/lit/ - Literature

>>21045819
>God I love having an immortal soul bros.
No.
>We're all gonna make it.
Yes.

>>20643838
>aaaa save me from the world you made sky rabbi
hmm indeed... truly what did he mean by this? Why did your all powerful god create the world as a cosmic prison and set his son up as warden? Did he need a summer job or something? Are we banished here just so Jesus has something to put on his resume? At least the Buddhist attempts at a non-stupid explanation for why we experience any misery, suffering, distress etc. and taught methods to overcome it, none of which involve begging God to stop hurting you because you promise to be obedient.

Baudrillard would be horrified with this

>>20354995
He's not wrong

>>20231190
And some dead jew isn't going to help me extricate myself from the world.

>>20086003
You've posted Dio in other threads haven't you

>>20049137
Keep seething about your histrionic delusions while the adults study the noble path

>>19993813
Cope springs eternal

>>19522938
>This is the Story of how Elliot Roger came to be
The Elliot Origins Manga goes further into detail when he founds a monastery of celibate gentlemen who worship him as the Supreme Gentleman. Women are demons who take on physical form and only Elliot Stand Users can see the spiritual truth. And so they'll hate him because he's the hero they need but not the hero they deserve. His death never happened either. A fanatical follower took his place for him. But Elliot must go on as a fugitive in Gynocratic clown world until he overcomes Mother Merkel in an epic lightsaber battle. But can he contain the raging beast that dwells within him?

>>19496399
>>19496425
Doesn't Buddhism becoming more "traditional" as time went on refute Guenon's own thesis? If the mahavairocana tantra is more in line with "Tradition" than the Brahmajala Sutta it seems like there is an obvious problem with his entire framework of metaphysical degeneration

>>19403220
You're a cognisant, breathing shit-post with a keyboard in front of you. You are deliberately being unwholesome and picking fault with someone just trying to have a good time jiving over a book they like and you should feel bad for taking out your frustrations that you didn't deal with and are projecting your own insecurities on others trying to be better than yesterday.

You act like everyone is in a static perpetual state, and as if you, at your current state, are the epitome of the status quo and if anyone is not you, you get to gatekeep and name call.

Go bully your own dick, you smooth brained dopamine fiend.

>>19388750
Emptiness is form, sweetie

>>19129239
Start with the jeets, not ex-protestants fleeing the wreck of God and projecting their nihilism into everything

>>19117593
Yes. Start with the Jeets.

Materialism has inherited from Galileo, Descartes, Locke, and other modern thinkers, a highly mathematical conception of the material world, according to which matter possesses only quantifiable 'primary qualities', such as spatial location, motion, size, etc., and is devoid of anything corresponding to so-called 'secondary qualities', such as colour, smell, sound, taste, heat, cold, etc., at least in the way common sense understands these qualities. In this understanding, if you want to redefine a quality, such as 'being red' for example, in terms of 'the tendency of certain objects to absorb and reflect certain wavelengths of light', then only you can say that 'an apple is red'. But if by 'being red' you mean what common sense means by 'being red', namely 'what red looks like to a normal observer', but would not look like to a colour-blind observer, then there is nothing in the apple itself that corresponds to that, and you cannot really say that 'an apple is red'. And the same is true of other colours, tastes, smells, sounds, etc. Irreducibly qualitative characteristics were taken by early modern philosophers and scientists to exist only as qualia of experience - as parts of the veil of perceptions through which we are aware of the material world, not as parts of the material world itself.

But if you define matter in this way, then you are already implicitly engaged in a form of dualism, whether you realise it or not. For if you say that colours, smells, sounds, tastes, etc., as common sense understands these characteristics, do not exist in matter, this implies that they do not exist in the brain either, since the brain is no less material than the objects outside it. Therefore, if you also say that these characteristics exist in the mind, in our conscious experience of matter, then you are saying that the mind is not material. Thus, a Cartesian-type dualism is in no way a strange kind of resistance to the modern scientific mode of explanation, but on the contrary follows from it. Indeed, early modern thinkers, such as Malebranche and Ralph Cudworth, insisted on it. Oddly, most contemporary philosophers and scientists seem blind to the fact that a Cartesian dualism is lodged at the root of the modern scientific understanding of matter - although Schrödinger is one of the scientists who saw the connection between the two, as is Thomas Nagel among the philosophers.

(1/2)

If you had any knowledge of either subject and weren't just skimming wikipedia you wouldn't be posting your slash fiction masquerading as philosophy here. Therefore it is safe to assume you are some breed of midwit. You yourself cannot even produce in your post a single Buddhist or Platonist text that you consider influential. It is all pulled from your ass.

>>18716134
Western buddhism is garbage. Read the source material and ignore American popularizers. Hence the chart's emphasis on the texts and not secondary or tertiary lit from people who read about Zen once and did a lot of pot.

>>18665190
we must await the coming of the indo-indoist