/lit/ - Literature

because of the reddit-/lit/ crossover posters

>>15424339
Because this board insists on encouraging schizos

>>15424360
Show me where on mainstream reddit they're shilling buddhism kek

>>15424356
>>15424360
>>15424365
Sorry, replied to the wrong anon

>>15424339
Because theism isn't considered respectable among pseuds.

>>15424365

r/buddhism

It's the natural progression from Christianity > Atheism > Tradcuck Christianity > Gnosticism > Buddhism

I think that affects more personally in one's life, or it has some real benefits with their "methods"

>thinking about pornstars when fapping to imagination
imagine not thinking about the memory where you got to hug and kiss a girl in elementary school...fucking fantasylets

>>15424402
gnosticism sounds based if you stick with it though, it's like being Neo escaping the Matrix and your ego doesn't have to suicide to do it

>>15424339
I used to shit on buddhism a lot because I believed it makes you apathetic, and since most of the practitioners seem like losers. But it can be helpful to look into briefly if you aren’t satisfied with your life. It can help get you on the path of not living in your head. If you’re not careful and miss the message you will start living in your head because you are obsessed with the techniques or becoming enlightened or whatever. So maybe I can’t vouch for it at all. You don’t need buddhism, nobody does. But it can be a path towards getting rid of all the shit in your mind.

>>15424446
never had that experience

>>15424461
i truly dont understand people who window shop for philosophies based on whether they "make you apathetic" as opposed to ARE THEY TRUE?

>>15424402
This seems more like a personal progression than a natural one. Mine would be Atheism / Buddhism / going towards trad Christianity.

>>15424460
Buddhism is just monastic gnosticism

>>15424339
Why do so many on /lit/ shill for Christianity?

>>15424592
because Jesus died for our sins

>>15424521
lol

>>15424496
because you are a brainlet

>>15424402
cringiest post i've ever seen on /lit/

>>15424339
it appeals to lazy virgins

>>15424521
>Buddhism / going towards trad Christianity.
Such a sad downfall

>>15424402
mine was atheism -> christianity -> hinduism -> gnosticism -> atheism

>>15424803
Being lazy is good, fuck the protestant cuck ethic

>>15424446
Don't have a single kissing memory and I've only hugged family.

>>15424830
>>15424446
I hugged a few girls in high school, I guess that counts

>>15424339
Phew, good thing I save all my favorite lewd pics on a separate USB drive, amirite coomerbros?

>>15424809
I wasn't ready to let go at the time and I've come to believe that the embrace of meaning is where it's at.

>>15424847
I used to have a nice collection when I was a teenager, but I haven't actually saved pornography in years

i wish we had thread where eastern "wisdom" gets analyzed manfully. that is, without the assumption that it must be "deep" or "mysterious" , just because it sounds exotic to us. we would leave that to brahmins, mongoloids and yoga-thots. in that thread we would talk about the actual theses exposed in the
> buddhist triptaka
> upanishads
> daodejing
and their developements from a strictly logical standpoint. first of all, an anon would ask, are asian texts endowed with such a thing (formal logic)? or are they just a set of revelations and "teachings" from gurus and sages?
the core "teaching" i get from these writings, another anon would answer, is that the phemomenal world would be either
1) an illusion, because everything we know would happen in our mind, for the sole reason we "know" it, so that we would never know the ultimate reality (upanishads)
or
2) be pain, for various reasons, among which: are doomed to death, humans are violent, desire in general is inextinguishable (triptaka).
in my opinion, he would continue, these theses are primitive and flawed. their general attitude is a de-valuation of reality due to its being "JUST" a mental creation. this mindset shows a severe lack of epistemological aims (the "gurus" don't ask themselves "what does the word 'true' mean?" , "what is a valid criterion for it?" ). it looks like basically common sense, the good old "who knows?", elevated to religion. for instance, the idea that such a thing as the "ultimate reality" (brahman) exists is by no means logical. as far as we know, our mind could produce the phenomenical world , including the representation of our mind itself, autonomously, without any brahman or atman. this 230+ IQ anon could argue, like william james in 1904, that the very idea of "conscience" is imposed by a language game and not needed for knowledge. these are just hypotheses, he would precise. even more charatanical would seem to him the alleged consequence of this conception, that is, that the phenomenal world is illusory and ultimately false because it doesn't coincide with the brahman. but if the indians ever asked themselves "what is true" with some decent cognitive ability, they would have understood that the concept itself, the representation, of "brahman" is inside and not outside an epistemology and that the judgement of truth is not given by the brahman but by that epistemology which makes you think the brahman is true.

>>15424864
too many typos but i didn't re-read it.

>>15424387
R/buddhism ain't ever hitting the front page you cuck. I dont doubt the subreddit sucks, however

>>15424899
fair enough just dont call me cuck im the very opposite of a cuck.

>>15424864
>"what is true"
You're fucking batty if you think nobody outside of Europe ever asked that question. China, India, even fucking MesoAmerica is filled with thinkers asking that exact question. If you want Buddhists autistically quibbling about the minutiae of what makes up reality, look into the Abhidharma. It's a big attempt to break reality up into the fundamental discrete particles (these are not strictly physical, there are mental and spiritual dharmas [no relation to "Dharma = Way"]). It ends with Nagarjuna writing Buddhism's equivalent of the Summa Theologica to demonstrate why this entire exercise is pointless from a Buddhist framework.

If you don't like that "Eastern Religions" (whatever that's supposed to mean) don't try to create a Theory of Everything... Well yeah, they aren't trying to. The Buddha set out to ease suffering, not create a Theory of Everything.

>>15424864
>first of all, an anon would ask, are asian texts endowed with such a thing (formal logic)? or are they just a set of revelations and "teachings" from gurus and sages?
There exist many different types of Indian philosophy and logic, for example within the auspices of Hinduism there is a logic school called nyaya which discusses in their writings many of the same topics as western logic. The Hindu scriptures which are revealed texts obviously do not claim to be or present themselves as logical tracts, but Hindus have still written commentaries on them using logic to analyze and defend them.

>their general attitude is a de-valuation of reality due to its being "JUST" a mental creation
this is moreso the attitude of Buddhism, which has various positions on this but a typical one is that the outside world and the entities we perceive are just 'conceptual contrsucts', with Hinduism rather the world is not created and sustained by the mind or thoughts but by God's power.

> this mindset shows a severe lack of epistemological aims (the "gurus" don't ask themselves "what does the word 'true' mean?" , "what is a valid criterion for it?" ).
Many of the eastern philosophies have writings on epistemology, and in fact the 12th century Advaita philosopher Śrīharṣa came up with the so-called "Gettier problem" (which modern epistemology is still stumped by) about 700 years before Gettier wrote about it in the 20th century,

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sriharsa/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/gettier/

>as far as we know, our mind could produce the phenomenical world , including the representation of our mind itself, autonomously, without any brahman or atman.
and where did that mind come from, and what was the cause of the cause of that mind etc? It leads back to God or an uncaused eternal mind/consciousness which is practically God

>that the very idea of "conscience" is imposed by a language game and not needed for knowledge.
did you mean to write consciousnesses? The eastern schools typically day that moral conscience is helpful to spiritual progress but is itself not the arbiter of success, conscience is not an idea that eastern philosophy heavily relies on

>they would have understood that the concept itself, the representation, of "brahman" is inside and not outside an epistemology and that the judgement of truth is not given by the brahman but by that epistemology which makes you think the brahman is true.
this is just you offering your personal opinion without any justification for it (and no, the previous part of your post was not a real justification)

>>15424983
I should add, that Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, and the enormous clusterfuck of things in Hinduism aren't trying to make a Theory of Everything either. Even Christianity isn't at its core.

>>15424496
grace manifests itself in the material world also

>>15424625
You don't have any definitive proof of that. Just hearsay and conjecture. Faggot.

if it is reddit-tier to be amused by christcucks getting triggered by Buddhism, I gladly accept that

>>15425092
Honestly, with very little exception most of the hate Buddhism gets here are either from the guenonLARPers sperging out about Advaita Vedanta and the Nickers who don't like how "materialist" Buddhism is. Christfags seem pretty cool with it, for the most part.

>>15425124
>Christfags seem pretty cool with it, for the most part.
lol

>>15424446
>imagination=memory

Western nihilism combined with an excuse to satiate suicidal ideation.

>>15425151
buddhism doesn't trigger "christcucks". saying things that trigger christians does. you don't need buddhism. literally any religion or even atheism is all you need to get a christain to tell you to convert.

>>15424960
Sorry bull.
Only said it cause we all know you arent a cuck

>>15424339
They're self aware enough to know that it's too easy to see through the Christlarp because people in the west are sort of familiar with christianity. While buddhism is more "exotic" so you can get away with a more daring LARP because not a whole lot of people can call you out on the details.

>>15424339

NEET know-it-alls finding solace in crypto-NEET living is nothing surprising.

>>15424989
> nyaya
no the nyaya school has nothing to do with formal logic, let alone its leibnizian , the boolean, or gödelian developements.
it is just empiricism/phenomenology.
logic is a western and solely western thing.
> but Hindus have still written commentaries on them using logic to analyze and defend them.
then it is no logic but rhetoric, like that of the medieval scholastics.
> sriharsa
it is a completely different thing from the the gettier problem. or rather the repective critical point have nothing to do with each others. but of course you don't get it.
> and where did that mind come from, and what was the cause of the cause of that mind etc? It leads back to God or an uncaused eternal mind/consciousness which is practically God
i already answered. "mind" is a concept INSIDE the representation, so, all you are doing is connecting every element of perceived reality to that single "concept". thus, asking yourself what's the cause of that concept is futile, becuase you have already decided that it is something like "a body" outside your representation, which is a bizarre idea (but i get that common sense is at work here) which i you have to prove before, LOGICALLY.
> did you mean to write consciousnesses?
yes.
> this is just you offering your personal opinion without any justification for it (and no, the previous part of your post was not a real justification)
when you say "the brahman exists" you are implyig this sentence is true. therevore it is subjected to an epistemology, that works either for the brahman, for your shoes, for your sister, from the colosseum. do you get it? if so, you also understand that "being the brahman" is not the source for any truth.

>>15427453
>no the nyaya school has nothing to do with formal logic,
Incorrect, the late nyaya and its subschools like the Navya-Nyāya did formal logic

>The type of logic which developed in ancient India is not symbolic, but it is nevertheless formal. Its formal character becomes obvious if one looks at the theory of inference in late Nyāya and in Navya-Nyāya. Navya-Naiyāyikas were particularly concerned about the definition of pervasion (vyāpti), the relation between probans and probandum in an inference. In order to define the concept of pervasion with utmost precision they designed an ideal language, a kind of Leibnizian characteristica universalis based on a canonical form of Sanskrit, which serves to explicate the objective content of verbalized and unverbalized cognitions and to disambiguate sentences formulated in ordinary Sanskrit. Some of the most significant logical insights of the Navya-Naiyāyikas are an offshoot of their attempts to elaborate ondefinitions of pervasion by making extensive use of their peculiar linguistic tools.

>The formal language of the Navya-Naiyāyikas has been studied in detail in a Sanskritwork by Maheśa Chandra dating from the nineteenth century, which will be used here as a major work of reference (cf. BN and Guhe 2014). There are also several Western publications in which the authors have tried to render linguistic conventions in Navya-Nyāya by means of some kind of symbolic notation.

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-81-322-1812-8_11-1

>it is a completely different thing from the the gettier problem
Incorrect, it's pretty widely acknowledge by scholars that Sriharsa came up with the Gettier problem first, and in fact Sriharsa anticipates and offers refutations of the various solutions that modern thinkers have attempted to offer the problem

>becuase you have already decided that it is something like "a body" outside your representation,
Did I say that? No I didn't

>when you say "the brahman exists" you are implyig this sentence is true.
Brahman exists

>There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be.
-Thomas Ligotti

>>15424521
You seem to have left out your lobotomy somewhere around the Buddhism phase.

>>15427650
consciousness is bliss

>>15424625
So did Zyzz but you didn't worship him, faggot

>all this shitting on Buddhism

I guess I'm lucky that I get to have one-on-one conversations with a high-level monk. You'll never go back. The majority of what is posted here is so far off the mark it's embarrassing. You still have to do your own investigation and research, but it's a long process that offers the reward of non-retarded purpose.

>>15424535
This, I used to identify as Gnostic but I upgraded to a mix of Christian and Buddhist, which is just Gnosticism but with a greater body of theological work and practices.

>>15427650
neat. too bad he's one step below the surface.

>have consciousness
>it's an impediment
>why?
>it's in need of something
>it's broken
>it's hurt
>Now we see what we need to do
>put effort in cultivating good habit and mental clarity
>meditate and use logic to break down the obscurations
>fix the consciousness
>once we die, it can continue on in a better state
>the next manifestation won't be so bad, desu

In fact, if enough effort is put forth the consciousness will be completely fulfilled and will no longer manifest beyond this life.

>>15424402
Nah the /lit/ progression paths are
"Cultural Christian" > Atheist > Tradcath
Atheist > Buddhist > Vedanta
Protestant > Burgerdox > Gnostic

Why isn't the truth simple? What is truth?

>>15425064
You can say that about everything, including most scientific principles.
Especially if we're talking history, there are more accounts which wholly correlate with one another attesting to Jesus' life and resurrection than there are documents/proofs for most of what we know of history, before and after Jesus. Yet for some reason atheists accept the rest and doubt the truth of Jesus Christ.

>>15427956
If God is compassionate and loves his children why did he create Hell for them to suffer. How could a compassionate God know his children are suffering and do nothing? If he does nothing, he is not compassionate. If he is not compassionate, why strive for his love?

>>15427973
Each of those questions is a massive theological can of worms, and the reason they appear as problems to you is because of the logical axioms you approach them from. It's not your fault, but know that the mysteries of God can only begun to be understood by approaching them with an open heart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiYf6ITgWbk
If God is compassionate and loves his children why did he create Hell for them to suffer.
People go to hell of their own volition when they go against God of their own free will. God only created hell in a technical way; He gave us free will and therefor allowed us to stray from his light, and by straying from Him we created hell.
>How could a compassionate God know his children are suffering and do nothing?
Suffering is impermanent. Do you claim the parent who lets their child live on their own and experience the hardships of life does not love their child? Of course not. Through suffering, growth.
>If he does nothing, he is not compassionate.
Absolutely not, this is the conclusion inevitably drawn when atheists approach christianity with the intent of applying reason to their predisposition against it. Consider that it is a form of compassion to allow others to solve their own problems. This is, of course, only an example from the human experience. It's hard to use allegories to explain the divine, but allegories are the most succinct things to fit in a post.
>why strive for his love?
Because loving God completes the human soul and fulfills our purpose in life.

>>15424339
Is Buddhism dumb?
I believe in atheist Buddhism but it all seen dumb.

>>15428139
>atheist Buddhism

>>15427973
God is compassionate in that He endured the great suffering and trials of humanity in order to redeem His creation, but He is also just in that the wages of sin must be paid for.

In life, we all must choose what we worship. Some worship money. Some worship sex. Some worship sports and competition. Some worship science. Some worship gods or ancestors. All of these lead to spiritual death and the destruction of humanity. Only genuine repentance and faith in God can save us.

>>15424402
This is me except I started at atheism and replace Gnosticism with occultism

>>15424446
>remember lame real life event
>not imagining fantastical scenarios that couldn't occur in reality
Peak fantasylet.

>>15424446
>Not having mental sex with your tulpa

>>15424339
Because /lit/ is getting passive after having too much free time due to quarantine while also having writer's block.
Where the fuck are the Mexican catholicucks, though?

>>15427636
when is say formal logic, i mean something very precise, that is aristotelian logic (the organon), basically the sillogism and its forms and its deductive rules. when this author say "formal" he seems to mean vaguely "structured". indeed he talks about inferential logic, which is not formal logic.
> widely acknowledge by scholars that Sriharsa
which scholars? and where?
> Did I say that? No I didn't
yes you implied it. when you inferred that there must be a cause for the mind, which would lead to an infinite chain, which would lead to god. this is kind of a cosmological "argument" but dumbed down.
> Brahman exists
it might or it might not, the point is that the judgement for it is the same as that for anything else. "brahman exists" is by no mean different from "this toilet exists"

>>15424339
>why do so many on /lit/ shill for buddhism?
Buddhism is pretty big in Asia and by proxy the rest of the world where it has spread. I'm actually surprised there aren't more muslims or heck even hindus on this board, seems like 1 or 2 people posting as a muslim/hindu while several posting as a buddhist.

>>15424387
>>r/buddhism
more like r/mahayana AMIRITE

only 4chan faggots could try to shit on buddhism... the most well spirited and advanced of "spiritual" practices. even jesus learned and incorporated from it. op should ask why so many nazis who will never reproduce because no one with half a brain cell in society will ever accept them shill and ruin their own existence here. this place is an utter cringe fest and will go down in history as such.

>>15428372
the point is remembering the event and using your imagination to construct a new timeline where you fuck the shit out of your first love and then methodically bang every girl you were ever attracted to as this experience has made you chad of the spirit realm...i wouldnt xpect an anime plebian to understand

>>15429759
First off, the image is from a videogame and a secondly: Why would you want something based in reality like some oneitis cuck? Sucks to suck I guess. Time to fuck eldrich horrors and women made out gold in my fantasy brb

>>15424380
/thread

>>15429618
>Thereveda autism
Not even once.

>>15429717
>hurr durr spiritual suicide is based
>we should strive to reach nirvana ("blown out")
Buddhism is anti-life, anti-experience. If you want to become nothing then that is fine.

>>15430325
>i think the aggregates are the self

the state of hedonists

>>15424339
They're midwits.
The realization that what we call consciousness is an amalgamation of various independent processes is important. From there you can either decide that the idea of "self" is illusion or illumination. The former will create mental and psychological structures in your mind just as much as the latter - only it will do it far much oppressively and with little ability to navigate the world around you. Enlightenment isn't too dissimilar from a form of psychosis.
The proof is in the adherants - all western buddhists are losers and all eastern buddhists are just peasants and rapists.
Be a brother of the left hand path and celebrate God through living in the awareness that has been granted.

tl;dr buddhism is shit read the gita instead.

>>15430325
>we should strive to reach nirvana ("blown out")
Based

>>15430360
>tl;dr buddhism is shit read the gita instead.
Hinduism is even shittier

read ur bibles

>>15430354
Aristotelian virtues make a lot more sense than Buddhist ones in my opinion. Can you even reach nirvana without being a monk? Genuine question, and yes I acknowledge that I am not well educated on Buddhism.

>>15430364
It isn't. I mean sure there's a huge load of Vedic nonsense but read it through Emersonian eyes and you'll see the value.

>>15430371
>this is what Hinduism's end goal looks like
filth

stop worshiping the devil, accept Jesus shitskin

>>15430376
White anglo. Nice try nigger.

>>15430381
white anglos love hinduism you retard

>>15430388
>white anglos love hinduism you retard
Reading comprehension levels: Godlike.

>>15430395
>proves my point

>white hindus
nothing more cringe than this

>>15430376
>shitskin
Clearly, your religion is one rooted in love.

>>15430407
The tinsel imagery is something that plebs dress themselves in every generation. The texts themselves remain here after thousands of years.

>>15430409
its rooted in Truth

Hinduism is filth, get over it fagboi.

>>15430416
>coping this hard

>>15430417
>Reddit spacing
you need to go back.

>>15430419
All LARPers are blind to God, we already know this. Keep coping.

>>15430425
>no argument
t.

>>15430364
>>>/pol/

>>15430430
>says the LARPer
look at yourself in the mirror and convince yourself otherwise

>>15430433
sorry Rajesh, /lit/ is a christian board

>>15430434
I'm wearing sweatpants and a t shirt. Does it disturb you so much that people can connect with God without the need for icons or fancy dress?
Do yourself a favour and read Emerson.

>>15424339
We honestly do it to annoy the ChristLARPers.

>I'm wearing sweatpants and a t shirt

>>15430443
Is your life really this dull without high school?

>>15430442
>quotes OP again as if he just entered the thread
its ok Patel, we know you have autism

>>15430446
>Is your life really this dull without high school?

>>15430447
>We
One 14 yo autistic troll. Do you think the rest of 4chan can't see that 48 number in the bottom corner not moving?

>>15430456
>gets called out
>b-b-but plural form aha gotcha!
your life really is sad, Rakesh Pubharamanasyavavapada

>>15430464
Still on 48.
I posted an entire paragraph about the relationship between God and the structure of identity and you've responded with wojacks.
When did /lit/ become /b/?

>bro don't look at me weird, what matters is the perennial nature of the scriptures

>>15430469
>I posted an entire paragraph about the relationship between God and the structure of identity and you've responded with wojacks.
God is only found in the Bible, not some demonic brown scribbles

>>15430471
48.

>It was recorded in the Upanishads that followers must throw faeces at each other, and so lives the tradition of poo fights forevermore

>>15430481
The point of Krishna's speech was to do away with pointless ritualism.

>this is your brain on Hindpooism

>>15430481
Based and e. coli pilled.

>>15424339
semi related but the most egotistical people I've met or spoken to have always been buddists, taken psychedelics or been big into yoga and meditation

>>15430541
western buddhists are cringe and psychopaths, yes

>>15430481
clearly inferior forms of life. it makes me sad when i see Europans lowering themselves to that, e. g. doing yoga and masturbating on their "philosophies". like angels throwing themselves into the mud. i think someone thought something similar in the 3rd century when they saw the asian christian plague spreading across the roman families.

>>15430496
48
>>15430497
49
>>15430549
50
>>15430860
48

Buddhism is just as shitty if not more shitty than crap like judaism and islam. The only difference is because its rare in the western world, when you see people shill it they only shill the parts of it that sound appealing and they word their shilling in such a way that it sounds appealing. real buddhism as practiced in the East is full of nonsense BS like a definition of social classes that doesn't apply to us and cow feces worship.

>>15431972
>its rare in the western world,
it is not. it is even more common than hinduism because secular humanists view it as a non-frightening validation of their believes. They even com-modified it with little statues for the home and gardens.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Large-Garden-Buddha-Garden-Statue/20841976

>>15431972
>real buddhism as practiced in the East is full of nonsense BS like a definition of social classes that doesn't apply to us and cow feces worship.
there is no social rules in buddhism. that's induism and jainism you utter retard

Its where whitoids who dont want to give up the "spirituality" cope last refuge

>>15432068
>there is no social rules in buddhism
lol

>>15430473
>God is only found in the Bible
What a strange God

>>15430439
which books of Emerson's would you rec? I'm not the poster you responded to but I am interested in this

>>15424847
I compulsively save porn I even only kind of like and almost never access the archives
I always just go online and find and download some more

>>15432183
Yes, the Hindu caste system comes from Hinduism. That's why it's the "Hindu" caste system.

namo amitabha

>>15432474
wrong view af