/lit/ - Literature

>>12497326
yes

>>12497326
Buddhism isn't nihilistic. The Buddha teaches us that our actions matter and have serious consequences, and he teaches an entire system of ethics similar to other major religions. Life-denying, sure, but that's a Nietzschian term for brainlets. By the way, the end of suffering is the end of the cycle of samsara, there is literally no more identity after that, since identity view is what leads to suffering in the first place.

Buddhism isn't a region. It's a way of life.

>>12497366
Top bait my friend

>>12497356
so you'll be dispersed into the void, then?

>>12497326
>but doesnt say what happens after extinguishment
Pure lands/abodes

>>12497372
Ancient Buddhists probably considered extinguishment or "Nibbana" more like union with Brahmin or some other all pervasive, supernatural being, considering Buddhism is at its roots a
derivative of Brahminism

>>12497366
>has heavens, hells, gods, demons
>has supernatural karma and a system of ethics
>but it's not a religion because it doesn't involve symbol worship like my Christianity

>>12497372
It's a return to the state that's always existed, but you've forgotten due to your karma over countless eons

>>12497395
From what I understand Pure Land teaches that those realms/states exist so that in the next life one can have an easier time attaining enlightenment, but those sects which teach that still consiser that final enlightenment obliderates individuality and ends rebirth and the cycle of life as a living being, it's not as though they just replace Nirvana with a pure land, or at least that was how I understood it.

>>12497410
how is that different from oblivion?

>>12497430
Oblivion is an illusion created by a mind bonded by karma. Nirvana - or cessation - is a cessation of that karma, not of existence.

>>12497424
The Lotus Sutra is quite explicit that Buddha's and their pure lands are eternal and always occupied.

>Constantly I have dwelled on Holy Eagle Peak, this, my land, remains safe and tranquil, my pure land is not destroyed.

>>12497326
>is this religion a fraud?
All religions are.

>inb4 *tips fedora

>>12497453
Are you one of those crypto-Hindus who just prefer Buddhist imagery?

>>12497441
You're absolutely wrong, go read the Nikayas instead of whatever second hand sources you're using. The Buddha explicitly states that existence itself is suffering because it is inextricably tied up with aging, death, identity view, etc. the cessation of birth through disenchantment and the nullification of kamma is what ends Samsara

>>12497466
I mean Mahayana Buddhism is basically crypto-Hinduism, so I guess yeah.

>>12497467
You cling too tightly to the dharma.

>>12497366
just be yourself

>>12497410
what went wrong with nibbana that karma started?

>dude how can we waste our life and feel as much indifference to it as possible

yeah it's a scam.

>>12497491
I don't cling to it and I don't identify as a Buddhist--my beliefs mostly come from philosophy. But I've read the nikayas and I don't appreciate it when people try to claim their own synthesis of Western/philosophy/Hinduism/Buddhism/whatever IS Buddhism.

>>12497467
There is no self to extinguish though

>>12497408
The only thing you need to reach Nibbana is examination of all experience in terms of Three Characteristics
>has heavens, hells, gods, demons
>has supernatural karma and a system of ethics
These are not immediately verifiable and not timeless (akalika)
>>12497467
Right but one can abide in Nibbana here and now without dying. One can see cessation of all twelve links of Dependent Arising in meditation without dying and reincarnating.
Source: Nanavira Thera

>>12497515
Nothing, you're already enlightened, and you are retro-actively realising this right now despite an illusionary perception of being "unenlightened" "right now."

It's a mindfuck, but if it wasn't then enlightenment would be as easy as thinking about it, relatively speaking of course.

>>12497518
>Ancient Buddhists probably considered extinguishment or "Nibbana" more like union with Brahmin
There is no evidence of that in Nikayas and all philosophically mature enough and major branches of Buddhism would disagree

>>12497441
>oblivion is an illusion created by a mind bonded by karma
how can a mind produce oblivion when oblivion is the absence of any consciousness?

>>12497586
>the absence of any consciousness?
Such a thing does not exist.

>>12497594
then what is nibbana if it still has consciousness?

>>12497459
*tips fedora*

annihilationism vs eternalism is a dichotomy the buddha explicitly denies

nirvana only looks like a void when you're on the inside of samsara, and this fear of the void is in fact one of the many methods it uses to keep you there

>>12497605
Ok, I'm not enlightened, nor am I a Buddhist, so feel free to take or leave what I'm about to say. But basically, I feel like it's too easy for overly-eager Westerners to learn about Buddhism, read that the Buddha "denied the existence of consciousness", and then assume that means that somehow "consciousness is illusionary" or some other borderline-nihilistic sentiment.

Perhaps this may be true, from an absolute, nirvana POV, but for our practical purposes I feel it is deeply unhelpful to think like this. Once I got over my Buddhist ego (funnily enough) and accepted that by accepting the idea of consciousness as existent, things very quickly made a lot more sense and I actually began to feel myself understanding the dharma MORE, not less. You have to remember, the Buddha taught using language specifically for a group of people in a time and place totally alien to ours, so a lot of the nuance of his message gets lost in translation. Perhaps the idea of consciousness being illusionary helped people overcome their egos in 5th century BC northern India, but for the 21st century Western world, such an idea usually bonds people to their karma, not releases them.

>>12497645
also words like consciousness were more or less specific words on buddhism that may or may not encompass what we know label as consciousness or encompass things we consider outside of consciousness now

>>12497672
Yes, that too. Buddhist words for "consciousness" can include "buddhi", "citta", "vijnana", etc., despite all of these having subtle distinctions in meaning that don't translate well in English. To just outright say "the Buddha said consciousness doesn't exist" is to pass on an idea that has - at best - only has a tangential relation to history.

>>12497694
So what is the buddhist position on consciousness then?

>>12497702
My position, to you? It exists.

>>12497702
It's empty, so it doesn't exist as thing in itself

>>12497702
They don't even know that word.

>>12497326
Buddhism is a vague, meaningless, pile of filth. It’s no better than Stoicism. Both philosophies try to avoid the negatives in life, the negatives born from our desires and emotions, but what positives are you to seek after? There are none! Avoiding the negatives of life is in itself a good thing from which you can derive joy and contentment! Don’t you know that being free from all desires, or that being VIRTUOUS is the best source of happiness? How can anyone be appealed to this empty nonsense? In Christianity, there is the good and the bad. We have to not only avoid sins that are clearly defined in the Bible but we have to seek after God, the greatest thing imaginable. Jesus wasn’t some middle aged prince or king trying to formulate a philosophy arbitrarily in an attempt to fix his own personal problems in life. No, Jesus is the Son of God. It takes faith to believe it, but I’d rather have faith in absolute truth rather than a guess at the universe. Not only that, but a good Christian will be a good Buddhist, but if Christianity is true, then the Buddhist may suffer in the afterlife. Why anyone would choose such boring, shallow philosophies like Buddhism is a disgrace to both reason and faith.

>>12497702
generally not explicit, but consistent push of panpsychism is notable

but who believe panpsychism seriously. you know.

>>12497326
I don't understand Buddhism: the post

>>12497854
>implying there's anything to understand
buddhist claims are not discursive rational claims

>>12497891
what is so hard to understand that the physical realm is filled with pain and attachment to this realm is the cause of suffering? This is rational and actually supported by science

>>12497891
But Buddha wrote it all down. He became enlightened. He has to be accurately describing the universe

>>12497916
the buddha was not just making claims about this """realm""" whatever that means:
>https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html
>Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:
>There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.
>>12497917
>But Buddha wrote it all down
if by ""all"" you mean some, the Buddha provided instructions for enlightenment, whatever that is, but he refused to answer metaphysical claims, because they were not conducive to promote enlightenment
>https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
>"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.
>"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

>>12497828
I enjoy the irony in this post. Keep it up.

>>12497471
Yes and No, there are obviously the signs of Hindu Tantric and Upanishad-like ideas in Mahayana, but there is also evidence that elements of pre-canonical Buddhism survived in the Mahayana tradition but which was mostly left out of or obscured in the PC, a number of academics have written about this. This also fits the glove that Theravada descends from the minority group who broke away at the 2nd council while the proto-Mahayana majority Mahasamghika wanted to keep things the same.

>>12497916
Don't pretend that there aren't still a whole boatload of unfalsibile metaphysical claims in Buddhism that one has to accept even under the dryest most bare-bones forms of it.

>>12498026
The same could be said of Christianity. Try to explain how Heaven and Hell can exist

>>12498026
You have to make a whole boatload of assumptions to figure out what constitutes a bare-boned form of Buddhism.

>>12498035
nobody's claiming christianity is scientific and a description of the physical world
>>12498081
there's no such thing as bare-boned Buddhism, just californian buddhism which is basically liberalism with some ritual for color

>What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?
>"...yes..."
>And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?
>"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"
>If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?
>"...yes..."
>And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?
>"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

Can anyone explain to me how 'unbouned' isn't equal to eternal oblivion? If there is no fuel (karma) for rebirth, you won't be reborn (which is why the Buddha repeats the formula 'This is my last birth, now there is no more renewed existence'). But if you won't be reborn, you basically cease indefinitely. And if you cease indefinitely, you're just eternally obliterated. Is this what the Buddha meant by the 'end of this whole mass of suffering'? I mean it would make sense that suffering completely ends where the possibility of suffering could not begin, but that just means life itself ends.

>>12498088
You claimed Buddhism is based on "a whole boatload of unfalsibile metaphysical claims". So is Christianity.

What do you guys consider the most based religion in the world? Try to be unbiased, and not merely claim your own. But out of all of them, looked at from every angle, which do you think has the most depth, and the world would be best off by having the most people following? Which would be best for the world? It can be a really unknown one too.

>>12498093
>you're just eternally obliterated
No, you enter a state of non-retrogression and leave samsara, but you can still choose to manifest in samsara for the sake of all sentient beings. Your ego ceases to exist.
Enlightenment, then, is a state that is beyond all conceptual knowledge (being samsara) but can manifest within samsara as righteous knowledge (dharma), limitless merit (buddha field), and as a righteous consciousness (bodhi being).
A Buddha is not obliterated, but is rather existing in all timeless points. Linear time is a delusion.

>>12498088
There's no such thing as Buddhism, because every Buddhist follow what their teacher say, not Suttas directly. We aren't even sure if Suttas are Buddha's words.

>>12498119
>There's no such thing as Buddhism, because every Buddhist follow what their teacher
come on, you can literally say that shit about any word, don't try this shit on me

>>12498093
you're operating on conventional binary logic of B or not B. Indians at the time of the Buddha we're operating on the logic of 'fourfold negation' meaning there were things they regarded as B, not B, B and not B, neither B nor not B. The Buddha took it a step further and regarded nibbana, among other things, as 'beyond' even the fourfold classification. What does that mean? It means there is not direct answer to questions like 'does one exist in some state or cease eternally upon parinibbana (final nirvana)'? It simply doesn't apply.

>>12498104
so? this is a buddhist thread not a christian thread, and people above were claiming as if buddhism is just a plain description of physical reality with no metaphysical claims

>>12498119
by that metric, there are no revealed religions at all and billions of their practitioners are imaginary

>>12498088
>there's no such thing as bare-boned Buddhism, just californian buddhism which is basically liberalism with some ritual for color
Curb your autism. Of course there is.

>>12498113
>A Buddha is not obliterated, but is rather existing in all timeless points
this isn't true. A Buddha cannot even be classified as 'existing' after worldly death.

>>12498110
Christianity, for several reasons.
>predicted/prophesied by an existing religion
>Jesus performed miracles (proved that he is not merely a philosopher)
>acknowledges that we sin, offers a remedy
>acknowledges that God exists and is sovereign
>can be practiced by anyone (God desires that “all” men be saved)
>its founders did not gain anything by professing their beliefs, whereas, for example, Mohammed and his followers gained lots of wealth and power

>>12498130
>It means there is not direct answer to questions like 'does one exist in some state or cease eternally upon parinibbana (final nirvana)'? It simply doesn't apply.
does the buddha affirm this at any point? i see him refusing to answer on >>12497948 but he doesn't say there is no answer, just that getting the answer won't lead you any closer to liberation so he prefers to shutup about it

>>12498138
>Christianity
he said BASED, not cucked

>>12498135
there isn't a bare-bones buddhism because when you cut the things you consider "superfluous" you are already applying an ideology external to buddhism to decide what to cut and what not

so you are just changing buddhism from outside to make it conform to your preconceptions, not getting at some base and pure buddhism

>>12498136
From the conventional standpoint, yes they do. How can the Amida buddha then manifest as the nembutsu in all points in linear time, the points of which are themselves timeless?
A lot of this debate seems to just be a misunderstanding of Buddhist ontology. From the ultimate level, nothing can be said to exist or not exist, or simultaneous not exist and exist, etc. But that's a moot point when speaking of our conventional, perceived reality.

>>12498127
You started it.
>>12498133
Buddhism is not a bunch of unverifiable claims.

>>12498146
The pope’s words are not supported by the Bible. You can’t judge a religion by its followers. And I’m not Catholic, obviously. There’s nothing unbiblical about maintaining a homogenous culture

>>12498110
Asking that is just like posting a poll of what people's religions are, almost everyone will just say what they believe in or would believe in if they weren't agnostic/athiest. It doesn't really serve any useful discussion and asking that in a Buddhism thread will often just lead to Buddhists and non-Buddhists getting into petty arguments (which happens anyways but doing that makes it more off-topic)

>>12498155
>Buddhism is not a bunch of unverifiable claims.
here we go again, we are just going in circles

>>12498144
the buddha says on multiple occasions that questions of such nature 'does not apply' which yields no direct answers to the question.

>>12498130
I've read before that some academics consider that to be an invention of later Buddhist thinkers and not something taught by Buddha

>>12498155
Revealed religions simply means any religion founded by a revelator as opposed to shamanisms or animisms which have no definable founder. Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism are all revealed religions.

>>12498168
but that can either mean that there is no answer or that he refuses to answer

Is In The Words of Buddha a good intro book to Buddhism? I've heard good things.

>>12498150
That's literally part of what buddhist teachers do. You don't need to memorize and understand every Sutta before you start your practice.

>>12498182
No, you should meditate under a tree if you actually care. What books did Buddha read?

>>12498187
Hegel

>>12498138
But there are so many internal issues too, such as the notion of unbelievers being sent to Hell, or of other cultures having to tear down their own forms or worship due to them involving "idols" or similar, or of the existence and treatment of homosexuals. Then there's the problems regarding the theology itself, namely the events of Genesis and their implications, the notions of Biblical inerrancy, and so much else. The excessive power given to the institutions, as opposed to the masses, the former of whom may (and have) then abuse it and keep the populace enslaved to their own corrupted ideologies. There's also the Problem of Evil or of God's seeming silence to our world's problems, which haven't yet received effective answers. How would all of these be dealt with?

>>12498183
and buddhist teachers literally give lectures about how the buddha saw all of the past lives of beings with his magical eye and couldn't find a beginning

which part you decide is essential, the story about the magical eye or the meditation without a story, is up to you and your preconceptions

>>12498155
It's not "just unverifiable claims" but Buddhism certainly contains them in every school and they form a core part of its teachings

>>12498175
both of those can be true. The Buddha explains that questions of such nature as described cannot be applied so as to produce answers that fit into the fourfold classification. That is why 'they do not apply' ie there is no direct answer that would satisfy the questioners preconceptions. But he also does not go beyond and try to satisfy the questioner further. He simply says that further speculation will not entail release.

Buddhism is the only way
read Nagarjuna

>>12498182
Yes

>>12498187
He very likely either read or heard oral recitals of the Vedas, pre-Buddhist Upanishads and some of the earliest Jain and Samkhya literature

>>12498187
>What books did Buddha read?
I don't think writing was a thing in his time and place. He was definitely familiar with knowledge of other traditions though.

>>12498199
>notion of unbelievers being sent to Hell
Wrong for what reason, exactly? God is in control of the universe
>existence and treatment of homosexuals.
Homosexuality is a sin like the others. It’s an indulgence in pleasure, it separates one from God. Homosexuality is treated so differently compared to other sins because it is more overt and permanent. A gay man is always perceived as a gay man. His sin is always on display.
>namely the events of Genesis and their implications
Metaphors. Read Swedenborg. Every verse has a spiritual meaning.
>The excessive power given to the institutions
Vague. What Biblical evidence supports this, anyway?
>Problem of Evil
Evil is a problem to humans, sure, just as humans are a problem to animals we hunt and kill and enslave. God creates the world for HIS motivations, not ours. The existence of evil is necessary in a rational world. Can you really imagine the alternative? Humans create literature with conflict, do they not?

>>12498234
Nagarjuna either intentionally or unintentionally uses dishonest and incomplete arguments in his MMK. Is he an interesting thinker worth reading if you already accept the tenets of Buddhism and want to deepen your intellectual understanding of it? Yes. Does Nagarjuna refute all opposing philosophical/metaphysical views and prove that his interpretaion of Buddhism and sunyata is the truth? Not in the slightest.

>>12498174
The difference is that anyone's Enlightenment is equal to that of Buddha's (except some things that aren't direct goap of Buddhism), becomes a sort of secondary revelator himself and doesn't need Suttas anymore.

>>12498218
>>12498224
Buddha encouraged verifying teachings.

>>12498304
>verifying
by personal subjective experience, which is not exactly the subject matter of science

>>12498320
But you can verify what is essential, what is helpful and what is not. Constant and encouraged verification of teachings is what made Buddhism so diverse.

>samsara is the reason why we don't just off ourselves
So the answer is nuclear global anhiliation.

>>12498376
Universal life

>>12498357
>>12498357
>But you can verify what is essential, what is helpful and what is not
that presupposes the human capacity of doing those things without deluding yourself, which is one very big assumption

and i am not against buddhism, but thinking this is just some sort of scientific endeavor seems like self-delusion to me, faith in the buddha, the dharma and the sangha is often stressed in the scriptures, yes, at some point your are supposed to see directly by yourself, but that's way along the line, not just where you get by starting from nothing. once crossed the river you can discard the raft, but you have to cross i first

>>12498357
you verify that meditation works the same way you verify that talking with god works, by subjective feedback, which is not really a very good measure by modern standards

>>12498270
how is he dishonest?

>>12498254
Good post

>>12497408
>Ancient Buddhists probably considered extinguishment or "Nibbana" more like union with Brahmin or some other all pervasive, supernatural being, considering Buddhism is at its roots a derivative of Brahminism
thi is not true

>>12499828
t. Demiurge

its not a "religion"

>>12498796
You can read a large excerpt of an article posted in a thread pointing out holes in the logic of the MMK here

>>/lit/thread/S12384232#p12388084

Nagarjuna does not act as if he is merely discussing hypotheticals but asserts his ideas as fact by stating truisms. Either unintentionally or intentionally he avoids addressing certain arguments which might defeat his claims. Some of these arguments are based on ideas already existing in his time and they should not have been unforeseen to him. It may be possible he was convinced he had addressed all possible refutations, but as the article points out he pigeonholes his imagined opponent's objections into convoluted positions in such a way that it seems he is intentionally avoiding addressing the actual problems one can point to in his logic. In other words, it's dishonest to act as though one can state truisms because one has refuted all possible objections the imagined opponent would raise if you havn't actually done ao. It seems more likely than not IMO somewhere along the line this was a conscious decision, and it's not as though he failed to cover every line of attack by every type of Hindu philosopher but as the article notes there are positions he argues against that even the schools of Buddhism he was trying to refute wouldn't agree with. If it was completely unintentional it would not be dishonest but would just be very poor logic and form. The author of the article concludes:

>The nature of the Madhyamika trick is now quite clear. It consists of (a) reading into the opponent's views a few terms which one defines for him in a self-contradictory way, and (b) insisting on a small set of axioms which are at variance with common sense and not accepted in their entirety by any known philosophy.

Shout in the dark here, but consider that there’s a difference between intellectual discussion of Buddhism and experience gained from meditation. This is not to oppose people in this thread interestingly talking about Buddhist doctrine and philosophy, but rather those talking about how Buddhism is a “life-denying philosophy”, can’t be verified, and so on. At heart, the meditation experience is about going beyond discursive and conceptual thought, so it’s interesting how easily it’s brought into the realm of discursive and conceptual thought. I recommend studying Zen.

>>12497326
if you go deep enough you will understand, but the key is letting go when you come to a road block down this rabbit hole.

You don't need to follow the buddhist teachings to become "enlightened" or "awake". If i recall a koan saying that an enlightened master recognized enlightenment in a commoner who never studied in a monastery or whatever.

Have you ever thought about dichotomies? Life versus Death, male versus female, human versus unhuman. Have you ever tried to conceive of something outside of this dichotomy? People get to hung up on formal logic or reason: "If this, then that!". But this is the default mode we think. We cannot see causality, since causality is infinite. Can you see what is going on when you flick a light switch on? No, its just automatic - the light goes on or the light goes off. To see every event/point where change is happening would take an eternity (infinity). This is the beauty of the numbers 0 and 1, and it kinda makes sense that computers operate and compute foundationally on 0's and 1's. Its ironic because the liberal obsession with escaping the binary is actually just creating more and more binaries. And this goes to problem of identification.

Realize that identification is judgement, and judgement is identification. When you identify with something, you enter a binary. I am this, I am not that. What the Buddha and others have been trying to teach is Awareness. Awareness of each passing moment, free from judgement. Because to judge something is try to control that thing. Thats how we humans operate to survive in this world, we are desiring machines that are designed to fulfill our desires. The simple act/thought of desire implies negation, the idea that you are lacking something. This lack is what brings suffering.

The problem with language, is that no matter how masterful you are with it, you can never transmit your own conscious experience to another. Language acts on the faith that the person receiving it can relate.

Our perception and consciousness can be two separate things.

once you get it, life becomes kinda funny. We try to figure out what that thing is, then we reason and pick a part to try and figure out what that thing is! We go deeper and deeper! Look, what is the thing over there?! That is a mountain! Is it really though? What makes it a mountain? where do you draw the line? What is the boundary? You'll realize that there are no boundaries, that they are man-made. They arent real, spooks, whatever. This goes with every single aspect of life. Analytic vs Continental, left verse right, right versus wrong. There is no such thing.

If you keep thinking in 0's and 1's, you'll never be able to see the infinitude that is life. It's a meme, but the only thing you can control are your thoughts. And this the irony/paradox, if you try to control your thoughts, the more you think! yeah know, since to try and think is a negation, a desire for something you lack! But you dont lack anything at all!

>>12501774
Great comment - also I'd say a large part of understanding in western society is defusing the judgment we have from everything.

Meditation teaches you to 1) segregate your sense of self from your thoughts & emotions 2) show you how fickle and capricious these thoughts and emotions are.

Once you realize that thinking is a curse and should only be used when necessary as a tool - you stop judging things. IE I'm cold, which is bad, i need to be less cold. Or I'm tired, I wish I was here, I wish I was somewhere else.

Nihilism is phase one of deep meditation, but there's more which is appreciating what is in front of you without assigning society's ethical value to things.

>>12501774
imagine actually writing this

>>12501774
This is the problem with a lot of social movements in the world today, it's all just tribalism. The clinging and attachment to identification. I dont like that group, so I am with this group! Oh you think there are only two genders?!! you ARE WRONG. NO, YOU ARE DELUSIONAL, THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS STOP DENYING SCIENCE. blah blah blah. this is all just noise, its a trap to try and keep you in the circle, the loop. The modern world is neurotic and intoxicated with identification. It's just Us/Them. Its just binary. Everything is binary when you look and examine it. But to be aware, is to be a multiplicity and an infinity. Its all just perspective, your perspective is your reality. and if you really think your perspective is right, then it is right. To say you know the Truth is a lie. And i think there is a big misconception about what discovering the real Truth/ englightenment is. That you somehow transcend reality and become in infinite bliss. Everything you do is an action that expresses some desire, it is an attachment, a judgement. That is why enlightenment and Nirvana are two different things. Enlightenment is Awareness. Nirvana is "absolute" freedom.

Anyways... as the saying goes... if you know, you know... hahahaha

>>12501787
Imagine dismissing a thousands of years old spiritual system embraced by millions that has maintained relevance by trying to understand its complex experiential elements through casual thought while hentai buffers

>>12501783
It's really tough for a lot of people to separate themselves from self and thoughts. But what is amazing when you learn to stop judging things, is that it can pervade the entirety of your experience.

I believe mediation is just like exercise, the more you do it, the better you are at it. And that is just how humans are designed. The more we do something, the better we are at it. The more we are aware of something, the better we are at becoming aware!

>>12501818
How can you judge someone for not understanding or knowing? You can't blame a child for not knowing quantum theory. We're all on the same vibration.

>>12501818
Congratulations! You just discovered non-dualistic thought! Wow, you are so enlightened! You are an example to all buddhists!
0% of what you wrote is actually Buddhist teachings, it's just your "spiritual" rambling. You are literally just saying DUDE BUDDHISM LMAO.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to say that Buddhism is closer to the truth than any other religion, but you're just deluded. If you claim to know the truth then you don't actually know it, you are no different than all the retards claiming to be "enlightened".

>>12502111
You still have your blinders on. This is why the Buddha promoted the idea that you should verify things for yourself. But that is the great irony. You havent experienced it, or havent realized it, so you dont believe it. And you will never experience it until you do. So, of course you will discount what is said because you dont know.

The problem is you are still searching for the truth from some philosophy, religion, idea, etc. I know it sounds ridiculous but the truth is in you hahaha.

Let me ask you this, when you learn a new concept in a book, is it you or the letters in the book does the learning? What is learning anyways? Isnt it discovering something? WHere does this discovery take place? In the mind of course! I can sense that you are still focused on this idea of dualism, non-dualism, and all the other schools/classifications/labels there are to distinguish different ideas and philosophies. You are so caught up on the teachings of Buddhism and how you can make your arguments against those teachings. All you are doing is just mental gymnastics.

It's funny that you said that I am claiming to be enlightened like all the other retards. What is your idea of enlightenment and truth?

The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao.

The truth cannot be expressed through words, only experienced. And I dont think I claimed to be enlightened.

>>12498254
>Read Swedenborg
oh, you're one of those

>>12497326
Yes

>>12498320
>which is not exactly the subject matter of science
What does a methodology for observing and making predictions about material phenomena have to do with this thread?

Buddhism is the only way, my friends

>>12502178
You still sound like some neo-hippie stoner who happened to read a couple of wikipedia articles about Buddhism.
All the questions you pose are irrelevant to me; the fact that you pose those questions can only mean you don't understand anything at all.
You also have an enormous lack of reading comprehension.
>It's funny that you said that I am claiming to be enlightened
I said you are LIKE those people, not that you are claiming to be enlightened.

P.S: Stop replying to my posts.

>>12501808
based and jordan petersonpilled

>>12498110
Shinto is the most based religion, it is interently nationalistic and communal

>>12502212
Do you not see your folly? I sound like a neo-hippie stoner? You make an assumption and judgement, and this keeps you from opening up to different perspectives. You are stuck in this narratives of compare and contrast, correct and wrong. You cling to these arbitrary details, like me failing to fully comprehend a comparison you made to some group you labeled. Why do you cling to this idea of authority? Why do you dismiss what I say because I'm not some scholar of Buddhism? Did the Buddha study the Buddhism? I am just trying to get you to question these presuppositions you have.

>>12502219
How is this jordan petersonpilled? I've never read or listened to his stuff, excpet through memes.

>>12502259
>How is this jordan petersonpilled?
>This is the problem with a lot of social movements in the world today, it's all just tribalism. The clinging and attachment to identification. I dont like that group, so I am with this group!

>>12502264
is that jordan petersons idea though?

>>12498138
Christianity is a repackaged Jewish cult to gentiles. It's obvious why the Jews rejected it when you read what they say on Jesus. There is no reason for us gentiles to be Christ's dogs

Polythiesm is the true calling of man, come home

>>12502303
>using politics as a religion

>>12498254
According to Christianity god sacrificed himself to save the beings he created from himself

>>12502259
hehe I win I had the last word

christianity is a religion created for women and poor men

>>12501774
>>Realize that identification is judgement, and judgement is identification.
yeah this is what philosophers claim. they say nirvana is lack of judgement because those retards say that ''I am unhappy because I judge, therefore bare awareness, lack of judgement will make me happy,the reality is good by itself''.

The point of the buddha is that people are unhappy because they have the wrong notion of good-bad, and nirvana has nothing to do with a lack of judgement.

Buddhism is poor man's hinduism, its basically a tool for delusional white women to act cultured these days

>>12501657
>consider that there’s a difference between intellectual discussion of Buddhism and experience gained from meditation
of course it's different, because each person that meditates comes with their own fevered dreams to explain their experience, while buddhism is a particular fevered dream

>>12501774
>But this is the default mode we think. We cannot see causality, since causality is infinite.
have you read anything about buddhism or are you just a larping californian? it doesn't negate causality at all, quite the contrary, "conditioned arising" is quite a central concept

>>12502199
the anon above was using the word "verify" to piggy back buddhism on the success of science and try to make it sound different to any other religion, but the way buddhists "verify" their beliefs is the same way any other religion does: by personal subjective experience

>>12502801
You verify things by and to yourself and that's enough. If you removed mental suffering then you're enligtened and you know you won the great prize.

>>12503002
again, that's literally like every other religion in the world, californians make it sound as if it is a unique feature of buddhism for some reason

>>12503017
Because it is. There is no Enlightenment in every other religion.

>>12503049
there's heaven, grace, and many other things, whether you think one is better than the others is personal preference and the proof for all of them is the same, self-reported subjective experience

>>12503049
It is in some schools of hinduism

>>12498146
>Catholics

>Christians

pick one.

>>12502211
>literally called "the middle way", acknowledging there are others
get a load of this clown

>>12503252
i pick Catholics of course

>>12503078
What is the same? What is this understanding of heaven and grace? What is the concept of heaven? something outside of you, somewhere you go to after you die? this is not the enlightenment buddha speaks of.

>>12502791
what are you saying? Let me ask you this, what is a thought? it is a judgement, it is a identification, it is dualistic, binary. I am not negating causality, the binary (default) mode of thinking blinds us to this causality, this karma.

Let me be careful. I am not saying we cannot see cause and effect, I am saying we cannot see infinity, the actual change this is going on.
Think of Utilitarianism, the goal is to maximize the amount of happiness/pleasure/whatever. But when and how do you know the good is maximized? What point do you say, "ah, yes, now everything is maximized!"
Let me give you an example. You are in middle school and you call someone stupid, and belittle that person. You plant a seed of karma (causality), which you cannot really know the end effects of, because like I said we cannot perceive change.

You dont need Buddhism to realize this, because it is already in you.

but wait a second...
I came here from somewhere, how do I know
that I won't come back ever again?

>>12503523
>this is not the enlightenment buddha speaks of.
i never said it is the same, i just said that all those concepts have the same standard of verification, personal subjective experience

>>12503523
Hinduism, Tantra, Jainism, Sikhism, Sufism and Neoplatonism all teach of attaining a state of spiritual pefection/bliss where one sees the truth and no longer suffers, certain Daoist texts and select Christian/Jewish mystic literature discuss this also. Most of these are the direct equivalent of the Buddhist enlightenment there is nothing particularly special about it. The Buddhist concept of enlightenment appeared long before it in the pre-Buddhist Hindu texts and if it's true as many academics think that Jainism predated Buddhism than it appeared before Buddhism with the Jains too. Buddha largely just reconfigured and flipped around a bunch of preexisting concepts with a long history predating him in Indian religious thought when he came up with Buddhism. Despite that they seem to think of themselves as open-minded critical thinkers free of dogma many Buddhists on /lit/ often seem stunningly ignorant of other religions and of the history of Buddhism and what it took from pre-existing stuff and so they come up with ridiculous ideas like Buddhism is the only religion that teaches of enlightenment.

>>12502787
You’re stupid.

>>12497326
>is this religion a fraud?

maybe it's the friends you make along the way

>>12503985
not an argument, just because buddhism appears more comfortable to your liberalism doesn't mean it's not a religion like any other

>>12504083
Enlightenment is verifiable within lifetime. Has distinct characteristics (behavior included) that sooner or later will be debunked or confirmed by science.
Other people's Enlightenment is equal to Buddha's
Has clear instructions from the start, with causal relations between actions and experiences. In other religions mystical experiences are more random, without clear instructions how to achieve them and exist more often than not as latter addition.
It shits on concepts of sacrum and the belief in efficacy of rituals.
In meditation and everyday mindfullness you go full anglo on experience, reducing everything into simple causes and effects.

How do hinduism and buddhism differ, exactly? I know Buddhism acknowledges that gods exist, so how are they different? Does hinduism see the wheel of samsara as something positive, while buddhism sees it as something negative?

>>12505503
Buddhism is a narrower interpretation of sanatana dharma. Siddhartha Gautama was preaching sanatana dharma during his time, he just mostly focused on enlightenment and escaping samsara and deliberately avoided talking about any other topics. Sort of like if you are standing in a field and someone shoots you with an arrow, you focus on removing the arrow and treating the wound before you would worry about who shot the arrow and why they did it.

>>12503936
There might be a misunderstanding, and that is on my side for making an assumption. I realize that most of these religions, or beliefs, have some kind of same thread that ties them together, but the commonplace identification of enlightenment is with buddha (at least in the west)

>>12500066
It is true. Modern Buddhism is a perverted version of its classic form.

>>12506929
>Modern Buddhism is a perverted version of its classic form
sure, but that doens't make that other statement true
>extinguishment or "Nibbana" more like union with Brahmin or some other all pervasive, supernatural being
Buddhism since the earliest source you can find explicitly denies all those terms "Brahmin", "all pervasive, supernatural 'being'". The anon who wrote that post is plainly ignorant about anything related to buddhist doctrines and history of its development since the early days. I invite you to read actual scholarly material instead of wikipedia articles.
>considering Buddhism is at its roots a derivative of Brahminism
This one is tricky because most would say it has some truth in it, but it's false at its core. It's not a "derivative" of Brahminism as much as marxism is a derivative of capitalism (to put a simple example). Again, it explicitly denies and actively goes against Brahmanism, it doesn't split as a derivative of it, it constantly subdues all its doctrines and Brahman itself to the Buddha. You're just dumb.

>>12497326
Has this single man figured out an entire school of religious literature?

>>12507470
yes

>>12504782
you are spooked and lower your standards for buddhism
>In other religions mystical experiences are more random
you are also clueless , buddhism is full of "spontaneous awakening" stuff

>>12507007
didn't Buddhism acknowledge the existence of Brahmin but insisted that even Brahmin was still within Samsara?

>>12497326
Being the Buddha is to simply exist as a stone or in complete meditation, according to Collins anyway.

I personally found the whole thing a bit vague and contradictory.

In one hand high level monks close to nirvana become super figures with Iddhi, or extreme powers Sich as flying teleportation, ant ma mn, etc.

Thén suddenly they enter stone form for eternity and never suffer or feel anything really again.

The process is so abstract and seemingly non-s’équipe. It’s kantian at times and yet at others doing good is considered anti-thetical to nirvana.

Basically it’s a mess

>>12497395
Pure Lands are pre Nirvana heaven like place where it’s easy to reach nirvana

>>12498104
How does unfalsifiability have any relevance at all (it’s basically dead outside of a few scienceism religious fags) to a discussion of spirituality

>>12498199
Your YouTube educTion is showing and you are a brainlet of the highest caliber if you think ANY of that drivel is a good objection to Christianity

>>12501774
Basedhayanna Californian buddhist détectéd

>>12502303
Why would Jews promote a heretic as a leader for gentiles? The whole premise is retarded

>>12509673
No

>>12509673
>>12509825
yes, the buddha literally has a chat with Brahma in the scriptures, maybe more than one
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html
in the same story he also agreed to teach the Dhamma only after checking with his magic eye that not all people were plebs
>Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As he did so, he saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world. Just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses — born and growing in the water — might flourish while immersed in the water, without rising up from the water; some might stand at an even level with the water; while some might rise up from the water and stand without being smeared by the water — so too, surveying the world with the eye of an Awakened One, the Blessed One saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them seeing disgrace and danger in the other world.

>>12508905
You're clueless when it comes to reading comprehension
>>12509673
Yes, but in Buddhist vertical cosmology it's just a bodied and mortal being deluded into believing he's the creator of the world due to seeing all lesser beings appearing after him and due to being unable to see beings above him.

>>12509764
Christianity is the greatest objection to Christianity, actually. I was merely listing a few, rather elementary issues. If I want to disprove the entire edifice at once, I'll just quote the Old Testament for you and remind you that you're literally spiritually-enslaved to the Demiurge himself.

>>12510841
Why didn’t you respond to >>12498254

>>12509673
Yeah that's why I said it "it constantly subdues all its doctrines and Brahman itself to the Buddha"
I don't understand your point.

>>12510720
>You're clueless when it comes to reading comprehension
no u

>>12497326
He wasn't really that tall IRL either

>>12509787
>all humans are equal
>give the other cheek
>the meek will inherit
Oh nonononono, BROS

>>12498254
>Humans kill animals
Yes, but humans don't demand eternal servitude from animals while threatening hellfire for all eternity if they fail to meet effectively impossible standards. The Christian God does this. And before anyone argues "effectively impossible," remember that one human in all of history, who was actually just God, was counted as having met these standards.
>The existence of evil is necessary...
By saying evil is necessary in any capacity, you're saying a lack of God is necessary. This, when the Christian ideal, basically the definition of heaven, is a universal oneness with God. Humans create literature with conflict because conflict it's interesting, not because we like it. To reiterate, we like HEARING about it, NOT experiencing it. And yes, I CAN imagine the alternative, just as well as any Christian with a pleasant idea of Heaven. A world with no war, no famine, no disease, etc. are consistently held up as utopian attributes to strive towards. The way you talk, it sounds as if we're under the heel of a being who claims to love us while treating us as little more than playthings in his storybook, which is in direct conflict with biblical teachings of fatherly love.

>>12511205
>>12511205
>And before anyone argues "effectively impossible," remember that one human in all of history, who was actually just God, was counted as having met these standards.
Except the Bible is clear that everyone will ein and that no one is righteous. Do you think no one goes to heaven?
>Humans create literature with conflict because conflict it's interesting, not because we like it.
And God is interested in this world, though he does not experience all of our suffering. Just as humans would not create books with no conflict, God would not create a world without conflict.
>A world with no war, no famine, no disease, etc. are consistently held up as utopian attributes to strive towards.
They’re only utopian because we perceive the negatives now. If that society were established, everyone without knowledge of evil and suffering wouldn’t understand how good their society actually is. The bad is needed to understand the good. This is how meaning and truth arise.

>>12511252
>Except the Bible is clear...
And yet, we're punished anyway. A majority of people, at that: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." And God, with an infinite capacity of knowledge and power not only allows this, but created the punishment, as well as the laws resulting in the punishment. If one claims he didn't, that would mean there must be a power equal to God, with influence over souls. This being, for the record, cannot be Lucifer as God is stated as having created him.

>And God is interested in this world...
You don't see this as assigning human attributes to a decidedly non-human entity?

>The bad is needed to understand the good.
Nonsense. I'll turn your argument back on you: we only see the evil is necessary because of how inescapable it seems. We have no idea what people would think in a utopia because of how far removed it seems, but we have a close approximation: people, generally, have a tendency to focus on the bad, to think about it a lot. People who DON'T do this are generally happier. In my experience, the later tendency comes more naturally to people with less stress and conflict in their lives.

>a religion made popular by Afghans and Pakis from antiquity
yes it is. The guys who made Buddhism what it is were the first to drop it

>>12498165
if you dont know, you dont know. life is a tautology.

>>12509782
im in oklahoma

>>12497326
Yes, it's garbage tier like all Eastern nonsense. Jesus Christ is literally the only candidate worthy of being God.

>>12504083
>more comfortable to my liberalism
I'm not a liberal.

>>12508905
This post: >>12504782 and >>12510720
is not mine. Not to say I disagree (or agree) with that guy, however.

Buddhism or hinduism, which is better? And why?

>>12497326
Buddha was based and Aryan.

>>12512961
better? What is better? How can something be better than something else?

>>12512982
You’re right. I’m gonna go worship the god of shit now

>>12512961
Should be obvious

>>12513021
hinduism ofc

>>12513005
Let me help you out. When you impose a set of conditions on a particular concept/idea/thing/environment whatever; then yes you can make the judgement that something is better than something. But how can you compare something to itself? How can you compare and measure infinity to infinity?

>>12497538
>It's a mindfuck,
That's because it's pure nonsense and absolutely meaningless. You might as well be smashing the keyboard and it would literally, not figuratively, produce the same amount of sense.

>>12511384
>Nonsense. I'll turn your argument back on you:
You totally failed here. Self-sacrifice, moral character, even love to an extent would be impossible without pain.
>We have no idea what people would think in a utopia because of how far removed it seems
Yes, we do. You're just hiding behind can't know nuffin'. We've seen culture build itself up around pain and struggle and we've seen the effects on cultures which have escaped the most savage conditions of living. It's clear to anyone with eyes what that pain is necessary to meaning.

>>12513228
Being aware of being aware is not that arcane or intrinsically hard to understand.

>>12497326
>claims extinguishment will be the end of suffering, but doesnt say what happens after extinguishment
you can´t be this retard

>>12512191
>I'm not a liberal.
you are transparently a liberal, whatever you tell yourself that sounds cooler is irrelevant

If there is no 'I', then what is it that is reborn in samsara?

>>12512961
Hinduism has more testosterone and already provides everything good that Buddhism does. Buddhism lacks a lot of what Hinduism has, and it also seems a little wimpy. But they’re both worthless barbarian nonsense when compared to Christianity.

>>12515413
It seems you choose whatever appeals more to your anti-liberalism without even defining what does liberalism mean in context of Buddhism

>>12512063
Norman?

>>12516171
>Hinduism has more testosterone and already provides everything good that Buddhism does.

No. Buddhism has more T.

>>12516401
didnt that guy get persecuted by authorities for mocking his own religion?

>>12512961
Buddhism is a path of liberation which evolved in a Hindu milieu. Apples and oranges.

>>12498254

This is extremely stupid and ending it with shit-eating questions is all the more aggravating.

>>12516171
>But they’re both worthless barbarian nonsense when compared to Christianity.
care to actually make the comparison?

>>12515413
Not only am I not transparently a liberal, I am a straight out conservative.

>>12519295
so you're gay in liberal

>>12497326
The only thing redeemable about Buddhism is meditative practices. Everything else is trash.

>>12521059
Those are like 90% of buddhism, so gj. What do you think is trash about it?