/lit/ - Literature

>>17217098
>buddhism shrinking
>platonism in some form is present in almost all political philosphy, ethics, and abrahamic faith
I think its obvious

>>17217109
>more people = good and true
Plato would be disgusted

>>17217109
I didn't ask who was more popular, I asked who was right.

>>17217117
He was also a fag so

>>17217122
Buddha didn't care about philosophical disputes. He was argument from authority all the way down.

>>17217142
Okay, but that's not what I asked either.

>>17217142
he was some bored prince who taught an elitist message devoid of hope

Right about what? What sort of answer are you looking for to a stupidly broad question?

>tedious back and forth arguments about triangles and rectangles
>lmao just chill out, don't sweat it

it's obvious which is more applicable to daily life

>>17217149
>elitist
And that's a good thing
>devoid of hope
And you're a brainlet

>>17217164
About the soul, I thought posting Phaedo made it obvious.

>>17217169
Why do trannys love elitism?

>>17217167
All geometric screaming in Plato comes from the Pythagorean tradition, and the Pythagoreans were vegetarian ascetics. Sound familiar to something else OP was asking about?

>>17217098
I think they encouraged the same sorts of things, bhuddism and stoicism, so it's just a matter of taste I suppose, which is probably for the better seeing as how the hippie veneer of bhuddism and the hardcore logical philosophical veneer of stoicism attract two totally different crowds.

>>17217098
Plato because he is based

>>17217179
Trannies are egalitarian, cope and seethe more.

>>17217167
and yet buddhism is shrinking while platonic influenced islam is making huge gains

>>17217192
see >>17217117 midwit

See how hard buddhism makes /lit/ midwits seethe in every single thread, this one included, and you'll have your answer.

>Not taking the perennial pill and simultaneously believing both were right
Ngmi

Plato upheld the Indo-European tripartite social structure.
Buddha was a subversive that preached equality.
Plato obviously is more based, therefore he is correct.
Simple as, kids.
/thread

>>17217222
How do you believe there's both a soul and no soul?

...

>>17217109
YO HOW MANY GIANT PLATO STATUES ARE THERE?

>>17217227
>Buddha
>preached equality
t. has never read a single sutta or book about buddhism

>>17217231
Which words are you translating as soul from greek and sanskrit/pali?

Christ dabs on both since he is God.

>>17217249
Fuck off to your containment threads

>>17217242
Cope, Chandala slave!

>>17217233
plato doesn't need massive statues to compensate, he looms large in the minds of men

>>17217232
>he's a materialist bugman
All "arguments" against Buddhism end up drawing me to it, frankly

The more important question is, between Jesus and Muhammad, who is more based?

>>17217227
>Buddha was a subversive that preached equality.
There is debate about what Buddha preached. Look into the earliest buddhist teachings and you might be surprised at what you find.

>>17217098
Both, but Plato got closer to absolutely articulating the truth.

>>17217263
buddha is a materialist
>le there is no le self no le soul
miss me with that tranny shit

>>17217262
no one other than uni students and lit dummies think of plato on a daily basis

>>17217233
>the copy of the copy of the Form
*Disgust*

>>17217167
But the triangles and rectangles have meaning.

>>17217247
In Phaedo, Plato makes a case for the existence of an immortal substance that is the true "self" of man and transcends material existence.
In his discourses, Siddartha teaches anatta and emptiness i.e. that everything is impermanent, subject to change, and that nothing in Samsara can be identified as a true self, atman, soul or anything of the sort.
They seem hard to reconcile.
>>17217270
How so?

>>17217278
his teachings permeate the planet you fucking retard
cope racist buddha tranny

>>17217264
the jews

>>17217270
Which thinkers are closest to the absolute truth in your view?

>>17217266
There is no debate about Buddha being anti-egalitarian if you bother reading the nikayas
>there are stupid people and smart people, people who can't be taught the dharma and people who can [...]
doesn't sound very egalitarian to me

>>17217284
>How so?
Heidegger wasn't too off the mark in saying the East didn't have philosophy. Western thought exists by its own articulation of ideas, in the East ideas are practically meaningless without some transient relation to experience.

>>17217292
they both probably have some semite blood flowing through them

>>17217299
The Buddha said the truth had to be experienced. I guess that's not really a philosophy, but in what way was Plato closer to the truth than him?

>>17217294
I never said Plato was truer or closer to the true than the Buddha, I said that Plato got closer to articulating it.

>>17217286
idealism is spit on in modern philosophy & if you ask the average person they could barely describe the cave analogy & thats all.

Plato is a fossil, interesting to examine and put in view for the evolution of species. But he is a step to other things rather than being a single source of philosophy that buddha provided

>>17217173
Well what is the soul in Plato? A hypostasis between Mind and Body? Buddhists are not overly concerned about how mind and body are interacting with one another in terms of a medium substance; both are delusional and dependently originated so why introduce a third, fourth, fifth delusion to explain them? Now in both Phaedo and Buddhist literature you will get that pleasure and pain states are linked and that the body as a source of contact with these is something to be abandoned. For Plato the soul also banks up a registry of actions and behaviors and education from contact with the body which it brings to the underworld, and in turn this influences its subsequent body (this is explored more thoroughly in the Timaeus). Buddhists agree roughly with this mechanism but do not explain it in terms of a soul, as there is a strong commitment to denying something with that sort of assumed permanence. To a Buddhist a soul would not be permanent because it is changed by the very process Plato describes, so it is superfluous to the discussion of rebirth or metempsychosis. This is what the infamous no-self teaching is meant for, getting rid of hypostasizing about metaphysical self. In the Phaedo, Plato also suggests souls sufficiently purified pass on to more beautiful realms, which Buddhism agrees with, but Buddhism denies these realms are a final destination since (re)birth is predicated with death.

>>17217284
Not the person you were talking to but you're equivocating terms based on translation and cultural contexts.

>>17217275
>Buddhism is materialism!
Absolute brainlet unaware of the middle way spotted

>>17217284
Have you looked into Coomaraswamy's work on Hinduism and Buddhism?

>>17217311
cope white boy

>>17217315
No, where do you recommend I start?
>>17217310
I suppose so, but parallels can be drawn when the ideas being talked about are similar.

>>17217297
maybe you should read it again. buddha teaches there are people whose minds are so shut that they cant be bothered to be freed. but he also says you can always change your mind if you desire.

>>17217275
Pretty sure transgendered people believe in a nonmaterial basis for their gender identity otherwise they wouldn't be modifying their bodies

Plato because he actual took more of a middle path on morality than the never ending moralizing moralfaggotry of the Buddha. Now every village in south east asia must have a muslim family living there so that someone can do the butchering for them, pure autism.

>>17217304
My apologies, who do you believe got the closest to articulating it then? Any recommendations?

I coom when I imagine all those pathetic buddha infidels getting slaughtered by muslim, vedic hindu bulls

>>17217325
I was basically paraphrasing the guy himself
No amount of western humanist projection will change the fact that Buddha didn't give much of a shit about "equality"

>>17217304
Plato articulated it by reducing the truth to a model which humans could understand. it does have its pros i suppose.

>>17217333
>thinking plato took the middle path and not aristotle

holy fuck

>>17217330
trannys are gnostics yes

>>17217324
There's a short book by that name, "Hinduism and Buddhism"

>>17217207
This
The autistic screeching against buddhism ITT is proof enough that Gautama found out something important

>>17217321
why do muslims obsess over white people it's pretty much their version of bbc

>>17217345
>muh Plato/Aristotle distinction
You've just posted cringe.

>>17217359
Some people are just infected with obsessions about The Other, whoever it happens to be from their perspective.

>>17217352
If you believe you are 'female' and have a 'male' body that needs to be modified to conform with an idea you are obviously not a materialist. Not sure what your point is here exactly.

>>17217353
Thank you.

>>17217340
i know the phrase you're paraphrasing my guy but you cant literally take one sentence that says something like "yo some people be so stubborn they cant be bothered to learn anything" and say buddha is against equality or some stupid shit.

also im not from the west so stop obsessing over whities.

>>17217359
Fuck you racist kafir

>>17217372
gnosticism is materialism because the earth lives rent free in their heads

>>17217359
Their entire civilization was kickstarted by appropriating the Rūm and Persian empires. Within a few generations, the conquered were running the show and pretending to be Arabs for compliance purposes.

>>17217337
I will answer, but when I say articulating, I mean articulating as in defining, not the closest of bringing truth to man. And that would be all of the Western greats, though there's much confusion especially since Descartes.

>>17217342
It's truth comes in its own form not so man can understand it, but because it is positive as it is.

>>17217356
Its mostly christniggers getting uppity as they always do

>>17217365
>Ofc there was no distinction!

You've never read more than 100 pages of either

>>17217377
stop watching western porn ahmed

buddha bros... im so demoralized.... i must surrender and serve big muslim dick...

Plato bodied that nigga

Siddhartha died happy, Plato died miserable.

>>17217391
I'm not sure I'm following you anon. Who counts as a great or not in your view?

Plato was a noble pagan, Siddhartha burns in hell with the other false prophets and kafirs

>>17217098
Seriously though why does Buddhism make people seethe so hard? Look at how fast this thread is.

>>17217406
>nirvana=happiness

>>17217418

>>17217406
"One story, based on a mutilated manuscript, suggests Plato died in his bed, whilst a young Thracian girl played the flute to him. Another tradition suggests Plato died at a wedding feast." Doesn't sound so bad to me anon, how do you know he died miserable?

>>17217393
Case in point >>17217415

>>17217432
Im not a Christian

>>17217391
>truth comes in its own form not so man can understand it, but because it is positive as it is.
still the forms are immutable representations, like mathematical models. this model based thinking is what defines western civilization.

>>17217437
>abrahamist
same shit honestly

Don't muslimanons have fights against christanons they need to take care of BEFORE tackling other shit like buddhism?

>>17217446
We stand on the ashes of your temples kafir. Our swords spilled the blood of your fathers and your mothers warmed our beds. We pray to THE GOD and pitch our tents on mountains of your dead.

>>17217376
I remember reading a translated Tibetan commentary on Aryadeva once and he goes on for several pages about how innately disgusting and undesirable women are. It became clear to me that the therapeutavada Buddhists of Brooklyn and the Bay Area had never read anything other than maybe Suzuki or Alan Watts. Buddhism is if anything anti-humanism, not some secular humanist egalitarianism. Insofar as we are equals under Buddhism we are equally delusional, equally susceptible to death, and so forth. It is true that anyone can become enlightened but texts also imply this could take a geological scale of time for some people, whose attachments are so great as to give rise to eons of more births.

>>17217459
cool story bro

>>17217458
Monotheist infighting is useless, the real enemies are the polytheists and atheists.

>>17217459
i'll give you a (you) for trying so hard

>>17217376
>>17217460
In the original doctrine, women couldn't even become enlightened
Buddha also never challenged the caste system at all, or even criticized it

>>17217459
role playing weirdo

>>17217484
He only taught his teachings to high caste people, did he not?

>>17217460
>Aryadeva
>Tibentan commentary
There's your problem. Start with what Gautama Buddha preached.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>17217499
No, everyone could join regardless of their caste, this is the only "egalitarian" element in the doctrine. But he very clearly accepted the idea of castes, women being inferior, and even slavery (though he did say you should treat your slaves well)

>>17217484
there's not a whole wrong with that

imagine making a guy seethe so hard just by existing >>17217505

>only one guy in the thread actually answering the OP question (>>17217309)
>zero (you)s
Anon would you mind elaborating on why you think no-self is a way to avoid conjecture on the metaphysical self and not a clear denial of its existence?

>>17217484
He went around, canonically speaking, btfo'ing brahmins and rival sectarians and then they would convert thus I have heard. The reason people on this board are mad about Buddhism being supposedly subversive or egalitarian is because a. they are believe in a caste system they read about in a book once written by European romanticists who thought it was based and redpilled to have serfdom with extra steps or b. are bothered by people they don't like in the first place (women, liberals, etc.) having adopted Buddhism as an 'authenticized' form of New Age / Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (MTD) belief, which it is not considered to be whatsoever in native Asia.

>>17217484
>In the original doctrine, women couldn't even become enlightened
Gautama Buddha has never ever said anything about women not being able to become enlightened, just that it'd be harder for them than men because women had to live in constant fear of getting raped back then. After his passing yeah the religions and sects that formed were anti-women but that's hindu culture bleeding in. Mahayana and other branches are pretty clear that women can be enlightened.

>>17217499
dead wrong. he took on massive numbers of prostitutes and dancers and this was a huge scandal back then and made people spread rumors that buddhist monks are basically in a sex cult.

>>17217501
Yeah he told women to be reborn as men iirc. If anything it is later Buddhism that retcons this so you can become a Buddha in your own present body.

>>17217309
rebirth isn't the final destination it's what has to be escaped

>>17217532
Yeah he btfo other systems but never at any point did he state the caste system shouldn't exist, was unjust or whatever, he fully accepted its existence and worked with it

>>17217499
Anyone can become a Buddhist, and one of the Buddha's best students was a Shudra. Buddhism is totally cool with the idea of separation of peoples and what we can roughly call a very, VERY fine grained ethnocentrism (if we view separate varnas and jatis as ethnicities). It does, however, drastically alter the role of the Brahmins, by making them little more than spiritual technicians (moral authority rests with the Monks).

>>17217505
>reveals priceless texts and treasures hidden in caves behind the statues
Based. A true demonstration of the power of Emptiness.

>>17217460
The texts you're referring to are demonstrating a specific practice of trying to end sexual attraction by remembering that women poop and fart. There's similar practices for nuns, thinking about how gross men are. You're not wrong, but it is worth clarifying that the Buddha isn't just saying "lmfao fuck women" here, he's got a specific purpose. Even his initially not wanting there to be nuns was out of worry that they would eventually become prostitutes, which would generate bad karma for the nuns. This worry turned out to be right, as it also did in European nunneries, which commonly had the same problem.

>>17217541
>because women had to live in constant fear of getting raped back then.
You're distorting his sayings
>Just so, monks, there are five dangers of a woman. What five? She is aggressive, bears grudges, has terrible poison, is fork-tongued, and betrays friends. Herein, monks, a woman’s terrible poison is this–generally, a woman has keen lust. A woman’s forked tongue is this–generally, a woman uses back-biting speech. A woman’s betrayal of friends is this–generally, a woman commits adultery.
He said it was harder for women to reach higher states of realization because they are inevitably bogged down by their stronger attachment to samsara, mostly because of their sexuality. Nothing to do with rape

>>17217098
>So in the end, who was right?
dis lil nigga right here

>>17217573
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>17217578
Cope, buttass stole vedic philosophy to create an autistic cult

>>17217589
>Buddha, born around 500BC, stole the philosophy of Shankara, born around 800AD
So... The Buddha was a time traveler? Fucking based.

>guenonfag

>>17217527
Yeah it's because that is what the literature says. Like you can literally go read as much in Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, etc. This is a dominant interpretation within Mahayana Buddhism. Even the yogacara-vijnanavada schools, which are teaching consciousness-only instead of focusing on a radical (in the sense of root) commitment to sunyata (emptiness) as the ultimate core of Buddhism, will say that consciousness-only is taught for expedience of realizing non-attachment, i.e. why be attached to reifications conjured by consciousness. Think of it this way, if you've already accepted that the objects of sense are not as they are [perceived to be], and the sensations of them are not as they are, and your resultant consciousness of them is not as they are, why would you be left as a proper seer in the absence of proper sight of properly seen things?

>>17217544
Yes but the implication for people with the above views is that Buddha was subversive of caste because in the monastic vinaya you replace worldly caste structure with a hierarchy based on other-than-systematized-Vedic principles.

>>17217609
>This is a dominant interpretation within Mahayana Buddhism
And what does Theravada think?
Are you saying that Mahayana Buddhists actually do believe in something akin to a paramatman, but just avoid saying anything about it because it is counterproductive to realization, or did I just misunderstand?

>>17217559
I agree he's not anti-woman in principle but by current day pants on head standards he should be cancelled and it is deeply unironic how many lululemonites think they are Buddhists because they have an icon of his head behind them when they zoom call other people to talk about how distressed they are about x or y sociopolitical fetter.

>>17217635
Deeply ironic rather, or unironically based, I was halfway through thought

>>17217595
the philosophy of Shankara was already contained in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads, thats why Buddhism is like a reverse image snapshot of the metaphysics of the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads.

>>17217560
True. I stand corrected. Many early texts do talk shit about women while not going so far as to say they cannot reach enlightenment. I was mostly focused on later texts which retcon all the shittalking. I guess whether you see buddhism as its texts in the early days or not matters here.

>>17217654
>later texts which retcon all the shittalking
Which ones?

>>17217625
Theravada is also no-self but there is far less emphasis on a total emptiness of all reality. My understanding is Theravada holds that selves are production of the aggregates (skandhas). In other words, having perceived forms, feelings, thoughts etc. one comes to cling to objects, which necessarily implicates that one as arising. Their commentarial literature is systematized as abhidharma rather than madhyamaka and I am less familiar with the former.

>>17217658
Lotus Sutra in particular says women can be above all women and men alike once they reach enlightenment. Various Mahayana texts also focus less on the gender divide i believe.

>>17217484
>women couldn't even become enlightened
that's false

women couldn't become nun

>>17217484
>>Buddha also never challenged the caste system at all,
why would he ? you think the buddha is some atheistard caring politics?

>>17217484
>or even criticized it
he said the castes were useless

>>17217609
>proper seer in the absence of proper sight of properly seen things?
Because only properly existing entities have sentience

>>17217459
based larp

>>17217660
>far less emphasis on a total emptiness of all reality.
As I understand it, Theravada has an almost dualistic view of reality with Samsara and Nirvana being completely distinct concepts, on the other hand Mahayana teaches that all things are empty including Nirvana and that enlightenment is realizing Nirvana and Samsara are one and the same.
Mahayana can get away with believeing in a paramatman-like concept thanks to dharmakaya but Theravada has no such thing.

>>17217652
>>the philosophy of Shankara was already contained in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads,
The dating of the Upanishads is way older than the buddhist sutras...

>>17217652
Then why does literally every Hindu thinker before and after Shankara disagree with Shankara?

NIGGER KIKE FAGGOT JEW WOMAN ARAB POO TRANNY POTATO DYKE GAY AIDS TURK
ROACH GOOK CANCER PEE POOP SEMEN JEW

>>17217669
There are a bunch of Amazon bestseller ameripop-Buddhism books about how Buddhism is about fighting racism based on a highly selective interpretation of the texts. This sentimentalism causes hypertrads to flip out because they've gotten into obtuse hermeneutics of racism to one up one another to the point where anything threatening to premodern social bondage bleeds into present day discourses on racial equality as indistinguishable. To be fair, the anti-racist pseudobuddhists are doing the same thing as the racist pseudovedantins, but these people don't even talk to each other anyway and the debate is entirely inside their heads.

>>17217501
damn

>>17217625
Mahayana Buddhists have a sutra where they claim the buddhanature is the true self.

>>17217683
No such things, no such awareness of them, no such person having such awareness. It's up to you whether you buy it or not but the skepticism is consistent in the madhyamaka school.

SEETHE COPE DILATE BASED CRINGE BASED BASED CRINGE BASED BASED BASED CRINGE CRINGE CRINGE BASED BASED BASED BASED HOLY BASED BASED BASED CRINGE COPE DILATE

Buddha taught equality and gay sex

Buddhabros, should we consider Theravada and Mahayana as separate religions when we talk about Buddhism and its teachings? Mahayana doesn't even put much importance on Nikaya.

Equality in the gay sauna
All buttholes are brown!
Thus saith the Buddha

>>17217691
I know, the early Upanishads came first,
then Buddha after them, then Shankara
>>17217694
If they do so it’s because he is too smart for them and they can’t grasp his subtle but profound doctrine.

It’s not even true though that “literally every Hindu thinker” disagrees with him. The most important thinker in Shaktism is
Bhaskararaya and in his works he heaps praise upon Shankara and Shankara’s four main disciples and in the Shaktist Sri Vidya sect they include Shankara in their Guru parampa

>>17217686
No other sectarians have quite the relationship Buddhist ones do. Mahayana thinks it completes and supercedes the so-called Hinayana view, but all are considered Buddhists, just different gradations. The notion that Mahayana has atman stand-ins is basically an academic intepretation, and since Mahayana largely assimilates all discursive concepts to sunyata in the first place, isn't overly bothered by this. In Shingon (Japanese esoteric school derived from the Mahavairocanasutra) for instance, they go as far as to suggest no-self is for the lesser exoteric teachings but to reach Buddhahood in one lifetime is to realize a great self, or cosmic body that is one with primordial Buddha/Vairocana. Now isn't that just atman with extra steps, you might ask? From a comparative religious perspective, maybe it is, but for Shingon it is expedient means of realizing the path to buddhahood and has nothing to do with having a permanent personal body, which the dharmakaya-dharmadhatu is clearly not, since it contains billions of buddhas in its pores and is more vast than grains of sand in the Ganges and other such images. If you believe that is 'your real body' it's hard to seriously call it a self. But obviously other Buddhists reject this and conversely they do not think a cosmic body doctrine is expedient.

Damn, so THIS is how Buddhists act? Good thing I never actually fell for this meme.

>>17217818
>didnt even increment the poster count

>>17217826
Maybe he realized no-self and wants you to avoid attachment to the dharma

>>17217826
take your meds schizo

>>17217838
ah yes, a reverse bodhisattva

>>17217838
>bro be unattached to everything, all thoughts and objects are impermanent
>except for my teachings bro be super attached and dogmatic about this bro
???

>>17217874
This desu senpai

>>17217874
>except for my teachings bro be super attached and dogmatic about this bro
Literally says not to do this. Buddhism has a pretty good track record compared to other religions in not turning into a despotic priesthood but what can you do, people are going to insist on their interpretation as a means of something more than being a means.

>>17217934
>Buddhism has a pretty good track record compared to other religions in not turning into a despotic priesthood
Yes is that why tibet was ruled by a despotic theocracy for centuries? Or as I type this, muslims in south east asia are being butchered by mobs led by and urged on by Buddhist clergy?

>ching chong give money to our monks or you will die and be reincarnated as a pubic hair parasite ching chong
Why do white people like this shit?

>>17217708
What is that sutra?

>>17217969
lmaooo

>>17217934
your super exotic oriental cult isn't any different from the other religions bro.

>>17217769
> it contains billions of buddhas in its pores and is more vast than grains of sand in the Ganges and other such images
Seems similar to paramatman/brahman, honestly.
But I guess it doesn't really matter. What matters is that despite anicca and sunyata, some teachings appear to go against the idea of impermanence, I can't really make sense of that.

>>17217711
>No such things,
They are necessarily what is aware, it remains an unproven and fanciful assertion that non-existent or otherwise falsely existing things can be sentient, until a counter example is shown the only logical position is only existing things are sentient
>no such awareness of them,
It is necessarily the thing that is aware itself
>no such person having such awareness.
It is the indwelling Person or Purusha
>It's up to you whether you buy it or not but the skepticism is consistent in the madhyamaka school.
But Madhyamaka attempts to refute other schools via reducto ad absurdem infinite regresses but don’t solve the infinite regress problem in Buddhism concerning what causes pratityasampudada to aggregate in the first place (as it cannot be pratityasamupada itself as it relies on aggregation for its existence)

Madhyamaka also tries to point to internal contradictions in other schools but then hold both that A) reflexive relations are untenable and that B) sentience can be analyzed and reduced to its constituents despite this being the very same reflexive relation Nagarjuna says in untenable, i.e. it’s an internal contradiction in their doctrine which by their own standards invalidates them.

Either way, they don’t have much of a leg to stand on

>>17217818
Most of the shitflinging ITT is initiated by seething abrahamists tbqh

>>17217956
>contact with Muslims leads to Islamic praxis
I'm not surprised by that (look up kalachakra texts to see the moral influence as well, inventing apocalyptic Buddhist holy war) but also not justifying Tibet either. Tibet is pretty funny historically because these medieval Tibetan kings basically invited monks to help convert the country to Buddhism, several times over (in the process replacing late Indian Buddhism with earlier Indian Buddhism, see the prasangika/svatantrika debate) and then some military stuff happens with the Mongols and China and finally the lamas end up running the country directly from their mountain redoubts. It's not essential to Buddhism that the people supposed to be cloistered from worldly affairs end up running the state.

>>17217985
Buddhism did not do to Shinto or Hinduism or Bön what Christianity or Islam did to each other or the pagans. That's not why I have studied Buddhism but more of a historical consequence of what the Buddha taught. People argue the same attitude explains the decline of Indian Buddhism but that to me seems a bit illiterate, as any monocausal explanation of social changes is.

>>17218019
>kalachakra texts
so buddhists are seething that big dick Muslim chads wiped out the buddhists in india? based

>>17218015
>i must be permanent since I am aware
Your mother didn't know who you were until later in life and your great great grandchildren won't remember your name.

>>17217412
That's a complex question, but to put it most simply, someone who contributes to or creates in some major way the tradition.

>>17217443
Are they really representations though, or the beating heart of the world, like a soul?

The dialogues are the init script of Western Civilization. Whenever something bad happens the whole program can be bootloaded from Plato's works.
Buddha just crystallized something which was already dead. Mongoloid retardation and so-called comfiness (e.g. slice of life japanimation) are the only - questionable - products of his ersatz enlightenment.

>no soul
>but reincarnation and karma bruh lol
trash

>>17218051
They also massively genocided the central Asian Buddhists as well. Much of central Asia prior to the Islamicization of the Turkic peoples and their migration-jihads had been Iranian-Buddhist. The very Uighurs that China today persecutes live in a formerly Buddhist, Indo-European land that they themselves had conquered, and historically these Turkic muslims were later used as client forces by Qing imperialists (who themselves were nominally Buddhist!).

>>17218100
Really dumb take

>>17217748
we are talking about the guy who was too dumb to count above 1, right?

>>17218102
>reincarnation
Nope
Your understanding is trash

>>17218104
the buddhist-pagan iranics were displaced by pagan turks who then became islamic

>>17218102
Read Evola

>>17218069
So? That doesn’t contradict anything I wrote

>>17218102
Even in Platonism the Soul is merely linkage between Mind and Body. Buddhism omits the Soul but has a separate explanation for consciousness (or mind) and its relation to bodies. So a soul is not necessary to believe in rebirths, only in a transmigration of souls between bodies. This is reflected in the Greek metemPSYchosis, which is sometimes equated with reincarnation, which strictly speaking is souls going into bodies (which being bodies, are born). Again, Buddhism skips this and goes straight to birth.

>>17218117
>Islam
>all men are equal before God

>Butt-assism
>WOMEN ARE DOGS AND WILL NOT BE ENLIGHTENED

>>17218115
No, Shankara counts above 1 in his works

>>17218160
It's all nonsense anyways, your soul and self are created at the moment of conception

>>17218090
>Are they really representations though, or the beating heart of the world, like a soul?
In practice it makes little difference because as soon as we acknowledge something as immutable it immediately becomes a model in people's heads even if these models are not the forms themselves. When you build a civilization based on the idea of creating accurate models of the immutable you get the western civilization, with all of its pros and cons.

>>17218130
It was a long process but there were indeed conflicts post-Islamicization, and the Turkic victors documented their destruction of Buddhism and its sites.

>>17218172
Buddha was a braincel

>>17218172
Dilate

>>17218198
cope buddha tranny

>>17218172
we know you actually hate islam and you're just larping. here's a (you) anyway.

>>17218219
>>17217520

>>17218159
Why go through your entire post line by line when you already posit a permanent self on the basis of Upanishadic exegesis? Since I don't consider that textually authoritative it would not prove to me that there is a permanent self. From my point of view your equation of sentience with permanence is already unfounded, and this is given in experience of people being born and dying anyway without needing any sort of textual scrutiny.

>>17218225
Take your meds schizo

>>17218184
If they are created ex nihilo yes it is indeed horseshit.

>>17218236
oh god are we starting this all over again, the hindunuthin vs buddhapill debate

>>17218255
Why?

>>17217242
I read Dhammapada. It was awful. Like ad copy for a used car lot. Repetitive low quality emotion appeals. A bottom shelf business self-help book.

I don't really understand the concept of absolute self or soul. What is it that platonism asserts/buddhism denies in the first place?
When I think of the soul I think of the astral body or something like that but apparently that's not the true self. So what is? Does buddhism really say there's no true self even though nirvana is pretty much just a return to the One?

>>17218262
hindus are based, that is why they are thriving and buddhism is shrinking

>>17218268
You sound like a brainlet, no wonder you'd get filtered
>>17218276
Judging a religion on its number of adherents (especially by implying many = good) is the mark of a literal subhuman

>>17217264
>>17217292

Plato's right because he's white.

>>17218276
yes so is islam so i guess you two can fight it out for which is the best

>>17218263
Have you ever known anything to pop into existence from nothing? This is why post-monotheism becomes nihilism, there was an entire system arguing nothing turned into something because of a hyperreal agent. Buddhists don't believe this, Platonists did not believe this; all the non-monotheists of note believed in cycles. More specifically, why would the self begin at conception? Were you aware at conception? How can you even have a self without objects for experience and a memory to project them in spatialized time as having occurred to you? As for a soul, just as your body is made of things your mother has eaten, why should your soul be totally new (should you even have one)?

The Buddha say
Trannies are okay

>>17218236
> Why go through your entire post line by line when you already posit a permanent self on the basis of Upanishadic exegesis?
You don’t have too, I’m only here to point out the contradictions in Buddhism and chew bubblegum, and I’m all outta bubblegum
>From my point of view your equation of sentience with permanence is already unfounded
I did not equate sentience with permanence, nice attempt at pigeonholing my position but you’ll have to do better than that, none of the posts I have made in this thread have used the words “permanent” or “eternal” once. I consider sentience to be permanent, but that is not the same as equating sentience and permanence in the same way that saying water is a liquid is not equating liquid and water.

>>17218317
Hence why Buddhists are materialists, they can not even conceive of a transcendent Creator doing things they can not observe in their limited little pocket view of the universe.

>cycles
Peak materialism

>>17218338
You don't know what materialism means and you're apparently not familiar with buddhism either since you seem unaware that its cosmology is much greater in scope and scale than abrahamism's and arguably platonism's

>>17218344
You have invented fancy names for a grand and colorful series of worlds cool. Check back in with me once you stop basing your cosmology on the cycle of seasons or a ball rolling in a circle bro.

>>17218369
Not an argument, seethe harder

>>17218344
he's determined to hate buddhism. if you're a buddhist, let go.

So sayeth the Buddha
Practice gay sex bikkhus
To smash brahmanical patriarchy

>>17218269
Anyone?

>>17218373
Again, grounding your cosmology on purely observable phenomenon is materialistic and simplistic, no matter how many fancy realms and hells you have invented and stolen from the Hindu parent faith.

The Brahmans oppress much
Eat ass and suck dick
Achieve equality in nirvana

I don't think any philosophy/religion on makes so many people on this board boil in rage as buddhism, for some reason. Why? What is it about it that makes people insecure or defensive?

>>17218384
>can someone answer my question when i've already determined what buddhism is and isnt?

>>17218387
>grounding your cosmology on purely observable phenomenon
That didn't happen
I'll follow >>17218374's advice since you seem hellbent on not saying anything of value

I am witnessing more and more these efforts to combine eastern esoterics with western materialism, it is troubling! Many such cases!

>>17218269
buddhism says the five aggregates are conditioned. something conditioned is suffering, and something suffering is not self. Once you see that they are conditioned, desire for the aggregates and sense objects is ended and there is no rebirth anymore.

>>17218397
What's wrong about what I said?
>>17218404
Buddhism isn't esotericism and platonism isn't materialism, what are you talking about?
>>17218405
It says that the aggregates are not self but doesn't it also say that there is no atman?

>>17218338
>their limited little pocket view of the universe.
You adding god to your pocket as the Levi's logo on your jeans does not change that we are cut from the same cloth.

>>17218400
>Have you ever known anything to pop into existence from nothing?
>As for a soul, just as your body is made of things your mother has eaten, why should your soul be totally new (should you even have one)?

You are frightened by the idea of a transcendent Creator.

>>17218102
I love how you cant understand anicca. Trully Buddhism is not for low IQs

>>17218420
I'm not the guy you're quoting
I'm not frightened by that idea, just unconvinced because it's naive and unnecessary

>>17218420
Why do people prefer their fantasy of a creator instead of acknowledging reality?

>>17218434
Because it seems comforting (even though it's actually not)

>>17218332
>none of the posts I have made in this thread have used the words “permanent” or “eternal” once. I consider sentience to be permanent
Huh I guess I am psychic
>but that is not the same as equating sentience and permanence in the same way that saying water is a liquid is not equating liquid and water.
So sentience is an image of the form of permanence? Or water is not liquid? I mean either way, you are still contradicting yourself in a way that would be cut down tetralemmically in madhyamika analysis. That you reject that entire analysis by picking your favorite of the four refuted views is your own decision

>>17218434
Because most people are not purely materialistic

>>17218450
Good thing buddhism isn't either

>>17218420
Ah and you are frightened by his absence I take it?

>Hence why Buddhists are materialists, they can not even conceive of a transcendent Creator doing things they can not observe in their limited little pocket view of the universe.

not that anon but there is some sense to this

>>17218460
It makes no sense at all lmao

>>17218420
>logical demonstration of an uncreated eternal universe
>*tips fedora*
>heh, but what created that? betcha didn't see that one coming, huh? most don't, my blade is faith and it has been honed to a razor's edge on the corpses of a thousand non-materialists just like you. nothing personnel, kid.

>>17218470
I don't see the point of arguing about this
You're never going to convince him to accept another truth than the one he's already convinced himself is absolute

>>17218393
i wouldn't say there are that many. there are a few people (mostly christians, muslims, tradchads) who seethe a lot. for some reason they think it's easier to argue against than postmodernism and they think liberalism is already a "done deal."

>>17218470
>eternal universe
the big bang?

>>17218470
There is no reason to assume that the Universe has always existed.
Again, materialism. You see the sun rise and fall and assume the vast gulfs of space and time must operate the same way.

>>17218495
There is no reason to assume the universe was created either
>muh materialism
You're fucking unhinged
Buddhism is about as far from materialism as a philosophy can get, especially mahayana which by some interpretations is downright immaterialism
Not that you'd know since you don't actually have any knowledge of what you're arguing "against"

>>17218495
Yes, this is the sort of response I would expect a materialist to make to being called out on their bullshit.

>u r materialist
>no u
jesus fuck you people are exhausting
why don't christcucks fuck off to their own threads and let people discuss the things they're interested in?

>>17218416
>but doesn't it also say that there is no atman?
No, there is not a single Pali Canon Sutta where Buddha says there is no Atman, most Buddhist schools just interpreted him as saying such implicitly

>>17218448
>So sentience is an image of the form of permanence?
Sentience and permanence are two separate adjectives, in a permanent and sentient entity, both adjectives reside together in the same entity as its nature.
>Or water is not liquid?
water is a liquid, all I did was deny that I was equating them. Do you not know what the word ‘equate’ means? It means to consider a thing to be the same or as equivalent of another. I did not equate sentience and permanence, but since you evidently don’t know what the words means you must have thought otherwise.

>I mean either way, you are still contradicting yourself in a way that would be cut down tetralemmically in madhyamika analysis.
Lol, I’m not even contradicting myself, you haven’t pointed to any contradiction yet

>>17217372
>If you believe you are 'female' and have a 'male' body that needs to be modified to conform with an idea you are obviously not a materialist.
You are because you have rejected any notion of forms and instead believe all is matter, meaning all distinctions are illusory; there is no male or female form only different constructions of 'atoms'.

>>17218511
Basing your cosmology on observable earthly cycles like childbirth and cyclical seasons is inherently materialistic. Sorry bro. Cycles are the mundane and common thing. Interestingly your insistence on nonsensical cycles is quite a linear view on reality.

>>17218524
>there is not a single Pali Canon Sutta where Buddha says there is no Atman
What about the mahayana sutras? Isn't one of them dedicated to anatta?

>>17218281
Good defense of the book. Quality discussion right here.

>>17218526
Gnostics are the materialistic ones because they are obsessed with and are constantly seething at matter.

>>17218518
I mean while they are here, do they care to explain how the person of Christ in the triune God is both divine (immaterial) and human (material)? Or are they unsure whether they are Hebraists or Hellenists due to years of accepting by rote what imperial authorities codified as acceptable orthodoxy for administering the late Roman state?

>>17218536
>Basing your cosmology on observable earthly cycles like childbirth and cyclical seasons is inherently materialistic
>he thinks this is buddhism
>will never change his mind
>will never bother to actually learn buddhism
bet you feel like the world is turning upside down with all these rainbow flags everywhere

>>17218536
Basing your cosmology on observable earthly phenomenon of progress and evolution is inherently materialistic. Sorry bro. Linerarity is the mundane and common thing

>>17218524
>No, there is not a single Pali Canon Sutta where Buddha says there is no Atman
Correct, the Buddha posits anatman. He discusses this in the Samyutta Nikaya and the Anguttara Nikaya which are found in the Pali canon.

>>17218526
Correct. This is why if you ask Trannies, they say that they do not believe that everything is just atoms.

>>17218550
>explain how the person of Christ in the triune God is both divine (immaterial) and human (material)
Simple, God is transcendent and divine and is not limited by material constrictions.

>>17218540
He's going to respond with something like
>Mahayana is a wicked Chink perversion of Advaita Vedanta, the Pali Canon is the Bible because Protestantism

>>17218561
Evolution is cyclical and mundane.

>>17218570
What the fuck are you talking about

>>17218283
Shamefully cringe comic. Not even for Pagans or Christians or whatever, just horribly cliche tripe that is obviously the creators fantasy. It's like it's trying to do memery but it just takes the outer images without any understanding.

>>17218560
Then what is it based on?

>>17218536
You're right we should base our cosmology on what we haven't observed, that things spontaneously appear and disappear at the beck and call of a cosmic jailer who sometimes brings us cigarettes and sometimes electrodes.

>>17218563
Correct, and that God was created by Super God, who is even more transcendent and even more divine, and not limited by the material constrictions of the material that God is made up of.

There's also Super Super God, and Super Super Super God, going up the chain infinitely.

>arguing about theology with christcucks
When will you people learn?

>>17218588
God is uncreated, can your materialistic mind handle that?

>>17218601
Nirvana is uncreated, can you materialistic mind handle that?

>>17218524
If sentience and permanence belong to the same set of 'entity' then no they are not like liquid and water. Water is a species of liquid. Make up your mind. You are now adding a third thing to contain the other two!

coping buddha-larpers in this thread realizing how shallow their materialistic beliefs are lol

The number of people who have actually answered OP's question remains one (1)

>>17218526
Very obviously the transgender person believes in forms, otherwise they wouldn't change their appearance to conform to one.

>>17218617
there is no need to be frustrated

>>17218563
If he is material he is constrained by materiality. If he is immaterial he is not. If he were both or neither then he would be incoherent for discursive thought. But here you are saying he is transcedent. Then why is he given as human and divine?

>>17218629
I hope you find the truth bro.......

>>17218585
anon, if you're sincerely interested in learning buddhism, there are plenty of resources out there. a lot of youtube channels as well. i think only those who have a vested interest in arguing against buddhism will say buddhism is materialistic. many anons have tried to tell you this, but you've only engaged them with the intent to prove them wrong. so we talk it circles.

>>17218636
He'll just say none of this applies because it's transcendent

>>17218601
The universe is uncreated, can your materialistic mind handle that?

>>17218641
Thank you, I hope you find it as well
Maybe start with the heart sutra

>>17217098
Definitely Jesus.

>>17218659
Tell me, why do you feel the need to shoehorn your dead jew into every single discussion, even those that have nothing to do with your beliefs?
What compels you to be so obnoxious and insufferable?

>>17218582
t. butt hurt and flustered over a meme.

>>17218667
hey anon im not him but why ask a question when your mind already is set on the answer? only to add more wood to the fire?

>>17218677
No I honestly want to understand the christian mindset of making everything about their dogma all the time.

>>17218667
What makes your dead indian better then the "dead jew"

Do I really need to read Plato? I want to start with Plotinus.

>>17218683
>answering my question with another question
Stop being disingenuous and just answer me clearly.

>>17218680
>expecting an english speaking website to not have a large number of aggressive Christians
Try accepting reality bro.

buddhists DO seem hopelessly mired in a materialistic shallow view of reality.
if they love cycles so much they should just walk in a circle forever

>>17218703
>still mad
>not even responding to anyone anymore
man go get some air or something

>>17218649
the idea of an uncreated universe made of dust and fire is materialistic bro

>>17218693
>expecting a dirty kitchen to not have cockroaches
Are you implying it's in a christian's nature to be obnoxious and unpleasant?

>>17218688
You would be missing out on half of what he is talking about but sure, take the Platonism out of Neo-Platonism.

>>17218765
How very enlightened of you :)

>>17218778
I'm not enlightened, why would you assume that?
Still not answering my very simple question by the way :)

Not gonna lie, former Buddha voter here. This is fucking hilarious watching Buddha crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let this guy get the nuclear codes.

>this whole fucking thread
top kek
christcucks are a plague

>>17218713
It almost seems like material/immaterial is a worthless designation, since language itself is symbolic and we are trying to symbolize what is thought to be non-symbolic, or concrete, assuming such is even possible using symbols. When you ask the wrong questions you get bad answers.

>>17218786
oh no no no buddhabros we got cocky...

>>17218713
That's nice, that's not what I, or Buddhism as a whole, believe.

>>17218803
Words are divine. Language is a part of humanity.

>>17218816
lmao

>>17218818
Yes, denigrate language. The very essence of knowledge and relationships.

>>17218816
>human construct is divine
By whose theology? Did Thoth write your alphabet?

>>17218825
lmfao

Damn, why can't buddhabros fight back against the christcucks?

>>17218667
I'm trolling, anon. I just felt like doing it desu. Trying to get good at getting "both sides" mad.

>>17218840
We're no match against the mighty jew, bro... INRIchads, I kneel...

>>17218831
Go hoot and beat your chest then you monkey

>>17218848
>he doesn't strive to retvrn to monke
can christcucks get more pathetic?

>>17218860
no...

>>17218800
It's like I'm on /his/

>>17218848
I think I will, thanks

>>17218831
Have you ever read the fucking OT? It's Hebrew, you idiot.

>>17218860
>>17218870
holy fucking based

>>17218840
There are too many of them.
There are maybe a handful of actual buddhists on /lit/.
There is a horde of vigorous christcucks, some well read and some not. And more of them show up everyday.
Its just math

>>17218869
we've been seeing a lot of /his/ tier convos here recently and i have no idea why

>>17218885
Christians are like a virus, they need to spread

>>17218879
Have you? If it's human, it's not divine. In the Hebrew bible they don't even want to say name of God, let alone symbolically represent him.

>>17218831
Adam and Eve were created with the ability and words to speak.

Why are you drawing this comparison? This thread is stupid. No wonder it has hundreds of replies.
>inb4 u just don't understand the esoteric manifestations of these thinkers blah blah blah

>>17218900
Its the same shit, a couple buddhists in a thread get swamped by Christians and Muslims.

>>17218900
plato
>there's an immortal soul
buddha
>there's no immortal soul

easy comparison

>>17218913
>>there's no immortal soul
That sounds kind of materialistic idk

>>17218911
Yeah it kinda seems to me this is thinly veiled /pol/bait. Do people on this board even think anymore?

>>17218924
It's understandable you could think that if you don't have much of a background in buddhism or philosophy in general

>>17218899
I am aware "God did it" is the answer to most questions asked of Christianity.

>>17218925
There has been a backlash against buddhists in /lit/, mostly because of the smugness and elitism of the few practitioners here

>>17218938
What elitism? Only guenonfag is obnoxious about eastern philosophy
I haven't seen buddhists proselityze outside of their threads

>>17218931
It is what it is pal, btw you have an immortal soul not constrained by arbitrary materialistic laws made up by a sakya prince

>>17218938
To be fair, elitism is what kept the /pol/tards out until 2016. I think I can tolerate it.

>>17218948
That's a misguided view actually, start with the heart sutra

>>17218944
It happens a lot, at least it did a few months ago.

>>17218913
You have a very boring understanding of how or why comparison might be useful. I suppose you have a Christian or ex-Christian definition of soul that would not have mattered to Platonists or Buddhists. See here for something on topic
>>17217309

>>17218949
Elitism is toxic. I prefer a ruddy, chaotic fighting mob of men to some pampered oligarchs

>>17218948
>arbitrary materialistic laws
wow it's like you're describing the decalogue!

>>17218960
This is the smug elitism I'm talking about. It is pure reddit, uncharismatic and lands like a wet thump. Nobody likes this attitude and it doesn't change anybodys heart.

>>17218984
Yeah I've noticed some posts in the same fashion by the guy always whining about "buddhist protestantism" whatever the fuck that is
Buddhist threads are pretty cool in general though, even with guenonfag there

>>17218974
>the ten commandments concern the nature of the soul
Reaching, reaching, looking for vain little reddit GOTCHAS. Lower yourself, consider being humble.

>>17218989
>seething this hard about a joke
wew lad
>Lower yourself
no thanks I'm not into the christian mentality

>>17218970
What you prefer is evidently a screaming mob of the masses discussing things they have no idea about, and don't want to put the effort into understanding, being drawn into "intellectualism" by a vague recollection of aesthetics, which merely pushes oligarchs to advance the onslaught of the spectacle.

>>17219000
Yes, a mob of courageous men is more noble and courageous then a simpering little oligarch. What you call mob I call army inshallah.

>>17218540
Yes, but some of them also speak of Atman-like things like Tathagatagarbha or Parinispanna such as the Uttaratantra sastra and the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra.
>>17218562
He discusses anatman, but he doesn’t say that Atmans dont exist. Anatman doesn’t automatically imply the latter in the same way that using “non-salty” to distinguish saltwater and freshwater doesn’t mean that salt or saltwater don’t exist.
>>17218614
>If sentience and permanence belong to the same set of 'entity' then no they are not like liquid and water.
I didn’t say once that the relation between liquid and water is strictly analogous to that between sentience and permanence, try to pay closer attention instead of making wild leaps and putting false words in my mouth. I merely pointed out that to compare two things is not the same as equating them.

>Make up your mind.
about what?

>You are now adding a third thing to contain the other two!
So?

>>17219018
subhuman

>>17218998
Your pride will burn you alive. Nothing good comes from turning yourself into an idol. All is vanity.

So sayeth the Buddha
Enjoy gay intercourse
Everyone is equal
There is not soul lol

Dhammapada 24:3

>>17219033
cool story bro
go pray to your dead jew some more and stop busting my balls

>>17219025
I hope you find true peace bro.

>>17218984
>lets compare platonism and buddhism
>uh one of these has a soul and the other doesn't
If you can't be bothered to understand what the soul means in Plato then this tells you nothing. The Platonic soul is medium between mind and body. It explains how we descend into materiality. Buddhism does not use soul to expain this. Both believe in cyclical births. Now from your smouldering hot take that Platonism has a soul and Buddhism does not, did we learn anything?

>>17219037
absolutely SEETHING

>>17219018
You completely missed my point. Oligarchs exist when others are "courageous" enough to take on their labor. You are deluded by a simulacrum, roleplaying as some Muslim who doesn't know what they're talking about.

>>17219051
No you don't you disingenuous nigger

>>17219058
Oligarchs get hung from the neck

>>17219062
in your incel fantasies maybe

>>17218985
That is one poster misunderstanding another poster! That American culture makes constant reflexive references to Protestant theology even though nobody goes to church is a given; this also carries over into attitudes towards Buddhism wherein a pattern of thinking emerges which assumes Theravada is the supposed original Buddhism because it has the King James Pitaka and no catholicized additives. This is of course not even true because 1. both Theravadins and Mahayanists trace their teachings back to a similar body of texts which are found in the Pali Canon, 2. the Pali Canon did not create the texts, it codified them (research the sutras found in the 20th century in Central Asia dating from the Gandhara period, these are basically the Dead Seas Scrolls of Buddhism in terms of scholarly impact), and 3. Theravada is full of commentarial literature, it just doesn't consider it to have been revealed by bodhisattva saints or suprahumans post-Sakyamuni Buddha. (Yet ACTUAL Protestants allow for people like Luther or Calvin to have come along to reform Christian teaching, but that would require Americans know European history before WW2; Americans are hyperprotestant, refering to a protestantism that does not exist).

>tfw you successfully roleplay as a christian, muslim, and buddhist and destroy another thread

>>17219062
Who will organize your armies to raid the Christian world, then? Armies cannot exist without intelligence.

>>17219069
>believing in human rights and liberty is being an incel
Stop projecting.

>There is no reincarnation
>Achieve nirvana to stop reincarnation
The wisdom of the Buddha everyone

>>17219023
>keep adding new concepts/entities to subsume the other ones
>so what?
Come on dude you are better read than this! It has to stop somewhere.

>>17219087
>don't understand buddhism
>make a strawman about it to show it makes no sense
The wisdom of anon everyone

>>17219079
Like my ancestors did, the ummah will elect the leaders of the community to lead our men into battle

>>17219087
>no self
>also give money to bald monks or you will come back as an earthworm
wow... such wisdom...

Almost fifty posts above bump limit
Not a single good post ITT aside from the bodhidharma anon
Now that this place is finally turning into /his/, where is left to have good discussions about spirituality?

>>17219100
Charity towards ascetics is pre-Buddhist by the way. This was totally normal in India and still is in certain communities.

>bro just turn your brain off lol
>also i am a prince with soft hands raised in luxury with no life experience

>>17219114
>responding to low effort bait
dumbass

>>17219113
Funny enough, Buddhist scriptures actually said this would happen. They are pretty self-aware in that respect, that it is expected long periods will elapse where no one understands the teaching.

>>17219113
it's not /lit/s fault that buddhists are too weak to defend their beliefs lol

>>17219132
So is /lit/'s Maitreya bound to appear soon?

>>17219132
Sounds like a cope.

>>17219131
Maybe someone will learn something. I don't assume everyone is an idiot, maybe at best most

>>17219089
>Come on dude you are better read than this! It has to stop somewhere.
It stops at God or Brahman, in which all things are contained. Where is the contradiction? And I’m not really adding anything new, but the idea that certain objects or entities can have multiple attributes is something that pretty much every culture and language takes for granted, you have not pointed out what is wrong with that idea to begin with

>>17219133
Literal nigger-tier justification

>>17219145
>cope
seethe

>>17219145
Everything is a cope you mouthbreathing brainlet

>>17219144
That was Guenonfag, revealing the truth of the Upanishadic doctrine, which Buddha originally meant to teach through his own inferior means designed for men of coarse intellect

>I don't assume everyone is an idiot, maybe at best most

>>17219171
Guenonfag is far too petty and ignorant
Also an unironic tranny lover can't be a buddha

>>17219160
what happened to buddhism being a warrior faith little baby?

>>17219181
Say that to my face not online see what happens

>>17219199
>>17219118
Imagine boiling in rage and hatred to such an extent you'd waste your time posting shit like this
Dilate

>>17219156
Madhyamika philosophy assumes you have already broken everything down into atoms or real components (dharmas) as per abhidharmika systematization. This is the main view being refuted. You always seem to appear in these threads saying actually everything is Brahman and that he is a permanent observer or the sentience involved in cognizing reality, which is also Brahman, and so forth. From the Buddhist point of view, madhyamika or not, the whole given entity of the chariot is an illusion on top of the parts. Question then becomes about the parts. Are those real? Your Evangelion-pilot Atman is just another chariot as far as the intrabuddhist debate is concerned. No major Buddhist tradition would accept your premise of a permanent sentience personally being me myself and I which is observing the manifold

Based Abrahamics crushing and sneeding buddha trannys.

>>17219199
ITT: Buddhatards DESTROYED

>>17219199
OHNONONONONONONONONO

>>17219219
I don't get what a sickly George Harrison has to do with anything?

>>17219228
Seething.

>>17219218
>>17219219
>>17219225
buddhabros... the jew is too powerful...

>>17219118
>it sucks and you die and become an elephant
Pampered prince Siddhartha right before running away from home

buddhism truly does feel like the inane teachings of a pampered prince unconnected from real life and suffering

>mfw all this anti-buddhism shilling by abrahamic schizos
Thanks to you I have seen the light.
I'm going to pursue Buddhism in depth now. It has to hold some important truths if it manages to cause so much butthurt.

>>17219235
>>17219247
Imagine being so hylic you think wealth resolves existence.

>>17219256
>hylic
Tranny

>>17219218
>>17219219
>>17219225
>>17219233
>>17219235
>>17219247
O B S E S S E D
take your meds, unironically, and then dilate

>>17219247
>come out of the palace
>see poverty
Noooo, life is suffering, everything must go back to the void!

>>17219214
>You always seem to appear in these threads saying actually everything is Brahman and that he is a permanent observer or the sentience involved in cognizing reality, which is also Brahman, and so forth. From the Buddhist point of view, madhyamika or not, the whole given entity of the chariot is an illusion on top of the parts. Question then becomes about the parts. Are those real? Your Evangelion-pilot Atman is just another chariot as far as the intrabuddhist debate is concerned. No major Buddhist tradition would accept your premise of a permanent sentience personally being me myself and I which is observing the manifold
I asked for the alleged contradiction in Advaita which you were trying to instantiate and all you did was list the Buddhist pablum without showing any contradiction.

> No major Buddhist tradition would accept your premise of a permanent sentience personally being me myself and I which is observing the manifold
They cannot accept it for ideologically reasons, but Shankara already explained why the no-Atman position of Buddhists is illogical, and that’s why Buddhism died out mostly in India and lost its homeland to Hinduism, because the Buddhists had no good response to Shankara’s points and those who followed in his footsteps.

>mfw all this anti-abrahamic shilling by buddhist schizos
Thanks to you I have seen the light.
I'm going to pursue Islam in depth now. It has to hold some important truths if it manages to cause so much butthurt.

>>17219269
Was Buddha the first SJW?

>>17219274
cope lmao

>>17219277
No, he was elitist and autistic who wanted to send humanity into a bottomless void (nirvana).

>>17219277
no that was jesus
>>17219288
>void
double digit IQ spotted

>"When that Indian spoke to us," went on Brown in a conversational undertone, "I had a sort of vision, a vision of him and all his universe. Yet he only said the same thing three times. When first he said 'I want nothing,' it meant only that he was impenetrable, that Asia does not give itself away. Then he said again, 'I want nothing,' and I knew that he meant that he was sufficient to himself, like a cosmos, that he needed no God, neither admitted any sins. And when he said the third time, 'I want nothing,' he said it with blazing eyes. And I knew that he meant literally what he said; that nothing was his desire and his home; that he was weary for nothing as for wine; that annihilation, the mere destruction of everything or anything——"

>>17219255
I have been into reading Buddhist texts for several years, before the emergence of hyperreal zoomcath posturing against millenial scepticism/atheism/agnosticism, and it is indeed charming to see people seethe about other people questioning ghastly afterimages of Christianity. When Christians overthrew the pagans they made sure to smash and burn whatever they could so it is just atavism. Without a state sponsor it comes across as kind of ridiculous to gnash your teeth at people that don't agree with you. Jesus didn't tell you to be this way bro

>>17219298
is that the stone in focus monkey?

>>17219288
But SJW are elitists who want to send humanity to the bottomless void (socialist utopia)

>>17219298
The majority of seething abrahamics ITT are just from /pol/ and /his/, they don't actually believe or know about Christianity

>>17219298
You will never be a woman btw

>>17219307
Thats why SJWs and Jews love Buddhism

>>17219271
"God did it" sucks as an explanation. Even Plato knew this and gave creation to the demiurge. It is incoherent for me to literally be god but delusional of the fact that I am god, simply to refute Buddhist deconstruction of the self. You claim Buddhists are ideologically against the self; I agree which is why I am unimpressed by Shankara saying the self is really just god with a concussion.

>>17219321
>I, a non-christian, am the judge of who is christian and who is not

>>17219307
>>17219332
>jerking yourself off this hard
holy shit christians are fucking pathetic lmao

>>17219339
Yes, now fuck off back to your containment board

>>17219344
Seethe and cope, but also dilate

>>17219344
Cope, every day you are more and more demoralized by Big Abrahamic Bvlls

>>17219350
>>17219351
NPC hivemind
Keep BOILING in rage, maybe if you cry hard enough to your dead kike he'll punish your bullies

IDK guys, this Jesus guy sounds pretty cool.

>>17219361
He really does, too bad about the jew thing though

>>17219357
You gonna cry little boy? Mad at the mean anons?

Btw we agree that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit right, abrahamic bros?

>>17219374
>no u
is that the best you can do christcuckold?

It is nice to know that buddhists are so pathetic they can't even defend a single internet thread lol.

>>17219376
Based!

>>17219398
WTF christcuck you went too far

>>17219331
>God did it" sucks as an explanation. Even Plato knew this and gave creation to the demiurge.
In Advaita the act of creation is sub-contracted out to the Saguna Brahman as in Platonism, it is all ontologically dependent on Brahman or the One though, without whom there would be no demiurge. I just assume that people already know this instead of going on long-winded explanations every time. Most of the arguments about the universe being incapable of arising from anything else other than an intelligent God/One still apply even when He subcontracts it out though, for example Plotinus makes cosmological arguments despite being a platonist. In Advaita Brahman is unchanging and doesn’t directly create ex-nihilio.
>It is incoherent for me to literally be god but delusional of the fact that I am god,
False, because when you say “me” you are not speaking of the Vedantic Atman, which you haven’t the slightest conception of, but you are just speaking about your normal psycho-physical self which is not the Atman. The Atman isn’t delusional, only the non-Atman jiva is. The Atman is untouched by the jivas ignorance.
>Shankara saying the self is really just god with a concussion.
This is not what he says, you have no idea what you are talking about

>>17219323
I thought we established earlier ITT that Buddhism teaches that women are revolting?

>>17219406
Im not a Christian, retard.

It is nice to know that christcucks are so pathetic that shitposting on /lit/ constitutes a victory for them

>>17219416
Which makes your buddha-tranny predicament so hilarious and tragic

>>17219421
Only Allah wins, cuck.

>>17219423
The things you're talking about are only happening in your head
Take the meds

>>17219411
idk sounds materialistic

>>17219426
>his prophet is a warmongering pedophile
LMFAO

>>17219451
You make it sound as if it were a bad thing

>>17219411
>False, because when you say “me” you are not speaking of the Vedantic Atman, which you haven’t the slightest conception of, but you are just speaking about your normal psycho-physical self which is not the Atman. The Atman isn’t delusional, only the non-Atman jiva is. The Atman is untouched by the jivas ignorance.
We have had this discussion before and when faced with the impermanence of the personal self or sentience, being an argument against it being real or permanent, you pull Brahman down from heaven to lift your self back up from being like all the other illusions, except instead of being empty because it is like everything else the self is now god because god is everything. It's not compelling. It's not refutation. It is an entirely different explanation for reality, and as other people like to point out, the absolutism of advaita postdates sunyata, even if the Upanishads predate Mahayana Buddhism, and Hindus were certainly not advaita Vedantins all along anyway. In the best case scenario Gaudapada and Shankara are not so much 'refuting Buddhism' as pilfering its rhetorical equipment for Hinduism. But even were that not the case, since I am not convinced of a self, god being the support for that self is not convincing of a self either.

Lurker here. Woah, so Buddhism sucks... Good to know.

>>17219443
Materialism = there is only matter and space
Advaita = there is only the immaterial Brahman comprised of pure formless Consciousness and the ontologically-contingent transient manifestations of His power which are subsumed back into Him, the elements that we call material are nothing more than a manifestation of His power

Lurker here... I have seen the truth in Gautama's words, brothers. Thank you.

Buddha bros, we lost the battle, but we will win this war

>>17219457
>We have had this discussion before and when faced with the impermanence of the personal self or sentience.
The impermanence of anything which we cannot visibly see undergoing destruction (like sentience, as opposed to a brick or flower) can only be inferred, not proven or shown. The only way to prove the impermanence of such a thing is to be there permanently examining it to make sure that the thing in question is impermanent, but this is impossible for humans to do. Sentience is not impermanent but it remains a constant factor of our experience, when you are in dreamless sleep your sentience continues but just has the experience of ignorance, the experience of being ignorant in deep sleep is presented to our sentience, which is how we experience it and can say right now thats what we do. The states of waking, dream and dreamless sleep are all just a continual overlay superimposed onto the underlying constant basis of sentience.

>you pull Brahman down from heaven to lift your self back up from being like all the other illusions, except instead of being empty because it is like everything else the self is now god because god is everything.
This is just pointless rhetoric, you are not pointing out anything contradictory or wrong in Advaita here

>the absolutism of advaita postdates sunyata, even if the Upanishads predate Mahayana Buddhism
No it’s not you dummy, the earliest Upanishads mention the word Advaita when clearly speaking in a non-dual context and the Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya repeat a dozen or times between them that the Atman is Brahman, that is absolutist! The pre-Buddhist Upanishads saying that Atman is Brahman is just as absolutist as the post-Buddhist Uoanishads saying the same thing. Sunyata is long after both of them.

>and Hindus were certainly not advaita Vedantins all along anyway.
The Upanishads indicate otherwise

>In the best case scenario
Shankara refuted Buddhism and it fled India with its tail between its legs, Buddhists are already living in the worst-case scenario for themselves

Christbros, they were mean to us but at least they'll be thrown in the lake of fire.

>>17219541
Sentience is obviously contingent on what is experienced and clearly not permanent. You are turning a process into an entity without any reason to do so other than backstopping it with god if someone critiques this. Waking and dreaming should be proof enough that we are dealing with some sort of arisen process and not a permanent enduring thing. If the Upanishads were advaita all along then what is the point of Shankara? Why did he write or teach? It almost sounds like there was a different view he was felt necessary to debate against. And as always, the painfully simple pokemon master narrative of history to bookend your post.

>>17219541
why do virgins like this shit lol

>>17219578
>Guenonfag uses Atman!
>It's not very effective...

>>17219578
>Sentience is obviously contingent on what is experienced and clearly not permanent
If that was true then because the experiences presented by the sense organs change at every moment, the sentience which is based on those experiences should change at every moment, but it doesn’t, our sentience continues from moment to moment during the day which is what allows for the self-evident identity of awareness from moment to moment. Hence sentience is not based on experience and this can be shown from examining our conscious experience.
>You are turning a process into an entity without any reason to do so
sentience is not a process
> Waking and dreaming should be proof enough that we are dealing with some sort of arisen process and not a permanent enduring thing.
If those happen to the intellect/mind of the jiva which the Atman observes, why would that have any beating upon the Atman? Answer: it doesn’t
>If the Upanishads were advaita all along then what is the point of Shankara?
To fully explain all the parables and instructions in them, and to correct false interpretations of them which had arisen in some areas, also, to refute Buddhism

>>17219619
*any bearing upon

>>17219619
Sentience is not permanent nor enduring; you are constantly leaking memory, forgetting, altering, reconstructing, reimagining and so forth, and that is just while you are awake and reacting to sense data. If there is a self it is a convenience for dealing with this. Again for that to become Brahman-Atman is just your theology, which Shankara presumed needed elaboration, since the ancient godwritten Sanskrit scriptures were apparently insufficient

>life is SOOFERING I can't bear it!
Lmao

>>17219696
Yes

>>17219681
>Sentience is not permanent nor enduring; you are constantly leaking memory, forgetting, altering, reconstructing, reimagining and so forth,
None of these are sentience itself, they are all objects of sentience. Thoughts are objects of sentience, memories are objects of sentience. Sentience is enduring, only the objects of sentience are transitory.

>>17219713
>observing things, as made concrete into 'sentience,' is real even if the objects of sentience are just illusions
You know who else basically believes this? Also Buddhists, Yogacarins specifically. But we can have this without atman, and in fact they (Yogacarins) do.

>>17219732
To point out that there is a sentience which observes things is not making observation ‘concrete’. Observing is an act, who is observing what? Sentience observes the object, or more precisely sentience observes the mind comprehend the object. To say there is just observation leaves no room for the conscious experience of the observation as an object of awareness, which is registered in and by sentience.

>But we can have this without atman, and in fact they (Yogacarins) do.
No you can’t, because Shankara already refuted Yogachara doctrine as illogical

>>17219756
You are just espousing Yogacara with the extra step of god.

>>17219833
Completely wrong, there are essential differences between Yogachara and Advaita doctrines concerning conciousness etc, some of these differences are enumerated in this picture. It’s talking about Gaudapada but Shankara’s Advaita shares the same differences with Yogachara

>>17219852
part 2

>>17219852
>>17219856
No, even per this it is just idealism + god rather than idealism

>>17217098
None