/lit/ - Literature

>>22519158
Disconnection from reality

>>22519158
The only thing right is revelation from a greater being than man. Not going out on your own. The only thing stopping man is his own pride from deferring and acknowledging another greater than himself.

>>22519190
in an abstract sense yes, but what really stops man is lack of rocket ships

>>22519206
bot post

>>22519158
>nominalist quietist monism is the same as elaborate platonist dualism
No

>>22519158
Buddhism is Gnosticism for grown-ups

>>22519158
I think Neoplatonism is closest to Buddhism.

>>22519261
WORDS WORDS WORDS
They are the same overall and if you can’t get that you don’t understand them

>>22519270
>>22519261
Similar problem here
Similar asceticism masks a vast difference in actual metaphysics. Buddhism and neoplatonism are on almost the opposite ends of most philosophical issues.

>>22519158
>t. Serrano

>>22519158
gnosticism is about escaping from a prison planet, buddhism is about escaping from gnosticism—not the same thing

>>22519158
Babby's first perennialism

>>22519334
>prison planet
That’s 4chan gnosticism. Gnostics hold all matter false/tainted/evil. Not just earth.
>>22519369
I’m correct

>>22519290
This is what a buddhist would say, that words and philosophy are mostly useless, most especially all buddhism influenced by madhyamaka. A gnostic doesn't agree at all though. They have actual metaphysics and it matters. Knowledge of metaphysics is the whole point of gnosticism and that's what the word means, knowledge.

>>22519158
They are actually fully oposed

>>22519383
>Gnostics hold all matter false/tainted/evil. Not just earth.
same idea, both superceded by Buddhist philosophy anyway

>>22519383
>i am le correct
Iydkydktytykbekydk (if you don't know you don't know then you think you know but everyone knows you don't know)

>>attachment: laughinggirls.imagination

>>22519158
I'd say that the difference is that Gnosticism peaches the superiority of the spiritual realm over the material realm while Buddhism peaches nonattachment to neither the spiritual now the material realms.

>>22519515
laughing out loud

>>22519515
Retarded post. Outdated stale slang with no argument. We all know about perennialism, sperg.

Buddhism
>impermanance
>god is irrelevant
>no self
>meditation to escape afterlife
Gnosticism
>matter is... le evil
>but there are eternal forms
>must seek god beyond god
>must liberate true self
>meditation for good afterlife

I think a better comparison would be Hinduism. But still strained. Even so, some Buddhists and Christians such as Thich Naht Hahn and Merton make case for similarities. Particularly, I feel Mahayana has more similarity than Theravada. Whatwith Buddha Nature and Two Truths sort of smuggling in dualisms and selves. Iono tho. I'm guessing yr a manic teen. Best of lucky with "enlightenment" -- I recommend third gen antipsychotics if ya get sick of being right.

>>22519676
They are both about the suffering that is all life in this world and how to transcend it. Enlightenment/Gnosis.

>>22519290
>WORDS WORDS WORDS
"Nooooo big words make brain hurt"
Imagine being so retarded that you find the basic descriptions of the thought systems beyond your mental capacity and then claim to have the intellectual high ground

>>22519719
You and that guy just replying with categories are pseuds. I understand your little categories, but my point went above your head. Go back to smelling your own farts with the other dime a dozen pseuds.

>>22519158
Buddhism is spiritual and shieeet and Gnosticism is spiritual and shieet so they're the same. Well done OP you've reached the level of realization of a 14 year old girl.

>>22519717
Sure. Whatever. Maybe. How do you even know what Gnostics really believe? Dead tradition. Hardly any texts left. How much have you read on subject? I find reducing all systems to one is reductive. Claims like self no self god no god seem significant to me. Even Buddhism us not a monolithic entity. Not mainstream Christianity.

>>22519739
*is
**nor

>>22519717
>They are both about the suffering that is all life in this world and how to transcend it. Enlightenment/Gnosis.
Both differ in what causes of suffering are, how to escape it and what transcendence actual accounts

>>22519733
>>22519733
See this >>22519717
I love how triggered the pseuds of /lit/ get. But you nerds have the weakest ad homs of all boards.
>>22519739
>Perhaps not in detail, although Dr. Herbert Guenther has emphasized the Gnostic influence on Padmasambhava, and there are certainly similarities. However, the most important one IMHO is the conclusion, which I have reached after reading the Pali suttas through several times, and some later sutras too, that the salvific factor in Buddhism is not meditation, though this is necessary, but rather direct dharma realization, which I would compare to the Gnostic doctrine of salvation by gnosis. Also the Gnostic doctrine of the evil of matter may be compared with the Buddhist doctrine of suffering. Thus, I see Buddhism as a form of Gnosticism, or even its progenitor, if not historically then at least philosophically.
Why is quora so much better than 4chan?

>>22519731
>my point went above your head
No i understood your point it's just that it's retarded

>>22519754
>Why is quora so much better than 4chan?
Oh sorry i didn't realize i was arguing with a streetshitter i guess the curry fumes got to your head

>>22519158
>As for saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, these two do not exist. However thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa.
Buddhism isn't gnosticism

>>22519767
I made the same sort of thread there and got real interesting answers minus all the cringey angsty whiney incelly replies like yours. I think I’ve outgrown this shit hole. I’m ready to go back.

>>22519389
>This is what a buddhist would say, that words and philosophy are mostly useless, most especially all buddhism influenced by madhyamaka.
The Tibetans write a lot of words, and they love Nagarjuna. Buddhism is just concerned with epistemology rather than ontology.

>>22519676
>Whatwith Buddha Nature and Two Truths sort of smuggling in dualisms and selves
Tathagatagarbha is just emptiness of the self. The ultimate truth is just an accurate understanding of the relative truth.

>>22519779
>got real interesting answers minus all the cringey angsty whiney incelly replies like yours
No you got fellow pajeets and other third worlders agreeing with and enabling your bullshit with horsecrap of their own as opposed to the valid pushback you're getting here
>I’m ready to go back.
Thank you come again (don't)

>>22519754
>the salvific factor in Buddhism is not meditation, though this is necessary, but rather direct dharma realization, which I would compare to the Gnostic doctrine of salvation by gnosis
the direct realization is emphasized the most in Yogacara which indeed prizes meditation and mental purification as steps to this realization, and this "gnosis" is not a secret doctrine for initiates but openly taught and proclaimed
>the Buddhist doctrine of suffering
"Suffering" is the popular explanation of dukkha used in a lot of translation but the shortcomings of this in understanding how it works theoretically have been pointed out by western indologists as early as Stcherbatsky. It is less a matter of pain and suffering and more that the elements (dharma) of experience are in a state of commotion or unrest. This is less a point of comparison with gnosticism and more of a contrast—with the gnostic notion that the world is an evil place made by an evil god

>>22519754
>Dr. Herbert Guenther
Never heard of this grifter before but from what you wrote he seems to be utterly deluded as to what Gnosticism is

>>22519794
I promise you I’m richer than you economically, physically, mentally and spiritually. How does your twitchy little poltard brain just assume someone is Indian? You are mentally ill. Unhinged if serious.

>>22519804
>I promise you I’m richer than you economically, physically, mentally and spiritually. How does your twitchy little poltard brain just assume someone is Indian? You are mentally ill. Unhinged if serious.
t.malding ESL

>>22519810
t. unhinged broke sexless reflexive poltarded lily livered chud pseud rotting as a touchless member of a species meant for touch

BUDDHA WAS GNOSTIC AND BUDDHISM IS GNOSTIC.
End of thread.

>>22519830
>t. unhinged broke sexless reflexive poltarded lily livered chud pseud rotting as a touchless member of a species meant for touch
Lol looks like a struck a nerve there pajeet took you 15 minutes to gather all those buzzwords and form a sentence if only you put that effort into this retarded thread of yours

>>22519158

One is essentialist, the other is nominalist. They are not the same, OP. Not at all.

>>22519158
>Buddhism and Gnosticism are the same
Only if you're incapable of looking beyond their superficial asceticism. Gnostics believe that this world is a prison because it is ontologically evil with evil have a positive existence instead of being the privation of good. Buddhist have no concept of ontological evil.

>>22519867
>essentialist, the other is nominalist
Careful big words hurt OPs head he'll start seething and call you a pseud.

>>22519158
Buddhism is just an incomplete version of Gnosticism.
It is very much the result of a blind man briefly touching a single part of an elephant and assuming that is all there was to the animal. Judging an entire image off of a single pixel. A solipsistic focus upon the symptoms, rather then the underlying disease.
>>22519334
Gnosticism is about escaping the prison. Buddhism is just trying to avoid wearing the prison uniform.

Not /lit
take your religious sperging somewhere more appropriate

>>22519970
>A solipsistic focus upon the symptoms, rather then the underlying disease.
The underlying disease is the belief in an inherently existing self, not an evil god

>>22519988
Religious discussion is spread across /lit/, /his/ and /x/. We have needed a dedicated religious board (/rel/) for years now.
>>22520001
The disease is our imprisonment, jailer(s), the nature of the prison and how we ended up in this state to begin with. Buddhism merely considers a handful of the down-stream effects of this and extrapolates from there.

>>22520016
>our imprisonment, jailer(s), the nature of the prison and how we ended up in this state to begin with.
none of that is real, you are a nihilist for denying the world in favor of nothing

>>22519261
buddhism is not monist tho

>>22519970
>>Gnosticism is about escaping the prison. Buddhism is just trying to avoid wearing the prison uniform.
that's false

>>22519786
>>Tathagatagarbha is just emptiness of the self. The ultimate truth is just an accurate understanding of the relative truth.
And none of this the the teaching of the buddha.

Yes, read De Rosario

>>22519158
I don't think so.

Buddhism doesn't try to transcend reality. From what you're saying, the agnostic seeks a world beyond this one, but how would that be defined?
In Buddhism, you can be reborn in another reality, but it contains the same elements, just rearranged.
Nibbana is not another world or something beyond this world. When the Buddha had a conversation with a demigod, he made it very clear that he was using that demigod's own "realm/nature/dominion" to act in the world. Buddhism uses various means to detach itself from reality.

They describe the same temperament, actualized differently. Gnosticism is passionate, Buddhism is dispassionate; Gnosticism is metaphysical, Buddhism is epistemological and dialectical. They point towards the same immanentist soteriology for those who have eyes to see
I miss the schizoposters

Were there any gnostics who believed that matter wasn’t entirely evil?

>>22521520
Valentinians

>>22521531
Thanks

Gnosticism is schizo-leftist-SJW nonsense, aka "a powerful group of evil doers are out to get me and stifle my potential", Buddhism is rugged right-wing libertarianism aka "its your responsibility to fix your own problems".

>>22520693
What he said is in the Pali Canon.

>>22521596
Reddit moment

>>22521596
Holy Onions

>>22519389
>A gnostic doesn't agree at all though.
I do

>>22519739
>I need a book and muh tradition

>>22521596
Cringe

>>22521505
Buddhism has different flavors. Some of them can cause anhedonia in the wrong person. If you're used to nihilistic ideas, Theravada will suit you better, but it still has a lot of risk. But nihilism is abandoned along the way. It's discouraged as a method of liberation, but it does yield results if you're not a sucker by nature.
What's more, Theravada has a strong foundation in "no-self" as a method. Much more difficult than Madhyamaka.

>>22521780
There is no "no self". Anatta is "not self". This misunderstanding is what has caused western nihilist "Buddhism" to emerge

>>22521804
No, it has more to do with my autocorrector....
Also, I'm not sure what you said. "No-self" might still be right. But it's necessary to delve deeper into the subject and have, let's say, skill with the subject.

>>22521804
What's the difference?

>>22521804
The fundamental ego-substanceless-ness or not-self of all phenomena, anatta/anatman/nairatmya is the essence of Buddhist thought and what differentiates it from all other systems.
"Nihilism" comes from a few different readings. One is the Nietzschean, which interprets a general notion of Buddhism in alignment with Schopenhauer as a pessimistic doctrine of rejecting the world and thus considers it nihilism. But Nietzsche doesn't really care what Buddhism is per se and is using it as an example of world denial without ressentiment, to be contrasted with the Christian world denial, which is based on ressentiment. Nietzsche doesn't have access to substantial Mahayana literature that would expound on the non-duality of samsara and nirvana either, since this is decades away from getting translated and disseminated by indologists studying the prajnaparamita literature or by Japanese advocates of Zen. Understanding this, one would see it is not world denial, and there goes one form of nihilism.
Another nihilism charge is that of the theist opponent of the Buddhist. This should be extremely familiar, as in the West, extant Christians assume atheists are nihilists because they deny the ultimate reality of god. In Indian discourse this is Brahma(n) or Ishvara. The specifics don't matter much, it's enough that Buddhists deny a creator of the universe to be labeled as nihilists. This is a very foul smelling argument because it would suggest the theist only believes in god to avoid being called a nihilist. So if you want, you can pick up Nietzsche here even though he doesn't agree with Buddhism and use him as cudgel, since they were both arguing with some of the same priestly people who had ceded their power to evaluate to "God."
Finally there are negating or apophatic doctrines like anatman or sunyata. Anatman is in every form of Buddhism and denies a permanent ego-substance or own self-nature. As you may recognize if you are familiar with Platonism, immortal souls and immortal God go hand in hand, so Buddhists are totally consistent here in saying no to both rather than picking and choosing. Madhyamaka is the school that makes sunyata its core and influences the rest of Mahayana Buddhism. This "emptiness" doctrine is really just an elaboration on anatman in its most basic sense, nothing has a self in the sense of that permanent enduring substratum. Nagarjuna is taken to be the founding thinker here, and for him and his tetralemma methodology, we cannot say of anything that it is x, not x, both x and not x, or neither x nor not-x, and this has been a nightmare of doxography ever since, with a long list of Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, and also Korean Buddhists attempting to say "yes, but how do I explain non-dualism using language?" The consistent denial of any objects of discourse to be ultimately real is what gets this Buddhism called nihilism. But all Buddhists disagree that this is nihilism and provide many arguments to the contrary.

>>22522124
holy... fucking... based

>>22522124

>>22522124
Fine but denying a permanent self substance doesn't necessarily imply you're denying the self or spirit. Simply that the spirit is not an unchanging "unit" (dharma)

>>22519970
You’ve got it reversed. Gnosticism copied Buddhism. Gnosticism still has the Christian dogma. Buddhism exited at least 500 years before Gnosticism/Christianity. Consider the following:

Like Simon Peter, the Buddha’s chief disciple was also called “the rock” and the terms barjonas/barpetras were used for him in the earliest Buddhist texts. Buddhism existed hundreds of years before Christianity yet the gospels have Buddhist terms. Here’s a video about it. The “Temptation of Christ” is also a copy of “The Temptation of the Buddha.” They barely even changed the title. It’s one of the oldest Buddhist stories and is about the Buddha being tempted in the wilderness by the devil and it’s basically identical, even having a nearly identical title. Watch this video if you actually want to know the truth

Again, Sariputra, the Buddha's chief was called The Rock, Barjonas/Barpetras just like Simon Peter, who was Jesus' chief disciple. These are some of the earliest Buddhist texts. You can plainly see it was copied for Simon Peter.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/_3RUdW46Wtk/

>>22522970
>*The Buddha’s chief disciple

>>22522551
>denying a permanent self substance doesn't necessarily imply you're denying the self or spirit.
So where's the logic behind it existing if it has no enduring permanent component? If it is instead some mutable changing thing to which we affix the same label to no matter what it undergoes then it is totally arbitrary, mere discursiveness.

>>22522551
Yeah, the self exists conventionally, no school of Buddhism denies the conventional
>Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees, houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things, that common people designate dependent on their parts, accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!
—— Candrakīrti. MAV 6:166

>>22523074
As far as I understand it (and with my admittedly limited understanding), the doctrine of “not-self”, “emptiness of self,” “voidness” “egolessness,” “no-self” (variously terms like sunyata, anatta, nairatmya), or however you want to translate or loosely render these interrelated Buddhist concepts, is one of the most difficult to understand of Buddhist teachings and most commonly misinterpreted. And it does not mean, to put it in conventional language, that “nothing exists” (although in another, and more qualified sense it could be taken to mean this, frustratingly enough, but more on that later), which is an obviously absurd claim, as there is clearly “something” taking place right now, immediately self-evident “to all of us”. (This false view and similar views are actually referred to by the Buddha as nihilism, the opposing extreme to eternalism, both of which Buddhism is against).

Rather, nothing exists IN ITSELF. Nothing has “svabhāva,” a self-nature or selfness, regarded as a permanent, independent, stable and self-sufficient essence, whatness, or deeper nature in the vein of a Platonic form, at least according to the Buddhists.

One justification of this seemingly absurd proposition is done with the teaching of dependent-origination. Everything is dependent on everything else — the tiniest phenomenon in the universe is dependent on all the history, objects, events and processes of the universe impinging upon it, influencing it, giving birth to it, and itself being influenced by it, this same universe also being (conventionally) made up of nothing but all these same dependently-originated parts, in a sort of recursive mereology. The parts are constantly altered by and dependent on all the other parts of the universe, while also altering and influencing all these parts of the universe, and the universe is made up of nothing but these constantly changing and interdependent-parts. (The Mahayana school of Hwa Yen Buddhism gets most deeply into what could be called this “recursive mereology”, with its teachings of mutual containment, mutual interpenetration of all dharmas [in the sense of things, not teachings], the realm of totality [Dharmadhātu], and so forth).

Hence, what seem like independent, clearly-defined “things,” “objects,” or “selves,” can really be seen as arbitrarily-demarcated slices we make of an interdependent flux of causal-effectual interrelationships and the processual flow of the entirety of the universe (the Dharmadhātu, absolute realm of all phenomena). Things shade into each other, blend into each other, and it is only the grasping conceptual human mind (the buddhi) that, say, cuts off the tree from the soil, minerals, vegetation and water in the earth it is formed from on the one hand, as well as the atmospheric processes and sunlight on the other hand that also go to its nourishment, and ditto for all the components of this example.

>>22523664
This is also essentially Nagarjuna’s assertion, that emptiness (sunyata) is nothing else than dependent-origination (pratityasamutpada). Applied to the “self,” the “self” is nothing more than the composite of all of its experiences, not something “deeper” and “beyond” the experiences that is somehow there witnessing them all as a transcendental watcher, rather it is nothing but the sum of its experiences (smelling, tasting, touching, hearing, seeing, feeling and thinking …). However, if “subject” cannot be distinguished from its “objects,” what is left is neither subject nor object, but an indefinable suchness (tathātā).

Another explanation of selflessness or egolessness is with the teaching of impermanence, which works in a similar vein and further supports what has already been claimed. Where dependent-origination is something we intuitively think of in terms of space (this “thing” is dependent on other “things” which seem to be split from them by space/in different locations of space, and vice versa), the teaching of impermanence is now pointing towards a similar truth of egolessness or emptiness (sunyata) except in time.

In fact, change and time are, by definition, obviously bound with each other. With no change, there would be no time, and with no time, no change. Yet this very notion of time brings into heavy question our conception of “selfhood” or the essences/essential-natures of apparent “things.” If everything is changing moment by moment — whether obviously or in a way imperceptible to much — then do they really remain the same “things”?

Rocks and pebbles are constantly being eroded and weathered by atmospheric and geological phenomena, by wind and water, whether apparent to us or not. The cells and atoms are undergoing complex chemical reactions on a microscopic level. Even the carpet in your house is undoubtedly host to countless bacteria, dust-mites, and the like, moment-by-moment countlessly altering the tiny constituents of said rug. So what remains moment-by-moment that could be said to be a “real unchanging permanent independent solitary self”?

Heraclitus, thousands of years ago, astutely put it: “It is impossible to step twice in the same river.” And, as some commentators have put it, this is not only because the flowing waters in that exact or any other spot in the river have changed by then, but also because you yourself have also changed by then. The same sentiment is expressed in the Ancient Greek thought experiment of the ever-reconstructed Ship of Theseus (is it still the same ship, all its parts having been replaced over the long years for repairs?).

>>22523857
So what, finally, is Buddhism saying about “the self”? Even if what are conventionally called the self, the soul, or the mind, persist after death, are they still an unchanging permanent essence with the nature that, say, the Vedas and Upanishads ascribe to it (of unchanging immortality and identity with the Absolute God or Brahman)? Also, can they even be called a “self” in terms of being a definitive independent transcendental “subject”, or are they nothing apart from its perceived apparent “objects” (hence exploding the subject-object dichotomy and leaving an indefinable “Suchness,” Tathātā)?

Regardless of all this devil’s-advocate apparent support of Buddhism, I have to say a philosophy like Advaita Vedanta makes more sense to me, as, on a superficial level, Buddhism can seem to claim “you don’t even exist” and hence would have no reason to even WANT “enlightenment,” “transcendence” or “liberation”, care about the fruits of your karma, etc. Of course, the typical paradox of Buddhism is that oftentimes it is precisely trying to tell you, in response to this possible criticism, “Yes, precisely, don’t even care about and don’t hanker after ‘liberation’, ‘transcendence’, or ‘enlightenment’, don’t worry about your’self’ or trying to fashion it into a ‘better, more enlightened self,’ and indeed you should be detached from the fruits of your karmas, as even these seemingly spiritual aspirations are subtle forms of desire that tie you to ‘the world,’ the cycle of samsara, even if a subtler version of it.” Which is, in any case, an ironically and paradoxically similar teaching as can be found in Vedantic teachings, as in the Ashtavakra Gita and Tejobindu Upanishad, which are so much as telling you, “Don’t even try to make a meditative effort seeking it (the Self or Brahman) — You already ARE ‘IT,’ and even making an effort of subduing the mind and searching after yogic practices and teachings is bringing you away from realization of this.” The major difference is that Buddhism does not put this core truth in terms of a “self” or of a “God” (Brahman, Transcendental All-Creator), but rather in terms of an indefinable Suchness, Tathātā, which cannot even be put in terms of either a self or a God.

>>22523867
This is perhaps because Buddhism was a reaction (and even entirely valid and right, in its own way) against what Siddhartha Gautama perceived as possible ego-clinging attachments and misinterpretations egos in Central and Eastern Asia could make out of Vedic truths and Indian yogic practices, misinterpretations that could foster further narcissism and attachment-to-the-world-and-ego (even if attachment to some form of an apparently “higher, more spiritual” world or self, through spiritual rituals and beliefs within this same “world”, etc). Buddhism is practically just a nontheistic rendering of similar truths, experiences, beliefs and practices as in Hinduism.

For instance, Buddhism would skeptically ask, in opposition to the teachings of Vedanta, that if there is an unchanging eternal Atman-Brahman, and eternal unchanging “Sat-Chit-Ananda” (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) that you/Brahman are/is at Its/your core, then why and how do you and other sentient beings, at this or any moment, experience change in the world, as well as suffering of yourself and others? If Brahman “is” these examples and all else we experience, then isn’t even “Brahman” changing throughout time and space, due to its auto-occlusion, self-forgetting and suffering experienced in the guise it takes as impermanent and suffering sentient beings in the world of maya? If so, then the same truths, the same three marks of existence of Buddhism, of impermanence, suffering and egolessness can be applied to Brahman as to anything or anyone else.

And yet, paradoxically again, Buddhism implicitly claims a similar enlightenment or knowledge-of-reality as Vedanta and Yoga offers (as moksha, kevala jnana, kevalasamadhi, etc.), simply by realizing these same truths of impermanence, egolessness, and suffering, a state conceived as nirvana, enlightenment, a snuffing-out of the self, or implied permanent transcendence of suffering which is ironically rather similar to the Indian yogic teachings. So, if we have some learning, and a mind worthy of being called a mind, we might perhaps see that even Hinduism and Buddhism (broadly taken) could be considered different yet valid outlooks on certain same transcendental, eternal truths — a true Sanātana Dharma (Eternal Teaching, Law, or Way-of-Life) with apparently different faces that are better suited to different peoples of different times, temperaments, mentalities, nations and cultures.

>>22520650
yes it is

>>22524024
It's epistemologically non-dual

>>22522124
>Nietzsche doesn't have access to substantial Mahayana literature that would expound on the non-duality of samsara and nirvana either, since this is decades away from getting translated and disseminated by indologists studying the prajnaparamita literature or by Japanese advocates of Zen. Understanding this, one would see it is not world denial, and there goes one form of nihilism.
This supposes that mahayana is correct, which is wrong.

>>22524282
ok but i'm still right and that's what matters

>>22523664
>One justification of this seemingly absurd proposition is done with the teaching of dependent-origination. Everything is dependent on everything else — the tiniest phenomenon in the universe is dependent on all the history, objects, events and processes of the universe impinging upon it, influencing it, giving birth to it, and itself being influenced by it, this same universe also being (conventionally) made up of nothing but all these same dependently-originated parts, in a sort of recursive mereology. The parts are constantly altered by and dependent on all the other parts of the universe, while also altering and influencing all these parts of the universe, and the universe is made up of nothing but these constantly changing and interdependent-parts.
No, that's interdependence, which is mahayana. Buddhism has dependent origination and it's just about the aggregates. Buddhism doesn't care about the universe.

>>22523857
>>This is also essentially Nagarjuna’s assertion, that emptiness (sunyata) is nothing else than dependent-origination (pratityasamutpada). Applied to the “self,” the “self” is nothing more than the composite of all of its experiences, not something “deeper” and “beyond” the experiences that is somehow there witnessing them all as a transcendental watcher, rather it is nothing but the sum of its experiences (smelling, tasting, touching, hearing, seeing, feeling and thinking …). However, if “subject” cannot be distinguished from its “objects,” what is left is neither subject nor object, but an indefinable suchness (tathātā).
All of this is just he rehash of choiceless awareness which is again not the buddha's teaching.

Intellectuals have a hard time accepting that their whole debate about sabhava is inherently flawed. There is nothing to salvage from this, from the very beginning. Those people have to either become good at meditation or go back to be full-on normies.
But even if their endeavor about spirituality was genuine, we all know intellectuals become intellectuals precisely because they suck at going for the extra mile permitting to talk properly about no-self and so on, and they prefer their comfort zone of larping to impress their audience who knows fuck all about this.

This has been going for 2000 years already and there is no sign of sincerity on the part of the intellectuals. The only good thing in all of this is the intellectuals on the buddhist side completely died out, minus some vipassana retards, and there remains only the mahayana macacos running in circle, still trying to pass their ramblings as compatible with buddhism.

>>22524282
Boring

>>22524368
Do the aggregates not form in relation to the external universe?

>>22519970
Gnosticism is an incomplete form of Hindu

>>22521596
I was gonna call you a moron for being a psued and trying to stretch for something that isnt there because you dont understand it but after pondering a few moments I have to admit there is some merit to your post

>>22523857
Good post, thanks for the explanation

>>22524602

>I was gonna call you a moron ...

Shoot first, ask quest- ... ah you know what, fuck questions.

Are any of you genuine practioners or do you just "study"? Like seriously.

>>22519158
only if could put my dick in that hole

>>22525776
I have about 60 books, mostly scriptures and treatises with a few academic works, and a big ass buddha statue, and I light lots of incense because smoking is based. That's about as much practice as the average contemporary Japanese but no I don't go to Buddhist church on Sundays and sing psalms with other Buddhists.

>>22521780
>Some of them can cause anhedonia in the wrong person
Its me. What shoul i do?

>>22525776
I'm a dzogchenpa

>>22525770
one of the greatest characters in film history, should have gotten an oscar

>>22519261
I'm unsure of whether you're ignorant of Buddhism and Gnosticism or just most of the words you just used.

>>22524378
No clue what you’re talking about or how it applies to that part, it seems to me you just want to argue and nitpick for the sake of argumentation, like many other academic-types here do?

>>22524368
Yes, interdependence is a more Mahayana concept, I should’ve made that clear, but it is directly and obviously derived from the concept of dependent-origination, held by all schools of Buddhism and directly explained in the Pali Canon.

"Truly, monks, a noble disciple who is learned and has understood for himself, independent of faith in others, that 'When there is this, then there is that; with the arising of this, that arises ...'

"When a noble disciple thus fully sees the arising and cessation of the world as it is, he is said to be endowed with perfect view, with perfect vision; to have attained the true Dhamma, to possess the initiate's knowledge and skill, to have entered the stream of Dhamma, to be a noble disciple replete with the purifying knowledge, one who is at the very door of the Deathless." [S.II.79]

As my clear reference to, say, the Hwa Yen school of Buddhism (a Mahayana philosophical school) suggested, I’m not averse to including Mahayana concepts and explanations. A lot of core Mahayana philosophy is simply elaborating on what is implicit in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali Canon … for instance, if the Buddha is teaching something implicitly meant to get disciples to realize something or change something within themselves to become like the Buddha (put conventionally, to attain nirvana), this implies a “potentiality” to attain enlightenment or the Buddha’s state which could be called “the Buddha-nature” (tathagatagarbha), a Mahayana concept which Theravadins here will argue against in the same vein as the last poster I mentioned, seemingly more out of a desire for argument and spreading dissension than anything else. However, feel free to do that if you must. Stay long enough and I might even talk about (probably one of your least-liked schools of Buddhism) Zen.

>>22524447
It may implicitly be “arrogant” to speak too much and play the scholar, it assumes one knows enough and has a high enough degree of attainment for one’s talk to be worth anything at all, but there are probably worse things one can do with one’s time than that. I also (selfishly) admit it’s just as much for me as it is for other posters, to try to “teach” or express what I’ve learned helps solidify it more in my head.

>>22525888
If you were a normal person before, you became like this. Just go back to doing what you were doing before. Or if you can't, go on. Remember to meditate. Anhedonia comes from not practicing. If what I've said is not enough, we can go deeper. Remember that the taste of Dhamma is freedom, not depression or sadness. But remember that the vision has deepened in you, you still have a long way to go.

I defend "no-self" as a way to gain insight, even though it is more difficult, it is worth it. Even more so if you assume that what the Buddha meant was something ordinary, since the Buddha stated that not only was it difficult to answer, but that the answer would not come from questions asked on a human level, the human premise (ordinary mind) would have difficulty.
Furthermore, to say that there is an "I" is a betrayal of the Buddha.

>>22519158
>Buddhism and Gnosticism are the same
True
>And they're right
Btfo by picrel.

>>22519158
Average buddhistic gnosticism fan
>>22526421
Average stirnerite thomism enjoyer

>>22525893
how to dzogchen?

>>22526527
You need a teacher
https://www.rangdrolfoundation.org/autumn-2023-dzogchen-retreat/

>>22526587
never mind then

>>22526603
If you want an introduction, read this, but you can't practice Dzogchen without transmission from a qualified teacher

>>22526615
I live on an island so transmission seems difficult
Thanks though

>>22526624
Transmission can be given over livestream. Look at the link I posted.

>>22523664
>>22523857
>>22523867
>>22523874
Good stuff

>>22526615
Why not?

>>22525893
whats avidya-vidya in dzogchen? how does it differ from Vedanta?

>>22527001
Dzogchen practice is based on direct introduction, where you and your teacher do a practice together with the goal of being in the same meditative state at the same time. What you are introduced to at this time is what you work with in your practice, and there are various supporting practices to clarify the experience.

>>22527056
Vidya/rigpa is knowledge of your basis. I don't know anything about Vedanta, but I think the main difference is that the basis in Dzogchen is individual, not a transpersonal consciousness.

weak bait, there is no demiurge in buddhism idiot, get educated

>>22521780
>Some of them can cause anhedonia in the wrong person
yes, anhedonia tends to happen when the practicioner is not careful and develop aversion towards sensuality instead of awareness, a common but dangerous mistake

So, is there a God in buddhism?
If not buddhism and gnosticism are oposed.

>>22528366
there are devas and they are not necessarily englithened. Like all the hindu gods like brahman and Indra do not know how to get enlightened.

>>22526185
The part ''if “subject” cannot be distinguished from its “objects,”'' is the usual choiceless awareness pushed by hindus and mahayanists and the new people who have been claiming to do vipassana over the last century or two

>>22526185
>>"Truly, monks, a noble disciple who is learned and has understood for himself, independent of faith in others, that 'When there is this, then there is that; with the arising of this, that arises ...'
>
>"When a noble disciple thus fully sees the arising and cessation of the world as it is, he is said to be endowed with perfect view, with perfect vision; to have attained the true Dhamma, to possess the initiate's knowledge and skill, to have entered the stream of Dhamma, to be a noble disciple replete with the purifying knowledge, one who is at the very door of the Deathless." [S.II.79]

well done, now learn what the world mean in buddhism. Protip, it's not the universe.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html

>>22526185
>A lot of core Mahayana philosophy is simply elaborating on what is implicit in Theravada Buddhism and the Pali Canon
The core of mahayana is to say that arahants are not fully englithened, precisely by saying that dependent origination is either a lie or some incomplete teaching, that only their boddhistavas are fully englithened, precisely because they know interdependence, but without creating a schism right at the beginning of their new religion


>>22526185
>seemingly more out of a desire for argument and spreading dissension than anything else.
it's weird how mahayanists crave so much the buddhist label and when they are told that their intellectual gesticulations are pure fantasy completely disconnected from the buddha's teaching, they all go into defensive move and claim it's the other party which is offensive kek.

You can talk about mahayana all you want, but as soon as you say it's what the buddha taught, you will be rebuked.
Why can't mahayanists just be honest and say mahayana is not buddhism?
What do mahayanists gain by slapping the buddhist label on their religion? Answer this instead of creating a strawman.

>>22519158

The same old heresy debunked again and again. But still just as appealing to lost souls.

Find Christ my friend.

Enough of this Mahayana shit. now we talk about women in buddhism. Should women become nun?
sakyadhita is an association of women pushing for female ordination.

Last year they ordained about 150 women.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s-mY4P7RixGW5JSeC0Gi9Z4_K7ePhQSB/view
>On June 21, 2022, in Paro, Bhutan, on Bhutan Nuns' Day, these luminous being gathered
around the temple dedicated to Gelongma Palmo, the female practitioner famed for the
Nyungne practice. Many threads were woven together to create the this extraordinary
historic event, one I honestly did not know I would see in my lifetime, yet alone take
part in. The event was historic in enabling female monastics to take full Bhikshuni
(Tibetan: Gelongma) ordination within the Vajrayana lineages, which has been
impossible for many centuries until now.


>From different places throughout Bhutan, India, Ladakh, and myself from England, we
came together – women who had been living by the Getsulma vows for a required
minimum of seven years. Our ages, faces, and languages were different but there was
an extraordinary sense of a particular Sangha arising. Through the course of a total of
five days, 142 nuns came together to help each other, get to know each other, share tents
and food and queries over what we had to do and say and so forth, and together
become Gelongmas in the Himalayas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk27nsr4f7A&list=PLaXaZL-E67FA80iLm44VDI8YbzT4d8dzG
>Documentary about Sakyadhita conferences, women in buddhism

>>22528487
> Why can't mahayanists just be honest and say mahayana is not buddhism?
>What do mahayanists gain by slapping the buddhist label on their religion? >Answer this instead of creating a strawman.
Ah, in that case, we have no (or less of a) quarrel then. If this makes you happy, I will say Mahayana is not (your definition of) Buddhism (Theravada Buddhism). In this case, I will gladly accede your point, as it’s no skin off my back. So, in reference to my entire posts, I will now retcon them and say that they are largely about Mahayana teachings and perspectives and not Buddhist teachings. Similarly, Taoism is not Buddhism either, although they are sometimes similar.

>>22528487
>What do mahayanists gain by slapping the buddhist label on their religion?
the notion that only one authority can ever exist in terms of scripture and ever speak authoritatively as such, and that the rest all of us can do is endlessly agree-and-amplify it is hyperprotestantism par excellence... the historical buddha himself in the canonical suttas speaks of there being prior buddhas who taught dharma before him, so your certainty that nothing can be taught or revealed after him seems to be on shaky foundation and in any case all we ever really have as our last resort is our own discernment as to which teachings and practices have the most efficacy, for the buddha is a physician and not a pharisee

Buddhism is retarded honestly. Whenever someone tells me they’re a Buddhist, I just immediately assume they’re not very smart.

>>22529079
yeah I wouldn't want to be smart anyway, there's really no advantage to intelligence short of avoiding traps and if I can avoid those without being smart I don't need to take on any of the penalties that go with being smart, like depression, loneliness, anti-social behavior. etc.

>>22519261
why nominalist?

>>22529774
All phenomena only exist through conventional imputation

Mahayan is always subpar to the sutttas, there's really no justification to see it as part of buddhism.

>>22530968
What fundamental Buddhist teachings does Mahayana contradict?

>>22528853
>Enough of this Mahayana shit. now we talk about women in buddhism. Should women become nun?
Yes, absolutely.

>>22519158


Buddhism is a mediocre pregnostic doctrine that has its end in the relnquishment of one's martial potential, and in the resignation of oneself in pro of basking in one's own inner ocean.

Mediocrity entails loss of freedom; knowledge wthout growth is stunted; this is why "Buddhists" will never be able to discern the reality of what is, and experience the serene flame of gnosticism/science, which is perfected in Christianity/Catholicism.

Better to know than to be ignorant; worse to be idle with knowledge than to excel with it.

>>22532664
>the relnquishment of one's martial potential
Explain Ashoka

>>22532664

The dago nonce writes a good post every now and again.