I happily debate anyone who disagrees with any of the four below statements and proof you wrong

I happily debate anyone who disagrees with any of the four below statements and proof you wrong.

>All compounded things are impermanent.
>All emotions are pain.
>All things have no inherent existence.
>Non-Duality is beyond concepts.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dPjAtPqqdhM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>I want to babble about retarded unfalsifiable, unprovable bullshit

Fuck right off.

The first 3 are completely provable.
The fourth is neither unprovable, nor provable.

Retarded is subjective, last time I checked trie scientists are not supposed to be subjective.

Give an example of each please

Last I checked, actual scientists don't post on fucking Veeky Forums of all places.

>scientists live in a bubble and are not allowed to have social lives

this is the most autistic answer you could have given me, you dumbass newfaggot

>All emotions are pain.
autism

1. All fabricated or created things will be destroyed. All things that come together in parts will break away again.
2. Emotions are made by causes. Once those causes fall away because of (1). The emotions go away too. The seeking, and maintaining of emotions is painful, because the are always impermanent.
3. Because of (1) there can not inherently exist some permanent independent substance. Because all fabricated things are impermanent, nothing truly exists (as some self-existing permanent substance)
4. This lack of inherent existence, means all concepts are neither false nor true, since concepts are created and thus impermanent.
They are true for as long as they describe the momentary causes and conditions, but not forever true. They are not false, because they were true at some point. So neither false nor true.

Real life example:

You smoke a cigarette.
1. The cigarette is impermanent because its made of parts that break away upon being smoked.
2. Because the cigarette is impermanent you need another one. This craving causes you dissatisfaction.
3. The cigarette has no inherent existence, neither does the feeling you get of having smoked it.
Because the cigarette is made of multiple parts and thus has no true essence.
Your feelings come from smoking, and thus have no essence, because its made by causes.
4. The concept of 'cigarette' is not true. Because there is no cigarette. Its just a pieces of plant material made together.
Its also not false because you can still conceive the concept of 'cigarette'.

meant to reply to

Number two sounds the easiest from this side, you may begin?

As shown in the example of the cigarette.

Whatever you crave for to feel happy, is impermanent. Thus because your pleasure or happiness is based on impermanent things, your happiness is also impermanent.
Because an effect can not exist without its corresponding cause.
This impermanence causes a feeling of constant dissatisfaction.
Whatever you have family, friends, girlfriend, status, reputation, house, food, possessions. They are all impermanent, because the collection of their parts will fall away at some point, or will be separated from you.
The constant anxiety, fear, and worry of those things separating and dissolving causes you to cling and hold on to them even stronger, which in turn causes even more pain, because the flow of time cant be stopped.

I happily debate anyone who disagrees with any of the four below statements and proof you wrong

>OP
>is
>a
>faggot

To get something to make you feel happy you need to create the causes and conditions for that thing to arise.
That work of bringing those causes together is stressing.

Once you have it you need to keep working to maintain those causes and conditions which is stressing.

Eventually the causes and conditions are subject to change and will fall away again.
The losing of the thing you worked hard for to collect and maintain is stressing.

Once lost the gathering of the causes for happiness restarts.

So buddhism?

dubs confirm

oh, is fine

counter #1 One cannot create without some sense of destruction of what was previously there

counter #2
Emotions / emotional states do come into being, so they are created and destructured/restructured, sometimes quite fluidly while others perhaps might be likened to the other elements ...
there should exist some natural baseline emotional state(s) in the absence of any current internal or external cause/response

Well how about... Hmm, have you considered.... Hrrrm. No, it's irrefutable, You, sir, have solved philosophy.

The emotional response to the current emotional state of self seems like a fairly well reinforced feedback loop

Can you elaborate on #1. I agree with that and don't see how it could be a counter?

on counter #2. That is where point 4 comes in.
When devoid of all concepts and emotions you "arrive" at non-duality.
Because its beyond all concepts; its free from the concepts of creation and destruction.
Its not emotional, because then it would be conceptual.
Because its not emotional, its not painful.
The concepts of pain, pleasure, or happiness would neither exist nor not-exist.

Imagine being in a dream where you are attacked by a big spider and in great pain.
Before you went to sleep the spider did not exist.
While sleeping the spider also does not exist, because it was never truly created, (except as a hallucination).
When waking up the spider did not stop existing, because since it was never created it can not be destroyed.

Likewise the pain from being attacked by the fake imagined spider never existed, because it was based on something unreal. Yet when you wake up you are 'relieved' from the fake pain.
The feeling of experiencing non-conceptual non-duality (or what you refer to as the base-line emotional state) is similar to waking up from that dream. Because it is the absence of imagined concepts.

In roughly descending order
- lack of physical pain or illness
- adequate sleep/warmth
- appetizing food
- absence of hyper-criticism (bullies/etc)
- addictive substances &/or quitting

> Whatever you crave for to feel happy, is impermanent

It's funny how easy it is to forget most of those things when you haven't experienced them lately though

If all forms of destruction result in creation, there might only really be transformation

That's why there is point 4.
there is no real creation, and no real destruction.
nothing is created, and nothing is destroyed, thus nothing is transformed.
Transformation is just a concept for relative creation and relative destruction.

I would argue with the emotion claim you make.

I believe emotions, in essence, are merely hallmark responses to certain requirements met within a telosian model of how humans work.

That is to say, happiness is acquiring "perfection, completion, etc.", elation is the feeling of approaching this complete state (which can never, actually be achieved, as the state of one's being, and thus their perfection changes as time moves on), love is the acceptance of something as belonging to one's perfection, hate is the acceptance that something doesn't belong but exists, fear is the acceptance that there is a nonzero probability that something will take away from your perfection, anger is the acceptance that something is in the way of attaining something required for your perfection, and sadness is the acceptance that something has been taken from your perfection.

None of these are inherently related to "pain", except in that they are physiological responses to sensed requirements. You could then, describe physical sight as pain, or hearing as pain as the neural response is similar to pain receptors (without the cognicized aversion), but that would be just plain silly.

the dick in your ass is subjective

prove it.

The concept of "dick" is entirely subjective. If an ant where to walk on that dick, from the perspective of an ant it would not experience a dick, but just a large fleshy object.
In the same way we experience a bone as trash, but a dog experiences it as food.

>All compounded things are impermanent
What about protons?

Are you even trying? Protons are compounded. If a proton interacts with an anti-proton it undergoes change, thus its impermanent.

You should seriously consider reading the definitions of a few words you are using. Some of your statements are just flat out wrong by definition, the rest is meaningless non-sense not even worth debating over.

>All things have no inherent existence
Only valid given your convoluted definition of existing

Its quite simple really. Just basic law of cause and effect.

Are you saying you deny and do not belief in the fundamental law of cause and effect?

For something to really and truly exist inherently it must have an independent permanent essence.

If something is created, there must have been prior causes for that creation to happen. Thus there can not exist any independent permanent thing, because by virtue of being created its 1. dependent on previous causes. 2. Its not permanent, because it's created based on a changing state.
If something is permanent and independent it can not depend on previous causes. Thus it must be uncreated and unborn. If something is not created it can not really exist. Because some result can never come to be without a proper cause linked to it.

This is also why god, a soul, the big bang, the universe and (you) have no logical basis for existence except as a mere illusion or concept.

Coming back to the example of a dream.
If you are dreaming of a sexy lady and say that lady has real existence you are delusional.
It only has relative existence based on the causes and conditions of your perception inside that dream.
Outside of that dream there exists no sexy lady.

If you are saying the anything truly exists you are false. You are merely describing the temporary appearance or property of such a thing and not saying anything about its real objective nature of existence.

>All emotions are pain

youtube.com/watch?v=dPjAtPqqdhM