/lit/ - Literature

>>16958089
me

there's nibbana with remainder and nibbana without

araaht experiences with remainder, without remainder there is no consciousness at all

Orgasm during sex with someone you love who loves you back

>>16958089
>>This question is never answered in the Pali canon.
because it's irrelevant, ever thought of that?

>>16959127
>ask legit question
>"um that's irrelevant"
Buddhism really is a fucking meme

Nirvana isn't a place, it's a state. You're already in (the state of) Nirvana. The problem is, you're also in (the state of) Samsara. The goal of Buddhism is to get you to stop doing the things that put you in (the state of) Samsara, so you only do the things that put you in (the state of) Nirvana.

So, what experiences Nirvana? You.

>>16959181
>You
But Buddhism says there is no such thing

>>16959181
How can one be outside of existence and non-existence in nirvana? How can you justify this? What is left? Surely we must be aware, otherwise doesn't nirvana amount to annihilaton?

>>16959297
The dichotomy is existence and non existence is an illusion created by greed, ignorance, and hatred.
When the mind is purified, the concepts of "being" and "not being" no longer apply. Nirvana is annihilation, but only of the defilements of the mind, not of any soul or being.

>>16959181
It was a band too.
Rape me
Rape me, my friend

>>16959208
>>16959297
Buddhism makes a distinction between Conceptual statements and Ultimate statements. This is the Two Truths Doctrine. The first are things that are backed up by "you know what I mean". I can point at a chair and say that this is a "flub", and you'll know what I mean. There is no "flubness" to the chair, it's just a conceptual designation. There is no Ultimate character to it.

Buddhism says that "there is an Atman" is an incorrect statement. Rather, Buddhism says that "Anatman is". It's not saying that something doesn't exist (non-existence is impossible), but rather that the model of reality in which there is an Atman is incorrect. Things are not less real by virtue of changing. All things change. We can, conceptually, call a bundle of stuff with arbitrary borders "you" or a "self". The Buddha recommends doing this, otherwise communication becomes really hard. I can still say "myself" while understanding that the separation of me from my chair is totally conceptual (we could redefine "me" on the fly to include literally everything but you, the reader, after all).

The problem is that Westerners often conceptualize themselves as "just" their ego, as just a certain bundle of mental processes. Is your arm part of "you"? No, because it's not the ego. This causes anguish and suffering. This is patently absurd, however, you're not just your ego, your consciousness. Every time you go to sleep, your ego, your consciousness, turns off, goes away. Do you poof out of existence when you go to sleep? No, that's absurd, if you've ever seen someone sleep, you know they don't go away. Even a materialist would find this absurd, do your atoms just disappear when you sleep, and then reappear when you wake?

The problem is that all Westerners (post Descartes) do identify with this "I'm just a brain" view. Buddhism rejects this. You are more than just your ego. Does your ego get to continue when Samsara stops? No, it doesn't. But then, the ego is just made up of parts, and those parts don't go away, they just rearrange (again, even a materialist would find this reasonable, the atoms in your brain don't just disappear when you die). If the ego is a conceptual designation, as are all things, then the ego continues into Nirvana (a shorthand we can use) too, it just continues differently.

>>16958089
>This question is never answered in the Pali canon.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.than.html

it's answered hundreds of times where the buddha explains that there isn't a "who" that experiences, it's just conditioned suffering that ends

>>16958089
Me, of course. And yes, there is only me there, and only me is the one experiencing it. There is no other, because there can not be. If whoever ij the phenomenal world succeeded in breaking through to nirvana, they will become me, because there is only me there.

Buddhism is the worst religion because it makes you work for annihilation. chew on this, most Christians are absolute retards when it comes to understanding their own religion. My theory is that most religious people are this way concerning their own religion.

>>16959402

But what experiences nirvana, the "future coming-into-being"? What is this and how can it experience and how can such a thing be justified?

>>16959735
the buddha explains that there isn't a "who" that experiences, it's just conditioned suffering that ends, this is the whole teaching, it's not a metaphysical doctrine

>>16958089
You’re not going to get an informed answer in good faith from these tedpilled arch-Catholic Nazis (who don’t read)... just read the FAQ on /r/Buddhism and I wish you the best.

>>16960572
I hope this post is satire

>>16959701
>My theory is that most <X> people are this way concerning their own <X>.
FIFY.

does buddhism culminate in a "one" in the same sense that, for instance, daoism or brahmanism does?

>>16959385
On what basis do you say that the consciousness is composed of parts?

Is the TLDR that consciousness experiences rebirth but consciousness is not the soul?

>>16959360
>The dichotomy is existence and non existence is an illusion created by greed, ignorance, and hatred.
I wasn't feeling any hatred until you opened your mouth and said some retarded shit like that. Fuck you.

>>16963614
No

Consciousness is not continuous, it arises when the conditions are present

https://suttacentral.net/mn38/en/sujato

>>16963717
Part of the confusion is that in Buddhism consciousness is actually six consciousnesses, and maybe it should have been translated as such but it's a limitation of English.

What experiences the Astral Projection?

>>16959385
>Do you poof out of existence when you go to sleep? No, that's absurd, if you've ever seen someone sleep, you know they don't go away.
You're pretending to be retarded. This discourse is typical, actually, of contemporary western philosophy, that likes to stay close to what seems obvous prima facie.
No, I'd assert that as weird as it sounds, when my experience ceases in deep sleep, I no longer am. Sure, my body is still there, but that's not really me. Proof being that if some other consciousness suddenly took hold of my body and did things, I wouldn't think those actions were mine.
>The problem is that all Westerners (post Descartes) do identify with this "I'm just a brain" view.
This isn't about brain. It's about consciousness, the locus of consciousness, or memory, depending on the idealist author.
>Does your ego get to continue when Samsara stops? No, it doesn't. But then, the ego is just made up of parts, and those parts don't go away, they just rearrange
So either I'm a set of these things and I survive in continuity, and ego experiences nirvana, or I'm not a set of these things that survives in continuity, and I don't experience Nirvana, and have thus no reason to desire it for any selfish reason. Can you prove it is inherently good, say morally for exemple? Then maybe I can want to realize it eventhough I won't experience it.

>>16959135
worldling cope

>>16964323
It's good because it's the end of suffering. If you don't experience it, you keep suffering

>>16963614
it's not consciousness which ''transmigrate''

I used to be very interested in Buddhism but the more I look into it the less I like it. It's just a philosophical copout and gets as absurdly dogmatic as any other religion when you start asking deeper questions or questionig the validity of postulates. The exceptions would be Zen, which is barely Buddhism and can be fused with whatever other flavor of spirituality you like, and Pure Land that's just Asian folk religion with a Buddhist dressing.

There is, imo, no way to disentangle Theravada and the rest if the bunch from their context of being a less demanding variant of the other sramana faiths, and those don't seem attractive to me at all.

>>16959083
is this the autistic version of 'have sex'?

EXPLAIN TO ME RIGHT NOW WHAT EXPERIENCES NIRVANA AND HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THIS. WE'VE HAD THREE THREADS ON THIS TOPIC AND I STILL DON'T KNOW. TELL ME RIGHT NOW OR IM GONNA SCREAM!!!!!

>>16960572
Good post

>>16964653
This. Not to be rude but I can’t imagine why you’d even want to ask for an argument to be convinced that you should try to ease or end your suffering in life. Not everything needs to be scrupulously questioned, some things are quite clear, I believe.

>>16963729
"Consciousness" in Buddhism refers to six things which are actually objects of consciousness (i.e. eye-consciousness, mouth-consciousness, mental-consciousness), not consciousness or sentience itself. Buddhist theory of mind in the Pali Canon doesn't include a term for the sentience by which everything else is apprehended. The real question is whether this is because this formless sentience is the apophatic Absolute itself or whether it is because it doesn't exist.

>>16967696
well that's sobering, if true

Near Sāvatthī. “Monks, any desire-passion with regard to eye-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to ear-consciousness… nose-consciousness… tongue-consciousness… body-consciousness… intellect-consciousness is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.”

“In many ways the body has been pointed out, revealed, and announced by the Blessed One (with these words): ‘For this reason the body is not-self.’ Can consciousness in the same way be declared, taught, described, set forth, revealed, explained, & made plain (with these words): ‘For this reason consciousness is not-self’?”

“It can… Doesn’t eye-consciousness arise in dependence on the eye & forms?”

“Yes, friend.”

“And if the cause & reason for the arising of eye-consciousness were to cease totally everywhere, totally in every way without remainder, would eye-consciousness be discerned?”

“No, friend.”

“It’s in this way, friend, that consciousness has been pointed out, revealed, and announced by the Blessed One: ‘For this reason consciousness is not-self.’

“Doesn’t ear-consciousness arise in dependence on the ear & sounds?” …

“Doesn’t nose-consciousness arise in dependence on the nose & aromas?” …

“Doesn’t tongue-consciousness arise in dependence on the tongue & flavors?” …

“Doesn’t body-consciousness arise in dependence on the body & tactile sensations?” …

Doesn’t intellect-consciousness arise in dependence on the intellect & ideas?”

“Yes, friend.”

“And if the cause & reason for the arising of intellect-consciousness were to cease totally everywhere, totally in every way without remainder, would intellect-consciousness be discerned?”

“No, friend.”

“It’s in this way, friend, that consciousness has been pointed out, revealed, and announced by the Blessed One: ‘For this reason consciousness is not-self.’

“It’s just as if a man going around wanting heartwood, seeking heartwood, searching for heartwood, would take a sharp ax and enter a forest. There he would see a large banana tree trunk: straight, young, without shoots. He would cut off the root, cut off the crown, and unfurl the coil of the stem. There he wouldn’t even find softwood, much less heartwood.

“In the same way, a monk assumes neither a self nor anything pertaining to a self in the six media of contact. Assuming in this way, he doesn’t cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”

>>16967696
Thank you for this, we're finally getting somewhere.

Staying near Sāvatthī … “Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you. And what is dependent co-arising?

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“Now which aging-&-death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

“And which birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of (sense) media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

“And which becoming? These three becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.

“And which clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality-clinging, view-clinging, habit-&-practice-clinging, and doctrine-of-self-clinging. This is called clinging. [Or: These four are sustenances: sensuality-sustenance, view-sustenance, habit-&-practice-sustenance, and doctrine-of-self-sustenance.]

“And which craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

“And which feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling.

“And which contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.

“And which six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.

>>16967796
And which name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

“And which consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

“And which fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

“And which ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

“Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.”

>>16967790
>a monk assumes neither a self nor anything pertaining to a self in the six media of contact
>He discerns
an obvious implication would then be that there is a self which discerns, it is just not of the six media of contact

>>16967827
>>an obvious implication would then be that there is a self which discerns,
There is no need for a self to discern. The knowledge is ended'' is like whatever other knowledge there is, but this one is special because about nirvana.

>>16967696
>The real question is whether this is because this formless sentience is the apophatic Absolute itself

If it is, wouldn't you say Hindu thought explains this better? Why wouldn't the Pali Canon be more explicit about such an important point?

>>16966378
Clearly you've never experienced it

>>16967696
There has to be sentience, otherwise the whole thing IS annihilation, but why is there no mention of it? Was it just assumed?

>>16958089
Why do I feel like half of these posts are taken from a previous thread?

>>16963717
You are talking about memory.

>>16969093
it is annihilation of dukkha, nothing wrong with this

>>16963729
This is a HUGE running problem with Buddhism in English.

>>16969260
No, he's talking about Vijñāna, the fifth of the Skandhas. In short:
>Form (something is)
>Sensations (sensory input
>Perception (mental activity occurs at this point, recognition and labeling)
>Mental formation (this is when karma starts up)
>Consciousness (awareness of the object)
In Buddhist thought, you have six senses, sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, and mind. Mind is what you use to remember things, or to visualize, or talk to yourself, or perceive higher spiritual things.