Philosophical basis of Dharmic religions

>neither of these concepts require appeal to some supernatural dimension.
Well, I agree that the principles of cause-and-effect and of energy-mass conservation are naturalistic, intuitive and self-evident, but they aren't identical to the concepts in question tho.
>karma is cause-and-effect, you reap what you sow, etc.
Karma is more than physical cause-and-effect, isn't it? It's more like moral cause and effect, and as such it's 1) supernatural 2) non-self-evident 3) requires some sort of next life to make sense of, because way too often "evil" people live just fine while "good" people suffer a lot.
>samsara means "becoming", everything is impermanent, in flux, nothing new is ever created, just recycled etc
Again, samsara is more than the physical recycling of atoms in the universe, it implies some sort of spirital rebirth and has negative connotations because both Hinduism and Buddhism are focused on trying to escape it.

In other words, if you limit the concept to their physical meaning, the religions in question makes no sense at all, you might as well be an atheist.

Karma is not punishment/reward deferred until some nebulous next life but the very pragmatic observation that doing a lot of a certain thing, and you become a certain way.

There is no "reincarnation", the principle which constituted your "I" goes on to constitute other "I"s according to your karmic contribution.

The negative connotations of samsara are due primarily to the corruptibility of all created things.

Buddhism is praxis and not philosophy, it doesn't matter how wanky the metaphysics get, it's all based on the here and now.

> The question is not proving the self/body is reincarnated, but proving there's a self that comes to cessation.
In both cases, the burden of proof is on the believer, the existence of self is both self-evident and philosophically grounded. But yeah, I guess you can redefine the terms until they fit your beliefs.

Still, tho, if there's no self, death (and life, I suppose) is an illusion, and there is no problem to be solved, that's the purpose of Buddhism? If it doesn't matter how you live this life, you should just enjoy yourself, and if it does matter, then you have some ontological claims you need to prove.

>Dharmic religions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, are based on ontological claims as well, namely, they postulate the existence of the universal law or retribution aka Karma and the cycle of rebirth aka Samsara.

No, central claim in Hinduism is that Brahman exists, as your picture depicts. Brahman is both reality and a persons eternal self. So since the soul is the same as Brahman and is eternal, the question then arises why is there birth and death? Birth and death are material conditions forced upon the spiritual soul due to ignorance that causes all forms of suffering, this is called Samsara. Samsara is perpetuated by making actions within the material world, called karma. All arguements Hinduism have their foundation in Brahman. The existence of Brahman is self-evident.

>muh ontological claims

Buddhism is a reaction to suffering, if you're at the point you're following the eightfold path full bore you couldn't care less about "proving" anything, detachment proves itself, the rest is just window dressing

you have a very shallow of understanding of Buddhism if you think "life is an illusion" means "dude nothing exists just like do whatever lmao"

This image is wildly inaccurate. Perfect karma does not bring about liberation, as any sort of karma creates material entanglement. It is Yoga that brings about liberation. Even if one has the best karma and is reborn in the highest heavenly planets, he is still subject to birth and death and his time on that heaven is limited.

>pragmatic observation that doing a lot of a certain thing, and you become a certain way.
Like, if you eat a lot you get fat? It's just regular cause and effect, no need for the new concept here. The difference is that Krama works within the moral sphere, and that requires some justification since it's not self-evident.
> There is no "reincarnation", the principle which constituted your "I" goes on to constitute other "I"s according to your karmic contribution.
This is exactly the kind of claim I'd like to see a justification for.
> The negative connotations of samsara are due primarily to the corruptibility of all created things.
If Sansara is just the recycling of atoms then why does it get these negative connotations? It looks like something more, and that requires justification. Besides, how are you going to escape the recycling of atoms without postulating some spiritual dimension?
> Buddhism is praxis and not philosophy, it doesn't matter how wanky the metaphysics get, it's all based on the here and now.
So it's philosophically indefensible?

> Buddhism is a reaction to suffering
Do you consider Buddhism a better reaction to suffering than, say, suicide or drugs? If yes, then you have some (implicit) assumptions about the world I'm trying to question here.

Karma is inner orientation, stew in hatred, guilt, lust, and it will have its effects. The watering of karmic seeds is pretty much neuroplasticity in doctrinal form.

>This is exactly the kind of claim I'd like to see a justification for.

1. You are
2. You can never not be.
3. You will always be.

In the same way you don't know you're asleep until you wake up. Buddhism is about cutting this circle.

>If Sansara is just the recycling of atoms then why does it get these negative connotations? It looks like something more, and that requires justification. Besides, how are you going to escape the recycling of atoms without postulating some spiritual dimension?

Because things suffer and die? I literally just told you why the negative connotations.

>So it's philosophically indefensible?

Oh bruh please. Scientific naturalism is proving the doctrine of the five aggregates, Hume basically repeated the doctrine of non-self 2000+ years later, the Cartesian cogito is Buddhist non-self as mental substance, the Hegelian subject as a self-relating negativity is the self that says "This is not me, this is not I, this is not my self", on and on and on

>Do you consider Buddhism a better reaction to suffering than, say, suicide or drugs? If yes, then you have some (implicit) assumptions about the world I'm trying to question here.

Yes because it's about overcoming suffering at the root based on a very pragmatic observation that my desire for x coincides/creates the very privation I'm trying to fill with x

>central claim in Hinduism is that Brahman exists
Ok, this is more or less philosophical Absolute, you can construct arguments in defense of it.
>Brahman is both reality and a person's eternal self
Ok..?
>since the soul is the same as Brahman and is eternal,
What, why?
>Birth and death are material conditions forced upon the spiritual soul due to ignorance that causes all forms of suffering, this is called Samsara.
Where `ignorance` came from?
>Samsara is perpetuated by making actions within the material world, called karma.
According to what?

I mean, this is probably the clearest explanation of Hinduism I've seen, but it's still a statement of faith, not a philosophical argument, Samsara and Karma are just postulated into existence.

There are but since both those religions are not really revelent in the west most atheists dont concern themselves with them.

In general Buddhism isn't so concerned about the distinction between real and fake because they hold that the only thing real is the mind. (that for esoteric Buddhism anyway)

> Karma is inner orientation, stew in hatred, guilt, lust, and it will have its effects.
So if Karma is just a psychologic effect of my actions, how and why "karmic contributions" affect the way "the principle which constituted your "I" goes on to constitute other "I"s". It's sound like it's something more than my memory of me being a shitty person.
>1. You are
Sure
>2. You can never not be.
>3. You will always be.
No, why would you believe this? This is literally the problem Buddhism is trying to solve, and all you have to do is to stop believing in the immortality of self and go on with your life.
>Because things suffer and die?
How are you going to escape it tho, if it's the way things are.
>on and on and on
This sounds like Christians bragging about how science proved God is real.
>Yes because it's about overcoming suffering at the root based on a very pragmatic observation that my desire for x coincides/creates the very privation I'm trying to fill with x
You can argue the same for suicide because it overcomes suffering at the very root indeed by ceasing the existence of the sufferer. I mean, you can even use the same argument, replacing "x" with "being alive". So again, how suicide is a worse solution to suffering than Buddhism? It's surely the faster and the more reliable one. Unless, of course, you have unsubstantiated beliefs in the immortality of the soul and eternal moral retribution.

Suicide is a running way, ascesis is dealing with it.

>What, why?
Brahman and the soul are spiritual, and to be spiritual means to fixed in reality. The nature of material things is they they are constantly undergoing change. Material is born, exists for some time, produces some byproducts, and is destroyed. Reality does not change, however. As such. spiritual things do not change; they have no beginning, middle, or end.

>Where `ignorance` came from
Ignorance results from continual absorption in material activities. Just as when one is engaged with his dreams during sleep he completely forgets the world around him, so too the soul when engaged with material activities becomes forgetful of his actual nature.

>According to what?
According to the laws of nature. According to nature, whatever action I perform I must enjoy or suffer the result of that action. If I touch my hand to a stove, the law of nature dictates that I am to be burned. Thus I am bound to the result of my action, this is Samsara.

But if the results are the same, why bother with the later? Why work 40 years on escaping the suffering if you can just do it right now? Or why bother at all, just enjoy the life, you'll die anyway. I guess you can say being a Buddhist would result in a more "fulfilling" life, but it's degrading it to pop psychology tier.

What I'm trying to show, is that "secular Buddhism" makes as much sense as secular Christianity, i.e. none, you have to hold some supernatural beliefs for it to "work".

it doesn't, nirvana is not nothingness (which would be the fate of a suicide victim if you deny rebirth), nirvana is the extinction of craving, suicide is an act born of craving that does not exhaust it, only fuels it

>suicide is an act born of craving that does not exhaust it, only fuels it
How does it fuel it if you admit it ends the existence? And isn't ascesis an act of craving, in the sense that you wouldn't need one if you had no craving? Or, even more interesting, isn't ascesis an act born of craving for nirvana? If we deny rebirth, what's the point of (maybe?) achieving nirvana if you die anyway?

Wew, so many questions.

Nirvana is not nothingness.

Craving for an end to craving is the short-circuiting of the circle of desire/suffering, its negating of itself. One is supposed to desire only what is wholesome, what will ultimately culminate in the extinction of desire. You work with what you got.

You don't crave nirvana, you crave an end to craving, what's left over is nirvana.

You wouldn't achieve nirvana upon death, you would die, your will-to-life was snuffed out and will re-enter the samsaric economy of the universe, you were just along for the ride and went down with the ship. Ascesis is swimming to shore.

>be spiritual means to fixed in reality
>Reality does not change, however. As such. spiritual things do not change; they have no beginning, middle, or end.
These are exactly the ontological claims I'd like to see justifications for.
>actual nature
Again, the existence of "actual nature" is just postulated here.
>If I touch my hand to a stove, the law of nature dictates that I am to be burned.
Sure, but I have my doubts if the same principle at work if I lie, murder or steal. It's certainly isn't a law of nature, because laws of nature work all the time, and too many morally wrong people go around unpunished.

Misconception about karma. There is no natural law waiting to mete out punishment and reward, you are punished by your action, not for it.

>the circle of desire/suffering
The existence of which we haven't established yet.
>your will-to-life was snuffed out and will re-enter the samsaric economy of the universe
This is exactly the cycle of spiritual rebirth I was talking about in the beginning. See how it's different from "becoming, everything is impermanent, in flux, nothing new is ever created, just recycled etc.". "Samsaric economy" is exactly the idea I'm having a problem accepting.

So just like I've said, Buddhism makes sense only if you accept its premises of Karma and Samsara, there's no reason to waste time on it if you don't find these principles philosophically viable.

So if a person does something morally wrong, and then lives a happy life, what's the punishment? Or if a person does nothing wrong, but suffers all his life, what he's being punished for?

>These are exactly the ontological claims I'd like to see justifications for.
Brahman is the nature of existence itself, it is consciousness. Pure consciousness does not change, it is always there. In sleep, waking, birth, and death consciousness is always present. Only the field of activities changes, not Brahman. Brahman is primordial, self-created.

I'm not advanced enough to argue Brahman further to you, it has to be understood by direct experience. Brahman transcends the mind and language entirely. Just as the gross senses cannot understand the nature of the mind, the mind cannot understand the nature of Brahman. Yoga is required, dry philosophy alone will never bring you to that stage as you're simply hovering on the mental platform.

>Sure, but I have my doubts if the same principle at work if I lie, murder or steal. It's certainly isn't a law of nature, because laws of nature work all the time, and too many morally wrong people go around unpunished.
The fruits of your karma are experienced in the next life, not this one. So you are actively creating your next body by your actions in this life.

The punishment is the state of being that is presupposed by the committing of morally abhorrent actions. Now could Charles Manson say he's happy and really believe he means it, and thereby become exempt from this law? maybe. we're entering into some very tricky territory here I don't have the time or energy to delve into

The existence of the circle is established by observing it in your own life. I chase after a girl who I think will complete me, she is repulsed by my neediness, my feeling of lack she introduced into me was immediately accompanied by desire, etc. I think a drug will complete me, I do it a lot and eventually where before I felt no privation this drug has now introduced its own lack into my life, now I need to be high for everything.

Could apply to being bored. I am attached to always needing to feel stimulated, alive, busy, now I'm bored. It's not about lapsing into boredom but paying attention to these states with awareness.

> there's no reason to waste time on it if you don't find these principles philosophically viable.

this is my whole point: practice comes first, philosophical speculation comes after. metaphysical speculation is in itself a hindrance, a "wilderness of views", compared to simple observance of the mind and its states.

no one follows Buddhism (who is serious about it) cause it's flashy, they follow it because they have first-hand experience that being a thirsty ass nigga gets you nowhere, and the Buddha represents taking this to such an extreme you transcend suffering and death itself

>The existence of the circle is established by observing it in your own life.
Oh, this is what you meant by "cycle of desire/suffering", I thought you meant Samsara. Well, yeah, you can limit your emotional attachments in this life, it's probably good for you to some extent. Nothing to do with Buddhism so far, basic psychology.
>this is my whole point: practice comes first, philosophical speculation comes after. metaphysical speculation is in itself a hindrance, a "wilderness of views", compared to simple observance of the mind and its states.
So I was right and Buddhist are ok with leaving their beliefs unexamined and unquestioned as long as these beliefs make them feel good? Or, should I say, make them don't feel bad.
>they have first-hand experience that being a thirsty ass nigga gets you nowhere, and the Buddha represents taking this to such an extreme you transcend suffering and death itself
That's quite a leap from "being a thirsty ass nigga" to believing in the cosmic cycle of rebirth and "samsaric economy".

>The fruits of your karma are experienced in the next life, not this one.
That's my questions, on that this belief in the "next life" is based? It's far from being self-evident, just like any idea about the immortality of the soul.
And Karma itself, how are you sure the fruits are experienced in the next life, and not erased on death?

No, the fundamental Buddhist insight is that these psychological dynamics are ontological, and honestly how could they not be?

Once again, it's not about examining or not examine beliefs, it's about a philosophical ground being irrelevant to the cessation of suffering. The Buddha himself says to not believe anything he or anyone else says until you've personally verified them yourself. Your criticisms are pretty 101-tier, no offense since you've been a good sport so far

Because actions leave an imprint within the mind called samskaras just as water running across snow leaves a carving. These can be directly perceived with a deep enough meditation. Otherwise you must rely on the scriptures and various sages that agree on the matter.

The existence of God is self-evident by observing the universe God created.

How can you claim your subjective insights in your mental states have some ontological value to them?
>a philosophical ground being irrelevant to the cessation of suffering.
No, it's not, overwise drinking till you have a liver failure and then killing yourself would be an as valid way to cease suffering as Buddhism. Hell, suffering isn't even such a big problem for a modern person that he should focus his entire life on it, unless there's something horribly wrong with his life. It only becomes "problematic" if you assume the existence of the cycle of rebirth and some form of Karma.
>The Buddha himself says to not believe anything he or anyone else says until you've personally verified them yourself.
So how do I personally verify the existence of the cycle of rebirth? Because if it's not real I'll go on with my regular life of passions, pleasures, and suffering, as long as the later isn't dominating it.

Pretty funny you'd contest the Buddhist view on things for having no philosophical grounding when it's precisely descartes' subjective insight into the self that you use to argue that there is a self

Buddhism isn't about proselytizing. If this cycle works for you, go for it, some people don't have that luxury, and no one picked it up because they read about karma and had a eureka moment, it's cause their life fucking ducked and they wanted to do something a bit more than just lift, eat clean etc.

>descartes' insight
Well, his main insight it that the only thing we can be sure about is the existence of the self, and I'm not disputing that. Anything else you can get from meditating is only relevant for yourself unless you can support your point with some sort of evidence or reasoning.

The problem with this debate is there is more than one school of Buddhist thought, some are nearly atheistic, others are quite mystical, so you cant just pin it down.

Its like asking about Christianity and only getting the perspective of a Calvinist

Buddhism is pretty much nothing but this, the actualization of this self-presence above any content, even the absence of content (death).

I can't claim what Hindus know, so I'll try for a Buddhist understanding on these things.

>Karma as judgment/retribution system
Many are mislead into this claim. Karma isn't a judgment/retribution system. Karma is "fruits of actions" or in Buddhist term, with main reference to mental aspects of life (but physical actions are part too). You create karma with intentions (specially ones borne out of ignorance). Karma is not to be thought of as a substance, but rather an effect of some sort of intent/action. For example, if you get angry at someone because they stole your money. In this instance your anger creates a memory in the mind, a pattern for this anger to latch on to and influence your actions and future thoughts. This is karma in natural sense. Now there is the supernatural aspect to this part too, which is unverifiable, but it follow the logic similar to "every action/intent having a reaction." So when a person dies with anger/regret/anxiety/etc, this chain of thought is supposed create karma and continue on your rebirth. "So if I just not do those at death, I am free?" Not quite, if such were the case, Buddha would have suggest not doing anything and simply "just chill out dude" when you die. That's not the case because Buddha recognized that human mind is hard to tame/mold. So he created the 8 fold path method to mold the mind and action. There are many intricacies with my statements above that Buddhists throughout history have extrapolated.

>Samsara
Cycle of rebirth. There's the natural aspect of life/rebirth that everyone notices. Then the heaven/hell/ghost supernatural aspects that are harder to swallow, but could be there or could simply be metaphor for being born in superior positions(child of a billioniare) in life or weaker positions in life(african kid).

I realize that, but even the most atheistic school (i.e. the one that doesn't believe in any form of deity) still postulates the existence of some kind of cycle of rebirth and Karma without questioning it.
>Buddhism is pretty much nothing but this
No? So far I get from this thread that Buddhism requires a lot more to actually "work", like the immortality of the soul, the cycle of rebirth, the totality of suffering, the possibility of escaping the suffering by practice, etc. All of these are positions you have to come to "believe" in, not something self-evident like the existence of the self or something that can be philosophically argued for. In other words, even the simplest/most rational form of Buddhism adds a lot of baggage to the pure Cartesian "I am".

>buddhism
>immortality of soul

No, it is, non-self is that which says "this is not my self", like how Descartes couldn't doubt that he was doubting, what Descartes performs as a rational exercise monks are required to perform in actuality

Your nothingness as the fragile product of the equilibrium of your body is absolutized, or rather your awareness of this. But absolutized is still philosophically loaded.

Well, in some sense, at least according to .
I'm not sure I still follow you, but Descartes says nothing about nothingness. If anything, the nothingness is the opposite of his idea, for Descartes the self is the only thing existence of which we can be sure about. It looks to be Buddhists are trying to achieve the exact opposite, namely, to convince themselves the self doesn't exist, all this to achieve some kind of "salvation"(I realize the term is inadequate) from "suffering", the very need of which is based on unprovable axioms. In other words, Buddhism doesn't follow from Descartes, if anything, the later depreciates the former.

>Well, in some sense, at least according to .
That guy's wrong. Buddhism is never about immortality of the soul, or about the soul. The whole anatman and anatta are there for the reason. There were early Buddhists who misrepresented some ideas about there being a soul/mental substance/etc but that was quickly destroyed by Nagarjuna when he refuted those weirds and the Theravada school whom people see as "closest to original Buddhism". Neither of them support any idea of soul or soul-like "mental substance". The crux of no-self isn't to affirm a "I think therefore I am" soul-type theory, but to destroy it. Nagasena's full dialogue with the old Bactrian-Greek King Menander is still valid Buddhism even after nearly 2200 years later. Which I suggest is a good old Aristotelean style debate/dialogue, you'll find it quite accessible as it was presented for the foreigner Greek king and their council.

What's your position on the reality of Karma and Samsara then? If a soul doesn't exist, then it can't be an object of Karma, nor can it be "reborn" in any way. In this tradition, what's the point of Buddhism itself, since there's no one to achieve nirvana? Why being a practicing Buddhist is "better" than living a regular life or outright killing yourself if you deal with suffering?

The orignal buddha actually expected epople to question his doctrine and even challenged them to.

He and they firmly believe that once you understand what they mean by things like samsara and karma that the laws become self evident

non-self is not literally no-self

you don't understand buddhism

Seriously you should simply take the time to read some basic books rather than seek an exhaustive explanation from Veeky Forums, its a waste of time for everyone involve to entertain your questions when you do not have any solid basis.

>Point of Buddhism
The point of Buddhism is to end suffering.

>There is no one to achieve nirvana
When the mind realizes this/connects the dots about the nature of the world/etc. When the mind reaches/achieves the state of "no one suffers", then that's nirvana. Before such state, suffering persists because our conception of reality is based upon the presumption of a self-hood.

>Why practicing Buddhist is better than nothin
While the full extent of Buddhist can't be known instantly when you practice Buddhism, The gradual change is noticble for you in your day to day life. Whether it be better concentration in life, better awareness of suffering and the ability to handle it better, or reduction in stress, etc. These are all medically recorded as well instead of being a pure placebo.

>why not kill yourself
Why don't you? The fear of death is innate in all living beings. The fear of unknown, the fear of pain, etc. Death encompasses all that. When you don't have a way to deal with that, the full process of taking your own life is filled with suffering. The act of creating suffering to reduce suffernig seems counter intuitive.

Again, just read some basic books.

>So, are there any philosophical arguments for the reality of Karma and Sansara?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/

Interesting, it looks like your tradition the way you present it doesn't need Karma/Samsara at all, suicide isn't inherently bad, just unplesant, and the point is to increase your well-being in this life. Yet, while appealing to me personally, this sterilized Buddhism looks more like a self-help book or therapy, to be honest, I doubt many actual Buddhist would agree with you.
> Again, just read some basic books.
Well, I'm not interested in becoming a Buddhist, the point of the thread was to see if the East has something like Philosophy of Religion (as opposed to Religious Philosophy) the West has developed around Abrahamic faiths.

Its called Asian religion or Asian Studies course. If you're talking about college course. You don't see them being included in the mainstream philosophy, theology or philosophy of religion because most people are not familiar with it or have no interest in them .

>this sterilized Buddhism looks more like a self-help book or therapy
This is what Buddhism is, a self-help therapy in modern day. You can include bells and whistles, but at the end of the day, its a self-help therapy. You are to walk the path yourself, no one will do it for you. No one can/may help you do it either as they are equally powerless.

Its important to note here, while buddhist hold their teachings to be in keeping with logic, the practice of buddhism is not about logic but intuition.

many practices are made to alter your consciousness or force you to break with rational thought.

Westerners are generally more attracted to the process than the metaphysics

Mahayana's (I've read/heard it from Mahayana pov, but might be true for theravada as well) argument is rational thought lead to intuitive goodness.

depends on the school. I'm most familiar with the far eastern esoteric schools myself, They were very mystical, but at the same time held that the mind was the only true reality.

Even though you allowed a god to enter you, the god only existed in your mind so its real and unreal at the same time, which is kind of the point.

Even Zen koans were not riddles but ways to force the student to stop thinking in a purely logical manner and rely on intuition

Bump to prevent the thread from reaching nirvana.

Sounds a bit ecumenical to me.
I wonder what hardcore Buddhists would say to that.

So why should anyone have faith if it's self evident? It's just observing reality then, sort of like how the Qur'an goes
>lol, look at bees and flowers
>cool huh?
>those with eyes see that this is evidence for God's omnipotence
To me, this always seemed like a budget interpretation of the really valuable notions buried in Abrahamic religions.

How does that work? And which God? Maybe Buddha created the universe? Or Vishnu? Or maybe it was Ameterasu or possibly Tiamat. Maybe its not God but a Goddess, or possibly a confederate of Gods and Goddesses. Or maybe its an alien. Or maybe its not created by such beings.

Doesn't seem obvious to me.

The non-existence of God is self-evident by observing the universe around us.