/lit/ - Literature

>>16991945
What is the 'observer' then in buddhism since it isn't the self

>>16991977
Buddhists can never answer this question without resorting to sophistry- "w-well in a sense there is a self, you could say, but we don't say that!"

You keep beating your head against your own misconceptions.

>>16991991
Then why not explain things clearly instead of being smug and unhelpful?

>>16991945
>Buddha says there is no self
He literally doesn’t thought, in the Pali Canon he refuses to side with the people who say there is a self, and he refuses to side or agree with the people who say there is no self, and then Buddhist autism invented a bunch of convoluted arguments for why this means he actually taught there is no self

>>16992010
that sounds a lot more reasonable

>>16992010
Is there a single current Buddhist school that actually takes this into account instead of teaching about anatta, though? All the masters, even the most respected ones, accept non-self as a doctrine.

I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads etc. etc.

>>16992044
Nobody brought this up, anon.

>>16992025
>Is there a single current Buddhist school that actually takes this into account instead of teaching about anatta, though?
No, not that I’m aware of. There are a few smaller Vajrayana/Mahayana schools like Tibetian Jonang or Korean Zen Buddhism which more or less accept the Atman sometimes under other nomenclature but the general trend is to deny its validity and to promote sunyata/anatta and their equivalent concepts instead.

>>16991945
FUCK, GUENONFAG WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH...
>>16991996
You are not interested in an explanation since this sophisticated issue has been explained to you like three dozen times now by multiple different people. You just don't want to listen.
>>16992025
Anatta is true and it is held up as an important doctrine precisely because it helps prevent the conflation of the profane self, the aggregates, with the sublime substance beneath which can only be truly understood through experience and is not subject to speculative explanations.

>>16991996
most important question is when you imagine "no-self" what do you think it means? i can't answer until i know what you're grappling with

>>16992090
>anyone who asks questions about buddhism is guenonfag
Why don't you calm down and stop sperging out?
>You are not interested in an explanation
I made this thread precisely so I could get one.
>the profane self, the aggregates, with the sublime substance beneath
The aggregates are form, perception, sensation, mind and consciousness. When you remove those, what is left? It's not enough to say there's a metaphysical substance beneath.
When Buddhists are asked "how does erasing the aggregates not erase the person entirely", they retort with "well if you identify with the aggregates you're making a mistake", but what else is there to identify with? It's a circular argument.

>>16992094
>when you imagine "no-self" what do you think it means?
Someone else pointed out that no-self is the dissipation of aggregates. That means the dissipation of mental processes, ego, consciousness, awareness, sentience.
If all those things are removed, you can't say there's anything else than nothingness being left. And if the only thing left is nothingness, what is left to experience anything?

>>16992047
Just thought I'd get it out of the way ahead of time

>>16992135
Is nothingness eternal?

>>16992214
I don't think nothingness even exists.

>>16992125
>Why don't you calm down and stop sperging out?
It's not that, anon - it's the exact same question used in the exact same rhetorical fashion with the exact same bullheaded attitude. I can instantly tell that it's Guenonfag.
>I made this thread precisely so I could get one.
X to doubt.
>The aggregates are form, perception, sensation, mind and consciousness. When you remove those, what is left? It's not enough to say there's a metaphysical substance beneath.
The gunas are form, perception, sensation, mind and consciousness. When you remove those, what is left? It's not enough to say there's an Atman beneath.
>When Buddhists are asked "how does erasing the aggregates not erase the person entirely", they retort with "well if you identify with the aggregates you're making a mistake", but what else is there to identify with? It's a circular argument.
When Hinduists are asked "how does disidentifying from the gunas not erase the person entirely", they retort with "well if you identify with the gunas you are making a mistake", but what else is there to identify with? It's a circular argument.

>>16992135
next: what does nothingness mean to you?

i'm but a brainlet who cares little about ideas like nothingness and self, but this is how i see it:

no-thing-ness = the Absolute, the eternal, the unconditioned
"things" are conditioned, created, they come and go

in zen they say our mind is a mirror, a mirror covered in dust (our habits and delusions) that obscures the reflection of the absolute, a rock in a garden might be covered in cat piss but its buddha nature is undefiled

the pali canon meanwhile says
> A tangle inside, a tangle outside... I ask you this, O Gotama... Who can disentangle this tangle?”
> A man established on virtue, wise, developing the mind and wisdom, a bhikkhu ardent and discreet: he can disentangle this tangle.”
>All conditioned things are impermanent', When one sees this with prajñā, one becomes weary of suffering, This is the Way to Purity

to me you're like a trainee monk who storms into the master's office and demands to know everything and all he can do is tell you to get back to raking leaves

>>16992233
>The gunas are form, perception, sensation, mind and consciousness. When you remove those, what is left? It's not enough to say there's an Atman beneath.
all of those are qualities projected onto the Atman. Atman is just the neutral observer of all of those qualities

>>16992233
anti-guenonfag-fag is pretty recognizable at this point

>>16991945
>Buddha
Is nastika trash. Look into Guenon and Shankara.

>>16992090
Seethe. Guenonfag probably achieved moksha years ago and you’re still frightened by his shadow. Sad!

CAUTION: This is not a conclusion and should not be believed without having been directly experienced

There is only one Self, and it's nature is not the same as the personal self, although the personal selves are included within it. All distinction of identity is illusion

>>16992233
>I can instantly tell that it's Guenonfag.
And you're wrong. But I won't convince you of this because you've made up an enemy in your head and are literally and unironically delusional.
Maybe the reason why this question is supposedly asked a lot is because it's important and it hasn't received a satisfying answer, rather than because there's a single shitposter dedicating his life to annoying you? Just a thought.
>It's not enough to say there's an Atman beneath.
Why can't you answer a question honestly instead of just asking another question?
>When Hinduists
I don't care, I'm not a Hinduist. I'm asking about Buddhism. If you don't know that's fine, just don't answer pretending to be hot shit when you quite obviously don't know anything

>>16992261
Now conceive of an Atman indistinct from Brahman and you will understand Buddhism.
>>16992270
>>16992285
Samefag

>>16992021
It does, but at the same time there are various other issues that make arguing for that position questionable, such as Buddha saying in some verses that there is an "the All" composed of the aggregates, sense and sense-bases, which doesn't leave much room for an Atman; and when he doesn't include any words or terms in his theory of mind that correspond to pure sentience as such in the Atman sense, only words that denote the various objects of sentience.

And even if Buddha did not teach anatta as most modern Buddhists understand it, the Buddhist schools have for thousands of years understood him to. I think it is really kind of futile to try to salvage or practice Buddhism with this kind of unconventional reading of the Pali Canon which is rejected by almost all Buddhist schools. Even if this was the original meaning, there was no surviving schools or codification which allows us to fully understand this meaning; you cannot be initiated into it or be the disciple of a teacher specializing in it, it is something that is for all intents and purposes dead to history aside from 1 or 2 smaller Vajrayana/Mahayana sects, and they seem to get their soul stuff not from the PC anyways but from Tantric (i.e. Shaivism-derived) and Taoist influences. That's one of the reasons I prefer studying Hindu philosophy is that there is not some prevalent but highly questionable interpretation of their original scriptures that is like weak column making the whole thing untenable and unstable as I find anatta to do with Buddhism.

>>16992316
*have for thousands of years understood him NOT to

>>16992254
>no-thing-ness = the Absolute, the eternal, the unconditioned
But nothingness is nothing. If the eternal is where all things come from, how does it make sense? Nothing can come out of nothingness. There has to be an original cause. Otherwise Samsara makes no sense in the first place.

>>16992305
Have you directly experienced this?

>>16992314
Nigger

>>16992316
In the end all that matters is that the chosen vehicle be good for attaining enlightenment. Maybe anatta serves a purpose in the path towards Nirvana, even if it is not the truth?

>>16991945
>Buddha says there is no self
He never said that

>>16992314
>Now conceive of an Atman indistinct from Brahman and you will understand Buddhism.
So there is an observer, then. Why call it non-self if it's there?

>>16992339
Yes (without drugs btw) but it has not persisted.
Anyway in my experience I try to emphasize direct experience of the reality over maintaining any concepts. So I've lost interest in long discussions of metaphysics and how this is that unless whoever is saying it seems to be speaking from experience, then I'm interested.

>>16992357
>I've lost interest in long discussions of metaphysics and how this is that unless whoever is saying it seems to be speaking from experience, then I'm interested.
Isn't that basically Zen

>>16991945
Buddha is basically hinting at proto-Bundle Theory. The five aggregates are all real. What he denies in "atman" is that they form a permanent consistency. At the same time, he rebukes mereological nihilism.

>>16992361
Yeah I guess so, the story from that tradition that comes to mind is Monkey complaining to Buddha how the shipment that had recently arrived containing copies of the scriptures instead contained blank scrolls, and Buddha said something like 'These are the true scriptures, but the people need some words so we will write something'

>>16992310
>Maybe the reason why this question is supposedly asked a lot is because it's important and it hasn't received a satisfying answer, rather than because there's a single shitposter dedicating his life to annoying you? Just a thought.
I am not stupid, anon. Pattern recognition is a thing. Not every person who asks this question is the same, but I know with absolute certainty that the poster who made this thread is the same one I've argued with in three other threads and that he simply refuses to listen.
>Why can't you answer a question honestly instead of just asking another question?
Because when I answer honestly what we get is this stupid cat and mouse game where you pretend to be retarded and post the same dumb shit over and over while I'm trying to explain a sophisticated doctrine. Nevertheless, I am willing to humour you. Justify this statement and we will continue: "It's not enough to say there's a metaphysical substance beneath." Why is this not enough?
>I don't care, I'm not a Hinduist. I'm asking about Buddhism. If you don't know that's fine, just don't answer pretending to be hot shit when you quite obviously don't know anything
X to doubt.
>>16992343
Nice.
>>16992351
Because the term "self", today as in the time of the Buddha, implies a confused identification with a particular object, no matter how "divine" or "metaphysical". This observer you refer to is absolute, true and universal - you do not own it, it is not your "self" - "you" are its expression. Atman, properly understood, refers to the same concept, but the term and people's understanding of it degenerated throughout the ages.

>>16992377
>I know with absolute certainty
You are indeed fucking delusional. I doubt you have anything interesting to say on this subject given you're actually mentally ill, so I'll stop engaging with you now.

>>16992386
>"I'm not owned I'm not owned I'm not owned!"
This type of bad faith cowardice is how I know it's you, lol.

>>16992395
The meds, take them.

>>16992376
So how did you come to experience this?

>>16992377
>dude we're just god experiencing itself lmao

>>16992397
Lend me some of yours bro

>>16991990
>sophistry
So it goes.

Judeo-Christians do the same thing when it comes to the topic of free-will.

>>16992424
We're not "god" at all and if you think what you said is remotely comparable to what I said then we have nothing to talk about. Gods exist on a far lower level than the Unmanifest. Ask a serious question or make a serious argument if you actually care about this.

>>16992233
>anyone who expresses disagreement towards my doctrine is the same person
Funny how the "buddhists" are probably the most conceited, insufferably smug posters on this board, you should apply your own doctrine to your life before (poorly) explaining it on the internet
>>16992439
>Judeo-Christians
Oh I get it you're just retarded

>>16992443
>dude we're just the unmanifest experiencing itself lmao

>>16992090
>with the sublime substance beneath which can only be truly understood through experience and is not subject to speculative explanations.
Truly it's an irony that so many Buddhists argue against there being this sublime substance underneath the aggregates on the basis that it cannot be empirically experienced like objects are.
>>16992233
That you would just repeat the anon's question with the words changed implies you don't understand what the problem. It is a problem for Buddhism precisely because they and their Pali scripture don't admit anything else which is existing when the aggregates are removed. Whereas Hinduism does teach that there was something unborn and undecaying all along underneath the display of the gunas, which remains after they are removed.
>>16992314
>Now conceive of an Atman indistinct from Brahman and you will understand Buddhism.
While Buddha does not explicitly denies that there is Atman outright, throughout the Pali Canon he attacks the idea of an eternal consciousness or soul that you are positing as being underneath the aggregates, and people who use arguments like you typically are unable to provide any citations from the Pali Canon establishing that Buddha indeed taught what you are saying. Also, virtually all major Buddhist schools would shit on what you said here and say that what you are promoting is practically a heresy and not taught by Buddha.
>>16992344
Maybe, does it still retain the same purpose with the same effectiveness if the later schools all understand it in a way differently from Buddha did though? That's what I wonder. Traditional Buddhist instruction is certainly better than being a simple materialist, but pass that I cannot say much.

>>16991977
Can you point to one specific section of 'you' that is the observer?

>>16992464
No, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
The eye doesn't see itself

>>16992444
> you're just retarded
why :(

>>16992464
No I can't. It's just...whatever is observing. When I think about it too much I get a bit confused. I suppose I could say that "I' am any of the manifold I perceive before me at any moment, and smudge of light or sound in the whole is me as much as any other part, including emotions, thoughts, and so on. Or I could posit a contentless me that observes all the content.

>>16991945
>ego death
get that hippie slang out of your mouth you illiterate

>>16992411
A few techniques come together to work for me but it might be different for you. You have to remain aware of which apply to you or whether any apply at all in the current moment.

-First as a foundational exercise learn to meditate correctly. It took a while to work through and figure out on my own what I should be doing to produce a still mind.
-While it is helpful to practice taming the mind it is also helpful to relax all efforts to focus and just let the mind and body run however it pleases without any interference from the will, and just watch what it does however pleasant or painful it may be. Even the times it tries to get you to take interest in the affairs; watch this too

Some things occurred in my life that made it unbearable for me to create conflict externally because of the pain and damage it was causing to my relationships. So I learned how to deny myself to an extent, in that I learned how to handle difficult situations without needing to fight or do the things which I used to do. But still I was mad for a long time in my head. This was even more unbearable to be honest. But like Meister Eckhart says, we can derive great profit from all things. So it's painful situations like these that teach you something if you are willing, and you can choose what that is I think. In my case I have learned to live with someone whose very existence used to make me very angry.
The gist of this that I want you to get is a certain degree of self denial and discipline. This goes for whether or not you indulge your desires, which ones are okay to do sometimes or which ones you should avoid completely, what sort of disciplines you should undertake for your optimal benefit, etc. But I notice that even if I do slip I'm still able to perceive beyond my normal functioning, which dispels any conviction that you must have perfect behavior to perceive.
All in all cultivate attention and detachment, dont give importance to all those ideas and have a certain flexibility. That's what has worked for me.

>>16992452
>does it still retain the same purpose with the same effectiveness
I don't know. But many people have been enlightened thanks to Buddhism, so it can't be a bad doctrine. Frankly I'm only concerned about choosing a good path, and Buddha himself said that the vehicles of the Dharma were tools, not an end in themselves.
>Traditional Buddhist
Do you mean Theravada?

>>16992479
What's wrong with that term? It's self-explanatory

>>16992377

Maybe when you come into a thread about anatta and try to answer objections against it you should be more clear when you are trying to say that it really means the same thing as the Hindu/Advaitin Atman. If someone didn't know better they might be fooled into thinking that what you are saying is what Buddhist schools actually taught, instead of being a fringe, alternative interpretation of Buddhism not taught by any surviving Buddhist school. It is a position held to by a small cadre of 2 or 3 early 20th century scholars, a few traditionalists, youtube commentators and anonymous forum posters, but not by any living authority on Buddhism.

What's funny is that the Buddhists have been content to let you come in and answer that anon's objections with the "it's actually Upanishadic/Hinduism" shtick instead of giving their own approved mainstream Buddhism answer which would make more sense.

>>16991945
It's a little more complex than "there is no self". It's like saying "God is love". Like ... yeah, that's what you'd say to your 5yo kid to get it on the right track, but there's volumes behind that statement that need be unpacked.

Buddhists and high key Hindus would usually refer to "reality" as something behind and under this material plane. Unlike us, to whom "reality" is just matter and structures of matter, all else being derivative. When they say "the self is not real", it means that what you call "self" is a very conditional and far derivation of the "real". Self is not part of the real, like paper is not part of a tree. It was a tree. It may be a tree again. But it's not a tree, it is just made off of it.

>>16992484
I'm bad at meditating because after a while my mind runs free, I can't focus on a single thing and end up thinking about a bunch of stuff and don't even realize it until I'm already doing it. I'm sure this just means I need more practice though, reading about meditation does nothing to help me so I figured it's just something you need to make click by yourself
I can personally relate to the experience you're describing of self-denial and internalizing anger. I still lack discipline but lately I've been trying to get myself more in this zone of being detached where you realize there's nothing to worry about. Most of the time I fail though

>>16992444
>Funny how the "buddhists" are probably the most conceited, insufferably smug posters on this board, you should apply your own doctrine to your life before (poorly) explaining it on the internet
Neither Buddhists nor Hindus are "conceited", it's literally the one guy always sperging out about Anatta.
>>16992451
Yes! You've got it! Now live your life according to the opposite principle in order to ensure that your attachment to your mortal form prevents you from identifying with the unmanifest once you die, therefore dooming you to total obliteration.
>>16992452
>Truly it's an irony that so many Buddhists argue against there being this sublime substance underneath the aggregates on the basis that it cannot be empirically experienced like objects are.
No idea what you are saying here.
>That you would just repeat the anon's question with the words changed implies you don't understand what the problem.
On the contrary, that is exactly why I asked a question of my own.
>It is a problem for Buddhism precisely because they and their Pali scripture don't admit anything else which is existing when the aggregates are removed. Whereas Hinduism does teach that there was something unborn and undecaying all along underneath the display of the gunas, which remains after they are removed.
Check my last line here. >>16992377
>he attacks the idea of an eternal consciousness or soul that you are positing as being underneath the aggregates
Consciousness and soul of what? I agree with Anatta. I disagree that there is nothing at all in the human being apart from the aggregates or gunas. Literally the entire rest of Buddhism would be completely inexplicable if the aggregates were the only thing present in the human being.
>Also, virtually all major Buddhist schools would shit on what you said here and say that what you are promoting is practically a heresy and not taught by Buddha.
Maybe, but so will most Christian priests shit on you if you come at them with sophisticated Christian metaphysics.
>>16992478
>When I think about it too much I get a bit confused.
This is exactly why the Buddha discouraged people from thinking or talking about it, btw.
>>16992501
The OP deliberately refers to the Buddha himself and I am discussing his teaching. I am not obligated to conform to this or that specific school of thought and if OP had addressed his post at practitioners of this or that specific school, I would have left it up to them to answer that question.

>>16992444
I'm confused. Do those who in some shape or form profess belief in the judeo-christian-islamic god (generally speaking), not engage in sophistry when discussing free will?

>>16992464
Sentience is the observer. Sentience is also the real 'you' which does not have sections. What you call the "sections of you" like the body, eyes, thoughts etc are just non-sentient phenomena illumined by sentience, which people wrongly identify with and ascribe sentience to.

>>16992532
Many atheists would call it so, but the topic of free will is so broad that anything deviating from Sam Harris just looks like dishonesty to them...

>>16992527
Keep practicing. It took me a couple years to cultivate discipline and it's the pain of not doing it that inspired me the most. Going to school again has helped too and I can use the discipline that school demands to make things happen in other aspects of my experience. It's a wonderful tool all around.

There's a saying that I'll paraphrase roundabout:
When you want a flower, you deal with many things that don't look like a flower at all. Dirt, sunlight, water; you deal with these correctly, a flower will come. But you can't draw a flower out of the ground. You have to water the roots, make sure it has sun, proper soil, and flower will come. Keep this in mind when you want flowers
Keep going my friend. If you are devoted then you can make many things happen

>>16992464
Wait what? I am the observer right now, seeing your text. Am I dumb or something...?

>>16992529
>Yes! You've got it! Now live your life according to the opposite principle in order to ensure that your attachment to your mortal form prevents you from identifying with the unmanifest once you die, therefore dooming you to total obliteration.
kek you are such a petty, vindictive cunt and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about
Try following the Buddha's teachings before posting about them on 4channel

>>16992556
Based encouraging anon, I'll do my best and wish you the best as well

>>16992527
>>16992556
I would also like to give you a tip in that even if your mind is running all over the place during meditation, still you can focus on your breath on the other side of all these images and storylines. It's fine if they are running wild just keep focusing on the breath and they will go away (maybe immediately, maybe one day after many weeks)
Also aim for atleast 30 mins per session, it's around this time I see the mind starts cooling down. I usually go for 1hr

>>16992579
I am going to be frank with you anon and you can choose whether to believe me or not. Whenever I've mentioned doctrine in this thread, I have been earnest, but the rest of it is just for keks. I don't actually want you to be obliterated on death. That would make no sense from the perspective I'm presenting, anyway, since we're technically projections of the same substance, to put it roughly. When I am being a dick, I am only being a dick ironically and with the concept of mutual enjoyment in mind.

>>16992603
That's good to know, I usually desperately try to make my mind shut the fuck up which usually causes more thoughts to arise, thanks

>>16992594
Thanks for the wishes, and for the pepe as well! ^.^

>>16992563
Is your hand doing the observing? Is your nose? No? Then what is the "you" doing the observing?

The simple truth is that there is no observer, and no observee. There's just observing. To say otherwise would have observers that observe nothing, and observees that are not observed by anything. This is preposterous. Observing involves what we, purely for our own convenience, call an "observer" and an "observee", but upon even the most basic inspection we see that the observer and observee are linked, and cannot be separated.

Observing is possible because there is no atman, no Self. Big S. You can call whatever you want a self, little s. Your chair is part of your self. Your hand is. Your nose is. Or not. Your nose isn't. Whatever, it's fine, this is just a conceptual designation. An atman is discrete and uniform. It is non-composite. The fact that there is nothing that matches this description is evidence that there is no atman, no Self.

>>16992621
But our observing is 'localized' to us. My observing doesn't touch yours, they're separate, so there are distinct 'observings' which is basically what we mean by a self.

>>16992621
>what is the "you" doing the observing?
My awareness.
>There's just observing.
>To say otherwise would have observers that observe nothing
it would have potential observers
>observees that are not observed by anything
it would have potential observees
>even the most basic inspection we see that the observer and observee are linked, and cannot be separated.
I feel like I read this in Sam Harris when he tried to make this argument. Which I didn't find valid either.

>>16992554
Sure, but that wasn't necessarily my point.

Sophistry seems to be the general trend of things in all that claims absolute truth. Religion is no different. Not in their present state. A leap of faith is always going to be necessary.

>>16992527
you have to see non-running as a nicer state

also there 7 steps to do before mediation

>>16992529
>I disagree that there is nothing at all in the human being apart from the aggregates or gunas.
Then what is there?
It's fun to discuss complicated metaphysics but that shit doesn't actually matter.
Right now I perceive myself in several ways. Of course I perceive my body, but that's not essential to my experience of self, you could remove my body and leave the rest and "I" would still be there.
More importantly, what is actually doing the perceiving is my consciousness, or awareness. From that consciousness, thoughts arise. They are impermanent, but my consciousness itself never changes, because it still recognizes itself even after having been interrupted (like through deep sleep).
So there is an element beyond all thoughts that does the observing. It cannot itself be observed, but that just proof that it exists, not that it doesn't. The argument that just because the self cannot be grasped, it must not exist (like your last sentence here >>16992621) is not a good one.

>>16992656
>also there 7 steps to do before mediation
What are they?

These threads exist for people interested in eastern philosophy to procrastinate on learning to practice meditation. They know that's where the rubber hits the road and they have to get down to it eventually, but its too hard, so they rationalize to themselves that they have to nail down every detail of the conceptual stuff down first, which ends up manifesting in these interminable threads. People who actually know something who are trying to help, you should understand that the impulse behind these endless quibbles is bad-faith neurotic procrastination. OP doesn't actually WANT to get to the bottom of this because if he did then the only thing left to do would be to investigate the tools of meditation practice, and that's really hard compared to endless 4chan bullshit. I encourage you to stop wasting your time on people like this.

>>16992344
>>In the end all that matters is that the chosen vehicle be good for attaining enlightenment. Maybe anatta serves a purpose in the path towards Nirvana, even if it is not the truth?
No, you can't reach nirvana without the truth

>>16992611
>That would make no sense from the perspective I'm presenting
In practical terms, what continues after death? The body doesn't, obviously, what about the rest? Memories? Self-awareness? Sentience, consciousness?

>>16992621
If it is truth that there is no observer, why still are personal pronouns being used? Please do not perpetuate these words which imply something which does not exist at all!

>Inb4 it is done for the sake of convenience

The passive voice is capable of explaining just as well. Furthermore, when active voice is necessary, the intellect may produce such indications by speaking in 3rd person.
>This body is typing
Instead of
>I am typing

Which one is more truthful to the reality which is purported by the post to which I am replying?

>>16992635
>talmudically quibbles about lines removed from context instead of getting to a point
Yes, you strike me as the kind of person who would find Sam Harris very deep and thought provoking.

>>16992629
But those observings can be broken apart. You're constantly observing via sight, smell, sound, taste, touch, mind (the sixth sense that is used, in Buddhist theories of the mind, to do stuff like visualization, memory, astral projection, etc). Those observings can end. If you see something, you can stop seeing it. The fact that it can go away, or be broken down further, is evidence of a lack of atman. An atman would result in never being able to change what you see, or stop seeing what you presently see (unless you're constantly observing everything at once via omniscience, which is a point that a certain Hindu school that should not be named does actually make, but don't tell the gnostic LARPers on there that).

Again, there's nothing wrong with conceptually designating a self. The Buddha did this all the time, he encouraged it, communication becomes unwieldy if you try and act like some autistic Rabbi making purely linguistically correct ultimately true statements. But that doesn't mean it's ultimately true. We can call our bundle of mental processes a self, and that's fine. But we have to understand that it is impermanent and subject to change. It is when you make the self into a Self that you run into problems. This causes delusion, suffering, pain, and misery.

>>16992677
But the Buddha said there are many ways to reach Nirvana, and that the path of Dharma was not the only one. You can therefore assume that as long as the core teachings are good, the rest can be false, it won't matter. Like how all boats look different but they all carry you across water.

>>16992681
Neither, the truest would be "typing is occurring". This is, however, unwieldy. David Bohm tried to make a language that could do this, and he ended up giving up.

You're coming at this from the Protestant perspective where Yahweh made the world for the Jews, so everything must be perfectly understandable according to the principles of Hebrew grammar. That's not the case. Buddhism completely rejects that idea.

>>16992529
>No idea what you are saying here.
As an example of what I was saying, in the Buddhist philosopher Śāntarakṣita's work Tattvasaṅgraha with the commentary of Kamalaśīla, they argue against the existence of an eternal consciousness on the basis that such an eternal consciousness is not apprehended or detected ever. Their criticisms are wrong because for among other reasons it confuses sentience and its objects, but it remains true that they and other Buddhist philosophers have repeated this line of reasoning, and that I have seen Buddhists on /lit/ use it myself on multiple occasions.
>>16992529
>Check my last line here.
Yes, I know, you are propagating the Coomaraswamy/Ken Wheeler/Caroline Rhys Davids
interpretation of Buddhism which almost all Buddhist schools/traditions reject unequivocally. The problem though is that you can't really cite any evidence from the Pali Canon in favor of your argument/interpretation.
>Consciousness and soul of what?
Consciousness or sentience is self-revealing, it is of itself before it is of the other.
>Maybe, but so will most Christian priests shit on you if you come at them with sophisticated Christian metaphysics.
That is not a comparable situation, because there are many sophisticated Christian metaphysicians who are venerated within the Catholic and Eastern Churchs, whose authority you could cite as for why it is orthodox for you to accept those Christian doctrine, but the same cannot be said for authority figures within Buddhism. The people who espouse what you do are always outsiders to Buddhism, rendering judgements on it from afar, but without any authority to do so in the eyes of Buddhists.

>>16992529
>I am not obligated to conform to this or that specific school of thought and if OP had addressed his post at practitioners of this or that specific school, I would have left it up to them to answer that question.
It is actively deceitful to present your answers as the authoritative explanation of the ostensible contradictions in Buddhist doctrine but without also revealing that your answers are rejected by 99% of surviving and active Buddhist schools, and was/is also rejected by like 95+% of Buddhist thinkers throughout history. At the very least add a little disclaimer, otherwise you are doing just as much to misinform and confuse people as help them.

>>16991945
aggregates are conditioned so dukkha so anatta

lay people who crave the idea that there is a self always end up with a wishful thinking that there is a self outside the aggregate lol

>>16992687
There is only one Dharma. There are, however, many tools to reach it. "Buddhism" is a means of reaching Dharma, and can be modified as you see fit to reach Dharma. Zen, Chan, Shingon, Theravada, they're tools and they can be modified as needed. Any tool will work. Find the right tool and use it. But it must reach Dharma. Anatta IS part of Dharma. You can come up with whatever manner of things to reach anatta, as it is part of Dharma, but if you don't have anatta, you aren't getting to Dharma.

Are enlightened beings capable of enjoying anything?

>>16992684
>>I disagree with Sam Harris
>Yeah you like Sam Harris, don'tcha?
?? Okay, good talk lol

>>16992687
>But the Buddha said there are many ways to reach Nirvana, and that the path of Dharma was not the only one.
No , there is only 1 8-fold paths, the contrary is a Mahayana twisted story to pass their views and methods as what the buddha taught.

>>16992707
They enjoy nirvana and whatever lesser bliss there is in the jhanas.

>>16992684
How are there experiences of the the unmanifest if there is nothing to experience it? Nothing experiences nothing which somehow also is characterised by bliss. I don't disagree with your logic about the soul, but I don't see how you can explain nirvana without saying 'it cannot be expressed'.

>>16992707
enlightened kek

>>16992684
>the sixth sense that is used, in Buddhist theories of the mind, to do stuff like visualization, memory, astral projection, etc
But this cannot be broken down, it is always there. Just because it changes doesn't mean it can't be eternal, I don't see the logic here.

>>16992707
Yes. In fact, they're more capable of enjoyment than non-enlightened beings. Craving and attachment cause suffering, not pleasures and enjoyments.

>>16992708
Start with What the Buddha Taught. It's up on libgen.

>>16992667
Concentration is conditioned so trigger all the little conditions
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html

>>16992730
Can they enjoy anything laypeople enjoy though? Or do they start seeing everyday pleasure as dukkha?

>>16992710
Explain. People who shit on Mahayana in these threads never say why it's bad.
What is the best school of Buddhism then? Please don't just vaguely say "Theravada" but provide an actual answer.

>>16992044
why not?

>>16992730
>Start with What the Buddha Taught.
I've started long ago, so far it seems the only way to find the no-self-hypothesis valid is to experience Reality, which is why I was curious about multiple anons claiming they don't know where their "you" is.

>>16992721
Think of it like upside-down ice cream cones. Where does Cone A get its "core"? From cone B, which gets its from cone C, and so on. This is Dependent Origination (which is the same as Emptiness, AKA Sunyata, but looking at it from a different angle). Buddhism rejects the Platonic maxim that the more something changes, the less real it is. Things that change are real. It's a statement about HOW "being real" works. Where does A get its realness from? From B, which gets its from C, and so on.

Buddhism rejects "nothing" as such. "Nothing" doesn't exist. Emptiness, AKA Sunyata, AKA having been Dependently Originated, is an adjective, not a noun. It is a descriptor of how things are. Things that exist are Empty. The Heart Sutra goes over this bit. All that has Form has Emptiness, all that has Emptiness has Form.

Buddhism does not reject the idea of a soul, but rather the idea that the soul is the atman. What continues to do nirvanaing after death? All of you, freed from delusions of ego. You aren't just the results of your brain.

>>16992733
>https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html
Okay okay, but where can I find a description of the skillful virtues?

>>16991977
the feeling of consciousness is an evolved mental process that carries some survival benefit. it is only a feeling, probably too compensate for the level of abstraction we are capable off (a creature that did not feel "conscious" might quickly end it's own life at this level of abstract reasoning, so the feeling of a conscious soul was quickly selected for). it doesn't have to make any more sense than that. the religious feeling that drives you to reject this idea is also evolved. we are no more of free thought than a beetle. our programming is just different and on some measures more complicated

>>16992757
>What continues to do nirvanaing after death? All of you, freed from delusions of ego.

What would this be exactly? What is 'all of you'?

>You aren't just the results of your brain.

Of course not, but Buddhism rejects that we are pure consciousness itself. Other than this what does the nirvanaing.

>>16992773
metaphyiscally though what is going on there, are rocks conscious? If not what it is about (some?) nervous systems that makes it happen, and what is it?

>>16992707
No because there is no self to enjoy anything and no means to perceive/sense the thing known by lesser beings as enjoyment. Any enjoyment "they" (who? what?) feel is false identification with bliss components. They must meditate more. They are still muggles, not wizards

>>16992726
Can you visualize a triangle? Will this stop, or will you always be visualizing the triangle, for the rest of eternity? If it can arise, and can then fade, it is Empty. We could say that a memory is stored "in" the brain (this isn't technically true neurologically because the brain isn't a computer but whatever), but then that means that the memory could not be in the brain, so the memory is also Empty. If the memory can be put in, it can be removed. Replace "brain" with "soul" if you will. If it is capable of changing, then it is Empty.

If it can change, it MUST be non-eternal, otherwise it could change in some way that destroys it.

These views of the afterlife about how we all get merged into one are not that exciting, when I was a kid I used to cope with the idea of death by assuming my consciousness would get to experience an infinite amount of exciting worlds and experiences and that used to really make me hopeful. I remember reading Stephen Kong's description of the "importance of size" when I was eleven or twelve and thought it would be amazing if this were actually true.
Ever since reading about the views on afterlife of mainstream religions I'm kind of bummed that this world is all there is and after that I'll either join the monad (best case scenario) or disappear.

>>16992782
metaphysics aren't real. they're a cope for the religious side (evolved btw) of our minds. nothing is conscious, it is only a feeling we are programmed to feel. our thoughts are determined by physical processes in our skulls, responding to physical actions observed by our senses. we are animated, mobile matter creating copies of our phenotypes in the most efficient way that the process can manage. to me it seems like a bizarre "whatever works" patchwork of effective components, some that conflict with observable reality

>>16992706
So nobody who isn't a Buddhist has ever achieved enlightenment? Other religions wouldn't have words for it if it were true.

>>16992773
This isn't buddhism it's literally materialist reductionism.

>>16992856
You can achieve enlightenment without being a Buddhist. Some alien in another galaxy could, or some being in another dimension or universe or whatever. Perhaps some obscure Amazonian tribe with no contact with the outside world. Buddhism totally accepts people independently reaching dharma. You cannot get enlightened without Dharma, however.

>>16992848
>metaphysics aren't real
This is a metaphysical claim, as is the rest of your post

>>16992848
Do rocks have feelings and thoughts and stuff?

>>16992880
It isn't in conflict with Buddhism. All feelings are feelings, they have causes, and they end. He's just providing a reason for why you have those feelings (evolution), where the Buddha stays silent because it's ultimately irrelevant as to why. WHY you have a sense of self, or are scared of death, or don't like pain, are irrelevant, you just do. It could be evolution, it could be the will of Indra, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that the Buddha showed us the path out of the wheel of Samsara.

You just don't like it because it uses empiricism as a trump card to end debate, forcing you to get off the internet and stop arguing.

>>16992907
not in buddhism

>>16992915
No I don't like it because it's practically the same thing as physicalism which is a retarded take I don't agree with. Is Buddhism crypto-physicalism?

>>16992916
Well then that is the question, what are these 'feelings' that we have that the rocks don't, isn't there something qualitatively different going on

>>16992793
>If it is capable of changing, then it is Empty.
The thoughts change, but the awareness does not.

>>16992466
>>16992478
That was my take from Buddhism. I can't point to any specific observer so I can understand any I is just a construction
I like ice cream = there is a perceivable urge which likes ice cream.
Any sense of being an observer is false, the only thing I can't npoint to is the basic quality of conscience.

>>16992955
>the only thing I can't npoint to is the basic quality of conscience.
But that doesn't mean it's not there.
The fact is that it is there, it just cannot be shown.

>>16992776
Anyone?

>>16992926
Not at all. For one, Buddhism rejects the mind-body dualism that physicalism is rooted in. Secondly, Buddhism rejects the idea of consciousness as being "a thing". The mind doesn't "make" consciousness in Buddhism, as it does in physicalism. Consciousness isn't a single thing in Buddhism, you just have an arbitrary bundle of mental phenomena. We could call your stomach digesting stuff "part of consciousness". This bundle has causes.

Again, you're just upset because this throws up a roadblock that prevents your ritualistic shitflinging. How about this: go spend five minutes quietly observing your breath.

>>16992940
Then we're redefining things to be so small as to be meaningless. Oh, 99.99% of this isn't atman, but the atman is 0.01% of it! And when we look at that, oh, only 0.01% of THAT is the atman! And then... Forever. If the existence of the atman is identical to its non-existence, as you propose, then we've reached an incoherence. This is why the Buddha posited anatman. The Buddha isn't saying that the atman doesn't existed as opposed to existing, but that the whole paradigm just doesn't work out.

>>16992846
I know that feel all too well
>tfw I won't go to an anime fantasy land when I die
>this shit is all there is

>>16992621
>Is your hand doing the observing? Is your nose? No? Then what is the "you" doing the observing?
Sentience is that you that does the observing

>The simple truth is that there is no observer, and no observee.
This is quite foolish, if this was the case, there would be no way to distinguish between your own experience and the experience of others. Experience has to be directly revealed or manifested to us in order for it to be experienced as such. Take for example the identical hearing of a siren by two conscious individuals, if there is just the hearing then there is no way to distinguish between the subjective or lived experience of that hearing between one of the persons from the other if there is no experiencer to whom the experience of hearing was manifested.
>There's just observing. To say otherwise would have observers that observe nothing,
What is samadhi but someone establishing themselves and remaining for a while in the state of the observer/awareness which is isolated from all contents of awareness?
>and observees that are not observed by anything.
Why would the observer be observed by another? There is no logical necessity for it.

>>16992684
>But those observings can be broken apart.
But the sentience which observes the minds activities cannot break itself down apart, because breaking down and identifying are processes of the mind involving discursive thought and the minds rational faculty; these take place by the light of sentience, and only ever are directed towards insentient things. The mind can use its intellect to project or create an imagined mental image of what sentience is, and sentience can observe the mind do this. But sentience cannot directly observe itself, as something can never simultaneously be both the subject and object of knowledge, This is like fire burning itself, it's a reflexive relation which Nagarjuna says as a rule are inadmissible.
> The fact that it can go away, or be broken down further, is evidence of a lack of atman. An atman would result in never being able to change what you see, or stop seeing what you presently see
This is not true, because only the contents or objects of the Atman changes, not the Atman itself. The Atman is transparent and allows changing things to appear in or be reflected in its unchanging transparency. So what you say is not true, because you are confusing the objects (i.e. thoughts and sensory perceptions) of sentience for the sentience/Atman itself, and then wrongly concluding "well therefore since the objects of sentience change, therefor sentience itself cannot be unchanging", you are attempting to identify attributes (such as being transitory) about the non-sentience, non-Atman things like thoughts and sense-perception, and then extending that attribute to the Atman which is qualitatively different from that thing, but there is no basis for making this extension, it involves a categorical error by you.

>>16992979
>you're just upset because this throws up a roadblock that prevents your ritualistic shitflinging.
Huh? No, I'm just losing interest because the core tenets of Buddhism don't appeal to me at all. I thought the people who said it was a death cult were just memeing, but it isn't all that far from being one.

>>16992716
Who enjoys it if they don't have a self or inner experiencer?

>>16992766
>> Okay okay, but where can I find a description of the skillful virtues?
that's just the five precepts, or 8 precepts if you're good at the 5

>>16993013
I feel like this is the question that Buddhists can't answer head on. I would've loved to hear what they say about this but from what i've seen, it's just a bunch of side-stepping.

>>16992657
>Of course I perceive my body, but that's not essential to my experience of self, you could remove my body and leave the rest and "I" would still be there.
Referring to consciousness here does not resolve the issue of self. Your (profane) consciousness is dependant on the body for its existence. If the body terminates, so will that consciousness.
>From that consciousness, thoughts arise. They are impermanent, but my consciousness itself never changes
If thoughts arise from "your" consciousness, can you control all of them, determine which thoughts arise when and which do not arise, as well as which disappear? If that is outside your control, how is this consciousness "yours"? Is it not more accurate to say that thoughts arise within, rather than from, "your" consciousness? If the contents of your consciousness are impermanent, then why should it be permanent - do you have experience of your consciousness without thought? Can you suspend your thinking for a day, for example? What emerges then? Is it that same consciousness or a different one?
>because it still recognizes itself even after having been interrupted (like through deep sleep).
This is actually an example of how consciousness is changeable - it undergoes change. The fact that it at least appears to arrive at a previous state after this break does not mean that it actually has arrived at the same state. Moreover, death and sleep are equivalent. If sleep at least temporarily terminates your consciousness, how will it survive death, when there is no waking up from death?
>So there is an element beyond all thoughts that does the observing.
I am of the opinion that this is true, but it is not a profane element. BTW the guy you tagged at the end isn't me.
>>16992678
It is best not to speculate about this. Suffice to say that a person who has reached enlightenment in this life is considered to have "died" as a human being and to have gone beyond the human condition - yet these people not only exist, but are perfectly functional, far more so than normal people. If you are enlightened, you will take what you need upon death and abandon the rest.

>>16993040
I think a Buddhist would see this as a loaded question. You presume that an experience is derived of a subject and its relationship to an object. Whereas they believe that subject and object are faulty concepts derived of the fact of an experience.

>>16992979
>If the existence of the atman is identical to its non-existence, as you propose, then we've reached an incoherence.
Nobody said that, the non-existence of the Atman or sentience would mean the lack of a conscious inner experience, which would mean a lack of conscious experience. Conversely, the existence of the Atman means an inner experiencer who has conscious experience. Therefore, your claim that the anon (who is not me btw) proposed that "existence of the atman is identical to its non-existence" is completely wrong and nonsensical. Blatant strawmanning.

>>16993122
>Your (profane) consciousness is dependant on the body for its existence
Factually untrue, altered states exist.
>If the body terminates, so will that consciousness.
How do you know?
Later on in your post you say we shouldn't speculate about what happens after death.
>can you control all of them
Why should I be able to? I don't control all of my anatomical processes either. Thoughts are a consequence of consciousness. The thoughts themselves arise, change, and die, but their source remains the same. It gives birth to and observes the thoughts.
>What emerges then?
Thoughts are a necessary byproduct of consciousness. If you are conscious, you produce thoughts.
>it undergoes change
No, my consciousness is still the same after I awaken. I can trace it back to how it was before.
>death and sleep are equivalent
How do you know?

>>16993124
>You presume that an experience is derived of a subject and its relationship to an object. Whereas they believe that subject and object are faulty concepts derived of the fact of an experience.
The word experience can only pertain to conscious sentient beings or subjects. Insentient things don't have any experiences. Therefore, to use the order "experience" in a context devoid of an experiencer, conscious entity (or any other recipient of the experience, i.e. subject) is to use the word incorrectly. Buddhists rely on the abuse and misuse of language to plug the holes in their doctrine.

>>16992743
Well?

>>16993162
>The word experience can only pertain to conscious sentient beings or subjects.
That is a derivation, the extra step a human mind goes after having an experience. They reject that extra step.
I'm not a Buddhist and I don't care if people find their hypotheses valid, but I do think this one is pretty understandable. At any given point you can be absolutely certain than an experience is had, but since illusions exist, you can't be sure what the experience is of. It may as well be fucking Atman Uberman Zyggurat Cosmic Consciousness experiencing himself, you don't know, all you know is that an experience exists.

>>16992743
Mahayna is bad fan fic
Theravada, despite also being sectarian, at least contains the teaching of the living Buddha

>>16993204
You still haven't explained what makes Mahayana bad.

>>16993122
>these people not only exist, but are perfectly functional, far more so than normal people.
The fact that they aren't empty husks would suggest that there does, in fact, exist a transcendent "something".

>>16993208
Do I need to draw to you? It’s made up fan fic. I figure that if you’re interested in something called Buddhism you’d want to know what the guy called Buddha taught, not the particular doctrine of some anonymous monk writing under the name of “totally Buddha” hundreds of years after the Buddha died.

>>16993235
Okay, no argument then.

>>16993238
Kys retard

>>16992695
>As an example of what I was saying, in the Buddhist philosopher Śāntarakṣita's work Tattvasaṅgraha with the commentary of Kamalaśīla, they argue against the existence of an eternal consciousness on the basis that such an eternal consciousness is not apprehended or detected ever.
Insofar as we are dealing with profane consciousness, this is perfectly true. Buddhism aims to awaken something deeper that goes beyond that. Rather than saying that Buddhists dispute the existence of a sublime substance "underneath the aggregates", you should have said that Buddhists dispute the existence of a sublime substance "alongside the aggregates".
>The problem though is that you can't really cite any evidence from the Pali Canon in favor of your argument/interpretation.
What do you want me to cite, exactly? Let us suppose for a second that you are correct and Buddhism admits nothing that could exist outside the aggregates. In that case, what is the point of Buddhism? What is the point of ascesis? What is Nirvana and how can it lead to anything at all?
>Consciousness or sentience is self-revealing, it is of itself before it is of the other.
That's my point. That is where Nirvana leads to - a consciousness that is of itself and needs nothing other than itself; in other words, needs no Atman. What the Buddha rejects is the existence of a eternal consciousness or soul that consists of the aggregates and he rejects it on the same grounds that Hinduists reject the self of the gunas.
>but the same cannot be said for authority figures within Buddhism.
Not even the Buddha himself? If you are implying that not one person of repute among the Buddhist monastics shares the underlying presuppositions of my view, then you would be wrong. I believe that there are many who hold these views. As to these people, however, I can no more name them than I can name all important Calvinist theologians who agree with my understanding of Calvinism or with the theologians of any other tradition with whom I may agree.
>It is actively deceitful to present your answers as the authoritative explanation of the ostensible contradictions in Buddhist doctrine but without also revealing that your answers are rejected by 99% of surviving and active Buddhist schools, and was/is also rejected by like 95+% of Buddhist thinkers throughout history. At the very least add a little disclaimer, otherwise you are doing just as much to misinform and confuse people as help them.
It's also actively deceitful to pull statistics out of your ass. At any case, I should also add that I slightly misunderstood the post I was replying to there. Atman and Anatta are not at all equivalent doctrines, which should be obvious. There are reasons why Hindus taught Atman in their time, just as there are reasons why the Buddhists taught Anatta later. Both views, however, are compatible and coherent within the same metaphysical framework - they simply refer to different existential conditions.

>>16993247
Seethe harder. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about and are just repeating things you read on /lit/.

>>16993130
>i'm not actually a real person having experiences, there's a tiny man piloting me and controlling my every whim! HE is the one actually having the experiences!
And you morons say Buddhism is a death cult lmfao.

>>16992846
"Joining the monad" means obtaining absolute power over everything, ever. In fact, it implies an even higher degree of mastery. I am not sure why you seem to be under the impression that sucks.

>>16993235
this is as self-limiting as only accepting the Gospels as legitimately Christian. What matters is the ideas and what they point toward, not their "authenticity" or who wrote what

>>16993130
Did you read a word that I said? If there is an atman, there can't be experiencing, otherwise you'd always be experiencing the same thing, and could never stop experiencing it, and could never experience anything else.

>>16993249
>Buddhists dispute the existence of a sublime substance "alongside the aggregates".
>That is where Nirvana leads to - a consciousness that is of itself and needs nothing other than itself
Not the same guy but I don't understand how this is effectively different from absolute disintegration. How are enlightened people able to interact with the world then, if Nirvana is a form of consciousness that doesn't have the aggregates? How can it even be a form of consciousness without aggregates? If you have "consciousness" but no mind/thoughts/cognition, it's like being in a deep sleep, you don't actually experience anything.
>Both views, however, are compatible and coherent within the same metaphysical framework
I don't get that either. Both views seem antithetical.

>>16993292
>otherwise you'd always be experiencing the same thing
Why?

>>16993254
Ok dumb motherfucker practice starvation until you reach para nirvana

>>16993283
Have fun reading fan fic dumbtard

>>16992554
The question of judeo-christian free will is not and never has been a "broad one".
>why would humans possibly think they could contradict the will of an almighty god

>>16993295
The ego dissolves, but there is continuing. When you sleep, do you disappear? Have you ever watched someone sleep, and seen them poof away? No. The ego dissolves, but that doesn't mean that you die, or that you go poof, or get annihilated. Existence is far larger than just the go.

>b-but i'm just an ego trapped in a meat box!
No, you aren't. That's the entire point. You aren't just your ego. There is no "super-ego" or a "hidden-ego" that lets the ego slip by and get to live forever. If your conception of religion, any religion, not just Buddhism, consists of nothing more than "telling the ego that it gets to live forever", then you are doing religion wrong. Read Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.

>>16993282
Because there's no actual experience, it's all a supreme oneness. I'm not saying it's bad, I couldn't even know, but I like being sentient, capable of experiencing and discovering things.

>>16992900
>>metaphysics aren't real
>This is a metaphysical claim
yawn. Nothing I say and nothing you say is coming from a place of free will. we are simply playing out a predetermined interaction written into the physical universe. metaphysics is a concept, and a false one. physics is not

>>16992907
thoughts and feelings are an evolved mechanism in certain stains of phenotype-replicating chunks of matter. they are "experienced" by a precieved "consciousness" to encourage evolutionarily appropriate behaviors, as determined over time by selective pressure

>>16993305
Still no argument lmao

>>16993305
Are you Indian? Be honest, I won't judge.

>>16993325
Retarded materialist, fuck off back to /sci/

>>16993325
do rocks 'experience' anything?

>>16993315
>The question of judeo-christian free will is not and never has been a "broad one".
Am I supposed to try and get you to change an opinion on what counts as 'broad'? Or I mean, what was the point of your post?

>>16993325
>yawn
This was the most coherent part of your reply.

>>16993159
>Factually untrue, altered states exist.
These "altered states", if they are genuine, are not the sole product of profane consciousness.
>How do you know? Later on in your post you say we shouldn't speculate about what happens after death.
These aren't contradictory. From a Buddhist perspective, we shouldn't speculate about what happens after death, but we know for a fact what happens on death. Your (profane) consciousness depends on brain activity for its existence. Falling asleep or into a coma, or having your brain destroyed, will end that consciousness. This is where spiritual consciousness takes over, if it has been awakened.
>Why should I be able to? I don't control all of my anatomical processes either.
Then these things are not subject to your control, you are subject to their control. Therefore, they are not "yours" - you are "theirs".
>Thoughts are a necessary byproduct of consciousness. If you are conscious, you produce thoughts.
This is not incorrect, but I am not sure how it is relevant.
>No, my consciousness is still the same after I awaken. I can trace it back to how it was before.
It is absolutely not the same, but it might be in an equivalent state. It is definitely not the same unless you can rewind time.
>How do you know?
Old traditional symbolism. The analogy is used in many guides to enlightenment in various spiritual traditions.
>>16993215
Yes, but not before Nirvana. Or at least, it does not awaken and manifest before the road to Nirvana.

>>16993318
>When you sleep, do you disappear?
Well, yes. I stop being conscious or aware of anything, there is only void until I dream or wake up, so I do disappear. The body is irrelevant.
Existence for its own sake is pointless. I could knock myself into a coma and that'd destroy my ego but it would be retarded.
>You aren't just your ego
Then what am I?
>There is no "super-ego" or a "hidden-ego" that lets the ego slip by and get to live forever.
Then what's the point?

>>16993201
>At any given point you can be absolutely certain than an experience is had, but since illusions exist, you can't be sure what the experience is of.
That's the thing though, this is literally what an experiencer is, a conscious presence which has or had the taking-place of experience. You can be unsure of the reality of the content of the experience, but that a content of undeterminable reality/unreality is experienced by an experiencer is itself undeniable.
>>16993249
>What do you want me to cite, exactly?
Any verse where Buddha suggests that there is something aside from or alongside the aggregates which is not annihilated, which continues in Nirvana
>Let us suppose for a second that you are correct and Buddhism admits nothing that could exist outside the aggregates. In that case, what is the point of Buddhism? What is the point of ascesis? What is Nirvana and how can it lead to anything at all?
The point would be a nihilist-like extinction of consciousness not dissimilar to a materialist conception of death, which some people would view as a good thing especially if you also harangue them about existence being an unending cycle of misery as Buddha did IRL.
>a consciousness that is of itself and needs nothing other than itself; in other words, needs no Atman.
Why does Buddha constantly refer in the PC to how everything is dependent on everything else and co-dependently originated if there was supposed to be some hidden unconditioned consciousness established in itself without a need on any other? It seems like a teacher who did this was deliberately concealing a crucial teaching fromm their students, without any good justification since it did not lead to widespread aphophatic realization but to the denial of that unconditioned consciousness by the entire tradition set up in that teachers name.

>>16993300
Because in order for the atman to not be able to change, it must therefore be unable to change. It must be static. If the atman isn't static, it could change, and that means that it could end, so it isn't an atman. The atman is eternal, unchanging, uniform, and discrete. If it can change, it could die. It must be unable to die. That's just how it's defined.

The reason that the Buddha rejected the entire idea of an atman is because if you put it to any scrutiny you see that it completely falls apart. We don't live in a world with atmans. An atman could never stop seeing what it sees, so it must be seeing something, always, and never see anything else, and never stop seeing what it sees. This alone is absurd, there's nothing that does this. The end result of this is postulating that the atman is eternal, but also has only a specific time that it exists in (a start and end point). Even if it did exist, then it could never do anything, because it could never do anything but what it is always ceaselessly doing. So, we're postulating an eternal thing that has an expiration date. This is also absurd. The entire worldview in which an atman can exist must be rejected, because it results in these incoherences.

Now, granted, we could postulate several forms of radical monism/non-dualism, but at this point we're leaving behind the entire idea of an atman (by rejecting the requirement of discreteness and uniformity).

>>16993352
>Yes, but not before Nirvana.
So are awakened people actually the only people with a true Self, in a sense?

>>16993277
>there's a tiny man piloting me and controlling my every whim! HE is the one actually having the experiences!
Yes, this what being a self-aware conscious being who controls their body and mind is like anon. I know this might be difficult to grasp for NPCs who have no inner conscious experience though.

>>16991945
does no self mean your self doesn't exist outside of other people? i.e your self is kind, helpful, trustworthy the traits that describe your self are always around others and not independant

>>16993373
>An atman could never stop seeing what it sees,
That would only be true if the objects of sentience or awareness was identical with awareness itself, which it is is not. One comes and goes in the other. Awareness doesn't come and go in objects.

>>16993370
>a content of undeterminable reality/unreality is experienced by an experiencer is itself undeniable
Sure, and as I said - that experiencer might be not the Self, but whatever they happen to call the fundamental level of reality... Supreme Reality Awareness McWrap. Their point is that you are not real, even though there would technically be an experiencer.

>>16993379
>i'm not actually conscious, i don't experience anything and am being piloted by forces separate from myself!
Anon, if this is the case then you are LITERALLY an NPC. You are the kind of person the NPC meme was created to describe.

>>16991945
>How is this an argument against self?
We usually consider "the self" as a persistent identity, a solid kernel of "me-ness" that exists through time unchanged like a rock lashed by the waves of the ocean. There is no such persistent self, and it is an illusion of the ego to pin it down thought process and categorize it as such.

>>16993352
>are not the sole product of profane consciousness.
I think I'm not getting what you mean by profane consciousness.
Is projection outside of the body a manifestation of profane consciousness? Are dreams? Are near-death experiences when the experiencer is reported to have no brain activity?
>having your brain destroyed, will end that consciousness.
Tibetan buddhism says you do experience various states after death though, even if you're not enlightened.
> It is definitely not the same
How can you be so sure? When I shut off my car's engine then turn it back on, it's still the same engine, just because it's been inactive for a while didn't change it.
>Old traditional symbolism
Could you be more specific?

>>16993388
>Awareness doesn't come and go in objects.
Yes it does. The very possibility of being unaware of something requires this.

>>16993295
>Not the same guy but I don't understand how this is effectively different from absolute disintegration. How are enlightened people able to interact with the world then, if Nirvana is a form of consciousness that doesn't have the aggregates? How can it even be a form of consciousness without aggregates? If you have "consciousness" but no mind/thoughts/cognition, it's like being in a deep sleep, you don't actually experience anything.
An enlightened individual does not somehow lose their cognitive or other faculties, they simply gain new ones superior to their previous ones in addition. The profane self shrinks into nonexistence, but the actual field of experience and awareness expands inconceivably much.
>I don't get that either. Both views seem antithetical.
Atman would be justified for an individual that already feels a certain sense of deep connection to the Unmanifest. Anatta presupposes a lower existential condition, where nothing is known to the apprentice apart from the profane state. Both aim to eliminate profane elements that get in the way of the connection with the Unmanifest - these elements are the gunas or the aggregates.

>>16993370
Dependent origination makes no sense anyway, where's the prime mover?

>>16993379
>DUDE I'm like, being PILOTED like in a VIDEOGAME! WOAOAOAOOOHH!
Peak reddit.

>>16993320
Why would there be no actual experience? Attaining an equivalent to pure nondual consciousness is the aim of many spiritual traditions and their accomplished practitioners seem perfectly capable of experience.

>>16993414
There isn't one. There doesn't need to be. Buddhist though postulates an infinite historical past, with no point of creation.

Aristotelianism does too, by the way. The Prime Movers (multiple, 47-55 of them) are constantly inputting causality into the world because of the problem of "causal chains" ending. It's Aquinas, not Aristotle, who says that there's ACTUALLY a SUPER MOVER that created everything, and that Aristotle is wrong, because the Torah said so.

>>16993385
I too enjoyed Evangelion

>>16993343
>Retarded materialist
I wish there was one iota of "afterlife" just so you could know, in terrir, how wrong "you" were, before your precious consciousness is erased forever. it tears me up inside knowing you will experience only terror and doubt on your deathbed alone. I wish it was confirmed for you, before it happened. not out of malice, but for your own sake. I am programmed for empathy and attempting to pass relevant threat information to strangers

>>16993344
Rocks experience nothing, humans experience nothing. All is "perceived" by a complex physical reaction, evolved to feel that"self" exists, only for the survival benefit. The concept of experiencing anything is based on flawed premises. a human brain can be split, and both sides will independently continue to "experience". no soul has been split. no consciousness divided. physical processes simply continue to function in a diminished state.

>>16993345
>>yawn
>This was the most coherent part of your reply.
my post was extremely concise, clear, and simple. if it was false you should have no difficulty in formulating a rebuttal

>>16993428
How can there be an infinite past? At some point, something needs to have started the cycle. Or am I being a brainlet?

>>16993410
>they simply gain new ones superior to their previous ones in addition.
And these are carried over after death, but not the previous ones? Why?
When you say the field of experience expands, do you mean it in the literal sense?
>Both aim to eliminate profane elements that get in the way of the connection with the Unmanifest
What happens after they do, and are fully connected?

>>16993422
>their accomplished practitioners seem perfectly capable of experience.
In this life, but these traditions all imply that once you're done with this life, if you've awakened to the Monad, then you join it forever, you don't experience individuality again.

>>16993443
>am I being a brainlet?
No, you're not. There's no logical reason either answer has to be take, it's axiomatic. Aquinas says that there HAS to be a beginning, because the Torah said so. There is no logical reason either way, it's inferred from other sources. Hindus say the exact opposite, for a similar reason: there's an infinite historical past because the Vedas said so. Why do we take the Torah, or the Vedas, as fact? It's just a simple axiom.

The Buddha himself says that if there is a point of creation, it's so far back as to be unintelligible to humans, and the Buddha's method (for getting out of samsara) is one that can be done independent of whether or not the universe is eternal or not.

>>16993437
>I wish there was one iota of "afterlife" just so you could know, in terrir, how wrong "you" were, before your precious consciousness is erased forever.
Literal sociopath. You're profoundly disgusting, although that's to be expected from a materialist reductionist.
I won't even post the mickey mouse meme because arguing with you would be a waste of time. You should kill yourself; after all, "you" don't exist, nothing does, and everything is utterly worthless.
>only terror and doubt
On the contrary, knowing there is something after is comforting. Not that a soulless bug could understand.

>>16993437
>>>yawn
>>This was the most coherent part of your reply.
>my post was extremely concise, clear, and simple
Yeah, just not coherent. It was a metaphysical position denying metaphysics. I'm not having trouble, I just had nothing to add to my previous rebuttal.

>>16993437
>Rocks experience nothing, humans experience nothing. All is "perceived" by a complex physical reaction, evolved to feel that"self" exists, only for the survival benefit. The concept of experiencing anything is based on flawed premises. a human brain can be split, and both sides will independently continue to "experience". no soul has been split. no consciousness divided. physical processes simply continue to function in a diminished state.
to be clear then whatever you want to call the illusion that we term experience or consciousness, do rocks also have this illusion?

>>16993437
>I wish there was one iota of "afterlife"
You have absolutely no idea whether there is or isn't, stop the smug posturing. You are as clueless as everyone else, perhaps even more so.

>>16993431
not seen it yet it's on my backlog does it explain buddism?

>>16991990
camera observes, camera has no self.

>>16993508
No, it's just that this notion of the self being dependent on other people's perceptions and not existing "in itself" is brought up in one of the last episodes.
If you don't mind a minor spoiler, that's it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXbCWJNfq_0

nothing more tragic than hylics who want to be something more but see nothing but a mass of words that they can only attempt to understand with more words

>>16993480
Alright I understand it better now.
>the Buddha's method
Has it really survived or have the various branches diluted the message?

>>16993529
oh I heard it mentioned in a thread about taoism a while back then just assumed the idea of no self was the same thing

>>16993533
Who are you referring to? "Hylic" doesn't really make sense in the context of buddhism anyway

>>16993422
>>16993463
To put it less coldly, there's a beauty to the human experience, even to some forms of suffering, that I feel is valuable. The idea of having to abandon all of it, although I acknowledge it as the "attachment to the material" that all religions condemn, saddens me.
In an absolute oneness, where concepts such as individuality and experience lose their meaning, there is no beauty anymore, because there is "no thing". It might be experienced as perfection, but paradoxically, it lacks something that only the experience of imperfection can give you.

>>16993370
>Any verse where Buddha suggests that there is something aside from or alongside the aggregates which is not annihilated, which continues in Nirvana
This seems like an arbitrary demand given the context of our conversation. What annihilates the aggregates in the ascetic? What does Nirvana consist in? That's the element you are looking for.
>The point would be a nihilist-like extinction of consciousness not dissimilar to a materialist conception of death, which some people would view as a good thing especially if you also harangue them about existence being an unending cycle of misery as Buddha did IRL.
The link between misery and the Buddha is a later addition, the Buddha was inspired by a desire for awakening and clarity, not aversion to suffering. Aversion blocks enlightenment. I am certain we've had this exchange before, but if the Buddhists really believed that everything is aggregates and that Nirvana was simply the annihilation of everything, then suicide would do just as good of a job, since it also annihilates the aggregates. That the Buddhists would go through all the trouble of ascesis and pursuit of Nirvana demonstrates that thnigs are nowhere near this simple. With that said, Nirvana, like all enlightenment and initiation, is a form of death - the death of the profane so that the sacred may live.
>Why does Buddha constantly refer in the PC to how everything is dependent on everything else and co-dependently originated if there was supposed to be some hidden unconditioned consciousness established in itself without a need on any other?
Because it is obscured by self-perpetuating delusion.
>It seems like a teacher who did this was deliberately concealing a crucial teaching fromm their students, without any good justification since it did not lead to widespread aphophatic realization but to the denial of that unconditioned consciousness by the entire tradition set up in that teachers name.
This is stunning because it demonstrates that you know exactly what Buddhism is about, but simply refuse to acknowledge even a shred of effectiveness of its teachings.
>>16993377
You could say that.

>>16993410
>The profane self shrinks into nonexistence, but the actual field of experience and awareness expands inconceivably much.

I thought awareness was one of the aggregates. Why doesn't buddhism mention anything about this awareness, is it just assumed that one is necessary to experience nirvana?

>>16993610
>You could say that.
So then, what is the most effective and efficient method to achieve Nirvana?

>>16991945
Take 5gs of mushrooms and tell me there is a self. When you experience ego death and you don't want anything. You disappear. Honestly it's kind of annoying since when you are in that state, you technically have the willpower to do anything you could want in life.

>>16993551
I'm talking about you.

>>16993629
But why? Please be nice

>>16993501
>the illusion that we term experience or consciousness, do rocks also have this illusion?
no, only physical matter that evolved neurons or similar structures would potentially benefit from the experience of consciousness

>>16993626
>When you experience ego death and you don't want anything. You disappear.
How do you know you're having that experience then?

>>16993610
>This seems like an arbitrary demand given the context of our conversation.

Translation: can't cite anything.

>Nirvana was simply the annihilation of everything, then suicide would do just as good of a job, since it also annihilates the aggregates.

Suicide would just lead to rebirth, not escape from samsara. It would be like nihilism with extra steps.

>>16993402
>I think I'm not getting what you mean by profane consciousness.
The discursive intellect. What we are using to communicate right now.
>Is projection outside of the body a manifestation of profane consciousness? Are dreams? Are near-death experiences when the experiencer is reported to have no brain activity?
The state of dreaming actually does correspond to a different state for awakened beings. It's the difference between experiencing the state passively or actively.
>Tibetan buddhism says you do experience various states after death though, even if you're not enlightened.
Not in the sense we are used to.
>How can you be so sure? When I shut off my car's engine then turn it back on, it's still the same engine, just because it's been inactive for a while didn't change it.
It is only roughly the same engine. It has some wear and tear since you last used it. Its pistons will not be in the same location. It will also not be in the same location in space compared to when you last turned it on.
>Could you be more specific?
The Hermetics, for example.
>>16993452
>And these are carried over after death, but not the previous ones? Why?
Because the previous ones belong to a lower plane and are dependant on the physical body.
>When you say the field of experience expands, do you mean it in the literal sense?
I don't know what you are referring to here. What I meant was that the usual sense of reality that you and I have is supplemented by a far richer perspective and far greater awareness of things that previously you would be completely unaware of.
>What happens after they do, and are fully connected?
You become enlightened. You can now exist independently, freely and intelligently without the need or interference of a physical body. This is why on death you simply rejoin the Unmanifest where these capabilities enable your continued existence, whereas if you were too attached to the body your "self" would be incapable of operating without the faculties of the body.

>>16993640
>Suicide would just lead to rebirth, not escape from samsara
Which is effectively the same as annihilation anyway so who cares

>>16993489
>Literal sociopath. You're profoundly disgusting, although that's to be expected from a materialist reductionist.
we are all sociopathic by your definition. your sociopathy just contains more untrue beliefs due to the physical structure of your brain. you wish me death when I attempt to correct the errors in your thought. it is an evolved defense mechanism. your religious feelings are a part of the complex of survival mechanisms you have evolved. research on autistic people suggests that certain types of brain damage or developmental issues prevent individuals from experiencing religious feeling during attempts at prayer. if souls exist, damaging a part of the brain should have no effect on the connection to this immaterial plane that you believe exists

>>16993610
>you know exactly what Buddhism is about
What would that be? Every time I ask, I get different answers.

>>16993660
Not really. You're still suffering and existing. To stop suffering is to escape samsara and not exist.

>>16993663
I didn't read your nonsense, just fuck off please

>>16991945
Buddha says self is impermanent, not that self doesn't exist.

>>16993667
>You're still suffering and existing.
No, since the aggregates are destroyed and you haven't achieved Nirvana, so everything about you is exterminated forever. Otherwise those who attain Nirvana would be aware of their previous lives.

>>16993507
>>I wish there was one iota of "afterlife"
>You have absolutely no idea whether there is or isn't, stop the smug posturing.
i have mountains of evidence, you have childhood indoctrination designed to encourage tribally-beneficial behaviors by exploiting an evolved tendency to believe in supernatural things like gods and souls, and your "feelings" about it

>>16993612
>I thought awareness was one of the aggregates.
Not that kind of awareness. Look, the best way to do this is to have no preconceived notions about what enlightenment actually looks like. Then, you can actually achieve Nirvana and see things for yourself.
>>16993621
Depends on who you ask.
>>16993640
>Translation: can't cite anything.
I gave you my answer. What you are asking a citation for will obviously not be present because it is articulated in completely different terms. I have explained the concept to you, so if you want to see its scriptural basis you can go and look for the dynamic that I described yourself.
>>16993640
>Suicide would just lead to rebirth, not escape from samsara. It would be like nihilism with extra steps.
Nope, because everything is just aggregates, remember? Something would be reborn, but it wouldn't be you, since it would also lack a self, because it only consists of aggregates.
>>16993666
>What would that be? Every time I ask, I get different answers.
A doctrine for radical apophatic realisation of the Unmanifested.

>>16993537
The Pali Canon and the Mahayana Sutras are in perfect agreement on 99% of matters, and where they disagree it is in matters irrelevant to the goal of ending human suffering, so I'd say so. The question is which branch or form is the best for you (or your group). I would caution against Vajrayana if you're American because it is REALLY easy to get scammed. Americans tend to "get" Zen quite well, however. The French are big into Theravada.

>>16993325
>we are simply playing out a predetermined interaction written into the physical universe. metaphysics is a concept, and a false one. physics is not
this is hilariously ironic. “Matter” “physical universe” and “physics” are nothing more than abstractions that come AFTER the fact that a subject is aware of at least one thing. they are arbitrary descriptions for the appearance of things, but it makes no sense to posit them as absolutely real when we can never experience the thing-in-itself. can you see gravity? or is gravity something we came up with after observing the apparent motion of objects?

>>16993699
>Not that kind of awareness.

I'd would very much appreciate if you could point me in the direction of some text which talks about or alludes to this other type of awareness. That's the only problem I have with Buddhism is the lack of explanation about what continues into nirvana.

>>16992451
go zero sum yourself

I'm skeptical of any philosophy that can't be dumbed down, you have to read entire books just to gain enough of an understanding to be able to know if you agree with it or not.

so can someone in plain basic english explain to me what buddism is, what it believes the purpose of life is and how we should conduct ourselves in the world?

>>16992773
>the feeling of consciousness is an evolved mental process that carries some survival benefit. it is only a feeling, probably too compensate for the level of abstraction we are capable off (a creature that did not feel "conscious" might quickly end it's own life at this level of abstract reasoning, so the feeling of a conscious soul was quickly selected for). it doesn't have to make any more sense than that. the religious feeling that drives you to reject this idea is also evolved. we are no more of free thought than a beetle. our programming is just different and on some measures more complicated
literally no good evidence for anything in this post

>>16992773
>the explanation for everything is it was selected for
Darwinists are one-trick ponies.

>>16993364
I have a shallow understanding but I thought a core distinction that buddhism makes is that there's no cause-effect distinction, there's no cause that isn't in itself an effect and no effect that isn't a cause, that distinction between things or people is just arbitrarity and that the universe is one cohesive whole. There's also no past-present-future distinction, as memories are something we keep in the present, events are something we investigate in the present, and predictions are something we make or break in the present. The prevailing notion of humanity is they are 'mostly' causes that cause various things over a period of time. Parents judge you as a cause, society judges you as a cause, god judges you as a cause, even relativists that say *some* people aren't responsible for their lives describe *other* people somehow took their cause-ness from them.

The entire universe, past present and future, is instead emphasized as one singular entity that is in part self-witnessing through the eye you call yourself. It's basically determinism with a subtly different universal model, if anything. Samsara/Nirvana don't even seem to be like actual reincarnation, because you lose the things that traditionally make a "person" in reincarnating in the first place, and might even become a fish or something instead. It seems more to me like karmic reincarnation and retribution describes a cycle in which worldly grievances/problems reappear in new forms until they're sufficiently satisfied rather than just addressed or destroyed, that is to say from a living perspective that if people die in contentment then all is well in the world but if they die in misery then hardship is on the horizon, and that is in part thus controllable by buddhas by achieving nirvana before dying or by helping others do so before they die. Death is very much death by most metrics, but it has a flavor of "returning to your origin" given to it, and life and death is also just an arbitrary distinction.

Someone more informed please tell me where I'm wrong.

>>16993740
Buddhism is an ascetic system for enlightenment designed around the idea of starting with someone who has knowledge only of the profane and then awakening this individual to Nirvana. At its best, the doctrines does not concern itself with anything beyond that, other than the claim that Nirvana is greatly valuable and attainable. If you have any specific questions about how an individual that has gone through Nirvana experiences reality, you would be best served asking an Arahant or a Bodhisattva yourself. Alternatively, you can consult Mahayana for the most sophisticated speculative system that Buddhism has provided to date. Unless you have some way of rephrasing your question, I am afraid I can not help you much more than this. What I can tell you is that after achieving Nirvana, you will not be "human" anymore in the sense that normal people understand it. You will have gone beyond the human condition. This does not imply cessation of everything, but it does imply an entirely different mode of being which speculation can hardly grasp.

>>16993646
>the difference between experiencing the state passively or actively.
Do awakened people always dream lucidly?
>Not in the sense we are used to.
But you know you're you, I mean you still retain a sense of self that is linked to your previous life. In fact the most unenlightened think they are still alive and struggle to understand why people don't respond to them.
>It is only roughly the same engine.
These are minor structural changes. This is Theseus' ship all over again. The "thing"ness of the ship is not contingent on a specific amount of components, even if you were to change all of them it would still be Theseus' ship because it just exists as such.
>The Hermetics, for example.
Where?

>>16993743
What does that mean?

>>16993646
>You can now exist independently, freely and intelligently without the need or interference of a physical body.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is how Buddhists describe Nirvana, which is supposed to be above existence.

>>16993676
bury your head in the sand

>>16993730
We should try to boil this down to the key disagreement rather than throwing out smoke screens of metaphysical word games like "thing-in-itself". why do you believe the material comes after the subject is aware? a rock is not aware of the rock above it, but both rocks exist.

>>16993786
entire fields of biology and psychology exist to prove that basic concepts that philosophers and the religious intentionally ignore so they may continue to spin intricate webs of fantastical thought. that is why the world has moved on from philosophy, it is mostly charlatans both biased and misguided

>>16993861
Buddhism is basically a treatment rather than a fix for the human craving for spiritual affirmation. The core message of buddhism is basically that you don't need buddhism at all, and the different degrees of rituals and such basically exist for the people that still feel like they need more. It's about letting go of your problems rather than building a lifestyle around them (although you can build a lifestyle around helping other people let go of their problems).

This is markedly different from say christianity, in which you are lost if you don't believe, you are lost if you do X or Y, you aught to spend every sabbath in prayer, etc. One is a dogma that enslaves a person and their progeny for life, while the other is a belief that is self-abolishing.

>>16993720
>The French are big into Theravada.
Frog here, first time I'm hearing about this, is there a reason for the development of Theravada? I thought I'd do a retreat or just go talk to a master once the virus shit is over to get a better grasp on Buddhism. Initially, I planned on visiting a Zen temple not far from where I live, but if Theravada's more developed here, perhaps that's where I should look

>>16993932
Stop responding to me and fuck off to a thread where your sophomoric """insights"""" will be appreciated

>>16993829
>>the explanation for everything is it was selected for
>Darwinists are one-trick ponies.
life itself *is* that one trick

>>16993861
>asking an Arahant or a Bodhisattva yourself
Are there even any english-speaking ones currently alive?

>>16993950
I agree with this to a very large degree but it doesn't explain consciousness. We could just as well be unaware robots carrying out our tasks couldn't we? Or maybe we couldn't, maybe there is some real evolutionary advantage to being aware, but even then that doesn't explain what it is.

>>16993888
>Do awakened people always dream lucidly?
I don't know about "always", but the possibility of experiencing a different state from dream entirely is there.
.But you know you're you, I mean you still retain a sense of self that is linked to your previous life. In fact the most unenlightened think they are still alive and struggle to understand why people don't respond to them.
I don't think it's necessary to discuss this.
>These are minor structural changes. This is Theseus' ship all over again. The "thing"ness of the ship is not contingent on a specific amount of components, even if you were to change all of them it would still be Theseus' ship because it just exists as such.
This isn't a minor thing at all, least of all because in this comparison you're dealing with an obvious tool. If you are willing to concede that the consciousness is on the same level as a tool, then sure, we can say it remains the same, but you seem to want to claim some exceptional value for it.
>>16993918
Ah yes, great point. I don't think I am technically wrong, but yes, Nirvana needs to a higher level than existence. The more comprehensive way to state what I stated is to say that you can choose to exist or not exist in whatever manner you wish.

Based.
Eliminativismfags BTFO.

>>16993967
>I don't think it's necessary to discuss this.
Why, did I say something retarded?
>If you are willing to concede that the consciousness is on the same level as a tool
Is that what you think? I don't know if it's a tool, I'm not sure what that even means, but consciousness is a process, much like everything else, except it has a special quality in that it is self-observing.

>>16993933
Are you referring to Zen? Technically, Buddhism is just one path, yes, though Buddhists would argue that it is a good idea to walk it.
>>16993938
I am just guessing, but it might have something to do with the Vietnam situation.
>>16993960
I don't know, but I am sure you could find a good translator too, if you look.

ENOUGH! ENOUGH I SAY! STOP THE BUDDHISM THREADS! THIS HAS TO STOP! EVERY GOD DAMN FUCKING DAY ANOTHER BUDDHISM THREAD WITH THESE PSEUDO-SPIRITUAL RETARDS WHO DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE WRITING, DEVALUING EVERY WORD COMING OUT OF THEIR KEYBOARD, FUCK YOU AND FUCK YOUR SUPREME PAJEET

>>16993967
>you can choose to exist or not exist in whatever manner you wish.
Then it's possible that I already have achieved Nirvana, and am just choosing to currently experience the state of a human being who has not achieved Nirvana.
This actually seems more likely than me having never experienced Nirvana, given the theoretically infinite time frame Buddhism suggests.

>>16993998
Do you understand? Then explain.

>>16993985
>Why, did I say something retarded?
It just gets too complicated and I don't want to confuse either of us by going into this.
>Is that what you think? I don't know if it's a tool, I'm not sure what that even means, but consciousness is a process, much like everything else, except it has a special quality in that it is self-observing.
A process definitely does not return to previous states of itself.

>>16993964
I'm glad we're close to agreeing. I'm posting mainly to probe the anti-materialists for philosophical terms for what my worldview is.
I don't understand what part of my worldview you find unbelievable. my internal experience does not conflict with the idea that there is no free will, no soul, etc. my mind does what it does

>>16993998
/lit/ should delve more into foreign philosophy and spirituality. There's a reason the west is in the shitter and it sure as fuck isn't buddhists' fault.

>>16994000
>Then it's possible that I already have achieved Nirvana, and am just choosing to currently experience the state of a human being who has not achieved Nirvana.
That's not necessarily the case, but if we suppose that it is, then you would be aware of it.
>This actually seems more likely than me having never experienced Nirvana, given the theoretically infinite time frame Buddhism suggests.
I have no idea what you are referring to.

>>16994005
No, fuck Buddhism and every other hermit faith.

>>16993944
>Stop responding to me and fuck off
no
> to a thread where your sophomoric """insights"""" will be appreciated
calling something sophomoric is sophomoric

>>16994018
Yeah, I am sure Americans and Germans will find great use in a religion they are preconditioned to not be able to understand. You bunch of confused retards.

>>16994046
Conditioning is something to be overcome, not submitted to.

>>16993995
Good point. I checked out the temples, most are indeed Vietnamese, and there's a lot of Tibetan schools too. Do they appeal to different sensibilities?

>>16994032
What philosophy do you subscribe to, or find intellectually stimulating? Why do you dislike so-called "hermit faiths"?

>>16994018
mass understanding of chuang tzu would save the entire hemisphere. locally it would save the /pol/tard from the hell in their minds

>>16994031
>then you would be aware of it.
Can the awakened mind not conceive of a scenario where it would not be awakened, especially since it has experienced it before?
>I have no idea what you are referring to.
The Buddha said that dependent origination either never started, or started so long ago that we might as well assume it never started for convenience.
If such a great length of time has elapsed, the likelihood of my current experience being that of a sentient being wishing to experience Samsara, rather than the "original" experience of Samsara, is quite high.

>>16993995
Might just apply to Zen, I'm not sure. One of the things that I have seen stated though is that buddhas can do whatever they want while remaining buddha, just like anyone else can do whatever they want, although if you want to do what you want in buddhahood there is something to do just like starting a fire has something to do.

Ok but what about Taoism

>>16994122
>although if you want to do what you want in buddhahood there is something to do just like starting a fire has something to do.
I've read your post five times and still have no idea what the fuck you meant by this

>>16993932
>We should try to boil this down to the key disagreement rather than throwing out smoke screens of metaphysical word games like "thing-in-itself"
This just proves you don't actually understand shit about the subject of philosophy and try to rationalize your lack of understanding by saying its all just a cope or some midwit bullshit. The thing-in-itself is an object that has existence outside of observation. It's impossible for it to exist because any proof of an object existing outside of observation requires some form of observation itself.

Imagine you are looking at a tree. It is easy to prove the existence of a tree, because you are phenomenally aware of it. Now turn away from the tree, and prove the existence of the tree. You can attempt to do so by using logical inference and memory of past experience. This is ideally observing the tree.

Now try proving the existence of a tree without looking at it, or even thinking about it. What happens? The tree is void, gone, totally non-existent. I can't debate the existence of something I have no knowledge of, and if I try, I am necessarily observing it as an object within my conscious experience. The idea that there is an external material or an object that can ever exist outside of conscious observation is ludicrously tautological. To suppose anything can possibly "exist" (which is in itself an abstraction) without observation is essentially speaking from a position of "epistemic privilege". It's easy for you to say that WHILE you are experiencing the thing.

>why do you believe the material comes after the subject is aware?
I will know switch this question onto you. Given my reasoning above, why do you have a good reason to believe the material is anything BUT an abstraction made up by a subject being aware?

>a rock is not aware of the rock above it, but both rocks exist.
tautology. stop using movie characters to prove the movie is ultimately real and not ultimately a result of a projector.

>>16994154
>unironically arguing with materialists
Nigger what the fuck are you doing?

>>16994148
It means you choose to become buddha or not and move on with your life, and doing so might be easy or hard based on your personal disposition, but once you do it or don't do it you move on with your life. There's no moralistic life-code bullshit, there's no good vs evil proselytizer dogma or heathenhood. It's the spiritual equivalent to learning CPR.

>>16994083
I don't subscribe to any philosophy my guy. I just live a healthy life and trust my instincts. Subscribing to philosophies and following religions is the greatest midwit filter.

>>16994175
kek okay now I get it, but Buddhism does imply that once you become a buddha you'll want to be compassionate towards all beings, so even if nothing forces you to, you'll still behave in a certain way because you'll know it is the best way to behave

>>16994176
Sounds like a life philosophy to me, and a good one at that.
Why do you say that following a doctrine is bad? Do you think it's limiting, if so why?

>>16994154
>This just proves you don't actually understand shit about the subject of philosophy and try to rationalize your lack of understanding by saying its all just a cope or some midwit bullshit. The thing-in-itself is an object that has existence outside of observation. It's impossible for it to exist because any proof of an object existing outside of observation requires some form of observation itself
it is a word game, because it is loaded with this unproven supposition of yours that consciousness comes before matter. you have confirmed my suspicions, which i am becoming used to.

you argument that i skills 'know more' about philosophy is also ridiculous. do you need to read all of paranormal woo woo esoteric literature to argue against the existence of ghosts? no. you're just in an insular world protecting your religious views, which again are usually indoctrinated into you at a young age.

>>16994067
I am not the anon you were speaking to before, so IDK. I'd assume so. Each tradition is best suited for a particular type of person.
>>16994106
>Can the awakened mind not conceive of a scenario where it would not be awakened, especially since it has experienced it before?
This is an extremely complicated question that we lack the necessary information to answer. For what it's worth, my gut feeling is totally opposed to what you just said.
>The Buddha said that dependent origination either never started, or started so long ago that we might as well assume it never started for convenience. If such a great length of time has elapsed, the likelihood of my current experience being that of a sentient being wishing to experience Samsara, rather than the "original" experience of Samsara, is quite high.
Not at all, something having started a long time ago does not mean that it will necessarily be overcome.
>>16994122
Apart from what this poster said >>16994148, yes, a Buddha can do whatever he wants.

>>16994128
Too bigbrain for /lit/.

>>16994225
Why's that? It's the simplest thing there is.

>>16994230
Okay anon sum it up then

>>16994216
>For what it's worth, my gut feeling is totally opposed to what you just said.
But I don't think it's irrational.
You (I think it was you) described Nirvana as the state that allowed you to exist in any state you wished, basically. The enlightened mind is above the unenlightened mind, but it also understands it, because no being is born enlightened. Therefore it doesn't sound illogical to assume an enlightened being could seek to experience "unenlightenment" for a while, maybe for a specific purpose which is not understandable by the unenlightened.
>something having started a long time ago does not mean that it will necessarily be overcome.
No but as the cycle goes on the probability of beings attaining liberation increases.

>>16994184
That does seem to be the case, I'd speculate it's inherently related to the abolition of self, but it's still a noticeably less rigid and aggressive stance than abrahamic beliefs tend to take no matter how many hours of meditation may be involved.

>>16994241
πάντα ῥεῖ

>>16994098
How high is the EOP barrier for taoism? The general idea behind it really speaks to my NEET sensibilities.

>>16994254
I can't read Greek, but I sure hope you didn't just write "panta dei".

>>16994271
>dei
It's usually translated as "rhei"

>>16994225
it's the opposite /lit/ hates things that're easily accessible and practical

>>16994204
Can it be a philosophy if you don't rationalize your reaction to things and instead depend on your natural reactions? I simply think following a doctrine is insincere. What I often felt while reading or listening to philosophies that resonated with me is that after reading those ideas I had to consciously "put" that idea in the right part of my worldview and put effort into remembering the precise formulation of that idea. I find that insincere, because it left the impression that it was not really me who agreed with the idea but the main hero of my life's narrative that agreed with it. Had I agreed with that idea, I would not need another person to spell it out for me, I must have understood it as a default of my being, and since I did not understand it as a default, it meant that the idea was really not compatible with myself. Philosophy in general leaves the impression that it is mental warfare, with different warlords i.e. philosophers conquering each other's resources i.e. people who heavily depend on philosophers to create a structure and essence for their world view.

>>16994271
that's a rho, panta rhei "all (things) flow"

>>16994245
>But I don't think it's irrational.
The higher planes of reality do not operate by profane rules. What you said is definitely rational, but it's not at all how things work. To give you an example, one of the theoretical powers of a living Buddha that hasn't passed away yet is to experience everything he chooses to. In other words, a living Buddha could imagine himself vanishing and then appearing at a different place and he would effectively "teleport". Similarly, a Buddha could imagine he becomes another person and then would know and understand everything about that person. All this is possible without any "modification" of the Buddha. In other words, if a Buddha wanted to experience an unenlightened life, he could just imagine doing so in his mind and he would live out this parallel reality while simultaneously living his normal enlightened life.
>No but as the cycle goes on the probability of beings attaining liberation increases.
You're thinking materialistically.

>>16994215
>it is a word game, because it is loaded with this unproven supposition of yours that consciousness comes before matter. you have confirmed my suspicions, which i am becoming used to.
Nigger did you even read my post?. All knowledge of matter is preceded by having the capacity for knowledge at all.

Let's run another thought experiment. Think about what happened when you woke up this morning. What was the first thing you had knowledge of? A few answers could be: "I saw my ceiling", or "I heard my alarm go off". But these are not sufficient answers for the title of "first knowledge". Before the ceiling, or the alarm clock, came the knowledge of "I".

>you argument that i skills 'know more' about philosophy is also ridiculous. do you need to read all of paranormal woo woo esoteric literature to argue against the existence of ghosts? no. you're just in an insular world protecting your religious views, which again are usually indoctrinated into you at a young age.
word salad.

>>16994277
>>16994290
Alright, that's fine, but that doesn't really "explain" Taoism. I haven't read Whitehead but he gets memed a lot here, no? Things "flowing" doesn't necessarily even imply a non-materialist way of thinking.

>>16993861
>Alternatively, you can consult Mahayana for the most sophisticated speculative system that Buddhism has provided to date

Do they answer what does the nirvanaing?

>but it does imply an entirely different mode of being which speculation can hardly grasp.

even this mode of being surely needs an awareness of some sort to apprehend nirvana, where does buddhism talk about what apprehends nirvana. A non-personal awareness?

>>16994215
>which again are usually indoctrinated into you at a young age.
literally everything one "thinks" about the world is indoctrination. half of the things that are "common sense" to people are things they couldn't come up with themselves if they were left to their own devices their entire lives. do you think it is intuitive to think that it is in fact the earth that rotates and not the sun revolving around the earth? by all means, it appears to be obvious that the sun goes around the world, but despite this obvious appearance, this is not actually the case. it is bullshit to call anyone else indoctrinated off this simple circumstance, not many people can obtain knowledge of the true nature of things by themselves.

>>16994317
it's just heraclitus' famous dictum, i don't know what the anon was implying with taoism but the presocratics are usually treated as flavors of monism, with parmenides and heraclitus being distinguished only by "everything is being" and "everything is becoming"

the similarities between presocratic monisms and taoism and vedanta are often remarked upon but without saying more about their affinity (necessary or otherwise) it can be a shallow comparison

>>16994289
>Can it be a philosophy
You seem to acknowledge it as a way of living, so yes. Not to be pedantic, but pretty much everyone has a life philosophy unless you're comatose or mentally retarded.
I understand what you're saying and to be honest I don't entirely disagree, there should be a level of spontaneity in belief in that the ideas you hold to be important have to be generated by you.
But when you feel a calling for the spiritual, or at least, for some kind of metaphysical substance that eludes your sensory perception, isn't it natural to want to see what other people had to say about that before you?
You're putting a lot of pressure on yourself by assuming that any idea that you haven't personally come up with will be worthless to you.
I'm thinking it's important to have a personal worldview independent of everything else, but to supplement it or even seek to refine it through knowledge doesn't strike me as insincere.
I'm not quite sure though because I'm struggling with this idea myself.

>>16994323
>Do they answer what does the nirvanaing?
They have a bunch of really weird autistic shit that probably surpass the Zen koans in mindbreaking capacity. Try that.
>even this mode of being surely needs an awareness of some sort to apprehend nirvana, where does buddhism talk about what apprehends nirvana. A non-personal awareness?
Nirvana apprehends Nirvana. It's an awakening. The transition is the same as when you are in deep sleep and then you wake up. There is no true awareness that precedes Nirvana. Any prior preparation and explanation refers to the different milestones that you need to reach before you get to Nirvana, so for example your teacher will explain the practices, traits and elements of something like the four jhanna so that you may perform it. That's the degree to which you need the discursive intellect to apprehend Nirvana.

>>16994296
I guess if the laws that govern Nirvana are completely different to the ones we are familiar with in this reality, then my reasoning doesn't hold up, you're right.
Guess I'll have to work for enlightenment instead of waiting for the dream of an unenlightened life to be over. It was a comforting thought, though.

>>16994363
I really wish there was some kind of chart or questionnaire about all the buddhist branches that listed how they differed, what their respective approaches were, and what they tried to achieve differently from one another, to make it easier to see which are worthwhile and which are not

>>16994344
>it's just heraclitus' famous dictum, i don't know what the anon was implying with taoism but the presocratics are usually treated as flavors of monism, with parmenides and heraclitus being distinguished only by "everything is being" and "everything is becoming"
That's really weird, since Taoism, like every genuine tradition, rejects the principle of becoming.

>>16994378
>Taoism, like every genuine tradition, rejects the principle of becoming.
Please explain

>>16994363
>Nirvana apprehends Nirvana
So we won't be in a state of nirvana but we are nirvana itself? Please correct me if i got that wrong

>>16994365
Man you are lazy, lol. Get started anon. I believe in you.
>>16994376
Read the Traditionalists, read experts on Buddhism and ask practitioners and teachers of those traditions what their respective tradition is about and how it differs from others. We live in the internet age, this is very achievable.

>>16994363
So, within Buddhist thought, there is no justification to whether Nirvana is a nothingness bliss state or a unapprehended nihilist like state?

>>16994378
there is no one unambiguous principle of becoming, becoming is used multivalently or "equivocally" as aristotle says, so it is first necessary to clarify what is meant by becoming. even doctrines that posit the ultimate staticity or unity of "being" typically admit some status for the reality of the manifest, even if it is a subordinate reality.

it's hard to be a parmenidean monist and claim that there simple is the single undifferentiated unqualified monad, and all else or all appearance does not exist, else how are we even talking about it in the first place? how appearances "come into being" as different from the One, whatever status that "being" has, is a type of "becoming" by at least some usages of the word.

>>16994397
>Man you are lazy,
I'm also easily discouraged by the fact that the amount of people on Earth who can be said to have reached Nirvana can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, and all of them are Asians who were raised in a monastery.

>>16994351
Verifiable knowledge, yes, but the whole framework of Buddhism is much more than just a guiding hand, it seeks to completely rework your world view, which is why Western Buddhists are the peak of insincerity to me. It is clear they turned to Buddhism as an escape from Western nihilism, which makes their beliefs as legitimate as those of a Christian who is a Christian due to his fear of the void or punishment after death. Philosophies are not independent of cultural background and I will never buy that the cultural background of ancient or even modern Buddhists is so similar to that of Westerners that Westerners can be sincere Buddhists, which is what I meant a few posts back that Westerners are preconditioned to be unable to be Buddhists.

>>16994382
>Please explain
Becoming is associated with the materialistic principle, impermanence, constant change, the dominance of the forces of Life. Being is associated with the spiritual principle, inviolability, permanence, constant impassivity and the dominance of the forces of Transcendence. AFAIK, this is precisely why Taoism promotes "acting without acting" - acting implies participating in the constant becoming and a dialectical relationship. Acting without acting on the other hand implies an abstraction from the direct field of becoming and a subtle exercise of influence from a higher level. Still, I have read very little about Taoism and was hoping to learn something from the other anon.
>>16994386
Nirvana is you opening your eyes when you wake up from sleep. You are not the act of opening your eyes, but that act is what jerks you from your sense of sleep and stupor and leads to waking consciousness.
>>16994406
I have no idea what you are saying here.
>>16994411
>there is no one unambiguous principle of becoming, becoming is used multivalently or "equivocally" as aristotle says, so it is first necessary to clarify what is meant by becoming. even doctrines that posit the ultimate staticity or unity of "being" typically admit some status for the reality of the manifest, even if it is a subordinate reality.
Naturally. The world of becoming is a real world, it is just the lowest expression of a reality. This is why it is always subordinate to the world of Being.
>it's hard to be a parmenidean monist and claim that there simple is the single undifferentiated unqualified monad, and all else or all appearance does not exist, else how are we even talking about it in the first place? how appearances "come into being" as different from the One, whatever status that "being" has, is a type of "becoming" by at least some usages of the word.
Modern people have lost contact with the realm of Being so this is a bit of a moot point.
>>16994415
>I'm also easily discouraged by the fact that the amount of people on Earth who can be said to have reached Nirvana can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand, and all of them are Asians who were raised in a monastery.
Many others have had equivalent qualifications.

>>16994421
I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the reasons that might turn people to a certain ideology or doctrine. Buddhism is only incompatible with European sensibilities insofar as the cosmological fluff it surrounds its teachings with is rooted in various Asian cultures. The ideas themselves are definitely not incompatible with westerners, I don't know what would make you think that when it's not rare for people to draw parallels between western and eastern philosophers.
Why would it be insincere to follow a path that rings true to you?
Not everything needs to be an escape from nihilism. Perhaps you won't believe me or think I'm deluding myself, but I never really struggled with nihilism past my early teenage years.

>>16994261
What is EOP? The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton is very readable but a bit slow. I don't think you need any background in anything to understand it.

>>16994433
>Many others have had equivalent qualifications.
They're either dead or might as well be because nobody knows who they are.

>>16994448
Yes.

>>16994437
>past my early teenage years.
As if this is not one of the most significant stages of life.

>Why would it be insincere to follow a path that rings true to you?
Because it is not yours. You have to at least modify that path, and when you do that it is no longer Buddhism, hence supplementing your own world view with knowledge but even that is not ideal. In any case, I have been convinced that it is always better to contemplate life and death through feelings instead of ideas and I have never gotten special feelings while reading.

>>16994471
Kinda hard to work towards enlightenment in these conditions, anon.

>>16993394
>Anon, if this is the case then you are LITERALLY an NPC. You are the kind of person the NPC meme was created to describe.
No, because the "I" referred to as you by "you" is the pilot. I am the pilot, I am not being piloted. I am not the physical body, I am the pilot of sentience which pilots the body. NPCs do not have any inner conscious experience, as in Buddhist doctrine which only admits disparate experiences without an experiencer.
>>16993407
Again, you are confusing awareness with the objects of awareness. Any time you speak of "awareness of something" you are speaking of the object of awareness. My awareness continues in between the different objects which are reflected in it from time to time. And it is because of this that I can perceive them entering into and leaving my field of awareness, otherwise I would be unable to perceive this. I would not see the car leaving until it was no longer in my sight. If there was no awareness separate from its objects. Then the expression "awareness of something" would be a meaningless tautology and you wouldn't have used it, the very way in which you use language shows that you instinctively understand the distinction but deny it because of your ideological commitment.
>>16993414
I agree
>>16993415
I am the pilot, not the thing being piloted.
>>16993610
>but simply refuse to acknowledge even a shred of effectiveness of its teaching
Why should I when practically the entire multi-thousand year world religion set up in Buddha's name all deny this interpretation of Buddhism. It's like someone trying to revive lysenkoism or orgone research in modern science. How you say that it is effective when its seen as a heresy? I don't think it is effective, I think it is poor mans (no pun intended) apophatic negation which loses sight of the target by being too autistic and cryptic about what it is pointing at.

>>16994475
>As if this is not one of the most significant stages of life.
Sure, and I overcame it. Without turning to an ideology, I might add, but with my own reasoning and intuition.
>Because it is not yours. You have to at least modify that path
I absolutely agree, and Buddhism allows for this. As the Buddha states, it is only a vehicle towards something greater, not a strict dogma to shape your entire life around.
>it is always better to contemplate life and death through feelings instead of ideas
I agree with this as well, though I don't see how it is incompatible with Buddhism, quite the opposite actually. In essence, Buddhism is about practice more than reading, despite what the incessant autism in these threads might make you think.

>>16994444
English-only pleb. Basically I'm wondering how harsh the language barrier is in finding decent taoist materials.

>>16994478
>Kinda hard to work towards enlightenment in these conditions, anon.
Now you are just making excuses.
>Why should I when practically the entire multi-thousand year world religion set up in Buddha's name all deny this interpretation of Buddhism. It's like someone trying to revive lysenkoism or orgone research in modern science. How you say that it is effective when its seen as a heresy? I don't think it is effective, I think it is poor mans (no pun intended) apophatic negation which loses sight of the target by being too autistic and cryptic about what it is pointing at.
I think you are just seething that Buddhism works and that there are people who understand it.

>>16994363
>Nirvana apprehends Nirvana

Okay, but to apprehend there needs to be awareness of some kind, unless you can prove to me otherwise.
Unless you're saying that nirvana is so alien to our waking life that describing what apprehends nirvana would be like describing a new colour. But if that is so, then what are the justifications for such a state's ''existence'', other than enlightened beings' testimony?

>>16994509
>Now you are just making excuses.
You don't agree? You're supposed to achieve enlightenment with the guidance of an enlightened being, not by reading books and doing everything on your own and hoping it all works out, otherwise every californian yuppie would have entered Nirvana already. I'm just looking at the odds here.

>>16994501
oh thanks. yes it looks like the main criticism of Merton is that it's not accurate enough of a translation, though it was based on research he did from multiple translations. seems like a pissing contest to me, Merton is respected

>>16994498
Do you realize how ironic the things you say here are? This reminds me of Islam's "everyone is born a muslim but corrupted later in life".

>>16994531
What makes them ironic?

>>16991945
>How is this an argument against self?
It's not. Buddhist soteriology only makes sense with reference to a metaphysical schema where it, well, makes sense.

>>16994522
>>16994433
>Nirvana is you opening your eyes when you wake up from sleep. You are not the act of opening your eyes, but that act is what jerks you from your sense of sleep and stupor and leads to waking consciousness.
As to your question, I am not sure what you mean by justifications? If you are asking for evidence, then you are free to dedicate yourself to the path and experience it for yourself. If you don't want to bother, then don't. The Buddha never wanted to force anyone into enlightenment.

>>16994523
For most, isn't enlightenment attained over many lifetimes? So you should most definitely still work towards it.

>>16994523
>You don't agree? You're supposed to achieve enlightenment with the guidance of an enlightened being, not by reading books and doing everything on your own and hoping it all works out, otherwise every californian yuppie would have entered Nirvana already. I'm just looking at the odds here.
It sucks but that's what we are born with. In the Kali Yuga, only the last leg of Dharma remains - following the truth. You do what you can.

>>16994549
The being that'll attain enlightenment n lifetimes from now will have nothing to do with me. I think reincarnation is misleading, you're not actually coming back.
>>16994551
I guess. It just makes me a little bit bitter to dedicate my life to something that has a >99.99% chance of failing.

>>16994480
Any links to Shankara’s poems in English?

>>16994538
Which soteriology makes more sense to you?

>>16994571
>I guess. It just makes me a little bit bitter to dedicate my life to something that has a >99.99% chance of failing.
Read the Traditionalists and Evola's Doctrine of Awakening if you are serious about Buddhism. You have this life in order to test yourself and this is the test you have been given. Go beyond.

>>16994536
The flexibility of Buddhism. Like it is enough to claim you are a buddhist to be a buddhist.

>>16994540
How does it make sense philosophically that such a state exists which can be apprehended but not by any awareness/sentience.

>>16994584
I don't know how you got that from my post. Buddhism has many branches, but in essence, it was meant to be as minimalistic as possible. Of course it's not enough to claim it, there are teachings to integrate, but the idea is that once you have attained your goal, those teachings are to be discarded. Buddhism in itself has no value, it is only there to bring you to your objective.

>>16994575
https://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~siva/nirvana.pdf

https://shaivam.org/scripture/English-Translation/1433/shivanandalahari-by-adishankara-bhagavatpada-english-translation

https://www.arshavidyacenter.org/new/shridakshinamurtistotram.pdf

>>16994589
I think he means that your state of awareness right now is not a true state of awareness and that Nirvana is the actual true state. Like comparing being asleep (right now) with being fully awake (Nirvana). So you don't experience Nirvana in the strict sense since it's a state of awareness in and of itself

>>16994589
Not by profane sentience. Similarly, it also doesn't make sense according to profane philosophy. The rational plane is surpassed.

>>16994578
I don't know, tbqh. I'm not making a claim with regard to Buddhism itself here. The idea is that soteriologies and their associated logic and idea of selfhood could only ever be internally consistent. This would answer OPs question because if he feels that Buddhism's critique of the self is nonsensical this would be because he operates under different metaphysical presuppositions.

>>16994583
I'm serious about wanting to know what Nirvana's like because it's about the only thing that really captivates me.
At the same time, I don't want to end up chasing it for a lifetime only to realize the full extent of my failures on my deathbed. As petty as that might sound.

>>16994609
Is Buddha a figure to be emulated?

>>16994635
Of course. But I don't think there is a soteriology that makes no metaphysical claims. It would be the ultimate idea, but does it exist?

>>16994624
>>16994625
So Nirvana is the true state of sentience. The apophatic absolute. Which we dissolve into. Isn't this just like a lot of Hindu thought, then, two explanations of the same ultimate reality?

Is this sacred sentience basically a given in Buddhist thought because it a sentience is necessary? Otherwise I don't understand why they don't mention this sentience at all really.

>>16994648
If your goal is to achieve what he has, i.e. enlightenment, then it's a good idea to follow him, yes.
If you're implying that Buddhism is dogmatic because it requires you to follow in the Buddha's footsteps, he himself clearly said that this was not even a requirement. Nobody will punish you for not following his teachings or even deliberately going against them.

>>16994647
>only to realize the full extent of my failures on my deathbed
If you fear regretting pursuing nirvana you're fated from the outset to not reach it. Fearing death is characteristic of attachment to and identification with the body. As long as there remains the slightest feeling that you might come to regret not pursuing it you're in an indirect sense still identifying with the idea of bodily life.

>>16994673
You make it sound easy, but how do I do away with the attachment to my body?

>>16994670
So enlightenment for all of mankind is human extinction.

>>16994698
Not sure how the fuck you got to that conclusion from what I said.

>>16994647
You can also reach Nirvana after you die if you have put in the work during your lifetime. Some anons already mentioned the Tibetan Book of the Dead and there's also an analysis of it in the Evola book I just mentioned. Moreover, what else do you have to do in this lifetime? If you believe that everything is impermanent and pointless, then why are you hesitating in committing to enlightenment? I have thought about this many times and every time I contemplate quitting, I can't help but feel like I'd be abandoning the only thing that really matters.
>So Nirvana is the true state of sentience. The apophatic absolute. Which we dissolve into.
"Dissolve into" is a very inappropriate way to put it, since the exact opposite process is at play - it's more like putting yourself together. "Dissolving" only applies if you are looking at it from the perspective of the aggregates.
>Isn't this just like a lot of Hindu thought, then, two explanations of the same ultimate reality?
I am a perennialist, so yes, that would be my view.
>Is this sacred sentience basically a given in Buddhist thought because it a sentience is necessary? Otherwise I don't understand why they don't mention this sentience at all really.
I have no idea what you are referring to here.

>>16994665
>>16994705
I forgot to tag you in my reply here.

>>16994705
>what else do you have to do in this lifetime?
Watch anime and shitpost
Seriously though you're right, I'm just making excuses for no reason.

>>16994700
Rejecting the earthly and profane, is this not one of the key tenets of Buddhism?

>>16994665
>Is this sacred sentience basically a given in Buddhist thought because it a sentience is necessary?
No, Buddhist thought as contained in the writings of the various Buddhist schools denies it absolutely with few exceptions, those people in this thread saying that are people who take a fringe Evolian etc view of Buddhism which is denied by almost all Buddhist schools. You have to learn to distinguish between posters representation Buddhism in terms of what they want it to be, and Buddhism as historical phenomenon, in terms of the actual doctrines of the major Buddhist schools throughout history, which largely deny that Nirvana is the true state of sentience.

The official position of most schools of Buddhism are that the aggregates including consciousness are destroyed or stop having further false existence in Nirvana or Parinirvana, but only a small minority Buddhist schools say there is a true consciousness or sentience which remains and then half the time they say that this sentience as described in a few apocryphal Mahayana sutras is just a figurative description of the emptiness of Nirvana given for upaya reasons or some other such nonsense and that it doesn't REALLY exist as an eternal thing.

>>16994705
>I have no idea what you are referring to here.
Sorry. If Nirvana is infact a state of sentience, then why don't the Buddhists texts describe it as such? Do they think that some sentience is obvious,a given, because without sentience, nothing can be apprehended?

>>16994656
>I don't think there is a soteriology that makes no metaphysical claims
This is my impression as well. It's an essentially post-structuralist claim.

>It would be the ultimate idea, but does it exist?
I don't think it does, to be honest. Metaphysics seem a necessity to me, even while implicit, as in OPs case where he can object to the buddhist worldview without even knowing why. I don't think something that unequivocally supercedes every metaphysic and levels the whole social playing field eradicating discourse and bringing about heaven on earth exists, but I've been suspecting that giving and account of all the possible metaphysics is possible. Heidegger's project is reminiscent of this.

>>16994682
Cultivating indifference with regard to desires, even base ones like hunger and thirst, developing equanimity and whatnot. That's the gist of it as I have it, anyway. You need to let go of the notion of want, will and doing entirely. You might find the ashtavakra gita interesting. It's a classical hindu text but I think it reflects most of the sentiment of the eastern soteriological tradition on the whole.

>>16994728
Rejecting the material to focus on the spiritual is one of the key tenets of pretty much any system of metaphysics. If you subscribe to a form of physicalism then I understand how that appears to be equivalent to seeking extinction, although I disagree.

>>16994730
>only a small minority Buddhist schools say there is a true consciousness or sentience
Which schools?

>>16993746
Here.>>16993861

>>16994730
How do most schools answer the question 'what apprehends or continues in nirvana'? Without sentience, nothing can be apprehended.

>>16994741
>It's an essentially post-structuralist claim.
>he can object to the buddhist worldview without even knowing why.
There's obviously a deeper sense of intuition at play that helps people figure out their own metaphysics.
Although I remain skeptical of the idea that you can just derive an entirely personal metaphysical system from pure intuition, and have it be accurate. What do you think?

>>16994743
How do you disagree. The Buddha did not procreate since reaching enlightenment. Is it good to be enlightened or not? Do you believe it is? Are you really going to tell me you can be enlightened but be a different person from Gautama hence with a difference character and values? Yeah, fuck your retarded schizophrenic joke of a philosophy. You only proved to be the object of my initial general criticisms of philosophy pseuds, you dysgenic biologic trash coping with existence. You are probably the same nigger who has been flooding every previous Buddha thread.

>>16994792
I'm sorry my post made you so angry.

>>16994792
Show me where the bhikku touched you anon

>>16994801
Yes, be sorry you son of a whore, but you are not sorry enough, you need to try harder, you meek pseudo-open-minded dogmatist faggot.

Before this thread dies, what's a good online source to start with Buddhism? I just feel like these threads make me understand it less.

>>16994838
I still don't know what caused you to become filled with rage from my last comment. Maybe if you calmed down and explained yourself, I could help you understand your misconceptions.

>>16994726
Yeah, watching anime and shitposting only seems to strengthen my point. Though so long as you are dedicated and persistent with your ascesis, a lot can be permissible so long as you adhere to balance.
>>16994732
Nirvana is awakening. A state comes after Nirvana, but Nirvana itself is the act of waking up. As to why the Buddha disliked talking about what happens after Nirvana, it is because it distracts people from ascesis and leads them to speculation and further delusion.
>>16994815
Based bhikkuposter.
>>16994840
>go to libgen
>download Evola's Doctrine of Awakening
>then read whatever you want

>>16994852
>it is because it distracts people from ascesis and leads them to speculation and further delusion.

I mean this is all well and good untill you say consciousness and awareness are just aggregates yet nirvana can be apprehended. Now i feel like a radical position such as that needs justification.

>>16994852
>a lot can be permissible so long as you adhere to balance.
I think modern life is not compatible with ascesis. Not sure you can call yourself an ascetic if you life in a city, use the internet, or consume media regardless of its form.

>>16994848
You cannot even conceive the knowledge I wield. It would take me days to properly write out the events and factors that caused your roach philosophy to spawn and that caused Western degenerates like yourself to embrace it. I am not enraged, I am aware of the subhumanity of the Westerners attracted to Buddhism - the newcomer mongrels, the pathetic prideless natives finding truth in a streetshitter, the randomest of degenerates of other kinds. You will never be enlightened.

>>16994840
ANSWER ME REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>16994903
You sound very bitter.

>>16994840
>>16994906

>>16994903
>You will never be enlightened.
Coming from a physicalist, that sounds ironic. Are you scared?

>>16994924
I am bitter thank god, and thank god I am not a dumb nigger like yourself.

>>16994944
Why do you think it is good to be bitter?

>>16994882
>I mean this is all well and good untill you say consciousness and awareness are just aggregates yet nirvana can be apprehended. Now i feel like a radical position such as that needs justification.
Nirvana destroys the aggregates, so whatever mode of apprehending what comes after Nirvana there is, it is incomprehensible to the perceptions of the aggregates.
>>16994884
>I think modern life is not compatible with ascesis. Not sure you can call yourself an ascetic if you life in a city, use the internet, or consume media regardless of its form.
This is generally true. You can permit yourself anything, so long as you remain detached. Then again, the eliminates the whole point being engaging in most activities.
>>16994906
I already answered you, anon.

>>16994943
Hoho coming from a physicalist how poignantly put. You retarded soilen affecionado. I am not scared of anything. I have reached enlightenment by understanding my own nature, you will be stuck in the loop of a confused Western faggot seeking truth in ancient India, or China, or Africa, until you finally die.

>>16994971
>I have reached enlightenment
kek
I'll humor you, what have you understood?

>>16994957
>Nirvana destroys the aggregates, so whatever mode of apprehending what comes after Nirvana there is, it is incomprehensible to the perceptions of the aggregates.

So how can you justify that there is Nirvana to be apprehended and not just annihilation?

>>16994979
I do not want to threaten such an impressionable young man as you with such a radical perspective as mine, what if you get even more confused.

>>16994957
Sometimes I think that seeking a life environment that makes ascesis easier is itself a more pernicious form of attachment to an ideal of minimalism. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

>>16994994
Please, I'm interested in your experience. You seem to have transcended the need for philosophies, teach me your ways master.

>>16994984
>So how can you justify that there is Nirvana to be apprehended and not just annihilation?
Because the Buddha didn't just spontaneously die upon becoming enlightened.
>>16994998
I think Zen Buddhists would take a similar perspective, but then again they literally live in medieval monasteries and only do hard labour and ascesis all day long.

>>16995016
I don't think the western Zen buddhists live in such spartan conditions. Most western monasteries have active websites.

>>16994748
>Which schools?
Dolpopa (of the Jonang sect) and Asanga (Yogachara founder) do so explicitly (later Yogachara abandoned this doctrine though), and although it is not always explicitly stated and argued for it is either explicit or heavily implicit in the works of Huangpo (Chinese Zen), Jinul (Korean Zen), Kukai (Japanese Vajrayana) and arguably for certain Dzogchen figures like Longchenpa as well.
>>16994765
By teaching that is the end of all consciousness and sensation, or by ignoring the problem or by using the same sophistry that you've seen in this and other threads.

>>16995016
>>16995016
>Because the Buddha didn't just spontaneously die upon becoming enlightened.

Oh yeah, duh. Thank you, i've been struggling to understand the whole what apprehends nirvana thing for quite some time, I think you've helped me understand a fair bit.

>>16995050
Why so few schools? You'd think more branches of Buddhism would want to do away with the ambiguous teachings that cause such debate and incomprehension.

>>16995050
>By teaching that is the end of all consciousness and sensation, or by ignoring the problem or by using the same sophistry that you've seen in this and other threads.

Couldn't this explain it:

>Nirvana destroys the aggregates, so whatever mode of apprehending what comes after Nirvana there is, it is incomprehensible to the perceptions of the aggregates.

>>16995078
Not him but this seems like the most sensible explanation. Sure, you're obliterating the aggregates, so it doesn't contradict anatta, but the fact that enlightened beings stay conscious means nirvana provides a way to perceive things, and that it's not just pure nothingness.

>>16995010
I respect the respectful tone, so I will answer. I have understood that the Hadza do not believe in the afterlife, they also have such good oral history they speak of ancient hominins from hundreds of thousands of years ago in their myths. The Khevsurs are a step above. They believe in the afterlife and respect the souls of the deceased, cutting the right hand of the slain enemy so that the enemy's soul will serve him in the afterlife. Both the Khevsurs and the Hadza do not require or seek enlightenment, and that is what makes them enlightened. They are not out of touch with nature (uh oh fucking midwit naturalist alert), which makes them satisfied with existence. They fuck their wife, make beautiful children who look like them and love them, have enjoyable hunts, fresh air filling their lungs and the sun warming their face or the moon calming their minds with its tender light. They do not live in a modern shithole like you do seeking copes with their dogshit environment.

>>16995028
Probably not, but organic Zen is the most based.
>>16995051
You are welcome bro.

>>16995102
Ah yes the noble savages, I am humbled

How come buddhism threads always get the most replies, the most shitposts, sometimes interesting posts, and yet never seem to lead anywhere?

>>16995393
because that's what eastern philosophy is all about

>>16995420
Monks are pretty chill, only /lit/ spergs out about that stuff.

>>16995089
>Not him but this seems like the most sensible explanation.
Then why would Buddha list awareness, thought and consciousness as being among the aggregates to be destroyed while not explicitly including in his theory of mind discourses any remaining sentience which survives or otherwise experiences Nirvana? You would think if there was a category of sentience left which does he would mention it once but he doesn't.
>>16995089
> but the fact that enlightened beings stay conscious means nirvana provides a way to perceive things, and that it's not just pure nothingness.
So if the original consciousness is destroyed and another is produced in Nirvana, the original is still obliterated, if its not destroyed then it continues on into Nirvana but you've simply washed your hands of explaining why Buddha never explained why did this or whether anything did this at all.

>>16995539
The only explanation is that nirvana allows for an experience similar to awareness but is not actually awareness

>>16995539
>>16995557

Yeah, the mode of apprehension is incomprehensible to the aggregates, but may not be 'sentience' in the way we understand it.

We don't know what the historical Buddha taught, OP. Even the oldest texts were composed 200 years after he died, two centuries of people passing his thought orally with all sorts of additions and ammendments. Even the Pali canon is composed of revised and carefully picked texts so they don't contradcit each other about anything important (much like the Bible). One theory is that the Buddha taught there was something LIKE a soul, but distinct enough from the personal atman that is supposed to be 100% you, but as his disciples had to defend their beliefs the concept mutated over time into what we have today that isn't exactly clear except more or less by analogy.

>>16995557
>>16995599
You guys should let the entire ~2,500 history of Buddhist schools know that the majority of them are wrong and that you figured out what Buddha's teaching actually are. Just kidding I think that's what he really meant too, but that the majority of Buddhism says otherwise throughout history speaks to the sad state of Buddhism, and at the end of the day any truly omniscient teacher would have done a better job of explaining their doctrine so as not to prevent such absurd situations from arising. I agree with you that what Buddha originally taught was probably more like Hinduism with an Absolute or Liberation which is non-different from an enduring sentience or soul, but I just think that Hindu, Sufi, Taoist etc writings and those traditions respective sages explained it unequivocally much better than Buddha did in the Pali Canon and the overwhelming majority of other Buddhist doctrine and literature

The Buddha was a noble blue-eyed Aryan sage
Shankara was a race-mixed pajeet

>>16995539
>Then why would Buddha list awareness, thought and consciousness as being among the aggregates to be destroyed while not explicitly including in his theory of mind discourses any remaining sentience which survives or otherwise experiences Nirvana?


“There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind; no sphere of infinity of space, of infinity of consciousness, of nothingness or even of neither-perception-nor non-perception; there, there is neither this world nor the other world, neither moon nor sun; this sphere I call neither a coming nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution and no support: this, just this, is the end of dukkha.”

>>16995767
So most Buddhist schools believe Paranibbana is annihilation? Surely not. We didn't say that sentience apprehended nirvana, but something incomprehensible which kind of functions like sentience. Buddhist schools probably don't talk about this but they do think that there is something which apprehends nirvana, no?

>>16992305
Only correct answer.

>And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."

>"No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."[59]

>11. Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the first jhana.

>Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana, the Blessed One immediately passed away.

Doesn't this show that Parinibbana isn't annihilation? But what does the two usages of 'passed away' mean, how is the last usage meant?