Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

So_frickin_tasty t1_jaw22u7 wrote

The OP has demonstrated they are willing to explain their definitions. This is just dismissive, unreflective. You could simply say: "I don't know enough about Buddhism to make authoritative statements about their definitions".

The ball is in your court when you respond to them. The OP is incoherent TO YOU because you are not comprehending any conceptual argument being made. So according to you, YOU don't understand what they are saying and it invalidates them. Perhaps you could use some "self" awareness.

1

InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jawfgkh wrote

> The OP is incoherent TO YOU

That's not the argument. The argument is that the whole article is talking about how the Buddhist definition of self doesn't make sense and how the self is an illusion. Hence the Buddhist definition of self is incoherent.

I mainly agree with the article that the Buddhist definition of self probably has no useful application in the world or your world view.

But that's fine since nothing hinges on the Bhuddisht idea of self, it's all based on materialist definitions of self.

0