Some questions about Buddhist philosophy I'd like elaborated on:
1) Although any given object is impermanent, isn't it still possible to stay abstractions are? A ball is impermanent, but the notion of roundness is not.
2) If Samsara is beginningless, would it be fair to say the only thing that is permanent in Becoming is Becoming itself?
3) a) Existence is a process, not a thing b) Abstract categories, qualities, properties etc. are the patterns in this process c) Ergo, patterns are permanent, although still conditioned and certainly not a viable object of enlightenment and transcendence
What do you think? Can Buddhism accept the existence of Forms, Ideas, etc. general patterns of the process that is existence (though still conditioned and illusory relative to the Ultimate) without sacrificing any of its truths?
Buddhist will dogde any question or critique of their metaphysics saying that it is not conducive to enlightenment. But when there is no one worthy in the audience they'll brag about muh Buddhist metaphysics, muh Buddhist psychology...
>>1328390
More like you can't communicate the transcendent to plebs, which is true.
>>1328369
>1
All phenomenas are impermanent. This means all conditioned, anything that is subject to change, etc. That would include roundness, hotness, etc
>2
Act of becoming is part of conditioned things. Thus impermanent.
>3
Existence and nonexistences are incompatibility with impermanence and emptiness. On a purely liberal usage of language, existence can be a process, but these are superficial.
>What do you think?
Forms and ideas, etc in general are great for nominal description. Just like having a name and identifying yourself as a "self-existing" person. Anything beyond that goes against the buddhist core anicca and anatman.
>>1328396
I understand, I am only speaking relatively of course. I guess my main point is that Buddhism is a very lenient system that accomodates nearly every philosophy within its concept of Samsara, but as long as that philosophy ultimately conditioned nature is kept properly in mind
Do Buddhists believe in the soul?
>>1328414
Define soul.
Immortal, Invisible, death-persisting, body possessing, etc doesn't exist in Buddhism.
>>1328411
Systematic approaches are usually more robust in its adaptability, literally relatively speaking.
>>1328414
As a core identity, as an essential kernel of who and what you are, no.
your consciousness is merely consciousness, in general, as it has arisen in your body. there is a co-incidence of body and consciousness, in other words, your consciousness is the direct product of your unique genetic and biological factors.
your self is not this consciousness,a nd certainly not the body, but everything and nothing at the same time. it is not there is NO self, but everything is non-self, because for everything, your mind, your body, celestial paradise, you will always have to concede that, ultimately, these things are not fundamentally, intrinsically "you". what "you" really are, actually transcends all this and is in fact, incommunicable.
>>1328426
>>1328433
I was just clarifying because I thought Buddhists believed in reincarnation, which implies that there is some essence of you that continues after death?
Obviously your consciousness is a byproduct of this particular material form and will end when your body dies if any system of reincarnation is true.
>>1328452
They believe in rebirth, as in whole new person.
Early translations used the word reincarnation, but then quickly realized the folly due to the implication of the word. Rebirth simply implies a new birth rather than reincarnation where an old person transfers body.
>>1328452
The popular conception of reincarnation is crystal therapy-tier.
It is not that you yourself are reincarnated, but the force that willed your existence and sustains your bodily life, simply goes on to give rise to more beings, like lighting different candles with the same flame. The complex of innate tendencies in you, and to the extent you fed them or rooted them out. goes on to influence the constitution of the next being "in line", not unlike biological herditerary
>>1328510
Karma is a buddhist belief. Hindus also believe in Karma, but because of differences of things like souls, reincarnation, there is difference in definition of Karma and the applications/implications.
Hindus/Jains also have Moksha/Nirvana, but again due to differences above, the definition/implications of Nirvana changes vastly.
Extinguishing of the "flame" is Nirvana.
>>1328510
The tendencies that are expressed through you and will continue to be expressed are karma.
The force is conditioned because it changes, and it is impermenant because it can be conquered
>>1328390
There are no Buddhist metaphysics
.t Buddhist
>>1328510
Karma is a shackle. Only by becoming released from it can you ascend.
>>1328369
These things are all impermanent, and it is for this reason that it is possible to follow many paths to enlightenment. A Buddha is one who has achieved Nirvana and started a new school (as Siddhartha did), but an arhat is one who has achieved Nirvana by following the teachings of another. The teachings of the Buddha Siddhartha Gautama work for the achievement of Nirvana right now, but in the future, the universe might fundamentally change in such a way that his teachings become obsolete, and hopefully then a new Buddha might come about to start a new school.
>>1328945
Of course there is, and more than just one.
>>1328369
>A ball is impermanent, but the notion of roundness is not.
The notion of "roundness" doesn't exist without an object that is round.
>>1329075
>The notion of "roundness" doesn't exist without an object that is round.
Yes it does. See: mathematics.
>>1329079
That's not the "notion" of roundness. That's a mathematical model of an object that is round.
>>1329083
Take all points that are equally distant from a single point. This is both an exact definition, used in mathematics, and a notion or intuition of what a circle is.
>>1329095
That's true. But you aren't talking about the definition of a circle.
You specifically said the "notion of roundness".
>>1329098
You said
>The notion of "roundness" doesn't exist without an object that is round.
By that I understood "object" to mean a physical object. Is that what you mean?
>>1329107
Yes. Nobody knew what "the notion of roundness" was, until they had an object that was round in their hand.
>>1328369
>1) Although any given object is impermanent, isn't it still possible to stay abstractions are? A ball is impermanent, but the notion of roundness is not.
Yes it is.
>2) If Samsara is beginningless, would it be fair to say the only thing that is permanent in Becoming is Becoming itself?
>3) a) Existence is a process, not a thing b) Abstract categories, qualities, properties etc. are the patterns in this process c) Ergo, patterns are permanent, although still conditioned and certainly not a viable object of enlightenment and transcendence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDU7Z44aTiU
>>1329115
wow haha cartoon man say no XDD
great post faggot
>>1329113
I see. I have a different opinion. I maintain that the notion of roundness is only known a priori and quite independently of physical objects. If it were dependent, then it wouldn't be possible to know it at all, since there is no round physical object, just, if the Buddhists are right, impermanent aggregates.
>>1329137
And I can claim that knowledge that God exists is also a priori, that doesn't make it true.
>>1329165
You can and it doesn't. What's your point?
>>1329188
My point is that anyone can claim whatever is a priori knowledge. You don't prove anything by claiming it.
I mean, do you honestly think that a 3 year old baby child, can even comprehend what roundness is?
>>1329281
I will answer tomorrow.
bump, wanna see some good discussion in the morning
>>1328369
8 year Soto Zen buddhist here with formal practice, can't pretend to offer the correct scholarly answer but I'll share my point of view.
>1) Although any given object is impermanent, isn't it still possible to stay abstractions are? A ball is impermanent, but the notion of roundness is not.
You're onto something but kind of going half-way here. You have to understand the nature of physical phenomena in order to grasp the meaning of impermanence, which is intimately connected to the theory of dependent origination; that things arise in dependence on conditions. Abstractions are dependent on intellectual awareness, which I'm sure we all can agree is impermanent. In the Lankavatara sutra, however, it is said that Buddha-knowledge is permanent due to being independent and timeless. It could be construed as a kind of abstraction, depending on your point of view, but one should be inclined to view ultimate enlightenment as distinct from the sphere of "ordinary " thoughts.
>2) If Samsara is beginningless, would it be fair to say the only thing that is permanent in Becoming is Becoming itself?
Becoming has an end in nirvana. That's the whole point of Buddhism. It is said, since the Pali canon, that Samsara's origin cannot be discerned, but it is not endless.
>3) a) Existence is a process, not a thing b) Abstract categories, qualities, properties etc. are the patterns in this process c) Ergo, patterns are permanent, although still conditioned and certainly not a viable object of enlightenment and transcendence
In Buddhism we speak of all perceivable phenomena as dharmas, which is difficult to translate into layman's terms but roughly equates to mental events. It's very helpful to keep the term "event" in mind, since all things are events and, as such, processes as well, precisely because they are impermanent. That includes abstractions and other "patterns " dependent on human intelligence.
>>1328945
There definitely are buddhist metaphysics, the whole soteriological thing is supported by them. Ever read the Abhidhamma?
>>1328369
>>What do you think? Can Buddhism accept the existence of Forms, Ideas, etc. general patterns of the process that is existence (though still conditioned and illusory relative to the Ultimate) without sacrificing any of its truths?
what you think and feel is rubbish and not permanent. whatever deliriums you cognize is always to the opposite of the 4 noble truths.
plenty of buddhist branhces have their abidhamma, where little raitonalists attempt discuss without end the dhamma, because they cling to to their fantasy that they can understand the dhamma by what plebs call rationality [aka, deliriums taken seriously] which is in their head, is easier than actually practicing the dhamma [lazy as plebs are].
