Welcome to our New Forums!

Our forums have been upgraded and expanded!

Welcome to Our New Forums

  • Our forums have been upgraded! You can read about this HERE

Refuting Shunyata and Anatman(No Self of the Buddhists)

Joined
Dec 26, 2019
Messages
52
In this post I will make some points to why I believe Buddhism is an untenable position to hold.also I will argue that a unconditioned reality must exist.some on this forum will call it ether.it doesn't matter what your conception of it is,as long as it is a unconditioned source.

1.AnatmanAnatman is the fundemental belief in Buddhism that all Dharmas(Phenomena)have no instrinsic nature,substance or existance.this is known as no self.

this is quiet easy to refute.in the Buddhist system wether Theravada,Mahayana or Mantrayana Consciousnesses are momentary with empty intervals.think of it as You being made up of a constant flux of momentary selves and persons.the Theravadans,hold to the existance of both matter and Vijnanas.while the Tibetan schools and the Yogacara believe Cittas are all that really 'exist'(I hate to use that term when debating buddhists since they believe nothing can exist since it is all conditioned,but you understand what I mean)

this Doctrine is important to Buddhism because if a permanent Soul exists,Nirvana wich is contrary to the defiled nature of the conventional self-Soul cannot be established.nothing can change its nature.Unless you Believe that Nirvana is a natural state of the Self like the aforementioned schools possibly do.

the person is made up of five aggregates in Buddhism. form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana).all of these Aggregates form a cohesive whole to form the conventional Self.

Vijnana is also known as Citta or Alayavijnana.in Buddhism there is not one enduring Vijnana but a constant flux of Vijnanas with intervals so small you don't percieve them.

but this can easily be refuted.why?Because to believe in this means to believe in creation out of nothing.when one Citta perishes,the other cannot arise.from where and what does the next Citta arise when the former already perishes as the Buddhist doctrine of radical momentariness (Kshanabhangavada)states?

if they exist already dormant somewhere,then there must be a receptacle wich is permanent and this would refute Sarva dharma anatta or all dharmas are no self.but Nagarjuna the biggest mahayana Philosopher says that Cittas are not substantial anyway(it must be asked that if it is not substantial then how it can manifest?).

furthermore this would mean that fate exists and that subjective agreement would be next to impossible.karma would lose its value.as there is no choice in what you do,feel or think.and it must be asked also how something existant can go into nonexistance.Mipham the greatest Tibetan philosopher refutes Cessation .again,this is not what any Buddhist would believe in but the alternative being creation or arising out of nothing also makes no sence.

the Vijnana aggregate rules over the other aggregates and gives them a unitary unity and experience.

but if its momentary it cannot do so and also karma cannot stored.the buddhists will say one Citta conditions the next Citta.but this is impossible as the former Citta perishes before the other comes into existance.it cannot condition anything.

Anatman/Anatta says that the 'self'is a momentary flux of Cittas-Vijnanas(Consciousnesses).There can be no stable permanent Citta,in kshanabhangavada a dharma perishes before its successor arises.one citta arises then perishes and another takes its place all going on until Nirvana is established.However,when one citta perishes,from where and what does the next Citta arise?it cannot be a true nothing.nothing produces nothing.but the Citta also cannot preexist as that would be absurd and there would be infinite mes or yous right now somewhere.

Citta can be equated with Vijnana Skandha or alaya vijnana aswell,as the alayavijnana is momentary within Buddhism.



it cannot be that the Citta has the same substance as the former Citta because then it would just be the same Citta and Cittas are not Substantial according to Nagarjuna.

It cannot be that a Citta endures until the next arises because this would confer confused Experience and still the former Citta has no Causal power to create another Citta Exnihilo.

thus the No Self Doctrine is easily refuted by basic logic.

2.Pratityasamutpada

Pratityasamutpada is dependant origination.when this arises that arises.

there is no inherent Existance to anything.all dharmas are dependant upon other dharmas.

this is easily refuted by it being a vicious infinite.a First cause and ultimate cause is necassery for the succession of dharmas to exist.and still,the dharmas can only change apparentely but not inherently as again true Arising and Cessation cannot occur according to Nagarjuna and Mipham.

so Pratityasamutpada is really dependant on momentariness wich cannot be established.

3.Combination of Atoms.in the Sarvastivada theravadan school atoms exist.and they are momentary.however without a ruling Lord atoms cannot aggregate just as without a a permanent Citta the other aggregates cannot form a cohesive whole.

if atoms by nature combine then there can be no release from samsara in the Sarvastivada.if by nature they repel,then we cannot explain the world.if neither,wich is the true definition only a ruling Lord can unite them says Shankara.

4.An Unconditioned Reality(Dharma) must exist.

There Can Only Be Two Types of Realities(Dharmas):

1.Conditioned Reality: Any reality that depends on something for its existence. For example, a Cow depends on its organs, the organs depend on cells, the cells depend on molecules, which depend on atoms,wich depend on electrons,wich depend on Quarks and so forth. This dependence is simultaneous at every moment the conditioned reality exists.



2.Unconditioned Reality: Any reality that is self-sufficient, i.e. does not depend on anything else for its existence. This is what is called “Brahman''(The one Spirit ''or ''Ishwara''(God).

any conditioned reality depends upon another reality in order to exist by definition.

Any conditioned Dharma, must depend upon:

a finite number of conditioned Dharmas alone

or an infinite number of conditioned Dharmas alone

or a finite number of conditioned Dharmas and at least one unconditioned Dharma

A conditioned Dharma cannot be caused by a finite series of conditioned Dharma: If there is a linear series of conditioned Dharma, what would the first one depend on? Since it must depend on something, and there is nothing before it, the whole chain ceases to exist. Thus a linear chain of conditioned realities cannot exist. Additionally, a circular finite chain of conditioned Dharmas could not exist either. This would simply result in each conditioned reality fulfilling their own conditions, which is against the definition of a conditioned Dharma.

Conditioned realities cannot exist in an infinite Series either. A very large unlimited of number conditioned realities cannot exist,. As the number of conditioned realities in a series increases, the result continues to be non-existence. Continuously adding to the end of the chain would never allow for the conditions of existence to be satisfied, thus the entire infinite chain of conditioned Dharmas would never have its conditions fulfilled.

If an infinite (I am granting Buddhists the notion that a actual Infinite can exist in quantity for the sake of argument,I do not Believe this)series of conditioned Dharmas could exist on its own, the complete set of infinite conditioned Dharma would be an unconditioned Dharma. However, this is impossible because an unconditioned dharma cannot depend upon an aggregate of conditioned dharmas . if this were the case, it would be conditioned. Therefore, a set of infinite conditioned realities is itself a conditioned reality, and fails to exist on its own.

Since any model made up entirely of conditioned Dharmas can never have their conditions fulfilled, every conditioned Dharma must be caused by a series of realities that ends (or begins its ontological Series) with an unconditioned Dharma.

if the series of conditioned realities regresses ad infinitum without an unconditioned reality the series itself would be equivalent to nothing. if the series regresses infinitely to more and more fundamental conditions that have the same existential status as the aforementioned conditions, then the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly. But if the search for the fulfillment of conditions would go on endlessly, then every hypothetical conditioned reality in the series would never have its conditions fulfilled and thus would never come into existence. No matter where we’re at in the series we’ll always come to a conditioned reality that is nonexistent because it is existentially dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities.1

As Fr. Robert Spitzer writes,

"Since every hypothetical conditioned reality is dependent upon other nonexistent conditioned realities for its existence, it will never come into existence. It does not matter whether one posits an infinite number of them; for each one in the series of dependence is still equal to nothing without the reality of the others. But if the “others” are nothing without others, and those “others” are nothing without still others, it does not matter if one postulates an infinite number of others (or arranges the infinite number of others in a circle). They are all still nothing in their dependence upon nonexistent conditions."2



Thus it follows that a intrinsic Existance does exist.and Shunyata and sarva dharma anatta are thus false.

This is the gist of my objection to Buddhism.
 

Al Jilwah: Chapter IV

"It is my desire that all my followers unite in a bond of unity, lest those who are without prevail against them." - Satan

Back
Top