/lit/ - Literature

Angel are genderless, so are most alien sentient beings, so, being genderless can be kind of a net-positive in some milieux.

With that said, gender is quite appealing nonetheless because it's fun to play a certain role.

>>20013867
you don't understand anything about buddhism

>>20013867
Lol

>>20013867
Can we have a globalban on USA on this board?

>>20013867
Buddhism teaches that the concept of gender itself is just a conventional truth. The idea of being a woman born in a man's body doesn't make any sense in Buddhism, because Buddhism doesn't even think a man can be born in a man's body. Gender identity, like all identity, is just a delusion.

>>20014530
this

>>20014530
>Gender identity, like all identity, is just a delusion.
Why would all identities be a delusion? What an absurd claim. Do you have a proof or any evidence to support it?

>>20014568
They, like all religions and philosophies, will only answer any critique with mental gymnastics.

>>20013867
Buddhism isn't a real religion and should not be given the respect of one.

>>20014568
Because Buddhism is retarded and should be fully disregarded. It is an impotent belief. At least as ots practiced in the west. Of course hard-core Tibetan style Buddhists would laugh at the shit said on this board in defense of their belief. I used to talk to a Buddhist lady who lived in Tibet who was the most punitive violent person but a very obvious ardent Buddhist. Westerners don't know that the Buddha used to conjure up demons just so he could kick their shit in and now they think you just have to roll over and accept everything because MUH ILLUSIONS

>>20013867
based, fuck buddhists and their feeble attempts to monopolize enlightenment so they can charge $ for it in their decrepit temples

this post was made by the taoist gang

>>20014568
Prove identities exist.

>>20014599
It is self evident and does not need proving. Just because you are a spiritually shapeless blob doesn't mean everyone else is

Are you retarded?

>>20013867
Women have to be reborn as men to reach enlightenment. The ordaining of nuns was also said to reduce the duration that the dharma teachings would last in our world. Buddhism is easily one of the most sexist religions.

>>20014599
> Prove identities exist.
Why? It’s not necessary for me to do so in order to say that the Buddhist claim that all identities are delusions is an absurd claim. Not having proofs for something is not sufficient to automatically make that thing false or a delusion, that would make all of Buddhism false if that were true since there is no proof for Buddhism!

>>20014603
I accept your concession.
>>20014625
I didn't say Buddhism was true though, I asked for proof of identities

>>20014636
this right here >>20014576

>>20014636
> I didn't say Buddhism was true though, I asked for proof of identities
You asked for proof they exist. Before getting to proof of them, you should first precisely define what you mean by the word ‘exists’

>>20014660
I'm not a buddhist, stop seething
>>20014669
Spare me the sophistry and just tell me from the start what you're getting at

>>20014669
allow me to further elaborate what I meant here >>20014660 arguing is a waste of time. go live your life.

ITT: buddhoids seething that their NPC religion is called out yet again

>>20014678
> Spare me the sophistry
It’s not sophistry to ask you to define a category which you are asking other people to prove that things belong to this category. Do you even know what the word sophistry means?

>>20013867
Seconding this >>20014390
You don't know what you're talking about. Buddhism rejects nihilism, two truths doctrine does not mean moral nihilism. Practical things are still practical, such as language and politics, they can still be used like tools, they just aren't absolute. Doesn't mean getting rid of gender makes sense, is practical, or anything like that.

>>20014530
this remind me when a trans guy sasked a buddhis friend of mine f the snagha was a safe place for trans people, he answered: will be pretty easy to convince any buddhist that you're not a woman, but it will be really hard to convince them you're a guy

>>20014568
The issue with identity is that it defines the self in terms of things that are not the self. For example, some people identify with their body, but the matter making up their body existed before they did, and will continue to exist after they die.
Most religions acknowledge this and claim that the "true self" is something immaterial, but deeper states of meditation will reveal that even your own mind is not under your control. Sometimes it thinks or does things you don't want it to. You can even see this by drinking alcohol.
Buddhism just teaches that it doesn't make sense to call something your identity if you can't control it.

>>20014568
>Why would all identities be a delusion?
why wouldn't, do you have any proof or evidence that any identitie is free from delusion or subjectivity?

>>20014678
>make something fit into this category
>No I won't say what the criteria for the category is in my mind

Anyways. If identities truly didn't exist you would not be wasting time arguing about it. But they do, and the belief they do goes against your identity so you are acting out against it. The very way you live is disproving your stupid attempt at a gotcha

>>20014710
>say obviously false things
>get corrected
>sperg out when asked to defend those claims
sounds like it's the other way around atman boy

>>20014734
Are identities permanent and unchanging, or are they merely reified as so because we desire stable constructs for expedient purposes? Someone who cannot handle the infinitely large data set of existence must abandon Heraclitus for Plato, humans cannot bear a flux.

>>20014603
>It is self evident
lol no is not, all identities are subject to change or are subjective ideas trying to grasp a reality that is beyond them
if a eternal entitiy or identity beyond subjectivity/delusion where self evident, there where no need for philosophy or religion, which where designed to find such a thing or confirm it' s delusional nature

>The bible says women are lesser than men, slavery is okay, homosexuality is abysmal
Look at our world today and tell me the bible was wrong

>>20014669
>define what you mean by the word ‘exists’
so you already recognize "existence" is a subjective term, the existence of idenitties beyond a subjective lens is no longer so self evident lol

>>20014625
>Why? It’s not necessary for me to do so in order to say that the Buddhist claim that all identities are delusions is an absurd claim.
it is if you don't wanna fall into a petitio principii fallacy, if you wanna prove that buddhist are wrong you need to show the opposite of what they're saying is true, if not you already take for granted the existence of identities and use that notion as argument against the buddhist, what you're saying in the end is i don't need to prove that identities exist because identities exist, a form of circular reasoning

>>20014734
Do flying elephants exist?

>>20014568
>buddhism teaches le trangenderism
>actually buddhism teaches you to not cling to any identity
>wtf??? can I get scientific evidence that identity doesn't exist? can someone please fact check this? can I get a source for thsi claim? can someone please scientifically prove this buddhist tenet? can I get a scientific source for this claim??????????????????????????

>>20014786
kek

>>20014734
you know you can have a virtual, contextual identity without that identity having a true, trascendental existence right? that's linguistic 101, the difference between the "thing" and the word, you now all that shit

>>20014786
thus I have burned

>>20014731
> The issue with identity is that it defines the self in terms of things that are not the self. For example, some people identify with their body, but the matter making up their body existed before they did, and will continue to exist after they die.
The only issue which you have identified here in the concept of identity is that it ostensibly leads to the identification by people of the non-self as being self. But if you just define the self as being what it is, and not as anything else that isn’t it, then the problem you’ve identified is removed or overcome.
>Most religions acknowledge this and claim that the "true self" is something immaterial, but deeper states of meditation will reveal that even your own mind is not under your control.
So? This statement seems to presume that the true self would be either the same as the mind or in control of the mind, but if the true self isn’t itself the mind and isn’t itself in control of the mind (such as if the true self was instead the partless non-volitional awareness that reveals the mind; as Advaitins say) then the mind being unruly doesn’t present any problem for or challenge the doctrine of an immortal and immaterial self, since the mind being conditioned, changing etc doesn’t mean that the self revealing that mind is conditioned or changing.
> Buddhism just teaches that it doesn't make sense to call something your identity if you can't control it.
Which is funny because the identity of something is just what it is, ‘identity’ has no intrinsic relation with ‘control’

>>20014802
>the doctrine of an immortal and immaterial self
Somehow I get the feeling that would be more "transgender" than even OP's version of "Buddhism"

>>20014799
No you can't. But you're welcome to think you can.

>>20014778
This has nothing to do with identities, which every person possesses. What an absurd attempt at derision
>>20014750
>muh permanence
Why are Buddhists so gay lol, toddlers understand object permanence but Buddhists can't. Truly hilarious. Things dont have to be constant to exist. My identity is ever shaping because it is dynamic the way God intended it to be, as it is a reflection of his nature

>>20014824
lol that pretty much go against every school of philosophy and linguistic even reliigon in this world, the existence of a relative reality is self evident and intuitive like math or language itself

>>20014802
>‘identity’ has no intrinsic relation with ‘control’
this guy didn't read Heidegger
ngmi

>>20014836
>identities, which every person possesses
Demonstrate it

>>20014836
>Things dont have to be constant to exist. My identity is ever shaping because it is dynamic the way God intended it to be, as it is a reflection of his nature
this is exactly what buddhist believe, just change god with dhamma

>>20014839
Do you have any of your own thoughts to share or can I just expect more "muh consensus" posting from you

>>20014836
>the way God intended it to

>>20014849
No its not Buddhists believe it not being constant makes it illusory which is the dumbest fucking thing in the world. Dont try to tell me what I do and don't believe and what creeds it does or doesn't align with when you understand nothing. Maya is a satanic notion.

>>20014851
Please you must be over the age of 4 and have an IQ over 25 to respond to me, do not make this mistake again.

>>20013867
You're conflating truth being conventional and conditional with truth being meaningless

Also your obsession with trannies is not an obsession with "truth"

>>20014856
seething

>>20014853
>satanic
Oh you're a literal retard and/or baiting. Alright then.

>>20014750
> Are identities permanent and unchanging, or are they merely reified as so because we desire stable constructs for expedient purposes?
Humans can reify constructed identities at the same time that certain things have permanent and stable identities (like time never ceasing to have the identity of being itself, i.e. time), these are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, something being constructed doesn’t automatically entail that it is a delusion or has a delusive quality. Someone can have a situationally constructed idea of themselves as having the career of being a soldier. Is that constructed identity inaccurate or deluded? If he is thinking of himself as eternally and permanently having an unchanging soldier-essence, then yes it is deluded; but if he is just thinking of himself as temporarily occupying the position of being a soldier, and in that sense adopting that as his temporary identity, how is that in any sense deluded? It corresponds to his experience and isn’t contradicted by anything, what makes it deluded?

>>20014853
>Maya is a satanic notion.
maya is a vedantic concept, not buddhist
>not being constant makes it illusory
lol no, not being constant make it a delusionon our minds, not on the object itself, saying something is impermanent isn't the same as saying it doesn't exist, is just recognizing that i tdoesn't exist as we want to, or the way it presents on our mind, as an idenitity free of flux
you're thinking buddhism has a materialsitic worldview of phenomena when in reality is much ore close to a idealist worldview

>>20014850
>"muh consensus"
you're one of those guys who think the earth is flat right?

The weak hearted, Western Buddhist is a pathetic creature. So disgustingly afraid of all conflict and all disagreement they have conjured up an entire asinine paradigm to view the world through in order to attempt to negate the need for carnage, conflict or competition. No need to compete over a woman when woman is illusory, when love is transient. They think that disregarding the treasures of life will magically make them not have a deep personal toll on their being. And they believe that by doing this they can bring about a world of "love" (but not love cause love is illusory so its just this inert passive empty benevolence). But what the Buddhist does not understand is that good will can only come about through separation. If I am you and he is she and we are me there is nothing to express, no reason to be loving or hating, it is an entirely neutered way of life. This is what Satan wants and why illusion is a tool of the devil, without separation there is no cause for love and without thay there is no cause for bringing ourselves closer to God. Instead separation must be emboldened and protected, denying separation is denying God, embracing illusionary "nature of reality" is to side with the Devil.

>>20014875
>but if he is just thinking of himself as temporarily occupying the position of being a soldier, and in that sense adopting that as his temporary identity, how is that in any sense deluded?
all buddhist practice tries to develop that point of view, but it's a lot harder than one might think, just read any psychologicla paper and see how most neurosis starts with a wrong identification of some sort,

>>20014879
>vedantic concept
As is Buddhism you fucking retard.
>not heing constant makes it a delusion
No, lol. Lmao, Buddhists are so fucking dumb. Or just genuinely evil it's tough to tell in this day and age

>>20014751
>lol no is not, all identities are subject to change or are subjective ideas trying to grasp a reality that is beyond them
does that reality itself have the identity of being reality? then you just admitted identities exist and/or are valid. Or does that reality not have the identity of being itself, i.e. reality? Then there is no longer any basis to call it reality
>if a eternal entitiy or identity beyond subjectivity/delusion where self evident, there where no need for philosophy or religion
That anon said that it is self-evident that identities exist, and not that it is self-evident they are eternal

>>20014890
Don't care

>>20014853
Wow a christlarper hates Buddhism for not being 100% fairy tales and for delving into phenomenology and philosophy, imagine that

>>20014758
> existence of idenitties beyond a subjective lens is no longer so self evident lol
I wasn’t the one who posted that they are self-evident

>>20014919
There is almost nothing philosophical Bout Buddhism. It is the death of all thought, thought implies separation between notions and beliefs and separation is illusory. It's the equivalent of cutting your balls off. But most of all, it flies directly in the face of God and the world he made, and offers in return air, that's why I hate it

>>20014875
>how is that in any sense deluded
Taking mere phenonema as absolute is absolutely delusional. If you are aware that they are impermanent then it isn't delusion but insight into the absolute. 'Ate dukkha. 'Ate skandhas. 'Ate vijñanas. Love dharmata. Simple as.

>>20014390
>you don't understand
Shut the fuck up.
>>20014727
>Buddhism rejects nihilism
Just because you play around with the meaning of words doesn't make this true.

>>20014919
The cult mentality is too strong

>>20014924
god doesn't exist and this world is a literal illusion, entirely worthless and transitory
not a buddhist by the way since I don't believe in their superstitions but you're a retard

>>20014924
>it flies directly in the face of God and the world he made
Yes Buddha literally has debates with Brahmā in the nikayas and calls him a retard for thinking he is God simply because he can't remember something existing before him. All five ways of your precious thomism refuted in a couple of stanzas

>>20014933
Kill yourself then lol. Or you can keep embodying Satan, saying things you don't actually believe just to enflame tensions. Dumb fucking retard thinking he's smart when all he is is a mouthpiece kf the deceiver

>>20014939
>AND THEN MY SUPERHERO HE HE HE HE HE FLEW STRAIGHT UP TO GOD AND TRICKED HIM IN A LOGICSL CONUNDRUM AND AND AND AND GOD COULDNT DO ANYTHING CAUSE AFTER THE BUDDHA LOGICKED HE HE REALIZED HE WAS JUST AN ILLUSION TOO!!!!!
absolutely mouthbreather tier lol just watch comic books movies
>bro my carefully constructed fanfic proves my point
Buddhists should all kill themselves

>>20014933
>god doesn't exist and this world is a literal illusion
Buddhist metaphysics are mind-bogglingly stupid. Buddhists can't defend it, you have to accept one of its many axioms before the entire thing falls apart.
>not a buddhist by the way
Yes you are. Why else would you even believe in such betrayal of senses such as your senses not being real?

>>20014944
That's pretty metal. I'm almost glad you guys are still around.

>>20014944
nah I'll stick around, why would I leave before it's time?
>don't actually believe
Why are you projecting? I know you're trying your hardest to make yourself believe in jewish desert garbage but on my end being a subjective idealist doesn't require as much mental gymnastics as your cult does

>>20014950
I mean, if you are arguing with people who believe in superheroes there's no reason not to meet them on their own terms. You're being viciously dishonest if you think the God of revelation is real but that Moses for instance could not converse or argue with him. Moses has to talk God out of smiting the Israelites in Exodus

>>20014954
I don't believe in buddhist metaphysics. Is your impotent rage preventing you from reading properly?

>>20014850
>want to play the retard free thinker card
>answer with a meme showing how much of a sheeple he actually is

>>20014954
>you have to accept one of its many axioms before the entire thing falls apart
Please do show us your ironclad metaphysical system which relies upon no axioms or premises. I'll wait however many eons it takes and keep reincarnating with you until you get it right

>>20014963
You don't believe what you did. There is no reason to engage in illusions. If you really believed the entire world was worthless and illusory you would feel the same about your life. You can lie to me all you want but I won't be fooled because I have been given eyes to see, whereas all you have is a tongue to lie.
>>20014967
You can talk to God, that's not the part I am ridiculing.

>>20014980
yeah you're really desperate to buy into your cult but I can see the cracks forming.
>n-n-no I don't believe you
uh huh
why should I end my life just because it has no objective worth?

>>20014991
Lol

>>20014906
>identities exist and/or are valid
yes on a relative sense, buddhism never said identities don't have a function,or don't have a contextual existence, they're called dhammas
but they don't posses a trascendental reality they cant exist forever or independent of other identitites
as for ultimate reality, that's something outside identitie´itself, that's why every name or apsect we want to give to it, fail at the end, taht's why we can't all it god or atman, that's already taking to much for granted, if something is outside the chian of causation, time and becoming, saying is eternal is already saying to much

>>20014980
>nuh-uh I didn't mean talking to God was silly
Oh do elaborate then

>>20014998
sneed

>>20014928
I like this one. Always denying the perfect truth of the Holy Scriptures in the search for the Occult or foreign religions and then coming back to the Bible realizing that your deviation from the Christian path was utmost stupidity.

>>20014775
> if not you already take for granted the existence of identities and use that notion as argument against the buddhist, what you're saying in the end is i don't need to prove that identities exist because identities exist, a form of circular reasoning
False, I have no idea why you would assume that. In truth, I can be agnostic about the reality of identities while still finding each and every Buddhist argument for their unreality to be entirely fallacious, i.e. I don’t need anything more than a provisional acceptance of identities such that we can establish that we are talking about the same thing in order to critique Buddhist arguments for all identities being delusions. In the same way, I don’t need to accept the theory of forms in order to point out that X nominalist argument has Y logical flaw.

>>20015029
>christlaper completely misses the point of everything
all too common

>>20015029
you're reading it backwards, going to the bible is what leads back to the wheel of birth in that image, that's the joke

>>20014816
It has no relation to gender whatsoever.
>>20014845
Give one (1) reason why it does

I've always said Buddhism - mostly the secularised western version, which holds the basic tenets of Buddhism - is for retarded commoners. That's you. How can you even want these things? What went on in your childhood to make you like this? Or is it just indoctrination, the so-called "cultural hegemony" that the Marxists always talk about? Either way, you are the reason the subject of so many works are so boring. Why can't you be more interesting?
You realize you are the subject of intense study. The modern man living in capitalism, seeking artificial pleasure with manufactured desire as the sole cause. Do you know what you want? Why don't you embark on a trip: the one that the characters in Stalker take (a fitting film for a midwit "product of his environment" as yourself) and find what it is you "truly desire". That will get you out of the simulated non-reality you live in.
Oh, and then you renounce all of life out of your ressentiment, and attach a screenshot of one of Schopenhauer's essays from the University of Adelaide (which uses a poor translation). I'm guessing that met whatever criteria you need on this board for your posts to tangentially be related to literature.
You may be too far gone. Get out of your life. It's so boring.

>>20015065
lol

>>20015068
>lol

>>20015081

>>20015000
>as for ultimate reality, that's something outside identitie´itself,
It is only outside 'identity' in the sense of mentally-constructed identities, ultimate reality isn't outside identity in the more fundamental meaning of the term viz. 'what something is'. Things remain what they are and retain their identity, independently of the mentally-constructed identity that we assign to them. Retaining identity in the latter sense is what allows ultimate reality to be ultimate reality in the first place. If it didn't have the identity of being itself, then it would no longer be ultimate reality. For some reason Buddhists like to act as though the former and not the latter meaning of identity is the only kind of identity there is.
>that's why every name or apsect we want to give to it, fail at the end,
They only fail if you assume from the outset that the name fully conveys knowledge of the thing, instead of being a pointer, something functioning symbolically, as many theologians and metaphysicians indeed understand.
>if something is outside the chian of causation, time and becoming, saying is eternal is already saying to much
Wrong, eternal is actually the perfect word to say, lasting forever within time is "sempiternal", whereas eternal actually means, having beginningless and endless existence outside/beyond/above the bounds of time.

>Although it's often used the same way you'd use the word "eternal," in philosophy there is a distinction between those terms. "Eternal" implies something that is infinite outside the bounds of time, like God, while sempiternal is a more earthbound way to talk about forever.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sempiternal

The Buddha is often depicted as an androgynous kind of freak. Also, bod self-mutilation (the ears!).

>>20015101
Pretty good but the middle pic makes the bait too obvious

>>20015032
>I can be agnostic about the reality of identities while still finding each and every Buddhist argument for their unreality to be entirely fallacious,
how so?

>>20015097
>ultimate reality isn't outside identity in the more fundamental meaning of the term viz. 'what something is'
not treally, that's only the case if you ignore the dynamics of conciousness, that is the subject/object dichotomi, ntohing "is on itself" every object is for a subject, thus eac hidentity is in reality a name or identity designed for subjectivity, ultimate reality would be in this sense that which can tarscend or exist beyond our sujectivity, thus inefable, thus without identity
>instead of being a pointer
on the contrary, is when i assume the idenitity/name as apointer than i realise the mechanics of idenitity, and that epistemology is prior to ontology, i can only know about hte thing whatehver is permited to my mind, anything else by deffinition is outside my knowledge, thus even the pretention to know the idenitity is a pointer to "somethign else" is already going beyond my gnoseological capabilities, thus mere speculation
>Wrong, eternal is actually the perfect word to say
not really, because eternal still implies some relationship with time, since "it last forever" already impli time and "a thing" two things we can't take for granted once we abandon the realm of identities

>>20013867
Braindead culture war schizo. Try thinking outside outside your narrow framework of 'muh trannies' and 'muh nazis' for 30 seconds

Once again (for the Nth time) buddhatards (functional niggers) prove that their religion (ideology) is functionally no different than your run-of-the-mill postmodern sophistry. Woah like, everything is relative or whatever? Thanks for playing.

>>20015361
And you still have no argument kek

Wooooooooah in Buddhism we can like, give ass and suck dick, and nobody can like, judge us? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAH BRO! Like, this is the like, truth or whatever (except there is no truth lol)!

>>20015380
That's also true in other "religions" since belief in God's judgment doesn't make it real.

I am a woman, according to Buddhism. There is no essential nature. We’re just a bundle of sensations. In fact there’s no “we”, there are just eyes that see, ears that hear, penises that ram, anuses that are rammed, without connection between the parts whatsoever. There is only flux. We are clay in the hands of the master potters. Manipulate me, master Soros, give me form! Inject this pile of aggregates with experimental vaccines master Gates! IT REACHED NIRVANA!

>>20015445
>We are clay in the hands of the master potters. Manipulate me, master
this is literally abrahamic theology

>>20015236
>>ultimate reality isn't outside identity in the more fundamental meaning of the term viz. 'what something is'
>not treally, that's only the case if you ignore the dynamics of conciousness
Wrong, it's a fact that is entirely independent of one's theory of consciousness, whatever theory of consciousness you subscribe to has no bearing upon the fact that ultimate reality has to have the identity of being itself, namely, ultimate reality, or it wouldn't be ultimate reality anymore. It's not that difficult, you don't have to bring anything else in. A is A or A is not A. Ultimate reality is itself, or it isn't. It's a matter of logic or ontology and not phenomenology.
>that is the subject/object dichotomi
subject/object dichotomy doesn't inhere in consciousness as such, it's only found in mental activity which isn't consciousness
>ntohing "is on itself" every object is for a subject, thus eac hidentity is in reality a name or identity designed for subjectivity, ultimate reality would be in this sense that which can tarscend or exist beyond our sujectivity, thus inefable, thus without identity
Wrong, this is conflating the more fundamental meaning of identity, i.e. "what something is", as being identical with the constructed mental identity that a subject assigns to things, i.e. the subject's interior and constructed mental representation of the unconstructed identity of that thing. Just because all known objects necessarily presuppose a knowing subject, it doesn't follow from this that all UNKNOWN objects also presuppose a knowing subject (unknown objects are by definition without a knowing subject; and this has no bearing upon their actual identity, which they retain); and one of the reasons for this is that the universe extends beyond your mind, so what's true about your mind isn't automatically true of the rest of the universe.

The ultimate reality you described is only without identity in the sense of being without the constructed mental identity that the discursive mind assigns to it, however, being beyond human subjectivity doesn't take away ultimate reality's identity as in the identity of being itself, the same identity that makes it different from other things and which gives it the nature that it has.

Master Marx, master Soros, are ascended masters! They seek to relieve us from our delusions of individual autonomy!
I. DO NOT. EXIST!

>>20015236
>>instead of being a pointer
>i can only know about hte thing whatehver is permited to my mind, anything else by deffinition is outside my knowledge
That's only true if you believe that the mind is the only avenue or means to knowledge, which is unproven and questionable. An alternative view is that consciousness (that isn't the mind) itself is a source of knowledge or knowledge unqualified; and so this consciousness is within knowledge despite it being not the mind or a representation of the mind.
>thus even the pretention to know the idenitity is a pointer to "somethign else" is already going beyond my gnoseological capabilities, thus mere speculation
It would be going beyond your gnoseological capabilities if the ultimate reality in question was something different from your own self or consciousness, but when the ultimate reality is consciousness (Atman = Brahman) or the inner Spirit, then knowing ultimate reality through the help of a pointer isn't in fact beyond one's gnoseological capabilities. The verbal pointer provides a signpost for the mind to help it realize the presence of the ultimate in the here and now as consciousness, and that ultimate reality of Consciousness is self-disclosing to itself without any sort of subject-object difference; the inability of the mind to directly realize ultimate reality without relying on representations is overcome by ultimate reality being disclosed to itself (and It always is self-disclosing at all times without any change, the mind just stops obscuring this)

>>Wrong, eternal is actually the perfect word to say
>not really, because eternal still implies some relationship with time
It implies that in the sense of freedom from all the limitations and changes imposed by/within time; including beginning and ends; not in the sense of being tied to time by a chain.

>>20015456
>this
Is just words! Not even words just pixels on a screen! Not even that, just photons! I don’t exist. You don’t exist! Your phone doesn’t exist! Nothing is real that is why it’s called “this”.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAH bro

>>20014901
>As is Buddhism you fucking retard.
lol no you dumb idiot, biddhism and vedanta are opposite doctrines
you're so dumbyou choose to be mad with a different religion
vedanta say that this world is an illusion and the only real is brahma buddhis say this world is real but our minds get obscured by kleshas and we don't see it quite right, there's ahuge difference between the two

>>20015361
> postmodern sophistry.
oh no, we have a jordan peterson fan guys, the only thing more obnoxious than a guenonfag

How do “you” call “your” bundle of sensations! I call it “it”. It likes to give ass and suck dick for the benefit of all sentient beings, chiefly because this helps get the point across that reality is conventional and if the consensus says that women can have penises then so be it. Woah.

Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ah bro.

>>20015380
You're right, people think like this. But don't hold it against Buddhism. Sexual immorality generates bad karma, clinging to sensual pleasures generates bad karma, neglecting the spiritual practice that would uproot these desires also generates bad karma.
>this is the like, truth or whatever (except there is no truth lol)!
There is truth, there is the truth of the Dhamma, the truth of the nature of suffering, the truth of karma, etc. It is a bad reading of Buddhism to suggest that there are merely conventional truths.
These people would not be living a lay life under the sanga, and they are very obviously ineligible for the monk life. They are incapable of reaching enlightenment. They will suffer rebirths in lower and lower realms until they reach an absolute Hell of rebirths. This is all standard buddhist doctrine. Westoid McBuddhism divorced from Tradition is responsible for these types of people, not Buddhism itself. Remember that.
>nobody can like, judge us
Everyone can judge them. The Karma they generate in judging depends on the ill-will they desire towards those people, or the beneficent will they feel (and act out) towards them. If they are to be liberated, they must be judged for their behaviour and corrected. They're right that there is no God in Buddhism to deliver a final judgment in an Abrahamic sense, but there is Karma, and Karma is the ultimate judge, and is unscrupulous in causing the deserts of immoral, pleasure-seeking, worldly actions.

>>20015445
>I am a woman, according to Buddhism.
Nobody is anybody, according to Buddhism. There is no essential nature. This person just said that they have the essential nature of womanhood and also have no essential nature. They are wrong. They will continue to suffer from the delusions of self, of identity, and obviously of sexual immorality.
>We are clay in the hands of the master potters
There are no master potters. What buddhism are you reading?
>IT REACHED NIRVANA!
But I thought this person said it was a woman, not an IT? In any case, this person is incapable of reaching nirvana. Stop blaming Buddhism for the west's degeneracy. The West's degeneracy is entirely the fault of two sects of Abrahamists, perhaps one more than the other, but still both of them.

There is the case, bhikkhus, when there is woah bro. There is the case when there is neither woah nor bro. And there is the case when there is sometimes woah and sometimes bro.
I say bhikkhus that that is neither true nor false or one or the other or both.
Woah bro so profound!
(Woah bro)

>>20015520
Woah bro

Sometimes not-I takes it for a walk. And it may or may not get a treat. It may or may not be indulged in the material pleasures of the world of flux and sensation accordingly as it has been a good boy or no. It is a good boy when it listens to the media and academic establishment and confesses that there is no truth and no reality and no soul and behaves accordingly. It is a bad boy when not. There is nothing, nothing whatsoever beyond sensation and flux. Don’t think for a minute that there is not. It. Is. Not. A person. Throughly. Dehumanized.

why do buddhist threads cause so much seething from thomist trannies?

>>20015648
>there is not
There is*
And is not
And neither is nor is not
And both is and is not

>>20013867
>nihilistic emptiness
dropped, pls read suttas before criticizing them

>>20015472
>An alternative view is that consciousness (that isn't the mind) itself is a source of knowledge or knowledge unqualified
first you should explain how this "out of mind conciousness" can develop knowledge, which at first glance seems impossible, since in order to achieve any type of knowledge, a mental articulation is needed
second you should explain how a conciusness can exist without a mind, which already seem kinda strange
>but when the ultimate reality is consciousness (Atman = Brahman) or the inner Spirit
there's a lot of problems with that theory, first and foremost, that theory itself is a mental articulation, so the mind is needed
second and more important, you have to prove such a thing exist, you can't just take for granted that a pure conciusness that doesn't present to expericne is the ultimate reality
third tehre's some metaphysical problems with that, such a pure conciusness don't exist in our experience so, phenomenical conciusness and this pure conciusness aren't the same thing, so some kind of platonic bridge or connection is needed, thus the old problem of what connects the birdge making that connection, if both forms of conciuness are interconected by a metaphysical principle, what connects such a pricniple with the phenomenical conciuousness and with the pure conciusness, you can't just say, well conciusness is eternal and since humans also have conciusness it's also eternal, thus etenrity and people are conected, you're making a logical jump
fourth problem, since tehre's tons of identities that are false in this world, all kind of illusions, dreams, states of delusions, that already imply that some sort of method must be constructed to discerrn which identities are conected to something more or less real and which are not, for example the identite of the earth as something flat existed by millenia, but math and pyshics destroyed suc hnotion/identitie for a new one, so this idea that every identity is connected to a "pure being" can't work out, since most of what we do in life is get rid of less adecuate identities and embrace more correct ones
five problem you can't explain how this ocnnection to a pure conciusness can affect the mind, since it's the mind the one that have to articulate suc ha thing, making the mind still the primary epistemological tool, thus this pure conciusness can't let's say take the wheel, and thus is render inadecuate

>It implies that in the sense of freedom from all the limitations and changes imposed by/within time
not really, the word itself just implies something that remains eternal, the freedom part is somethign you're adding

>>20015472
>The verbal pointer provides a signpost for the mind to help it realize the presence of the ultimate in the here and now as consciousness, and that ultimate reality of Consciousness is self-disclosing to itself without any sort of subject-object difference; the inability of the mind to directly realize ultimate reality without relying on representations is overcome by ultimate reality being disclosed to itself (and It always is self-disclosing at all times without any change, the mind just stops obscuring this)
the problem with that is that you're trying to prove that the dichotomy subject/oject don't exist by emans of a mystical state, which first can't be proved and second still implies a suject/object dichotomy since there's a subject experiencing this pure conciuness state and what he's experimenting is a dichotomy of "i(subject) am conciousness(object)" akidn of reification of conciousness
so it really doesn't work to show that identities can exist outside the mind

>>20015472
>that consciousness (that isn't the mind)
wait, if consciousness isn't the mind, which creates the identities, but is that which give being to things, since it's the ultimate reality(atman/brahma) isn't that a onthological division between identity(mind) and being(consciousness)? since that which give identity and that which give being are different, wouldn't such a model end up with the existence of identities as a relative thing?

>>20013867
I was reading a book called Lost Horizon where 3 westeners find themseves in an uncharted land filled with tibetan monks.

Moving pass the other details there was this scene where a young female entered and began playing the harpsichord and one of the characters asked,

"She looks hardly more than a child! Do you have woman lamas then?"

And the monk replied, "There are no sex distinctions between us."

This book was written during the late 1920s or early 1930s so this idea that Buddhism doesn't recognize sex and accepts transgenderism isn't some new doctrine.

>>20015085
bros how do I acquire legal age zoomer boypussy

>>20013867
The truth of transgenderism is also conventional. In fact, male, female, and transgender identities, like all things, are subject to causes and conditions. They are impermanent, arising and passing away.

>>20015445
The emptiness and impermanence of all identities does not mean that one can assume any identity one desires. The identity of woman itself is empty, so why should one adopt it? It is only illusory and does not help you escape samsara.

>we are clay in the hands of the master potters
Buddhists don't believe in a master potter or omnipotent Creator at all. In fact, in the Digha Nikaya, the Buddha goes into this:

"Then a certain being—from the exhaustion of his life span or the exhaustion of his merit8—falls from the company of the Radiant and re-arises in the empty Brahmā palace. And there he still stays mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, coursing through the air, established in beauty for a long stretch of time.

“After dwelling there alone for a long time, he experiences displeasure & agitation: ‘O, if only other beings would come to this world!’

“Then other beings, through the ending of their life span or the ending of their merit, fall from the company of the Radiant and reappear in the Brahmā palace, in the company of that being.

“Then the thought occurs to the being who reappeared first: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer & Ruler, Father of All That Have Been & Shall Be.9 These beings were created by me. Why is that? First the thought occurred to me, “O, if only other beings would come to this world!” And thus my direction of will brought these beings to this world.’ As for the beings who reappeared later, this thought occurs to them: ‘This is Brahmā… Father of All That Have Been & Shall Be. We were created by this Brahmā. Why is that? We saw that he appeared here before, while we appeared after.’ The being who reappeared first is of longer life span, more beautiful, & more influential, while the beings who reappeared later are of shorter life span, less beautiful, & less influential.

“Now, there is the possibility, monks, that a certain being, having fallen from that company, comes to this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from the home life into homelessness. Having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, he—through ardency, through exertion, through commitment, through heedfulness, through right attention—touches an awareness-concentration such that in his concentrated mind he recollects that former life, but nothing prior to that. He says, ‘We were created by Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, and will remain just like that for eternity. But we who have been created by him—inconstant, impermanent, short-lived, subject to falling—have come to this world.’

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN01.html

>>20015680
Because terminally-online Thomist larpers are up their own ass thinking they have attained the highest levels of rationality and argumentation. It is sad, but I wish that they, like all sentient beings, find true happiness and liberation from suffering.

Let me brighten up this thread with some writing from one of my favorite Dharma teachers, Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

"So no matter how tired we may be at the end of the day, it’s good to appreciate the fact that
there are people out there who want to do good. There are people out there who find
happiness in doing good. And that should make us happy, regardless of whether the support is directed to us or to other people who are practicing."

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations9/090412Appreciation.pdf

american capitalism gets u there much faster tho

>>20013867
>Buddhism’s double “truth” (doublespeak?) doctrine states that all truths are conventional at the level of Samsara (whereas at the level of absolute level aka the level of nihilistic emptiness truth would be absolute, except nothing can be said of it).
this is mahayana and that's not buddhism
>>20016344
that's true in vajrayana-mahanaya. in buddhism trannies are not even allowed to be monks or nuns. for lay people, buddhism does not give a shit about them in the first place. lay people can do whatever they want.

>>20016993
How come Thailand has so many shemales?

>>20014547
an identity would be considered a spook

because there is no self

as above, so below

>>20017567

buddhism + nihilism

it's same reason why their shithole so degenerated

>>20017567
Because they don't know shit about their own religion anymore. To them Buddhism is just a cultural tradition that gives them tourist shekels.

PSA: Buddhism is life denying, do-as-youre-told religious drivel.
Chan on the other hand is life and freedom affirming, seeing yourself and your nature, secular, not a religion or philosophy.

>>20013867
You're too dumb to understand Buddhism, OP. Stop worrying about this.

>>20018099
exactly the opposite lol
in fact it's even worse, because chan was made up by bugmen

>>20014980
Christcuck cope is hard, holy shit did all christian wearing a metaphorical horse glasses?

Ive always been pretty attracted to Buddhism. I guess a strong argument would be some way of showing that the eightfold path lead to less happiness than a hedonistic one. I genuinely believe the eightfold path calms my mind and makes me at peace. I think if I got everything I wanted Id still be unhappy. It would increase my desire for more. When I lost everything I wanted it would hurt worse. If you practice meditation over years you can definitely notice the difference it makes. I trust the noble truths and that the noble path is the way to end suffering. Doing the opposite leads to more suffering.

>>20016698
>good is goodly good good good!!!
Wow, Buddhism is so uh... deep, yeah.

>>20016698
>bald white male in eastern buddhist outfit
>people here actually calling anyone a larper
lmao

>>20013867
Didn't read about Buddhism but (it looks) to me like if it promotes too much asceticism leading to lack of a sense of worth and if you think your worth is low you are more likely to accept the oppression that politicians commit against you because you and the world deserve it because you two are too bad, and because it's not like if we could overthrow the government, right? The world is like this and nothing can be done about it, let's just sit and meditate...

>>20019157
>universal religion is only based when it has NIHILISM and BEARDS and HECKIN' TRADICAL SCHEMATA
lmfao

>>20019642
Completely the opposite, Japan and China both had to go to great pains to eventually calm Buddhists down because they kept revolting against politicians and abstract systems of control.

>>20019642
Your opinion is about as incorrect as your use of brackets.

>>20015680
Christlarping is essentially a case of terminal contrarianism, but the cognitive dissonance gets too intense so they lash out at philosophies that make more sense because deep down they know they don't believe a word of what they've built their identity around

>>20016698
I like Thanissaro, his talks are interesting

>>20018465

>>20019642
Buddhism teaches the opposite: that you have the ability to generate good karma by doing good things. You have the ability to transform your suffering into liberation from suffering, into true happiness which abides with you, and which comes from within yourself.

>>20013867
You don't understand shit about Buddhism. The fact that you think you do is laughable.

The Buddha said, "I have attained nirvana by relinquishing all dualities. I have relinquished creation and destruction, life and death, existence and non-existence, good and evil, right and wrong, thereby attaining the Absolute. This is liberation, this is nirvana. You [the five initial bikkhus] practice self-mortification and the world indulges in the sensual. You therefore think you are great and holy, but both extremes are the same. To truly become free, you must give up both, you must give up all dualities...

—Seongcheol

The three poisons that prevent us from realizing our true selves are desire, anger, and ignorance. Among those, desire is the basis for the latter two, and desire comes from 'I'. The attachment to the 'I,' the ego, and the indifference to others, these are the basis of all suffering. Once you realize that there really is no you or me, self or non-self, you will understand that all things are inter-related, therefore helping others is helping oneself, and hurting others is hurting oneself. This is the way of the universe, the Middle Way, dependent origination, and karma.

—Seongcheol

No one can help you with this endeavor. No books, no teachers, not even the Buddha. You must walk this road yourself.

Do not sleep more than four hours.
Do not talk more than necessary.
Do not read books.
Do not snack.
Do not wander or travel frequently.
—Seongcheol

>>20016698
Thanissaro is great, is dhamma talk about being in the present moment not being the ultimate goal of buddhism is great

>>20018972

happy to hear the practice is providing good results for you anon

>>20019642
>it promotes too much asceticism
only to the monks, lay people can do pretty much anything besides killing, stealing and raping

> to lack of a sense of worth
that's the problem with any religion, at the same time the lack of worth come from a call for something greater than the self, a sense of tarscendence, so if you overcome this sense of lack of worth a new sense of meaning can be articulated, in which you're all to work for a thing greater than yourself, taht's why religion is the opium of the people, but also a lot of religios leaders and sects where fundamental reformist thru all human history
>The world is like this and nothing can be done about it
this is the opposite of what buddhism believe,s the world is how it is because of karma, that is the result of our actions, so it can change anytime if we change or if we work for a different type of karma to be created
>let's just sit and meditate.
this is a huge western missconception, most buddhist practicioners, lay andmonks aliek don't meditate, things liek reading and chanting sutras or charity and good deeds are much more popular, the monks that meditate are a minory of higly specialized monks

>>20021313
This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptnSWSvbTdY

I really like his voice for some reason. Reminds me of a certain actor (Orson Welles perhaps) but calmer and more direct. His guided meditations really helped me get into meditation proper.

>>20021725
yes that one, it's a great explanation about how buddhism end goal isn't to be one with some "out of time" place inside your mind or outside this reality,but to articulate that experience into this world, most people, even some buddhist think that getting into the "deathless state" is the end goal, but is just another part of the journey, one of the things i like about buddhism is that the end goal is never clearly specified, it's something you can only dicern by yoruself when the practice gave you enough insight, and with that the end goal of buddhism is much more well protected against reification and cosification,

>>20019642
>Didn't read about Buddhism

Therefore the truth that there are NOT male and female is conventional.

End of you retarded logic.