I have posted here some essays from the Speculative Non-buddhism blog that I think are of relevance to my project here.
I have also posted a PDF of the entire text of the previous instantiation of this blog, attempting to make a thorough study of the concept of dependent origination, but abandoned while less than half complete.
All of these writings have garnered a surprising volume of hostile response and prompted not a few personal attacks (including threats of physical assualt), but to date nobody has made a single argument refuting them, and some readers have mentioned they found the essays particularly helpful.
The negative response is usually of two kinds: 1)You are wrong, but I won’t say why because only the initiated mystic could understand your error, or 2) You are wrong because there is a transcendent consciousness that is in every way exactly described by the definition of “atman” but is not an atman because we use a different word for it (true self, substrate consciousness, pure mind, etc.). Both are usually accompanied by inane assertions that I am a postmodernist and so obviously wrong, and that I must be angry and mean, because I am attached to thinking and only an angry unhappy person would want to think. I mention this only because if you try to advance arguments like these, you will need to be prepared for these same foolish responses; some people just can’t handle the truth. I have begun to think that anyone who makes such responses is best ignored, and energy focused on those who are in a subject position more amenable to awakening.
Feel free to copy or distribute these essays, if they are of interest to you.
The Faitfhul Buddhist
Cruel Theory | Sublime Practice