/lit/ - Literature

How is Nirvana different from annihilation

>>16396551
>What is your conception of nirvana that distinguishes it from death, if in it, you will cease to exist, cease to have experience of anything, cease to have a self?
Nirvana can't be explained in a 4chan post
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Mind-Stilled_HTML.htm

>So you have anormal thoughts, anormal preferences?
what?

>Because it is very strange to want to cease to exist in order to stop suffering
to you

>Is that really your answer, you want to cease to have experiences of anything because you fear suffering
Attainment of Nirvana is the answer

>I said that many people on their dying bed will tell you their life was mostly good and enjoyable
sounds like you made this up
many/most people doing something is meaningless even if what you're saying is true.

>do you really deny that most people find pleasure in food, and when they die, regret not having had lived longer and partaken in more pleasures?
I never said that though.
Also the goal of Buddhism is enlightenment not "no regrets" on your death bed.

>It's the common experience of anyone who's been around very old people that if there is anything they still enjoy, it's eating, being with their family, etc., and that most want this to keep going for as long as possible
what old people enjoy is irrelevant to buddhism

>Why is nirvana to be desired
Nirvana is the ceasing of all suffering

>how do you know they show the way to get there
pic related

>and how do you know what they say regarding other topics is true
meditation and practicing the dharma

>So you think I sincerely thought micro-cephalics and two-months old babies had tried meditating? Are you pretending to be stupid?
you were wrong and are sperging when called out. moving on..

>My argument is that meditation doesn't get most people to the conclusions you've gotten to
yeah this is exactly what the buddha taught no Buddhist relies on meditation'alone. stop reaching like that :^)

>>16200518
>I do, however, disagree with the idea of trying to be faithful to Early Buddhism. There is no "Early Buddhism",
Early Buddhism refers to the first few hundred years of Buddhism. So yes there is.

>There are no "Early Buddhist" meditation centers
I never said "Early Buddhist" was a tradition like Zen or something idk what you're getting at here.

>What we have is what we have. If you're some king or powerful leader who wants to make his own Buddhist school by cobbling together various things to make a Buddhist tradition that fits his people, yeah, sure, but otherwise I don't see the value in it for a beginner
what are you talking about? You're arguing against a point no one is making

>As an scholarly exercise, it's great, and I encourage such things, but again, OP isn't a scholar
I never argued that OP was a scholar

>If OP can't navigate the Pali Canon, or figure out the context of Narajuna's works, then he's at a very specific problem, that I feel is best solved by taking one tradition, learning about it, and expanding from there.
The chart is an introduction to Buddhism not "What to read if you can't understand Narajuna"

>I also feel that at some level fetishizing "Early Buddhism"
An introduction to Buddhism that includes Early Buddhist texts isn't fetishizing those texts
What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing to rationalize this one?

>Buddhism is a tool to get at Dharma, focusing on the Buddhism over the Dharma is just missing the forest for the trees
Buddhism is the Dharma

>hollow ritualism
>feminized priestly class
no thanks I seek true liberation from samsara

Joke
Being a larper with D&D type mythology that was invented by Christians in Iceland 1000 years after the last pagans died out

Woke
Following the last unbroken chain of tradition given to us by the Indo Aryans.