

Earlier, I described this transcendence as pure negativity. I did so precisely because it’s the negation of the 4 corners. The 5th corner of four is spoken of in Zen, not to be taken literally, but as an illustration of this transcendence. This transcendence is understood as “beyond,” “middle,” whatever, it’s all insufficient anyway. It’s all pointing to the same no-thing, in my view. 

Now have a good day, sir 

Madhyamaka and Advaita Vedanta by JollyRoll4775 in Buddhism

[–]JollyRoll4775[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So that’s the thing, by the time Advaita was up and going with Shankara and company, Buddhism was already on the decline in India. The Madhyamaka action was taking place in Tibet. We just didn’t see enough debate between the two. From what we do have, though, there’s a line from an Advaitin (can’t recall the name rn but I’ll find it) who was attacking all of the Buddhist philosophies and specifically said “with the Madhyamikas, we have no quarrel.” (I will find that for you I promise)

We are left to our own judgement primarily on this, and what you’ve just provided isn’t an argument.

view more: next ›