Surprised that this thread died down, oysteroid seems to have abandoned it as well.

I've been meaning to respond, but have been rather busy with some family matters. And there is so much that I feel needs to be examined/said in response to what has been said that I feel a bit overwhelmed with the prospect of responding adequately. I'll see if I can manage a decent response. Or maybe not. We'll see. Just thinking about it makes me feel tired! ;)

One thing I will say now is that since you expressed such disdain for Jordan Peterson, I've watched some more of his videos to see what he has to say. I have mixed feelings about his work. What is it about what he says that you have such a problem with? Just curious.

What is it about what he says that you have such a problem with? — oysteroid

A few things:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/118055
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/118644

And the continued conversation there.

That's an example. Basically, I really doubt his so-called expertise. His expertise and advice may be good for the mediocre, but it will keep them mediocre, it will certainly not make them any better.

And he found an audience - teenagers and frustrated developed-world young men - who listen to his advice (which is the same advice as that of their parents most often) just because he dresses it differently. And he makes a killing doing this - he's making $70K/month and growing.

Basically lots of talk, little results from him (except for himself, he is getting quite good results financially for himself).

Emptiness means that even the things you care about are empty though. That doesn't sound very peaceful. — Agustino

Why not? Is there an alternative?

Why not? — praxis

Why would it be peaceful in the first place?

Is there an alternative? — praxis

I don't really understand the question. What would it mean for there to be an alternative in this case?

Do you know what I mean by emptiness?

Do you know what I mean when I say emptiness? — praxis

The Buddhist notion? There are several versions of Sunyata even there, so please provide more detail. But yes, I am very familiar with the Buddhist notion, though I do have a particular interpretation of it.

Okay, so an alternative would be something that has an independent and unchanging existence. Do you know of anything like that?

Do you know of anything like that? — praxis

In Buddhist teachings the Dharma? Nirvana? Buddha-nature?

I don't believe those concepts exist independently, personally.

Right, but in Buddhist teachings, Nirvana isn't impermanent for example.

And do you use emptiness to mean simply impermanent?

Nirvana isn't impermanent for example. — Agustino

Can you back this up with some doctrinal reference or anything?

So - you are asking Agustino, if he can back-up a mythical idea ?

Can you back this up with some doctrinal reference or anything? — praxis

Samyutta Nikaya 3.196 discusses:

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?”
“Just this Radha, form is not the Soul, sensations are not the Soul, perceptions are not the Soul, assemblages are not the Soul, consciousness is not the Soul. Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done"

Digha Nikaya 2.100:

"Atman (the soul) is the only refuge, is the light within”

Majjhima Nikaya 1.341:

"The Soul has become like unto Brahma"

Arguably the most detailed on this topic is the Mahaparanirvana Sutta:

"O good man! We speak of "Nirvana". But this is not "Great” “Nirvana". Why is it "Nirvana", but not "Great Nirvana"? This is so when one cuts away defilement without seeing the Buddha-Nature. That is why we say Nirvana, but not Great Nirvana. When one does not see the Buddha-Nature, what there is is the non-Eternal and the non-Self. All that there is is but Bliss and Purity. Because of this, we cannot have Mahaparinirvana, although defilement has been done away with. When one sees well the Buddha-Nature and cuts away defilement, we then have Mahaparinirvana. Seeing the Buddha-Nature, we have the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure. Because of this, we can have Mahaparinirvana, as we cut away defilement."

"O good man! "Nir" means "not"; "va" means "to extinguish". Nirvana means "non- extinction". Also, "va" means "to cover". Nirvana also means "not covered". "Not covered" is Nirvana. "Va" means "to go and come". "Not to go and come" is Nirvana. "Va" means "to take". "Not to take" is Nirvana." "Va" means "not fixed". When there is no unfixedness, there is Nirvana. "Va" means "new and old". What is not new and old is Nirvana.
"O good man! The disciples of Uluka [i.e. the founder of the Vaishesika school of philosophy] and Kapila [founder of the Samkhya school of philosophy] say: "Va means characterisitic". "Characteristiclessness" is Nirvana.”
"O good man! Va means "is". What is not "is" is Nirvana. Va means harmony. What has nothing to be harmonised is Nirvana. Va means suffering. What has no suffering is Nirvana.
"O good man! What has cut away defilement is no Nirvana. What calls forth no defilement is Nirvana. O good man! The All-Buddha-Tathagata calls forth no defilement. This is Nirvana.

Buddhism in its traditional versions does not negate that there is an unchanging reality - which is Nirvana, Dhamma, Buddha. The Dhamma cannot be impermanent - that would be the height of folly, for then enlightenment could not be attained by following the Dhamma.

The only thing Buddhism does is negate that the 5 skhandas are Self. Indeed, the 5 skhandas are anatta, empty of self.

Western Buddhism on the other hand :D ... >:O

So - you are asking Agustino, if he can back-up a mythical idea ? — charleton

:-d

You might do well to wake-up and try thinking rather than sleeping.

Buddhism in its traditional versions does not negate that there is an unchanging reality - which is Nirvana, Dhamma, Buddha. — Agustino

Doesn't deny that Nirvana is permanent, basically?

I'm asking him to provide a doctrinal reference for a claim that a condition applies to something where, according to the mythology, conditions don't apply.

Doesn't deny that Nirvana is permanent, basically? — praxis

Yes, it doesn't not only not deny it, it affirms that Nirvana is permanent. A good book is:

Some Sayings of the Buddha by F.L Woodward

It doesn't have such a Western bias as other introductory books.

conditions don't apply. — praxis

The unconditioned reality cannot be impermanent. Impermanence is conditioning by the 5 skhandas and interdependent origination.

The unconditioned reality cannot be impermanent. — Agustino

This is getting a bit tedious. No conditions, including the condition of (im)permanence, apply to that which is unconditioned, right?

Permanence is not a conditioning. That which is a conditioning is always impermanent. That's the point.

Permanence is not a conditioning. — Agustino

Can you expand on this? It doesn't make sense by itself.

Impermanent means depending on something else for your existence - ie being conditioned by that something else. Your body is impermanent because it depends on a certain physical arrangement of atoms for its existence. It is conditioned. If it were unconditioned, it wouldn't be impermanent. So to say that permanence is a conditioning is BS - it's not understanding what to be permanent means, ie not to depend on something else for existence.

to say that permanence is a conditioning is BS — Agustino

It’s a state or quality. There are online dictionaries you know, if you don’t happen to have one laying about handy.

Look at it this way, @Agustino, in order to evaluate the state or quality of something being permanent a requirement for doing so is having a comparison. Permanence is meaningless without a context, therefore permanence is a state or quality which is dependent on context. So by your own curious definition permanence is conditioned.

Good, you believe what you want, I can't be bothered to bicker around with you on this. I gave you enough sources and references for you to read for yourself. And no, permanence is not meaningless without a context. That's precisely the point.

permanence is not meaningless without a context. — Agustino

It’s dependent on other concepts (as well as everything the concepts depend on to exist), most pertinently impermanence.