I don't know about "exist" as I said above I'm not going there. I am of the opinion that you would continue to experience eating and sleeping etc yes.Twilight wrote:If you die, will I continue to exist ? Will I continue to eat, sleep, etc. ?
My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
another response to reflect your edit, as SDC pointed out 'internal phenomenological world' is a bit of a problematic phrase here, but to each their ownTwilight wrote:If you die, will I continue to exist ? Will I continue to eat, sleep, etc. even though I will not manifest in your internal phenomenological world cause you are not here anymore?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
I told you before you're not a proper postmodernist. Read some more existentialist buddhist books until you answer the question differently or at least be utterly confused and not know how to answer.I am of the opinion that you would continue to experience eating and sleeping etc yes.
Last edited by Twilight on Sat Feb 04, 2017 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
I wish I could give you a hug! That made me feel so good. I wasn't aware that I had to be a solipsist in order to be a wannabe Nananandan? I hope Retro will rebuke me forcefully if this is the case.Twilight wrote:I told you before you're not a proper postmodernist. Read some more existentialist buddhist books until you answer the question differently or at least be utterly confused and not know how to answer.
I'm not aware of any post modernists on this forum by the way.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
After a couple of months you will answer like this: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p413671
And you will answer like that after been asked the question 4 times not just 2 times like you have did here or simply not answer at all.
Thanks for telling me about "solipsism" word. As I said, I'm not too expert in philosophy. Yes that is the perfect word to describe it. That is how you will end up. If you don't end up like that you just don't get existentialist buddhism and need to read more. No need to tell us you're not an expert in Nanalanda/Nanavira etc. - people can tell.
And you will answer like that after been asked the question 4 times not just 2 times like you have did here or simply not answer at all.
Thanks for telling me about "solipsism" word. As I said, I'm not too expert in philosophy. Yes that is the perfect word to describe it. That is how you will end up. If you don't end up like that you just don't get existentialist buddhism and need to read more. No need to tell us you're not an expert in Nanalanda/Nanavira etc. - people can tell.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
Well at least we got some where? Now we know what you're arguing against! Unfortunately its not an accurate descriptor of those venerables at all but if you feel it is that's OK with me. Maybe you can now ask other posters if they feel they are solipsists.Twilight wrote:After a couple of months you will answer like this: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p413671
And you will answer like that after been asked the question 4 times not just 2 times like you have did here or simply not answer at all.
Thanks for telling me about "solipsism" word. As I said, I'm not too expert in philosophy. Yes that is the perfect word to describe it. That is how you will end up. If you don't end up like that you just don't get existentialist buddhism and need to read more. No need to tell us you're not an expert in Nanalanda/Nanavira etc. - people can tell.
Thank you for your kind words my friend.
EDIT: And in all seriousness, this accusation is actually quite common from people when they're arguing against transcendental idealism, phenomenology, etc in favor of transcendental realism. Seeing the distinction is quite difficult, and in their opinion, non "existent."
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
Well you go check how other people have answered in this topic. There was you and Cownah, both of you newbies to buddhist existentialist school, answering the question like a normal person.
It is good that I'm learning new terms and becoming a better philosopher by the day. If "postmoernist" wasn't bad enough, now I also have the "solipsist" term witch I suppose has negative connotations.
And I also learned about "philosophical zombie" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Is that what I am for nanavarians over here ? A philosophical zombie ? I'm not actually real, just a philosophical zombie ? Is that how you consider other people here on the forum ? Is it a leading to compassion, buddhist way to see other people - as philosophical zombies ???
It is good that I'm learning new terms and becoming a better philosopher by the day. If "postmoernist" wasn't bad enough, now I also have the "solipsist" term witch I suppose has negative connotations.
And I also learned about "philosophical zombie" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
Is that what I am for nanavarians over here ? A philosophical zombie ? I'm not actually real, just a philosophical zombie ? Is that how you consider other people here on the forum ? Is it a leading to compassion, buddhist way to see other people - as philosophical zombies ???
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... _Heart.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EmpIntLif (see number 7)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/husserl/#EmpIntLif (see number 7)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
Well at least he advises to do metta on these philosophical zombies
Existentialist buddhism is based on Herdegger, Hussel, Satre and other postmodernist. Herdegger is the nr1 most influential postmodernist. Since you know more about this, are these guys solipsit or just existentialist buddhism ended up like that ? And this "transcedental idealism" - in what way is it different than solipsism ? From the little I've read in the link it just looks as a way to do have empathy for philosophical zombies. It presents no argument for the philosophical zombie been anything other than a philosophical zombie. Just that you have compassion for him out of simple idealism.
This is why I always called solipsist to be "postmodernist". This is what I understand by postmodernism. And of course the anti-logic position, the endless rivers of words with no meaning, words that make no sense, ideas that make sense only to the guy writing them, etc. The endless string of "paradoxes" etc. And if you don't understand these long rivers of nonsense, you're just too stupid to understand their genius. Thank god this is only popular in the US.
Existentialist buddhism is based on Herdegger, Hussel, Satre and other postmodernist. Herdegger is the nr1 most influential postmodernist. Since you know more about this, are these guys solipsit or just existentialist buddhism ended up like that ? And this "transcedental idealism" - in what way is it different than solipsism ? From the little I've read in the link it just looks as a way to do have empathy for philosophical zombies. It presents no argument for the philosophical zombie been anything other than a philosophical zombie. Just that you have compassion for him out of simple idealism.
Also from googling:Husserl seems to regard real possibilities as epistemic dispositions (habitualities), or abilities, that require an actual "substrate" (cf. Hua XXXVI, p. 139). At the same time, he stresses that "surely no human being and no animal" must exist in the actual world (adding that their non-existence would however already result in a "change of the world") (cf. Hua XXXVI, p. 121).
http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2009/11/ ... f-thought/Thus, whereas modernism preached the existence of independent reality, postmodernism preaches anti-realism, solipsism, and “reality” as a term that always requires quotation marks.
This is why I always called solipsist to be "postmodernist". This is what I understand by postmodernism. And of course the anti-logic position, the endless rivers of words with no meaning, words that make no sense, ideas that make sense only to the guy writing them, etc. The endless string of "paradoxes" etc. And if you don't understand these long rivers of nonsense, you're just too stupid to understand their genius. Thank god this is only popular in the US.
Last edited by Twilight on Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
Heidegger 
Heiddeger Herdegger...what's next?
Heiddeger Herdegger...what's next?Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
part of what you're looking for is under point 8 of that article, I have to go for the night, sleep well!
Twilight wrote:Well at least he advises to do metta on these philosophical zombies
Existentialist buddhism is based on Herdegger, Hussel, Satre and other postmodernist. Herdegger is the nr1 most influential postmodernist. Since you know more about this, are these guys solipsit or just existentialist buddhism ended up like that ? And this "transcedental idealism" - in what way is it different than solipsism ? From the little I've read in the link it just looks as a way to do have empathy for philosophical zombies. It presents no argument for the philosophical zombie been anything other than a philosophical zombie. Just that you have compassion for him out of simple idealism.Also from googling:Husserl seems to regard real possibilities as epistemic dispositions (habitualities), or abilities, that require an actual "substrate" (cf. Hua XXXVI, p. 139). At the same time, he stresses that "surely no human being and no animal" must exist in the actual world (adding that their non-existence would however already result in a "change of the world") (cf. Hua XXXVI, p. 121).http://rayharvey.org/index.php/2009/11/ ... f-thought/Thus, whereas modernism preached the existence of independent reality, postmodernism preaches anti-realism, solipsism, and “reality” as a term that always requires quotation marks.
This is why I always called solipsist to be "postmodernist". This is what I understand by postmodernism. And of course the anti-logic position, the endless rivers of words with no meaning, words that make no sense, ideas that make sense only to the guy writing them, etc. The endless string of "paradoxes" etc. And if you don't understand these long rivers of nonsense, you're just too stupid to understand their genius. Thank god this is only popular in the US.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
I was actually trying to find the guy on google right now to see if he is listed as a solipsist and could not find him cause of those problems =)))))))Mkoll wrote:Heidegger
You'll have a better chance finding a moderate rebel in Ildib than finding a buddhist who ever changed his views. Views are there to be clung to. They are there to be defended with all one's might. Whatever clinging one will removed in regards to sense pleasures by practicing the path - that should be compensated with increased clinging to views. This is the fundamental balance of the noble 8thfold path. The yin and yang.
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
----------
Consciousness and no-self explained in drawings: link
How stream entry is achieved. Mahasi / Zen understanding vs Sutta understanding: link
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
I can also make cryptic statements and pseudo-koans designed to appear as self-evident statements that only an idiot would refute. Doesn't give me any deeper an understanding of the subject matter at all.Twilight wrote:If you die, will I continue to exist ? Will I continue to eat, sleep, etc. even though I will not manifest in your internal phenomenological world cause you are not here anymore?
If you want to play a game of tenuously relevant streams of questions designed to make the writer of said questions seem like a wise expounder of subtle parables, than anyone can play that game.
If a fisherman witnesses a sunken ship in the depths of the water, at the moment of his drowning, after he drowns, is a sunken ship still witnessed? Does a fisherman still witness a shipwreck after he drowns?
What is the "all"? Is form alone an constituent of the "all"? Or is eye and form a constituent of the "all"? Is the outlining of the "all" supposed to be a discourse on the existence or non-existence of existence?
Anyone can do this to similar result and seem just as egotistical and self-aggrandizing as to their overconfidence in their wisdom-attainments of "true Dhamma".
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
-
retrofuturist
- Posts: 27860
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: My criticism of Nanavira and other "existentialist"
Greetings Twilight,
Your participation in this topic has descended from mere "criticism" into a violation of the Terms of Service...
Since the topic no longer conforms to the rules of this community, it's time for it to be closed.
Personal sanctions may be applied if you continue to violate the rules of this community, so please desist from acting this way in the future.
Metta,
Paul.
Your participation in this topic has descended from mere "criticism" into a violation of the Terms of Service...
You've gone from attacking ideas to the holders of those ideas, and that's a bridge too far.2f. Ad-hominem attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)
Since the topic no longer conforms to the rules of this community, it's time for it to be closed.
Personal sanctions may be applied if you continue to violate the rules of this community, so please desist from acting this way in the future.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."