/lit/ - Literature

>>22754278
And what made you say that, our dear original poster?

>>22754282
Just some douchebaggery I came across while reading a certain book. I'm not saying you're all douchebags, but some of you are. (You) should cut that out.

>>22754278
goddamn phony

I feel called out by this thread, but I just really like the vibes of buddhism. I feel buddhists often come off as much deeper and more spiritual than people involved in western religions, which are all about the ego. That being said, I can't bring myself to believe in things like reincarnation. They just don't make sense to me. So I identify as a secular buddhist. Makes sense?

>>22754278
If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question. It really is that simple.

>>22754300
No, it doesn't make any sense. You're a moron and will convert to some other bastardized version of some other religion in a span of a few years.
You people reduce religion to a self identification and from the start everyone else can tell that you're not gonna get anywhere but be annoying on the internet about it.

>>22754300
This is the gayest type of "buddhist". Without rebirth, there is literally no point to buddhism, "secular" buddhists usually subscribe to moralism or humanism. Buddhism is about liberation, it's an ontology to liberate yourself from samsara and rebirth.
>>22754278
Eastern vs Western is cringe, there's nothing particularly special about Western philosophy except that it indulged in existential tripe when it used to be a profound metaphysics centered around wisdom and truth. Which was no different from the Indian metaphysics of the east. Buddha was a blonde scythian sage btw.

>>22754288
Want to elaborate? Surely you wouldn't make a thread for the sole reason of bias conformation and ego stroking just because you refuse to expand on context and make your position clear.

>>22754300
How is reincarnation unbelievable? Think of how many people have existed through out history and reached an age that allowed them to have personalities; each of them were unique individuals, add that to the 7.8 billion alive today, I think it's pretty likely that some of us are refreshed after we die.

>>22754331
I didn't do it out of egotism. My position is that I don't think it's cool to talk about philosophy in a condescending manner. "I prefer X to Y philosophy" is fine but keep it to yourself.

>>22754336
In Buddhism there are infinite sentient beings on infinite worlds

>>22754351
and what are you going to do if i don't keep it to myself, faget?

>>22754278
Nagarjuna is better than any western philosopher

>>22754278
>Hasn't read Dignaga
>Hasn't read Dharmakirti
>Hasn't read Vasubandhu
>Hasn't read Asanga
>Hasn't read Shantideva
>Hasn't read Nagarjuna
>Hasn't read Aryadeva
>Hasn't read Buddhapalita
>Hasn't read Bhavaviveka
>Hasn't read Chandrakirti

>>22754360
How does one even calculate that? Not trying to shit on anyone's beliefs, but where are these beings pre-birth?

>>22754388
Not OP, not affiliated with this thread at all, but recs NOW

>>22754351
>"I prefer X to Y philosophy" is fine but keep it to yourself.
the irony

>>22754351
>but keep it to yourself.
In the imaginary conversation that you casted your imagined opponent as having, you wrote them as saying “since you asked”, as in, they were keeping it to themselves but someone prompted them to share their thoughts.

>>22754388
All of them have been refuted

>>22754278
People think Western philosophy has no practical side, no contemplation, no mysticism, because everyone decided "le Christian philosophers only talking about le Jesus, it's ok to ignore 1,200 years of thought "

>>22754472
pretty much this. Also not actually reading the Greeks. Come to think of it, people who think this literally have barely read any western philosophy. Actually, they don't read eastern philosophy either. You know-- I don't actually believe they read at all except maybe contemporary simplified popularizations for brainlets.

>>22754469
It's a quote from a book. In the book, yes, the character is asked about his beliefs; I just think the answer is condescending and pompous.

>>22754523
>I just think the answer is condescending and pompous.
It seems like they are talking about their own subjective sense of what is satisfactory or unsatisfactory, I dont find that pompeous or condescending because its not proclaiming some sort of objective declaration of the value of said thing independent of their subjective perception.

Like it’s basically equivalent to saying “I prefer strawberry ice cream over mint ice cream”

>>22754288
>a certain book
At least give the name of the book

>>22754604
The Catcher in the Rye

>>22754604
OP probably didn't read it in a book, someone probably recommended something eastern to him in another thread and he is still butthurt about it.

>>22754542
The way a person chooses to see the world they inhabit is not the same as their preferred ice cream. Maybe I am being too critical of people but I can't help but roll my eyes when someone says things like that. As if their point of view is somehow superior to anyone else's.

>>22754472
Buddhism has no mysticism

>>22754278
>"Philosophy should NOT be 'edifying'!"

>>22754309
Christianity is a perverted system where you are guilty before you are born and can be redeemed by having another person killed on your behalf. It's barbaric in the most literal sense of the word. Compared to that, Buddhism is way more appealing.

>>22754336
Your "personality" is a product of your genes producing a specific brain, nervous system, endocrine system, and all the other physical parts of your body that allow you to live. When you understand biology and genetics, it's literally impossible to square that with a concept like "reincarnation"

>>22754278
>>22754278
>>"I simply happen to find Latino philosophy more satisfactory than Western. Since you ask."

>>22754863
>Buddha flies away from Angulimala
>Buddha has a miraculous birth
>Buddha has siddhis and jhanas
>Mahamogallana makes Professor X look like Martha Stewart

>>22754366
Fentanyl Floyd is better than Nagarjuna

>>22755161
Yes

It's kinda based.

>>22755161
Christianity is a franchise THAT WORKS

>>22755161
God saw that man escalated his conflicts with bloody displays of human sacrifice and so he decided to present the ultimate legal drama to end all legal dramas.

>>22755161
You don't inherit Adam's specific guilt. You inherit Sin and Death, which inclines to evil. The guilt is your own.
>405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence".
But through Christ, you can inherit Holiness and Life, inclining you to good.

>>22755215
You seek to gain the benefits of having another person executed on your behalf. That's demented.

>>22755241
Its more like you surrender to an omnipotent omniencompassing argument of supreme authority that went there far beyond what you would normally agree to.

>>22754300
>I just really like the vibes of buddhism

>>22754300
Do you also listen to everything except rap and country? Are you fiscally conservative and socially liberal?

>>22755161
How did you manage to miss the point of the anon you replied to?

>>22755275
You still accept the benefit of a human execution. You just cope and justify it with magic.

>>22754300
>>22755161
You are a teenager rebelling against his most likely Protestant parents. Don't worry, it's not unusual to have that phase and you will almost certainly grow out of it. I'd recommend being careful lest you pingpong back into a tradfag though. This is an unfortunately common issue because as >>22754472 described American Protestantism lends itself extremely poorly to establishing any sort of actual culture. You've got a bunch of people who eschew around a thousand years of European culture and literature and let the beginning and end of their religion be one translation of the Bible. It's not your fault that your parents never taught you about your own heritage, because most likely their parents didn't teach them either.

>>22755328
>

>>22755476
it's sad seeing all the energy you put in caring about jewish tales

>>22755487
>>>/b/

>me synthesizing Eastern and Western philosophy to become a living god

>>22755528
Actually that just makes you a Hermeticist

>>22754319
>blonde Scythian

We Wuz

>>22755163
All those things play a role in a person's existence but I still believe that we all have souls and they're all unique. That being the case, for me, I think it likely that some of us are reincarnated after we die.

>>22755163
>it's literally impossible to square that with a concept like "reincarnation"
the “personality” is not what transmigrates kek

>>22754278
You should say this if there's some crucial question that you think other philosophies got wrong. If theres something fundamentally wrong with the metaphysics, you wouldn't want to waste too much time reading 10,000 pages of German babbling.

>>22755476
I'm not interested in overt projections of the super ego into the sky as a literal "heavenly father". Such illusions are, themselves, extremely childish. By definition, they are infantilizing. What's worse, it seems your only defense for such a belief is "heritage" which is perhaps the worst reason to adopt a belief of any kind. Do you not critically assess your own beliefs for yourself or do you just onboard whatever beliefs your family happens to have?

>>22756481
Then "you" don't reincarnate.

>>22756801
Im not interested in being adopted by Jewish child molesters
>man created God
Okay but what happens when you observe the full breadth of all those spirit lead approximations?
>God created man
And man created the supreme best kind of man, the God fearing man

>>22756897
A great leader accomplishes these hearts as volumes

>>22756801
Youre not interested in the super ego or anything super

>>22756897
Man did not create God. Man has created many gods all throughout out his history, and each god differs from another and reflects the cultural circumstance of that man's society. Much of what concerns these gods are what concerns the society, the harvest for agricultural societies, animals of various sorts for hunting societies. "The breadth of spirit" is merely the reflection of man's consciousness, as I said regarding Christianity, it is the external projection of internal psychological processes.

>>22756936
Man created "God"
But man did not create God

Good book rec

>>22756801
Why did you post a crusty-ass jpeg of Freud as if it aids your alleged point?

>>22756812
> Then "you" don't reincarnate.
Correct, the real you is the Atman (true Self), the personality is not one’s Self. The Atman doesn’t transmigrate but the subtle body does. The subtle body transmigrates from life to life and its personality is reset each time and not carried on, while you are the unaffected partless undifferentiated pure consciousness which provides the stage for all this to occur.

>>22757067
There is no self outside of the five aggregates

>>22757039
Try reading The Future of an Illusion

>>22757072
Incorrect, the Self is independent and It’s not one of the so-called aggregates.

>>22757145
The existence of such a self cannot be proven by direct perception or logical inference, so it does not exist

>>22754278
Oh no, I would never say that. I'd rather say:
>"I simply happen to find nondualist philosophy more satisfactory than dualist philosophy. Since you ask."

>>22754288
Lemme guess. Sam Harris? Literally anyone in the new age?

>>22754300
This isn’t about Buddhism’s beliefs. This is about your ego. You have a hole you feel you need to be filled and think that you can Frankenstein an eastern religion and philosophy with whatever half-baked beliefs you think you created but actually just appropriated from other people you watch or read about.

You’re probably looking for some “exotic” form of Stoicism but hate to admit it because western philosophy is too mainstream. So instead you wanna divorce an Eastern Ideology of it’s foundations. Kys

>>22757309
> The existence of such a self cannot be proven by direct perception or logical inference, so it does not exist
That’s a self-refuting argument because Buddha taught plenty of dogmas which can not be proven by inference and nor are they directly perceivable, like karma, rebirth, anatta, anicca, hungry ghosts, heaven and hellish realms, etc etc. If we apply your argument in a consistent manner then Buddhism is false because they cant be proven or observed, so it’s fallacious for you to use that argument as a Buddhist when you don’t accept the underlying logic and when the underlying logic means that Buddhism is false if its applied consistently.

Secondly, the Self is always known and self-evident, there is no possibility of it ever being not-known. Every sort of cognitive act involves the automatic self-disclosure of the Self as partless self-revealing awareness, it’s always known to itself non-conceptually; this is why it’s always self-evident that you are sentient and not insentient. Even though the Self is always self-evidently known by people though, people who are confused or blinded by philosophical and religious dogmas (like Buddhism) can be fooled into denying it, this is like a man who steps outside of his home and looks in the windows and says “I dont see anybody inside so nobody must live here”.

>>22757607
>karma, rebirth, anatta, anicca
These can absolutely be directly perceived, they're not mystical woo like the time travel that the Advaitans accuse the Buddha of engaging in, they're just facts of the universe.

>>22757389
>I simply happen to find nondualist philosophy more satisfactory than dualist philosophy. Since you ask

>>22757624

>>22757616
>These can absolutely be directly perceived

I listed several other things that would make Buddhism false according to your logic that you didn't even try to dispute like hungry ghosts and hell realms, so that means that Buddhism's claims are still false either way.

Secondly, you are just playing dumb by saying those other things are observable. Buddha mainly talks about karma in the context of it affecting future lives and talks about how people with certain negative traits will be born with a corresponding negative trait in a future life. This part about karma affecting future lives is not provable or observable, so according to your logic it's false and Buddha was wrong when he taught it.

Similarly, it's not provable or observable that one is reborn after death in another life, so by your logic Buddhism is false on that count too.

Similarly, anicca cannot be proven and nor can it be observed since to admit it as a universal principle would require that one observe literally everything in the universe including far-away galaxies and the objects in them to verify that they are not permanent, since this cant be observed according to your logic that means anicca is false.

Similarly anatta cannot be proven or directly observed so that means it's false too. Every sort of attempt by Buddhists to give an epistemological explanation of how this is possible is completely absurd and collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. The Self is never an object of itself, so no amount of observing different internal and external objects is capable of demonstrating the non-existence of the Self.

>>22757693
>revolt against the modern world
>anime

>>22757766
Honostly I have no idea how Evola would feel about anime, considering the type of art he made

>>22757766
Judge not, anon. It is my revolt against Western-bourgeois aesthetic conventions.

>>22757808
I despise weebs and perennialists all the same.


>>22757826
>It is my revolt against Western-bourgeois aesthetic conventions
>opens new tab
>wanks to lolis
Epic revolt, bro.

>>22757514
This
It's a contrarian approach to philosophy/religion and one of the main reasons why reddit-atheists exist

>>22754278
Yes, it works better for me. What’s the problem with that? I’ve also engaged deeply with the Bible, the Greeks, and western philosophy and I don’t outright reject that. At least justify your pretentiousness.

>>22757984
>comes up with untrue statements about me
>gets mad
Be honest. Does this actually make you feel good in any way?

>>22755161
>guilty before you are born
>he thinks buddhism doesn’t have this
another retard who doesn’t understand the workings of karma and just thinks it’s some kind of handwavey ethical golden rule

>>22758033
Karma has no moral implications retard. Having bad karma at birth can be much more accurately compared to being born poor than being born guilty.

>>22758042
Midwit semantics. The poor are indeed guilty of being poor.

>>22758042
>Having bad karma at birth can be much more accurately compared to being born poor
Bad karma having effects in the current life happens literally because of things you are guilty of doing in past lives.

>>22758055
Brilliant, simply brilliant tardbro!
>>22758063
In the same way that blowing all of your money on cocaine will leave you with no money for food, perhaps. But we can't speak of "guilt" here, merely mismanagement. Guilt implies judgement. Good deeds do not neutralise sin - living a good life will not save you from the hellfire if you have ever committed any sin. It's different with karma. Having enough good karma will easily neutralise your bad karma. It's simple cause and effect.

>>22754278
Well, it's better than continental in that it actually has some aesthetic appeal.
But correct analytic is unambiguously king. You can only get around it by declaring yourself a faggot coward unwilling to see clearly.