/lit/ - Literature

Well that's pretty much why you would want to escape this world cause it's just endless meaningless and painful, and there's no lasting happiness here.

>>17019988
no lasting happiness here, and no happiness in Nirvana, what a drag

>>17019410
>Seeing as all phenomena are ultimately unreal, is the world devoid of meaning in Buddhist philosophy?
yes

>I can't help but think that if everthing is ultimately empty and unreal that the world is devoid of meaning.
You're not wrong

>That, paired with the fact that the end goal of life itself is a state which is without description - being not experience, nor ultimate bliss nor infinite consciousness - makes me feel nihilistically inclined towards the world.
well who could fault you for doing so in such circumstance

>Is this due to my ignorance on the topic, or is this something I have to begrudgingly accept?
Let me tell you something kid, I've been a Buddhist monk 20 years and some of the senior monks still cry themselves to sleep at night over this, it's not just you who feels this way

>>17020509
>I've been a Buddhist monk 20 years

How do you deal with the situation, good sir? The only thing that would keep me going is nirvana, but it is nothing meaningful to me, I won't exist in a comprehensible fashion, can't even be characterised as 'good' let alone 'blissful'. For all intensive purposes, to my aggregate self, it seems like nihilism.

>>17020552
''Wanting to be around'' is just craving for consciousness

why would everything be unreal

op doesn't listen to these dummies, only you and god can decide what your life means. The only thing that's meaningless in life is other's opinions.

>>17020581
Extremely blackpilled in every aspect :(

>>17020552
>The only thing that would keep me going is nirvana
Ask yourself this? Keep who going?

>>17020713
Yeah i get your point. I'm just not a fan of the set-up. Suffer until you stop existing in any meaningful way. Cool stuff right there.

>>17020810
>I'm just not a fan of the set-up
Then stop reading it, and read the good shit (otherwise known as Sri Śaṅkarācārya) instead, start here

https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ShankaraAtmaBodha.pdf

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

>Suffer until you stop existing in any meaningful way
I know right? Truly, Shankara was correct when he so thoughtfully advised us in his commentary on Brahma Sutra 2.3.32. that "Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

>>17019410
Why does something need to be real to have meaning?

>>17020887
Interesting. I will look into this.

>>17020887
Still, I don't want to delude myself. If, after thorough study of different religions, I find Buddhism to be the most compelling, then I'll have to live with it.

Or I guess reach the sphere of infinite-consciousness and promise to myself that when I get there I'll examine if there is anything beyond it.

>>17021091
>Still, I don't want to delude myself. If, after thorough study of different religions, I find Buddhism to be the most compelling, then I'll have to live with it.
Don't worry, that won't be a risk to you if you study Śaṅkarācārya's works as he lucidly explains how nonsensical Buddhism is and he thoroughly refutes its doctrine of no-self (anatta)

>>17021293
not op but can you give a bit more of a tldr of that stuff you posted? Are there any elements of spooky mysticism like multidimensional deities or karma/reincarnation in his teachings?

>>17019410
Why do you require meaning or realness?

It is meaningless only from the perspective you have built, from the value system and paradigm you exist in. Realizing that the conceptual world is nothing but illusions which many people pursue isnt the death of your being or life. The "purpose" is after realizing the higher truth, one should live in the present and restructure their perspective.

>>17021334
>not op but can you give a bit more of a tldr of that stuff you posted?
It's called Advaita Vedanta, you can learn more about it here

https://iep.utm.edu/adv-veda/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

this is an example of a "tldr-like" Advaita text
https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>Are there any elements of spooky mysticism like multidimensional deities or karma/reincarnation in his teachings?
Yes, it's a school of Hinduism in which karma, samsara and transmigration are accepted, following the Upanishads which describe them (and which did so centuries before the life of the Buddha in the 6th century BC). There are elements of mysticism in some of it.

>https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html
meh.. seems kinda weak. I can't just sit here and be content as an entity of pure consciousness because if somebody whacks me in the head with crowbar, my consciousness will be significantly degraded. i.e. my awareness is not one and indestructible like it says. or at least i wouldn't like to test if it is. idk maybe a brainlet take..

>>17021491
>I can't just sit here and be content as an entity of pure consciousness because if somebody whacks me in the head with crowbar, my consciousness will be significantly degraded. i.e. my awareness is not one and indestructible like it says
>idk maybe a brainlet take..
I'm afraid your objections have already been refuted by Sri Śaṅkarācārya, here is an example of him speaking about this in Upadeśasāhasri:

If he says, " The pain due to burns or cuts in the body and the misery caused by hunger and the like, Sir, are distinctly perceived to be in me. The supreme Self is known in all the Srutis and the Smritis to be free from sin, old age, death, grief, hunger, thirst, etc and devoid of smell and taste'. How can I who am different from Him and possess so many phenomenal attributes possibly accept the supreme Self as myself and myself, a transmigratory being, as the supreme Self ~ I may them very well admit that fire is cool I Why should I, a man of the world entitled to accomplish all prosperity in this world and in the next and realize the supreme end of life, i.e., liberation, give up the actions producing those results (i.e. Vedic rites) and yajnopavita etc., their accessories?"

The teacher should say to him, " It was not right for you to say, ' I directly perceive the pain in me when my body gets cuts or burns'. Why~ Because the pain due to cuts or burns, perceived in the body, the object of the perception of the perceiver like a tree burnt or cut, must have the same location as the burns etc. People point out pain caused by burns and the like to be in that place where they occur but not in the perceiver. How? For, on being asked where one's pain lies, one says, ' I have pain in the head, in the chest or in the stomach. Thus one points out pain in that place where burns or cuts occur, but never in the perceiver. If pain or its causes viz burns or cuts were in the perceiver one would have pointed out the perceiver to be the seat of the pain, like the parts of the body, the seats of the burns or cuts. "Moreover, (if it were in the Self) the pain could not be perceived by the Self like the colour of the eye by the same eye. Therefore, as it is perceived to have the same seat as burns, cuts and the like, pain must be an object of perception like them. Since it is an effect, it must have a receptacle like that in which rice is cooked. The impressions of pain must have the same seat as pain itself. As they are perceived during the time when memory is possible (i.e., in waking and dream, and not in deep sleep), these impressions must have the same location as pain. The aversion to cuts, bums and the like, the causes of pain, must also have the same seat as the impressions (of pain). It is therefore said, ' Desire, aversion and fear have a seat common with that of the impressions of colours (i.e. they are all in the intellect). As they have for their seat the intellect, the knower (of them), the Self, is always pure and devoid of fear.

>>17020509
Inject some test you anemic misery bag.

>>17021706
that post was written in jest

>>17021529
idk seems pedantic. the comments that we are the pure supreme conciousness/awareness has no lasting consequences for us, even if might be somehow valid in a transcendental sense. The feeling of bliss and equanimity depends on your conceptual framework and interpretation of reality which depends on your functioning mental faculties. if someone hit him in the head with a brick causing brain injury, he wouldn't be able to perceive or articulate his realizations any more.

>>17021734
>idk seems pedantic. the comments that we are the pure supreme conciousness/awareness has no lasting consequences for us, even if might be somehow valid in a transcendental sense.
Once you understand it in your heart intuitively there is the total elimination of fear and grief, which is a lasting consequence.

>The feeling of bliss and equanimity depends on your conceptual framework and interpretation of reality which depends on your functioning mental faculties.
Feelings of bliss and equanimity, as well as their absence belong to the intellect or mind; they change by coming and going in and out of our awareness. That Atman or Self or Awareness which observes the contents of the mind as Its objects is not a feeling, It is the witness of feelings. That this inner apprehending witness is soundless, formless, transparent, immediate, and free from pain and grief remains true regardless of whether that witness apprehends the external sensation of bliss or the external sensation of non-bliss and suffering. When you isolate sentience from its contents (such as the body, thoughts, emotions, memories, sense-perceptions etc), it is just pure self-revealing and immediate knowing which is not itself characterizable as something that has pain etc (as the sensation of pain etc are all exterior objects to it); this painless transcendent sentience is that which throws its effulgent light upon its objects as the transparent illuminator and witness of all of them.

This presence is equally there both when the intellect or mind experiences suffering, and when the mind experiences elation or bliss. You don't normally regard yourself as free from pain and suffering though, because people normally misattribute sentience to the objects (i.e. the intellect and pain etc) which appear in their consciousnesses, and identify their own selves as being those objects, instead of realizing they are that painless omnipresent sentience which witnesses that object. Thus, the claim that the bliss of Self-knowledge (atma-vidya) presented in such texts as the Upanishads and Ashtavakra Gita would depend on the specific conceptual framework of the mind or intellect is in fact false, because what Advaita says about the Self or the apprehending-sentience (i.e. that It is untouched by hunger, pain, sin, thirst, death etc) remains true at every moment, even when the mind which Self observes is fooled into believing otherwise. According to Advaita once atma-vidya is reached, no amount of damage to the physical body or brain can reverse it, because even though the mind would still be a damaged instrument, the transcendent sentience observing it (which is not generated by the brain) would never lose its own intuitive knowledge of itself as such.

Are there any YA books that double as philosophy books?

>>17022950
my diary desu