/lit/ - Literature

>>19028035
Yes.

Asian strategy towards life, and that's why WE FUCK THEIR WOMEN WHITE BROS

>>19028035
Don't knock it till you try it

>>19028035
shitty bait

>>19028105
I have, it is way more fun to just be pissed off all the time.

>don’t harm even the smallest beetle, because all things are one
>plants? Oh those don’t count, do whatever

>>19028169
Plants don't suffer. They don't have a central nervous system.
>But they have a response when you cut off a leaf! That means they literally scream for mercy when you cut off a leaf nooo!!!
You don't give a fuck about animals either and people as well. Stop it with the retarded arguments.
Now wanna hear the really retarded bit about Buddhism?
>well yeah you can eat meat as long as uhh the peasant doing the offering did not kill the animal specifically for the monks
>just let the peasants get their hands dirty with bad karma lolololo as long as you didn't do it it's all good bruh
>what? this animal is disemboweled, all legs broken, screaming in pain? put it out of its misery you say? no siree that's bad karma bro, the animal is probably having a moment of deep realization right now while it's experiencing extreme pain lol I wouldn't want to interrupt that I am so compassionate bruh

>>19028315
That’s only Theravada Buddhism. All Buddhists are supposed to abstain from meat in Mahayana Buddhism.

>>19028315
It's a good argument wether anon cares about people or animals or not. The game is just pushing it to be different enough from me to make killing and eating it ok. That's all you've done with your attempt to dismiss it. Claim that because it lacks some physicality that you do it must not have an interiority like yours and since only things that you can relate to yourself as yourself matter you kill and eat it guilt free.

>>19028370
whether*
Claim that because it lacks some physicality that you have, it must therefore not have an interiority like yours, and since only things that you can relate to yourself as yourself matter you kill and eat it guilt free.*

>>19028370
>It's a good argument wether anon cares about people or animals or not.
It's objectively a false concern because plants do not feel pain. They do not have a central nervous system. They do not feel discomfort while they're being eaten. Obviously you can imagine that having the kind of pain response of an animal on a plant, which is static and unable to run or defend itself, would be a completely retarded evolutionary development.
"More meat for me, I love muh bacon. DAE hate vegetarians they're so annoying I wanna kill em all?!" kind of people use this retarded plant argument all the time and constantly cite a few arguments where plants exhibit a response upon receiving damage (activating themselves to regrow or seal the part that is damaged) and imply that the plant feels "pain" because it's reacting to it. This implies that me digesting food because my stomach feels I have put food in it is also a pain response. It's completely, pants-on-head retarded and it does matter that anon doesn't give a shit because people who raise this argument are arguing in bad faith 100% of the time.

>>19028432
Bruh think about modern farming in which they use pesticides which kill all types of insects and shit. And every year plow the land which also kill many bugs, worms and shit. Farming continueously fuck over the bug life.

>>19028315
>Now wanna hear the really retarded bit about Buddhism?
there are multiple schools of buddhism like there are denominations of christianity.
idk if jesus was speaking tongues to snakes or other kinds of exhibitions of the bible

>>19028444
Anon in order to eat meat you have to feed the animals. What do you feed them? Air?
More than 60% of total crops are fed to animals. You kill more innocent bugs and worms for meat than for veggies.
The counter-argument is usually that "the crops fed to animals are inedible for humans" but that is a retarded argument since they're specifically grown for animals. Even having 50% of that land cultivated on something else would be doubly beneficial.

>>19028432
Considering that you haven't even attempted to address the fact that you can't know what a plants inner space is like based on the fact that it's anatomy is different than yours shows you haven't even attempted to grasp what I've said. The point is you're causing reactions in the plant which we do not have the perspective to judge and snuffing out whatever is going on inside.
Now let's examine your obsession with pain. If pain is all we care about then you should be ethically fine skinning alive then killing and someone with CIPA since they feel no pain. But you aren't because I'm this situation we've taken the subject agency AND snuffed out it's interiority.
So even though plants don't feel pain through a central nervous system it is OBVIOUS they could have comforts discomforts and pleasures. Nothing bad faith about it king

>>19028469
>since they're specifically grown for animals.
That's bullshit bro, people here feed them the byproducts of wheat plant. And if pain is your only argument then are you okay with stunning the animals and then eating them? That death is painless and instantaneous

>>19028460
This is a very pretty cheat sheet for Calc 2, but alot of this stuff a person should be able to figure out on their own without memorization. Like using riemann sums to approximate integrals? That's just a bit of common sense and algebra, you shouldn't have to memorize that.

Man Calc 2 is really such a bad class though, students should just learn analysis

>>19028525
>alot of this stuff a person should be able to figure out on their own without memorization. Like using riemann sums to approximate integrals? That's just a bit of common sense and algebra, you shouldn't have to memorize that.
shut the fuck up NERD

>>19028502
>That's bullshit bro, people here feed them the byproducts of wheat plant.
This is false, there is a massive amount of crops dedicated specifically to animals. It wouldn't be nearly enough to feed them byproducts. Look up the statistics.
>>19028498
>you can't know what a plants inner space is like based on the fact that it's anatomy is different than yours
The anatomy of plants is pretty well known and there's no reason to believe that it would feel something such as pain. It has no central nervous system. It would make no sense for a plant to feel pain since it literally cannot avoid being eaten if someone wants to eat it, or avoid being burned if the place is on fire.
>you should be ethically fine skinning alive then killing and someone with CIPA since they feel no pain.
Why the fuck would you do that? What would be the reason for this? We're talking about basic shit like feeding yourself here. Why do it with plants, because they do not feel pain. Otherwise what are you supposed to do, kill yourself?
Mind you that Buddhist monks are also supposed to eat the least they can and should avoid enjoying their food. But they do it exclusively on the basis of avoiding bad karma.

>>19028555
>Why the fuck would you do that? What would be the reason for this?
To feed yourself. It’s ok to eat because they don’t feel pain :^)

>>19028555
>Otherwise what are you supposed to do, kill yourself?
Self-starvation, that is if they really believe what they profess to believe
> Mind you that Buddhist monks are also supposed to eat the least they can
Then they should not eat at all.

>>19028589
Hey in my book you're free to go ahead and cannibalize people with CIPA or in a terminal coma lol, I'm not a Buddhist. What next, are you going to posit another pants-on-head retarded scenario where we should breed people with CIPA for butchery so that our hands would be even cleaner than they would be if we ate plants (after all we're not 100% sure if they feel pain)? Usually the argument here is "what if I am in Iceland where everything is a frozen wasteland, it's impossible to be a vegetarian" yeah if you live in Iceland you should eat meat. You also can't be a Buddhist in Iceland I guess lol.

>>19028555
>This is false, there is a massive amount of crops dedicated specifically to animals. It wouldn't be nearly enough to feed them byproducts. Look up the statistics.
I don't know. I am thinking about killing myself because I can't possibly know the the outcome of even my moral actions.

>>19028627
Don't focus on the outcome, focus on your intentions. You can't control whether something ends up good or bad, you can only control whether you did what you thought was best with limited information

>>19028555
We're talking about ethics anon, the example is meant to illustrate a point about sensation and interiority which keep deliberately avoiding engaging with and instead endlessly repeat yourself as if your perspective is infallible simply because you've said it.

>>19028648
I really wish there was some Buddhist tradition still alive in my country. All we have is the ruins of Gandhara, a far cry of a forgotten tradition.

What can I do without teachers or orders anon? This life of desires and attachments is suffocating.

>>19028315
>Plants don't suffer.
Everything suffers.

>>19028555
>Buddhist
>they do it exclusively on the basis of avoiding bad karma.
There's a lot of intermingling of Hindu and Buddhist concepts, but you seem to be thinking more Hindu than Buddhist.

>>19028685
You're probably one train ride away from northern India and Myanmar, two regions with very strong Buddhist communities.
If you can't do that, you can be a rhinoceros. Most people on here are rhinoceroses
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html

>>19028792
I highly doubt most or even a sizable proportion of people on here have renounced sensual pleasure

>>19028035
>you have eye consciousness, nose consciousness and tongue consciousness
>what the fuck!?! No, that implies my ears and nose have their own centers of consciousness, but instead my same singular consciousness apprehends tastes, colors and smells at the same time
>uuhhh…. dude check out my superpowers!
was he a hack?

>>19028821
I renounce them every time I finish fapping, I assure you.

>>19028792
Will they accept a broke NEET from another country as a monk?

>If you can't do that, you can be a rhinoceros. Most people on here are rhinoceroses
Holy shit anon, there is THE RHINOCEROS SŪTRA from Gandhara. Thank you for reminding me. At least I can fantasize about it. And maybe someday

>>19028618
Actually if pain is the determining factor then we can just use anesthesia before killing any animal we want to eat

>>19028866
I was thinking this. It seems like something else would need to be the basis. Even consciousness would not work as you can render something unconscious.

>>19028858
based

>>19028460
saved, taking calc 2 right now. thanks anon

>>19028861
There are tons of Americans and British people who have become monks in Asia. I assume they would take a Pakistani. Try Sri Lanka if you want to feel a connection to Indian culture.
>>19028842
If this were the case, this consciousness would be able to taste sights or hear smells. It is because they are separate that they can exist at the same time, but distinct from each other.

>>19028035
Based

>>19028545
i mean he’s right, riemann sums are literally just adding up the areas of some rectangles. length times width equals area.

memorizing every type of indefinite integral, however...

>>19028050
Based

>>19028866
>we can just use anesthesia before killing
yeah in theory you can train everyone working in slaughterhouses to hit the exact spot in their brain that gives them instant painless death. Since a local farmer with 10 chicken fails to behave ethically toward his cattle I can imagine that this is entirely feasible. What else, do you also argue that communism is the best political system because everyone will have exactly what he or she needs and nobody will abuse it?
this is why I don't bother discussing this shit with people anymore. get real.

>>19029026
You've never had a discussion with anyone. You just tell them what you think and get mad when they disagree without trying to understand why they hold their position so you can effectively sway their opinion.

>>19029041
*could

>>19028315
>>well yeah you can eat meat as long as uhh the peasant doing the offering did not kill the animal specifically for the monks
> >just let the peasants get their hands dirty with bad karma lolololo as long as you didn't do it it's all good bruh
> >what? this animal is disemboweled, all legs broken, screaming in pain? put it out of its misery you say? no siree that's bad karma bro, the animal is probably having a moment of deep realization right now while it's experiencing extreme pain lol I wouldn't want to interrupt that I am so compassionate bruh
Do you feel better now that you attacked your own strawman?

>>19029041
It's pointless to discuss with people who start bringing up "what about people with extremely rare conditions where they don't feel any pain? should we kill them and eat them? what if we learned Hokuto and killed the cows and chicken by hitting their instant painless death pressure point? Does that mean it's ethical?!"
Reality is that eating meat causes enormous suffering, killing animals without inflicting them a huge deal of pain and discomfort is impossible, the most basic life form you can eat is plants, which is what you also kill by eating animals, it's not like you choose one or the other. This whole absurd "what if" argument is just as retarded as people - as I said - arguing about political system like communism without counting in the reality of things: people are corrupt, they will do corrupt things, they will abuse power, etc. etc.
All this bending oneself backwards to justify eating your factory farmed bacon. Just say you don't fucking care that billions of animals get tortured. I always wonder why the fuck people don't just do this. I have more respect for people who say "I don't care lol more meat for me" than people who start arguing whether or not abstaining from consuming meat is fallible because of 0.000001% chance scenarios like being stranded on a desert island and a hurricane took away all the coconuts.

>>19028525
Yeah, I find the inclusion of the +C weird, because if you have memorize that, then you don't understand the integral/derivation in the first place, which is going to give you a hard time.

>>19029091
Don't you think that shit Veganism has very neolib political undertones and is heavily commodified? As in the case of communism Vegan think that stuffing their propaganda in everyone's mouth will somehow make them stop using animal products when shitty nature of people is pretty clear?

>>19029155
I'm not vegan but yes I agree that it's largely a meme lifestyle that is heavily commodified. They hate vegetarians even more than people who eat meat because they'd rather have an enemy than someone who does something. Take leather, vegans boycott leather and buy plastics instead, but I'd rather simply spend more money one time on a good quality top grain leather object that will last me decades than a bunch of shitty leather or synthetic things. There is also weird shit that happens with this obsession with vegan purity like actual leather being used in synthetic leather products. You buy this synthetic thing because it's advertised as polyurethane but there's actual stray cat leather from China inside. I particularly fucking hated belts because they're all awful no matter the price, until I got my hands on a good cow leather one. I've stropped my knife on it for years, still good as new.
Most vegans are actually far more in tune with the mindset I pointed out in >>19029091 since they care far more about "not doing the bad thing" (like Buddhist monks ignore dying animals for karma, answering to >>19028699 Theravada definitely agrees with this) and using plastics and corporate meme food than actually promoting a "do the best you can" type of attitude, which in the end is what is the most applicable and likely benefits everyone the most, both because it can be done easily and because it creates less enmity. I am 100% sure that because of vegans people have doubled own on their meat-eating identity and now see any attempt to evangelize something like eating LESS meat (like once a week as it used to be) as some kind of vegan or eat-the-bugs econut spyop.

>>19029155
Veganism and Vegetarianism are not the same thing, anon. There's absolutely nothing in Buddhism about a monk not being allowed to eat cheese or honey in regards to them having come from animals. Granted, a monk is not allowed to seek these foods out, but they are required to take them and consume them if provided during begging (or if, as is the case in Tibet, these types of foods are the only things available to eat).

>>19028315
ancient buddhist monks were mendicants living in extreme poverty, eating whatever they were given. Eating meat in such conditions didn't caused harm to any animal. They didn't kill any animal. They're were against killing animals. Yet, between dying by hunger or eating the meat of a dead animal, the last alternative seems better, don't you think. You're only saying it's retarded because you're too idiot to understand the context.

>>19028042
ugly frog with glass of piss will follow you everywhere
it will only leave you alone if you stop giving a shit

>>19029319
>Yet, between dying by hunger or eating the meat of a dead animal, the last alternative seems better, don't you think.
Not from a Buddhist point of view, no. Seeking to avoid death means you are attached to this world.

>>19029091
Your problem is that you are too autistic to understand what a metaphor is. Sometimes people say things because they're gesturing at something larger than if it was taken literally at face value. When someone asks why me why it's more ethical to eat plants than animals I think these what ifs are a real concern, or it would be if I took ethics seriously. But ethics, as I've already said, is just a game of how far away you can imagine an other
being like you, and where you can't something damaging becomes ethical. I don't think don't consider eating plants or animals to be ethical. Frankly I'm offended that you think I'm trying to weasel out of taking responsibility for the suffering my consumption of meat causes, rather I'm asking for you to extend your own concern. I recently began homesteading and will be raising goats and chickens for eggs, milk, and meat. I've recently purchased a cross bow with which I will kill the dear that have been eating my cherry orchard. I'll take no more pleasure in killing and eating that one than the others, but am and intend to continue being and nothing tastes as good as meat. I mourn each kill I make, but to continue being means admitting to myself that my desire to be supercedes my concern. I am a monster because I choose to live when I understand that what it means for me to live is to kill and to consume others potential inorder to sustain myself. A reality you hide from in the moral superiority security blanket of vegetarianism.

>>19029370
Correct, and that's an attachment that higher level monks are expected to break, not lower level ones.

>>19028968
>If this were the case, this consciousness would be able to taste sights or hear smells.
Why? There is no reason at all why this would necessarily be the case. If smell and sight are all insentient themselves and merely present their final product in the form of qualia to the witness-consciousness who registers each qualia, then there is no reason why that consciousness would have to hear smells or taste sights. Saying “nose-conciousness” makes no sense because it implies ones sense of smell is self-aware.

>It is because they are separate that they can exist at the same time, but distinct from each other.
They can also exist at the same time while being separate and distinct if they are not types of consciousness to begin with but rather disparate information being presented to the same consciousness.

>>19029391
From Buddhist perspective what should a person do who have only few months to live?

>>19029401
>They can also exist at the same time while being separate and distinct if they are not types of consciousness to begin with but rather disparate information being presented to the same consciousness.
This is an argument that you can make, but it's one that didn't have much currency in Ancient India. A Sanskrit verb can only have one direct object at a time, so it was argued that consciousness (not "a consciousness" which we could use to render the Buddhist idea of Vijnana) could only smell, see, hear, touch, taste, or mind (the sixth sense used for memory, imagination, internal monologue, and mystical abilities is "mind") one thing at a time.

>Saying “nose-conciousness” makes no sense because it implies ones sense of smell is self-aware.
Correct, Buddhism in English has a lot of problems with incredibly bad translations (like "Dukkha" as "suffering"). A better rendering of the vijnanas for each of the six senses would be something like "smell-mental-phenomena".

>>19029434
Assuming for the sake of argument that they aren't an advanced practitioner and that we're only concerned with purely religious matters (so "settle your business affairs" or "make sure that your parents are financially stable without you" aren't included)? Accumulate as much merit as you can and help others around you in accumulating merit. At that point I'd say the ideal would be to accumulate merit to ensure a next-life that will be conducive to achieving nirvana.

Having said that, the Buddha actually does deal with these lay-affairs, and settling business affairs and making sure that your family can go on without you (emotionally and financially) are something that he encourages doing, and could be argued to be included in "accumulate merit".

>>19029391
Buddha ate pork and it's related with the cause of his death. Are you saying that the Buddha was a lower level monk?

>>19029319
Buddhist monks sustained on the same framework as Hinduist Sadhus, you were supposed to give these holy men something to eat because that would give you good Karma. I find it hypocritical that they have to exist on a framework supported by a caste of people who are necessarily doing the opposite of your own code of ethics. This wasn't that obvious to people of the time either because there are suttas specifically about debating these points.
Of course this was not as egregious with the very ancient Buddhists but it's hard to ignore this as Buddhism stands today, because the religion is fully institutionalized.

>>19029494
No, the Buddha's last dish was a mushroom based one that was prepared by a blacksmith. Some traditions hold that the blacksmith was so bad at cooking that his foul cuisine could kill, and that the Buddha intentionally asked this blacksmith to prepare a dish for him so that he (the Buddha) could get food poisoning and die as a means of demonstrating impermanence (such that even the body of a Buddha will eventually pass away).

Secondly, a monk is required to take whatever they're given in their begging bowl. The Buddha would beg for alms, as all Bhikkus do. If he's given pork, he eats the pork. What a monk is not allowed to do is allow an animal to be killed for him (and a bhikku or bhikkuni DOES have to reject meat from animals explicitly killed to feed bhikkus and/or bhikkunis). But if the animal is already dead, there's no karma to be had in eating it, the animal was already killed. Karma requires action plus volition plus awareness (so accidentally stepping on a bug isn't bad karma).

>>19029528
This factually means that Buddhist monks can eat factory farmed meat. AFAIK Theravada monasteries like Thai Forest now specifically ask for a vegan/vegetarian diet but it's inconsistent with the basic tenets of the religion.

>>19029467
I was talking about in terms of spirituality or practice but thanks for answering.

>>19029540
>This factually means that Buddhist monks can eat factory farmed meat
That depends on what precisely you mean here. A Buddhist monk isn't allowed to touch money (literally; they cannot come into contact with money or ask someone else to handle money for them, and this is expanded out to refer to things like credit cards and check books and the like, and restrictions on what monks can own prevents them from having bank accounts), so no, a monk can't go out to the store and buy a package of pork. If a monk is begging outside of Walmart and someone puts a hotdog in his begging bowl, with the hotdog having come from a factory farm, then yes, he can (and is obliged to) eat it (barring it being poisoned or clearly rotten or something similar).

>AFAIK Theravada monasteries like Thai Forest now specifically ask for a vegan/vegetarian diet but it's inconsistent with the basic tenets of the religion.
It's not inconsistent at all. Monks are allowed to ask people not to put things in their bowls, and they're allowed to reject certain things that are obviously rotten or poisoned, and are allowed to reject things that are immoral. If you tell a monk that you are going to kill a cow to give him its meat, then kill the cow, butcher it, and put the meat in his bowl, he's allowed to toss it aside. They aren't allowed to discard valid food, but can stop begging at any time they want, however.

You seem to be getting hung up on the anti-Talmud principles of Buddhist legalism. This system is imperfective, it obviously is, it's subject to Samsara like all things. That's the precise point of Buddhism, though: getting out of that. Yes, this means that monks do some things that might be shitty to get out of a shittier situation, this is fully known and accepted. You aren't poking holes in a 2.5k tradition here. The principles of begging are pretty simple. The Buddha goes over why the system is setup like this: as a mutually beneficial activity for both the monk and the layman, teaching humility to both, and generating merit for both.

>>19029544
Oh, in that case it involves a lot of meditation and rituals. Some traditions believe that rebirth actually happens quite awhile past death. The Tibetan Book of the Dead comes from a genre of literature sort of like the Orphic Tablets in that you're supposed to read it in order for your Luminous Body to know what to do after death. The Luminous Body is essentially an organ of the body (Buddhist non-dualism means that the three way division of "body, mind, and soul" doesn't really work) and can continue on for a limited time in absence of a body.

But again, for a layman, it really just comes down to asking a monk to come do some rituals with you and instruct you on the best way to accumulate merit.

>>19029577
>or ask someone else to handle money for them
Monasteries factually do this today because people will directly donate money to their institutions.
However I know that they cannot directly buy meat but the idea that factory farmed meat is remotely suffering-free is retarded. Again you're not arguing with me but with Theravada monasteries themselves; most of the time they now explicitly ask to be given vegetarian meals. While this makes them coherent I guess it shows that Buddhism is far too absolutist to be practiced by even its most devout practitioners.
>It's not inconsistent at all.
It's inconsistent with "as long as the animal wasn't killed for a monk, it's OK". It's clearly not OK since you have the factory farmed meat case and the monks themselves had to deliberate it's too immoral to accept.
My gripe isn't with meat specifically but in how the Sangha subsists far too much on the lay, because - as it turns out - this way it lends itself to become a karma service for the lay.

>>19029619
>the Sangha subsists far too much on the lay
Well, duh? That's kind of the point. If the Theravada/Mahayana hadn't split from the Hinayana, Buddhism wouldn't be around today. At a certain level, sometimes you have to do bad to do good. The world isn't perfect, and the entire point of Buddhism is to provide a vehicle out of Samsara. Buddhism isn't about living in Samsara according to some utopian scheme, it's ultimately about getting people to Nirvana. While there are provisions by which the laity can live within Samsara better, there can never be a utopia within Samsara by the very nature of Samsara.

The sort of Protestant notion that you're suggesting, of just packing up and trying to live a pure life in the world is completely rejected, you can't do that. It won't work out.

>>19029619
>Buddhism is far too absolutist to be practiced by even its most devout practitioners
What's wrong with aspiring to a difficult ideal? Many sutras point out that it will take many lifetimes to begum enlidend. That's how difficult it can be.

>>19029446
>This is an argument that you can make, but it's one that didn't have much currency in Ancient India. A Sanskrit verb can only have one direct object at a time, so it was argued that consciousness (not "a consciousness" which we could use to render the Buddhist idea of Vijnana) could only smell, see, hear, touch, taste, or mind (the sixth sense used for memory, imagination, internal monologue, and mystical abilities is "mind") one thing at a time.
Well, the mind can be the inner organ that integrates the the different sensory phenomena into a unitary display and consciousness can take the display of that single mind as its sole contents, with the different sensory phenomena being different simultaneous details in the same object. And this is more or less the position of Samkhya and Advaita. The immediate facts of how our experience take place have precedent over grammatical rules when determining the truth of something.

>>19028050
and why do niggers fuck your women?

>>19029577
>mfw i've seen a video of a white woman literally handing out bills of money to young monks after a rigorous chanting session

Ending samsara is like suicide while still alive. Why not just kill myself?

No one has still answered why Buddhists think it is ok to eat plants

>>19030577
plants are npcs
does meat have stimulating effect on the body like some plants like coffee, onion, garlic shit that ascetics avoid

>>19030577
Why wouldn't it be okay? Why do you think you have a right to have your asinine question answered?

>if you can't eliminate all suffering then minimizing suffering isn't worth it
Boring argument

>>19030840
What is suffering and what kind of suffering matters? How is it all weighed and why is it weighed that way? Nobody is saying "fuck it! why try", they're asking why your attempt takes the shape it does.

>>19029787
What nihilists think isn't really relevant.

>>19030577
Plants are okay because they're not sentient beings. This is also why it's okay to eat things like yogurt despite there being bacteria in there. I have yet to see some kind of grand unified theory of what is and is not a "sentient being" in light of Western biology and its discovery of things like viruses and bacteria. While there are epistemological points at which we can say that yes, this is a sentient being and this isn't, and there are acceptances of "sentient life" including incredibly bizarre things, I have yet to see anyone writing a Sutra about how AI, particularly large funguses, or bizarre stellar plasma formations are something that you could be reborn as.

>>19030575
Because nirvana isn't non-existence and if you seppuku you're just going to get reborn anyways so you're still here.

>>19030897
If nirvana isn't non-existence why would I want it?

Unironically how the fuck do I stop caring and being attached
Just a few days ago I lost something that I really liked and was quite precious to me and I think about it too much; now I really get the whole "attachment leads to suffering" thing but how do I stop caring so much?

>>19031764
>Unironically how the fuck do I stop caring and being attached
The message of Buddhism isn't primarily meant as therapeutic consolation. The only way to really overcome attachment to something is to overcome attachment itself as a habit. Like if I tell you that you didn't lose what you never had, that's not really the message you give someone grieving.

>>19028555
plants communicate through chemical signals. it makes sense that a plant would need to feel some sort of plant analogue to pain (sensing of negative external stimuli) to communicate danger to other plants in the area.

>>19031764
Attachment arises because people habitually focus on the pleasant aspects of things and ignore the unpleasant aspects. For example someone might love spicy food, but it gives them heartburn and diarrhea. If they walk by a Mexican restaurant and focus on the good flavor, they'll eat and suffer. But if they keep the drawbacks in mind, they'll choose something to eat that won't hurt them.
You were attached to something you thought was a safe source of pleasure, but it turned out to be a source of pain also. If you can clearly see both the positive and negative aspects of it, you won't feel any attachment to it anymore. This takes practice to do.

>>19031867
>it makes sense that a plant would need to feel some sort of plant analogue to pain
plants don't have a brain

>>19030536
Cope

>>19030536
whites btfo'd

>>19028050
budhha was indian desu

>>19030819
Because eating animals isn’t ok. Why could I be reborn as a fly but not as a flower?

This was also said by Meister Eckhart etc
>force god towards you

>>19028050
They look like their men

>>19029091
Funny seeing you worm into a corner lad, I gotta say. Keep pounding that keyboard though

>>19033620
THEN WE WILL ALSO FUCK THEIR MEN

>>19028460
Nice cheat sheet bro, also nice take on the critique of organized religions

>>19030536
they don't. studies say blacks of both genders are the most sexually rejected race.

>>19028035

Pretty much finding peace and stability. Learning to keep your mind trained in the moment and find peace there. If you care too much about the past you experience regret, too much about the future and that's anxiety. There's also a bunch of shit in there aboit reconciling our two halves and recognizing that good and evil, light and dark and anything else exists in relation to its other half, and that peace is found halfway between the two.

But I'm sure you knew all that.

>>19030536
Stop watching cuckold porn.

>>19034584
No

>>19028035
Anyone else have almost a sunk cost in their misery? I'm trying to get into mindfulness and stuff, but it's almost like I don't want it to work because it's marginalizing my suffering by saying
>"hey idiot, all these bad feelings and thoughts you've been having for almost 15 years were pointless! haha none of it was real!"

if Buddhists don't have any attachments, why did they get so butthurt over Tibet?

>>19035011
This
But when you add up the collective suffering and they disregard it by saying all illusion bro, that's fucking brutal.

>>19035011
that's not what mindfulness is. you're supposed to figure out what their origin actually is. that is one part of enlightenment. if you properly attain this knowledge you won't feel marginalized, you will feel redeemed.

>>19035011
Buddhism takes the suffering very seriously, but does marginalize the thing that causes suffering. Your 15 years of feelings and thoughts were real, but the thing you had these feelings and thoughts about was likely not worth being attached to. Your mind is just trying to keep you attached to something that causes you suffering. Thought patterns are like addictions