Has anyone disproved not-self/ interdependent co-arising/ emptiness?

Has anyone disproved not-self/ interdependent co-arising/ emptiness?

Rephrase the question please

you cant disprove evidence. you can only prove a hypothesis that goes against it, for evidence is proved daily by experience.

What are some examples of philosophical or academic texts which directly address the arguments of Buddhist doctrine such as emptiness (which includes concepts such as not self and dependent coarising), providing hypotheses which go against these doctrines (as pointed out by this user
)

Or just personal rejections/refutations not necessarily academic, although academic papers would certainly be preferred

Well everything extends from nothing.
Look at it this way

Something, nothing, something
101

Now understand yin and yang, and what to the 2 points dance around?

matter is probably real, spacetime isn’t empty its substantial, there’s no such thing as a self but the brain and body are real and of vague use for identifying individual units of subjective awareness. there is no subjective self or interiority but that’s not the same thing as everything being inherently empty. its just too much posturing and everything besides the obvious, there is no interior permanent self, is kind of overreaching scientifically and has no basis in the material world. karma is also nonsensical and while everything exists all at once and is interdependent its not evidence that an action in one part of the universe actually substantially effects the others

Holy shit you are retarded

Do you understand those things?
Are they understandable?
Is it proper to understand them?

i dont exist prove me wrong faggif

why? i was just explaining why Buddhism’s core metaphysical and epistemological assumptions aren’t compatible with physicalism in a way that wouldn’t shut down discourse
this board

>matter is probably real
The Experience is what is 'real', so if you experience it, it is real.
>spacetime isn’t empty its substantial,
Is this bait? This is literally nonsensical.

>there’s no such thing as a self but the brain and body are real and of vague use for identifying individual units of subjective awareness.
WTF do you think the identifying parts of the human being is?

>there is no subjective self or interiority but that’s not the same thing as everything being inherently empty. its just too much posturing and everything besides the obvious, there is no interior permanent self, is kind of overreaching scientifically and has no basis in the material world.
Dreams and memories prove you wrong, same with ideals and God.
>karma is also nonsensical and while everything exists all at once and is interdependent its not evidence that an action in one part of the universe actually substantially effects the others

Again you are fucking dumb, Karma is simply a pattern recognization in attempt to connect dots without the passage of Time.

>nah dharma doesn't exist Xddd

Is this bait

They dance around nothing. Everything is nothing. Nothing is everything. Unity is multiplicity. Multiplicity is unity.

Your ideas on buddhism don't even hold merit academically

Not that guy but he probably called you that because you seemed to exhibit a not very strong understanding of emptiness

Nothing isn't everything.

One is Everything.

>Unity is multiplicity. Multiplicity is unity.

How so

Buddhist teaching isn't propositional. You can't prove or disprove Buddhist's utterances. Your question is nonsense. It's like asking about the dimensions of the holy spirit or something, you're fundamentally misunderstanding.

OF COURSE THE FORCES OF MODERNITY WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS NON DIVISIVE BULLSHIT TO KEEP THE CHRISTIAN MAN DOWN

ITS SATAN REEEEEEEEEEE

Don't shill her pic. What's wrong with you. Let her memory die. That is the fate of every woman who lives past 23.

I don't even know who that is. I just have a bunch of faces saved in a "jizabelle" file, from lit, for lit.

oh you’re a religious nut

you should jump in some fire and see what happens
they do, buddhist metaphysics dictates that matter isn’t substantial, should be empty, its not, there are strings, forces behind every atom that aren’t divisible or reducible to void. brains and bodies exist and identify individual units of consciousness even if that consciousness is ephenomena or ephemeral. Karma is the most absurd bastardization of cause and effect, there are murderers who are billionaires with loving families and historically the most violent people were the best looking and strongest. Things are intertwined because everything is part of the same whole but that doesn’t mean a quasar ten billion light years away has an effect on a white dwarf 50 million lya at all. and as for arising, its the most absurd way of describing things, energy and matter aren’t destroyed, nothing arises or disappears, its just reformatted and dissipates. entropy doesn’t mean emptiness it means disorder and chaos, but substances being sent into disarray doesn’t entail emptiness. the other poster is speaking like a pseud religious nut why don’t you cite some papers on Buddhism and some passages from the Nikayas and Prajnaparamita sutras that contradict my assessment ok sweetie?

>religious nut
LOL
Holy cow dude.
10/10

Holy fucking shit. YOU REALIZE BUDDHISM IS BUILT OFF A SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY??


Kill your self you retard

weak tiny brains

disappointing, I left all kinds of angles of attack open for debate and discourse but you back off when you realize you're going to have to do some work, try harder next time

Buddhist sutras are instrumental texts. They're not meant to accurately describe the world. They're for religious practice. You're trying to do something like scrutinize a poem or painting as a kind of scientific document.

Great, but this manner of description adds nothing to our knowledge of the world.

You realize philosophy is but art, a way to furnish the mind?
More ways you can contextualize the more connections you will see

Hahahaha

A less truthful description of reality does not furnish my mind.

this is copping out, pathetic little social parasite you have no place in the world of light that is physicalism, begone and enjoy your impoverished world view

Thats not the point, there is nothing less 'truthful'.

It's just having a point of perspective you unfold your own narrative.

Okay now i see you are trolling

You wrote that god awful post and long refuted your denial of self. Your hand did not write it, it wasn't your ass, it wasn't your foot, and it wasn't your liver. *You* thought about it, and you wrote it.

Sure, absolutely. But if Buddhists make arguments about the nature of reality, isnt it still possible to posit refutations of those arguments? I understand that's not the point of buddhism, but I was just curious if that had been done in an academic context. And if it's not possible please talk to me about why I would like to know

...

>there is nothing less 'truthful'.
poopoo and peepee always exist together simultaneously

u can'tt refute this

Define "you"
Who or what is this "you" that is being referred too.

The insecurity of the brainlet is always apparent.

160 iq try again

no you're not at all

Ok:)

pls stop..

Buddhists aren't making arguments about the nature of reality, they're making statements in sometimes in something like argument or proposition form that serve other purposes in their social contexts. If you divorce the utterences from the social contexts (the practice of meditation, austerity, etc) you are just creating nonsense or poetry. Neither of these things are sensible areas for intelligent people to discourse about in this way. You're wasting your time.

You can discourse with the people who have made this misunderstanding (who have degrees, etc) all you want, it doesn't change the fact that they're basically just formalizing nonsense for their own amusement or ego or whatever.

If you are serious about aquiring buddhist knowledge, then engage in buddhists practices. If you don't think this is a good way to spend your time, then why are you fucking around with some nth derivitive of buddhist practice?

But aren't the practice of meditation, austerities, removal of mental defilements, perfection of morality, ethics, patience etc, all supposed to be conducive to realising emptiness? I recognize there is a difference between a mere intellectual understanding of emptiness and an experiential understanding, and from what I've gotten from Buddhism the point is to engage in these practices to reach that experiential undsrstanding. I also recognize that Buddhism is an orthipraxic religion vs. orthodoxic. But I'm still not sure why discussing the tenant of emptiness is inherently nonsensical. Isn't right view important? I mean in the kalichakra ceremony in Tibet a common practice is for monks To debate emptiness, and I'm interested in a similar thing but from a nonbuddhist perspective. To be fair I'm not entertaining these questions to discover emptiness for myself or further spiritual developments, for me it is exactly what you said, I'm just interested in the game of academic argument within this particular context, for my own amusement. I was just wondering if it has been done you know, not attached to the outcome either way thinking it will bring me to enlightenment. Does that make sense?

only rationalist talk about arguments and proofs, whereas the first step to the path is really to quiet the intellect, so those words are not relevant to the path

also, arguments and proofs do not exist outside s formal logic, and even in formal logic, arguments are not called arguments, they are called statements in a sequences of statements, valid wrt to inference rules chosen by the guy who want to prove something, whose last statement is called the conclusion.

Only secular humanists and other bored christians claim that proofs exist outside a formal logic and they mix experience with their meme of ''rationality''

This isn't an informed opinion by any means, but it seems like Budhist thought on emptiness is just a meaningless tautology. Of course it all works down to nothing at the end, just like you can say 4 = 3 + 1, which is true but useless. The purpose of philosophy is not an ultimate answer, just rephrasing the unending complexity in different and more beautiful ways.

I would say
>bored christians
Is the cause for most of Western Thought

speaking of waifus, I haven't posted this QT in ages

>yfw the core issue is just that Buddhism doesn't make any philosophical arguments and leads to no knowledge including knowledge of empitness and can't ever have ontological truths which makes its epistemology pointless and baseless
>yfw no one on Veeky Forums is literate or concise enough to just break it to them without trying to be kind about the issue
>yfw this is why discourse dies because people refuse to be hard and fast with evil truths

>people in this thread think Spiritual fortitude = mental constructs of philosophy