/lit/ - Literature

hi /lit/
i hope this is the right board to ask
can someone explain pic related to me? what is going on here? npc finding enlightenment?

i want to shed a tear under a rainbow sky. how do i get there?

>>20282460
Forgot pic

Mu

>>19940615
baste

>>19873402
>But the ultimate outcome of the Dhamma path is Nibbana, something that even if its true, I don't necessarily find life-affirming

>>19790054

What makes someome addicted to suffering?

>>17505089

>>17217418

>>17201918
This is the greatest filter and I don't mean it ironically or in a demeaning sense

I'm just here to shitpost and lol at clueless anons who think they know shit about the occult

It's all entertainment for me

>they're still arguing and obsessed with words and concepts
You cannot be shown the truth, you can only experience it.

>>17108886
>he got filtered

>>17061178
Because you get it.

>>16659494
yeah, i think this is why the advaitins usually stay on the offensive in these threads. the moment they actually have to explain what they believe, it just turns into a big autistic incoherent mess. it's no wonder no one in india believes this shit. if you have to spend ten posts each hitting the character limit going line by line defending your belief that you're an NPC and don't actually experience thought, you're making a critical fucking error.

these fags should less time talking about thought and more time observing it.

>>16397589
>So Buddhism claims you can understand Nirvana and its internal contradictions without experiencing it?
when did i say this?
>Anyway, I'm just showing you one way the instanciation of logical contradictions is sometimes argued. If you don't want to do it at all it's fine.
you don't understand a buddhist concept and cry logical contradictions

>I'm trying to get why you believe it, so unless you don't care about having rational motives behind your beliefs at all, that doesn't really change anything.
like I said. meditation and practicing the Dharma

>So you just disregard the possibility for no good reason. What a stupid thing to say.
deal with it

>What are you even saying? I'm just describing what atheists believe. I'm not saying it's true or false.
who says thats what atheists believe? you?

>You said you'd stop existing. Are you now denying that that's also the disappearance of your consciousness? I said multiple times before that's how I understood it.
I said ending all suffering is pretty desirable.
you said:
Not if it requires you to stop having any kind of experience
to which i replied with
and where do you get this from? your feelings?
how is your reply in anyway related to that/

>How do you justify the desire to end suffering taking priority to the desire to have a variety of other mental states aside from non-suffering?
because that is what the Buddha taught

>Remember Buddhism has as its goal the enlightenment of all conscious beings, so it has to be something else than "I prefer it".
Yes the buddha taught that the end of suffering is preferable to suffering

>>16203496
Precisely.

>>15984172
The beauty of the precepts is that they are impossible for ordinary human beings to fully observe. The precept against killing is an example of this. My body's immune system kills all lifeforms that it doesn't recognize. I step on and crush innumerable microorganisms. But the first precept asks us to minimize the amount of harm we do in the world. The precepts are trainings, not commandments.

So, is this picture true, or not?

>>15464007
this

But I'd also add to your post the fact that Shankara hasn't actually said much about Nagarjuna and his Madhyamaka but he simply slandered it as 'nihilism' (the same label other Hindus slap Advaita with btw), unfortunately for him Nagarjuna actually dealt with this accusation in detail since the same accusations of nihilism were leveled by his contemporaries and the later Yogacarins such as Asanga.

So either Shankara didn't bother reading Madhyamaka texts and just lazily parroted what other Buddhists have been saying, or he didn't want to shine too much light on Madhyamaka to the wider Hindu audience lest they reveal his overt plagiarism. In the end it didn't work out well for him anyway, Ramanuja and Madhva pretty much pointed out the crypto-buddhism of Advaita and destroyed their chances at monopolizing hindu thought (only neo-vedantists subscribe to Advaita).