/lit/ - Literature

leave society

smoke and browse dankness

why do Buddhists desire to be free of desire?

it's still a product of desire

>>6249158
Buddhists want to be free of desire. Free of desire for them is called Nirvana.

It is not a desire to be free of desire.

>>6249161
how does one act without motive, even picrelated's supposed inaction is motivated (desired), it's inescapable

Joseph Campbell compared that the our ego is like a stone, because we are taught early on to cry to our mommies for icecream and so on. Meanwhile, you have monks in the east in constant practice ever since childhood, whose ego is like a christmas decoration ball. Some of the techniques you have there are like a small hammer that is able to break the christmas ball, but when the western man who just got to hear about it tries out, it does nothing, then he claims the hammer to be ineffective

>>6249161
But they still desire to be free from desire. They are striving to be free from desire, which implies that they want to be free from desire, meaning they can never be free from desire because they desire to be free from it

>>6249161

what is the difference between want and desire?

why is wanting okay while desire is bad?

>>6249173
Just stop.

>>6249176

answer the post, dipshit

or fuck off

>>6249173
Not an expert on the matter, but I'll put forth an opinion nonetheless. There may be a desire to be free of desire, but this would be something holding them back from enlightenment. The truly enlightened would not desire to be free of desire, s/he simply would be.

>>6249179
Don't get mad at me because you lack the capacity to distinguish meanings.

>>6249173
You're right in a way. When you follow the Buddhist path you peel away many layers of clinging and grasping, including clinging and grasping at things that you think will help you achieve enlightenment. It's well known to Buddhist students and teachers.

I've often wondered whether I'm being depraved if I create a work of art that inspires desire.

>>6249184
>play my language game
how about no

>>6249150

It's better to achieve self transcendence

>>6249183
>>6249185

Buddhists desire enlightenment?

enlightenment is being free of desire?

desiring a lack of desire?

we're back to square one

there's no way to answer this

>>6249188
You were the one to start it, buddy.

Nirvana is a quack goal, just like never sinning in Christianity will make you achieve some sort of enlightenment

Buddhism has some very good teachings, but throw any idea of enlightenment into the trash

Same goes for any religion

The thread is just starting.

Do us a favour: contain yourself before posting and question whether you really know your shit before thiis ends up as all buddhist threads, with ignorants teaching ignorants about the best way to misconceive buddhism

>>6249183
exactly this.
you dont crave for it, you just will be.

>>6249201

*tips fedora*

>>6249210
You are so fucking stupid.

>>6249209

>>6249192

>>6249212

Back to http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

>>6249217
I didn't even claim to be an atheist.

>>6249219

Listen, I don't give a shit what you claimed to be or didn't. You're an atheist because I fucking say you are. You can't argue. Do you understand?

>>6249192
Let's try again, shall we?

The student if Buddhism likely does feel a desire to escape desire. This would be one attachment that keeps the student from attaining nirvana. Nirvana literally means something like cessation, as in cessation of attachment/desire. Nirvana would only be reached once all of these attachments and desires are eliminated. So, the enlightened would not manifest a desire to be free of desire, s/he would just not have any desire, not even a desire to be free of desire. The student would have to eliminate the desire to be free of desire to reach nirvana.

>>6249222
Fuck off you degenerate memester.

>>6249222

trips confirm

>>6249192
It's sort of like "being in the flow" when you play a video game or a sport. If you are too conscious of your desire to win, that desire and your thinking and scheming about it actually trip you up and prevent you from achieving your goal.
Everyone wants to achieve happiness, even Buddhists. Buddhists say that you can't achieve happiness by material means, constantly pushing yourself to seize what you want and avoid what you don't want. True happiness can only be achieved by transcending clinging and grasping.

>>6249226

hurr degenrasee!!!!

>>6249185
Any technique to achieve enlightenment is one more wall between you and enlightenment. Nirvana is a place were both desire and its opposite, lack of desire are not. It is a place beyond human thought experience. Beyond even lack of existence, for that implies existence.

Enlightenment in the living is the intuitive and embodied realisation that this is it. Right now. And desiring it or not desiring it is irrelevant because they are both part of it.

>>6249158
>why do you want to leave an escalator it's still a a product of movement

Why do you want society to be hounding you? Perhaps you are all chasing a fox tale together.

>>6249233
>>6249225

>achieve
>attain

these are still products of desire
come on

Abandon that heathen gibberish and acquire salvation through the works of Christ.

>>6249176
To be fair, >>6249179 wasn't me.
But he expressed my sentiments well enough

>>6249242
Ok, it really can't be stated any simpler, you're beginning to be aggravating.

Imagine a person who has zero desire. He doesn't want anything. He doesn't even desire not to desire anything, he just doesn't desire anything. That is nirvana. Either you get it at this point or you're being willfully ignorant and/or a troll. Also, you can attain something without desiring it. Kafka and Dickinson have places in the Western canon, bit neither desired that.

>>6249266

>That is nirvana.

then how is it something that could/ should be achieved?

>>6249266
No, I agree on your definition
But to achieve that enlightenment, it seems like you necessarily can't be looking for it. As Buddhists all express a desire to reach enlightenment, shouldn't that be the last, insurmountable barrier?

Because once they eliminate all the rest of the desires in their life, the only reason to eliminate that last desire to reach Nirvana would be TO reach Nirvana. It would still be them acting on desire.

>Captcha: Spaghetti

>>6249283
Therefore, the only way this could be surmountable is if the search for Nirvana was entirely unconscious. As it is not (at least for Buddhists) it seems to be untraceable.

>>6249288
*unreachable

>semantics and circular arguments made by plebs who fancy themselves intellectual

It's like I'm in a real community college philosophy class.

These threads are the reason why i follow the Tao.

>>6249294
>hurr circular logic
If it's founded on flawed logic, then it's flawed!
For fucks' sake, please prove me and the other annoying guy wrong

>>6249283
Ok, last try and I've got to try to sleep as I start a new job tomorrow. I'll check for the thread in the morning because with that last post I now think you are asking sincerely.

To reach Nirvana, the Buddhist would have to not actually want to reach nirvana. It really does sound a bit like a catch-22, so I suppose I can understand your confusion. You are right in that desiring nirvana would prevent one from reaching it. You would have to eliminate the desire to reach it in order to reach it. Maybe think of it like the saying that goes something like you will find love when you stop looking for it. I dunno, hopefully I can explain more clearly after getting some sleep and consulting some sources. I know I have my copy of Huston Smith's book on the world's major religions somewhere and he does a great job of breaking complex ideas down to simple terms.

>>6249294
Do you mean OP or me and the other(s) offering responses? If the former, don't be such an asshole, s/he's trying to get it and is probably just young and/or not familiar with eastern philosophy. If the latter, don't be such an asshole, it can be difficult to explain, especially for me as I'm incredibly sleep-deprived. In summation, stop being such an asshole and provide your own two cents or fuck off. Thanks!

>>6249288
You start off wanting enlightenment. You grasp for it like anything else you grasp for. You get glimpses and temporary periods of what it is like to be enlightened. As you keep practising, you get to recognize them better and you know better how to slip into them. I personally believe that no one is ever completely free from desire, but you do get more free, and that's good.

>>6249303
Yeah, sorry, there's another anon that seems a bit pushy

>>6249303
And also, good! That's what I thought.
I just wondered how you could reconcile not desiring Nirvana with following a faith that attempts to get you to Nirvana.

It's pretty simple dudes. The Nikayas distinguish between unskillful desire and skillful desire, which leads to the end of kamma. Unskillful desire is craving for sensuality, becoming, and non-becoming. Up to and including once-returner status one still harbors some sensual craving. Upon becoming a non-returner sensual craving is finally destroyed; but the skillful desire for Unbinding, although it grows ever subtler, remains until all ten fetters are broken and one becomes an arahant. The notion that to attain Nibbana one does not even desire it did not arise, as far as I know, for a thousand-plus years until the radical subitism of some Chinese Buddhist schools, especially Ch'an, became prominent.

>>6249303

>You would have to eliminate the desire to reach it in order to reach it

you're still reaching for something, which is a product of desire

>>6249320
Alright, so it's just dipping the black cloth into a can of bleach over and over again until it finally comes out white?

See, I thought it was entirely an ego-driven process. If there are separate forces acting to shape the self (the state from which the ____-returner returns from would obviously have some effect on the self) then yeah, that would eliminate the problem.

>>6249314
Wanting something, in the sense of knowingly and freely engaging in actions intended to bring it about, is not the same as craving/trsna/tanha.

>>6249376
>>6249320
Thank you

>>6249158
>actually rehashes this joke of a critique

Buddhism distinguishes between skillful, neutral, and harmful desire. The path is only about removing harmful desire, namely desire tied up with existential lack.

>>6249150
You either leave society or discipline yourself so you are not of society despite being amongst it (which is undoubtedly a more advanced and difficult path).

>>6249150
Unless you become a monk you won't attain nirvana. Don't kid yourself. No one on this board has attained it and in all likelihood no one will.

>>6249170
It is indeed motivated in the beginning, it serves as the foundation. After which there is spontaneous non-action, which requires no motivation.

However, this is aside from the point, because the term you are using is incorporating baggage not found in the term it is translated from. Trishna and particularly unskillful trisha is not required for action and it doesn't equate to motivation.

Nirvana doesn't exist

>>6249431

You're speaking as if it's some tangible thing that you can acquire.

How could you possibly know the state of someone elses mind? A monk might train himself and meditate for a fuckload of time and then claim he's reached Nirvana.

People will probably believe him because he´s spent all this time meditating and shit.
But we'll never know how he feels.

We might feel the exact same thing as he did, the same state of mind, same emotions, same experience, and no one would believe us because we haven't been spending the past 20 years meditating.

>>6249173
>meaning they can never be free from desire because they desire to be free from it

That doesn't logically follow.

The soteriological function that releases one from negative desire isn't the desiring, but various meditation procedures. The gradual cognitive and perceptual changes diminish negative desire and eventually negative desire completely ceases, which would simultaneously correspond with the absence of desire to be rid of desires, because there would be nothing to get rid of. One clearly sees when one reaches the other shore (nibbana is defined as entailing an absolute certainty of it "presence"), and hits ground and so spontaneously ceases any desire or effort to keep paddling or remain in the boat waiting to hit ground.

>>6249423
Show me the text that distinguishes desire.

>>6249150
>asian manlet religions

>>6249201
Enlightenment, which was a term invented by a British man to relate the state of nibbana is the ending of existential lack/unpleasantness; it still involves pain, but lacks unpleasantness. We know pain isn't inherently unpleasantness because of spicy foods and the BDSM community. Metaphysical speculation beyond this is to confuse nibbana (and thus enlightenment) with parinabbana.

There is no scientific reason to think that enlightenment like this is impossible, because we already have identified occasions that seem to be be even more extreme than this, like not being able to feel pain.


However, we already know of instances where sadness seems to cease, so in principle enlightenment still seems on the table, link most related:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/malcolm-myatt_n_3744000.html

>>6249204
UP

>>6249462
>Metaphysical speculation beyond this is to confuse nibbana

I'd say it's trying to define a term that is purposely inconspicuous.

>>6249283
>it seems like you necessarily can't be looking for it
Desire as you are using it isn't the same as the trishna identified as the that-which-is-to-be-overcome. I am not convinced that what you say even logically follows, since you seem to be confusing the moment of finally achieving enlightenment with the path leading up to it. The final moment is a co-actualization of the absence of desire and the absence of trying to be absent of desire. In fact, I imagine a number of Buddhists would assert that by the time one has hit the third path (of the four path model) that meditation has become effortless and without motivation, it is something that spontaneously occurs throughout the day, whether sitting or not.


>the only reason to eliminate that last desire to reach Nirvana would be TO reach Nirvana.

Why would there need to be a formal reason to initiate the action, what if as a certain point in the path it is an affective feedback loop that is effectively non-conceptual? I don't see how that would be acting on a desire at all and seems to totally ignore how these states are described.

>>6249288
No, desire requires the reification and hypostatization of thoughts. As well as a superimposed percept bundle over the free-flowing sense-data which is mistaken as a distinct mental subject which then reacts to another superimposed percept bundle.
Depending on which Buddhist path being discussed, very often this process stops before the goal of Buddhism has been reached, there are no more percepts superimposed over the sense-data and there is no experience of a separate mental-subject, so there is no room for desire to even dawn.
And no, one doesn't have to desire to find oneself in the state that ends the process, but through concentration and relaxation in general, one can just find oneself there. Even in the more structured Buddhist paths, this sort of aimless meditation is taught, as they can distinguish between a rational preference (such as preferring to cease existential lack), versus the actual experience of desire as a sense of longing. Unless you mean something other than desire as a sense of longing?


I feel you are playing fast and loose with the term and are not being vary careful or precise with it.

>>6249303
>You are right in that desiring nirvana would prevent one from reaching it.

Only if you can't distinguish between a detached rational preference for something versus actually having an experience sense of longing. If I am cooking over an open fire, I rationally prefer to keep my arm over letting it be engulfed in flames to the point of losing it. It doesn't mean I have an experienced sense of longing in regards to keeping my arm, nor does it mean that when I naturally avoid burning it, or even go out of my way to avoid burning it off, that I suddenly have been plunged into a sense of longing. It is just commonsense in a relatively detached and natural manner. Similarly one can rationally prefer not to unnecessarily burn in the fires of existential lack and rationally goes about not getting burned without a sense of longing.

>>6249450
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/pushinglimits.html


Moreover, here we see a kind of desire being directly associated with unskillful thought: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.than.html

While here:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html -we not only the mentioning of sensual desire (which is to be abandoned), but a positive type of desire being associated with right effort. One is to directly generate this desire, which is clearly distinct from the sensual desire and the desire in the other sutta concerning desire associated with unskillful thought, or put simply "unskillful desire".

Lastly, the first link I listed, where the Buddha discusses desiring to go to the park, that indeed may be an example of neutral desire, but such a thing can't be explicitly derived from the text.

>>6249474
>purposely inconspicuous

How do you figure? My impression is that it isn't inconspicuous nor purposefully so. But if you read a translation out of context with little background knowledge I can see it..

>>6249459
The Buddha was a big guy for that time in history, well fed and in the military, and growing up was a very natural athlete, as he was considered top-tier in this rugby-like game that was a hit in the Shakya clan. For that time and place, he was far from a manlet.

>>6249431
Buddhabro seemed pretty damn close, he had a lot of experience with the first facet of Rigpa, the mind aspect of Buddha-nature. He also spent years in a legit invite-only meditation retreat, meditated many hours every day, and planned on going back for another extended retreat to try to further his mastery.

Does anyone have a link to the archive of that thread?

>>6249438
care to define it for us?

>>6249539
Kurt Cobain

>>6249523
>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

kek, /lit/ asking the exact same question that the Buddha already answered 2500 years ago

>>6249542
So Nirvana smells like the spirit of teens? Nevermind.

>>6249528
>>The Buddha was a big guy
for you

I have spent my life attempting to create ideal situations for myself to exist within. Though society is influential, I believe it is a manifestation of our own experience of the mind and it’s tendencies. When I am in these times and spaces with an absence of stress I find that I become most melancholy. So the desire for peace is not so much hindered by society, but by myself, mind, physiology, reality, etc.

I can offer no insight into Nirvana. I cannot confirm that it is more than an idea and word. However, my state of being has changed over the years. It has and has not. Like the sea that is violent and tranquil at the same time in different places. I have experienced the weather and changes in the sea. It still gets rough. And it still gets calm. It is both. Become an experienced sailor. Take caution and brave storms. And dissolve in the tranquility of calm seas.

If I could offer you, whose experience of reality is the not unlike my own, one silly piece of advice, it is to practice zazen. If the simplest thing in the world is so difficult and mysterious, than it must be pursued by all means. Find in it all experiences, frustration, anger, sadness, compassion, and the peace you seek. Fare thee well my brothers.

>>6249559
nigga the Buddha could of beat dat ass of yers

>>6249561
>muh zazen

*tips kasa*

>>6249571
Its a takuhatsugasa for your information, and mine is blue.

>>6249150
Detach from society.

Buddhist threads on lit

25% generalizations and memes
25% arguing over semantics
25% shitposting
25% legit discussion

>>6249150
By reading this
http://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra13.html

>>6250147
Into which category does your post fit, anon?

>>6250234

well I would say legit discussion because I was just honestly offering my viewpoint based on the number of buddhist-threads I have visited /lit which is alot because I check every one.

Even though I have studied Buddhism I wasnt much interested in talking about it in this thread because OPs question has already been answered and the rest of the convo is too all over the place or is not really related.

Just offering my viewpoint, i guess because I'm a little disappointed that they are usually full with poor-quality posts.

>>6249150
>desire dank weed
>actually own dank weed
>blaze said dank weed
I'll pass on this Nirvana thing this is way better

>>6249150

Here's a tip for you:

Desire isn't wrong.

Buddhism is shit.

>>6250818
you do an excellent job of believing that, I'm proud of you

>>6249150
What is the attraction behind Nirvana?
If we are free of desire, doesn't that make us a hollow shell?
How can we do good if we don't desire to do so, and the same for any other action?
How do you draw the line between desire and need, and does achieving Nirvana accommodate that there are certain things you need to live or is doing the things you need an extension of your desire to live?

>>6249237
How does that work if the concept of desire seems strictly binary?

>>6249192
>>6249339
One only has to desire lack of desire until one obtains it. Then it's a lack of. Hypocritical means to an end if that's how you wanna look at it, but the end would justify

>>6250818
see
>>6249523

you clearly don't understand buddhism m8

>>6250947
>What is the attraction behind Nirvana?
see
>>6249523

>If we are free of desire, doesn't that make us a hollow shell?

Well the Buddha spent 45 years in Nibbana being a social activist, so I guess it depends on what you mean by "hollow shell".

>How can we do good if we don't desire to do so, and the same for any other action?

Some Buddhists assert a sort of perfected spontaneity, while others point out a clear difference between an experienced sense of longing (which is the desire ended in Nibbana) and a rational detached choice or preference. Also that other uses of the term desire incorporate English baggage/meaning not implied by the native terms.

> Nirvana accommodate that there are certain things you need to live

Yes and it no longer has anything to do with the specific type of desire negated in the Buddhist path.

>>6250147
I mostly agree with this, but I think arguing over semantics crosses over into legit discussion (and sometimes shitposting) since the vast majority of the time people on /lit/ are unfamiliar with how the terms are actually used in Buddhism, and so the difficulty presented when assuming that there is one to one conformity between a common English word and the specific and sometimes technical Buddhist term the English word attempts to represent.

>>6251905

yes that is definitely a major source of confusion in these types of threads

an irritating type of poster I not infrequently see in buddhist threads are people who use the unfamiliarity of most people including their own with buddhist terms to essentially exploit the ambiguity of buddhist terms in order to support their case that buddhism is dumb/illogical/worthless.

They say well buddhism is X so that means Y and then someone who actually has studied it has to take this tiring effort to actually explain the subtleties of it and why what the previous poster said is untrue but people who have a bone to pick just keep at it and it becomes exhausting because they can shitpost way faster and easier then the time it takes to earnestly refute the shitposting by explaining why its wrong

but not all threads are bad, there are definetly some good discussions sometimes

>>6251934
Completely agree.

With all these cuttings of definitions and concepts that my 4chan friends give me can I maybe evolve a postmodern Buddhism from Edward Scissorhands.

I don't want to be stupid, keep calm. I'm not better than it. I only want to alert that our century doesn't give us time to the knowledge from these important concepts. If we put the ones in our heads, then much of what we call civilization loses value. (Money, get away / Get a good job with more pay and you're okay / Money, it's a gas - Pink FLoyd hehehe)

Some of these kinematic concepts help us to create almost the Matrix around us hehehe. And It's dangerous. A false concept can create a deformed world (as did Nazism with many words).

I think that before we learn something like Buddhism, we should think If we want to leave the contradiction of our civilization...
.
.
.
And It will certainly be painful.

Jodorowsky says "you cannot change the world, but you can begin changing it".

It is the same as this:
>>6249523
>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

It doesn't matter what gets you started, sometimes that very first step is pointed in the wrong direction, but it is nevertheless necessary to do take it. Not only that, it is by walking that you can figure out where you want to go, not, as some might think, by standing still until you figure out the right direction.

>>6249150
>implying desire isn't the metaphysical principle of the universe

>>6252588
>Jodorowsky says "you cannot change the world, but you can begin changing it".
i love flower power too

>>6252601
>implying it is

>>6252606
I don't understand this kind of resistance.

the terrifying lows the dizzying highs and the creamy middles.

you're going to let someone take that all away from you? and for what? how bad is suffering really, it is impermanent after all : )

>>6252656
Nice, anon. Now read the fucking thread and go read a book while you're at it.

>>6252656
>2015 +0
>still romanticizing suffering

kek

>>6249158
A skillful desire, one that leads to liberation.

>>6249150

>>6252811
buddhism worked better when most of life was suffering. It will still work for those who are very very emotional, or live in the third world.

it was always a pretty good means to control the poor, a place to send women when they got pregnant, a place to deal with orphans, a place to please princes and patrons. it was a perfect functionary institution, it makes sure people are happy to be poor and accept suffering. THe buddhist welcomes dukkha, they say, look here is suffering, let's let it teach us everything, let's organize out lives around it! And today it even controls limousine liberals.

>>6252838
>worked better when most of life was suffering

It is about removing existential lack, and if you think the first world is somehow dealing with that then you should check the suicide and mental illness rates again.

>and accept suffering
>THe buddhist welcomes dukkha
>let's organize out lives around it

confirmed for not speaking about Buddhism

>>6249150
don't look

the other way, large urban settings, makes perfect monasteries
it is like a vortex, where you can leave society and still function perfectly, with no demands on you or needs, so you can just hover in the middle and focus.

>>6252838
sounds just like catholicism

What's wrong with surrendering to desire OP? It's very pleasurable and fulfilling.

>>6253446
It isn't fulfilling though you sarcastic cunt

>>6253545
Why not?

>>6253599
The pleasures of hedonism are always temporary- that is their nature. And so we see that there is always a time when one is not experiencing them, and in that time one yearns for them, in such a way that places one in a state of misery when they are not present. And nothing that causes misery can truly be said to be pleasurable, can it?

>>6253607
All pleasures are temporary. Git tae fook ya filty wop .

>>6253607
This depends on your attitude towards pleasure. The act of sexual intercourse, for instance is only physically pleasurable in the moment. However, fantasising about sexual intercourse or the anticipation of sexual intercourse in the future can also be very psychologically pleasurable, just as the relaxation of rest between sexual intercourse can be pleasurable.

>>6253607
>>6253612
>>6253618

Buddhism doesn't mind hedonism in some sense, but asserts that there is a greatest possible pleasure and that such a pleasure has no faults and is not temporary. That of the ultimate bliss of nirvana. While other pleasures have faults, which is what it means when it criticizes hedonism (as it isn't responding to "Western philosophy" if you will).

>>6253618
I don't think you really addressed >>6253607, but I am not anon. I think this is getting tangential, the issue is if it is truly satisfying and the only pleasure that is truly satisfying for a variety of reasons is nirvana (such as the fact that it isn't temporary, but lasting).

>>6253634
>the ultimate bliss of nirvana
Much like the ultimate bliss of heaven you can fuck off with it when talking about day to day living. I can promise you ultimate bliss in the afterlife, all you have to do is give me all your money and murder your family, but it's not relevant to a debate.

>>6253607
Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest good, which means it is something which one ought to strive towards. Whether or not pleasure is temporary or difficult to obtain is beside the point. This is like critiquing Buddhism's normative claims concerning liberation from desire because such liberation is difficult to obtain and may be temporary.

>>6253642
>I can promise you ultimate bliss in the afterlife

What? Nirvana is this life, you are confusing nirvana and parinirvana. So you bringing up death or after death is what isn't relevant and if you are going to even participate in the debate, at least know what the terms mean that are being debated.

>>6253634
Aristippus' Positive or Active Hedonism advocates the pursuit of present pleasure at the expense of future pleasures as opposed to forgoing present pleasures for future pleasures. He argued that the future is uncertain as is the future of the individual.One my avoid a present pleasure in order to obtain a future pleasure, but when that future arrives the individual may have changes and may no longer desire this pleasure or certain unexpected circumstances may prevent this pleasure. Therefore the individual has forgone a present pleasure for no hedonistic profit. The philosophy of Buddhism seems to be compatible with this philosophy considering its stance on the self and time as this illusory, temporary entity.

Why avoid present pleasure in an attempt to achieve Nirvana when this attempt may prove unsuccessful. The individual and environment is constantly changing. There is no guarantee the individual will even desire Nirvana once it is obtained. Different things are pleasurable for different people. Pain is undesirable for some but pleasurable for others. Who's to say Nirvana would be desirable for all anyway?

>>6249150
Pleasure cannot exist without pain, just as up connect exist without down and black cannot exist without white. Constant unending bliss is impossible without some form of contrast. Without this contrast the individual would become accustomed and adapted to this unending bliss.

hedonism is the human nature, nobody will never defeat it

>>6249171
^
Although it begs the question, if someone adopts buddhist philosophies into their life when they are already a fully grown adult, isn't it essentially a form of repression rather than neutralisation of desire?

>>6253654
>Why avoid present pleasure in an attempt to achieve Nirvana when this attempt may prove unsuccessful.

Because it isn't sacrificing any present pleasure, the very pursuit of Nirvana is centered around jhana, which is extreme bliss in the present far beyond normal pleasures.

> There is no guarantee the individual will even desire Nirvana once it is obtained.

This doesn't even seem to be a coherent statement to me. There is no desiring Nirvana once it is obtained. Nor is there aversion. You can redefine and re-conceptualize things all you want so they fit into your narrow narrative, but you are then talking about something else entirely, rather than the topic at hand.

>Different things are pleasurable for different people.

This has always seemed like such an inane statement to me in the context of this sort of discussion, bordering on a deepity. There is a margin of a certain type of preference for a certain category of pleasures, but by and large humans are similar enough to render this point moot. Nirvana is by definition existential satisfaction, plenitude, unity, happiness, and total completeness, it is not something that is subject to subjective distinctions or pleasure preferences.

>Pain
Pain persists in nibbana but the associated unpleasantness ceases.

>>6253670
No, because it is a hedonistic embrace of gradually greater and greater pleasures. One isn't repressing, but letting go. One is to generate skillful desire during the path, it is part of Right effort.

Unless you are taking some absurd position that any discipline or work or pursuit of a skill is some form of repression, in which case I find such a position to be meaningless.

>>6253676
>Because it isn't sacrificing any present pleasure, the very pursuit of Nirvana is centered around jhana, which is extreme bliss in the present far beyond normal pleasures.

Don't Buddhists peruse Nirvana through silent meditation when they could be enjoying a delicious meal or have sex with beautiful women?

>There is no desiring Nirvana once it is obtained. Nor is there aversion.

So the individual effectiveness looses as aspect of their humanity and person-hood once Nirvana is obtained?

>Pain persists in nibbana but the associated unpleasantness ceases.

How can pain without the associated unpleasantness be called pain?

>>6253658
I am not convinced that the first set is like the subsequent two. Secondly, nirvana is some sort of metaphenomenal pleasure of an entire different order. It isn't something relative, but something ultimate. So I find the position that its bliss is inherently carved out via its contrast unconvincing.

If we were to accept it however, then the contrast has already occurred and there is no reason to presume that it needs to be persistent. Namely, one has already suffered before, so that is the contrast, and the cessation of suffering, and the persistence of the associated bliss of such, wouldn't be impossible.

>Without this contrast the individual would become accustomed and adapted to this unending bliss.

Since it isn't relational I don't find this convincing as I mentioned, but assuming we accept it as true, then I find it wanting still. First of all, how long exactly until the individual becomes accustomed to it, and why not a bit before and a bit after? If you don't know then why should we take the notion seriously that it will even occur at all, for if you can't pinpoint the mechanism for this, then I don't think you can make principled claims about it.

Furthermore, presuming we only have this life, and there were no prior lives our "mind-stream" experienced, nor any afterlife, then there is no reason to presume that the unpleasantness already experienced prior to nibbana isn't sufficient to sustain the "unending bliss" all our lives.

If we had past lives and persist in some nirvanic afterlife, then doctrine asserts that upon parinibbana one has knowledge of millions and millions of prior lives stretching back infinitely, which would be lives of suffering and that should be sufficient to sustain and unending bliss. If it wasn't then why wouldn't the knowledge of the suffering of other sentient beings.

I have the bliss of not being aloof and as dumb as a dog, but I don't have to be a dog or even be around a dog to have this bliss persist, it acts as a persistent contrast by virtue of my knowledge of it alone. Similarly knowledge of existential lack should be sufficient if a contrast were to be required at all. Which again, I am not convinced of.

>>6253685
>Don't Buddhists peruse Nirvana through silent meditation when they could be enjoying a delicious meal or have sex with beautiful women?


There are three major paths of Buddhism, and only one of them revolves around renunciation, but emphasizes the bliss of renunciation qua the bliss of letting go in jhana as being the superior pleasure over delicious meals or sex.

While another path places sensual pleasure as the highest form (opposed to the form and formless pleasures of jhana), but provides methods that utilize sex and sexual excitation and create extreme sexual pleasure that puts normal sexual pleasure to shame. Utilizing these orgasms and reverse ejaculations that are so extreme that they fill the entire experience and last for much longer than normal sexual pleasure and satisfaction. In fact, they are so extremely pleasurable that the apex of this is called "the total pleasure" and it is so strong that is breaks down constructed perceptions and one experiences some extreme orgasm that puts one in so much rapture that one glimpses Buddhahood.
While the remaining path is even more advanced and involves allowing the spontaneous flow of the mind and behavior to take root and to turn all experiences and situations into extreme bliss, having already experienced buddhamind and thus integrating this with everything, sex and meals included.


>So the individual effectiveness looses as aspect of their humanity and person-hood once Nirvana is obtained?

Detached rational preferences and choices are asserted to remain by some schools of Buddhist thought, while others assert total perfected spontaneity.
Either way, yes if you consider the sort of base, even primal, and course unskilful desires and aversions part of being human or a person. It is an evolution of sorts and I don't view humanity as having as part of their essential nature such things.


>How can pain without the associated unpleasantness be called pain?
Spicy foods are painful but pleasant. BDSM participation entails pain, the sensations are definitely painful, but the reaction to them which occur near-instantaneously, but are indeed subsequent, are pleasant.

Pain can be and is neutral and just informs you of something occurring, such as some limitation of the body, the fact that you ask this question perplexes me, because this seems so obvious to me that one can experience pain without unpleasantness being associated with it. If you train in concentration and mindfulness there is a separation of habituated reactions to pain (initially providing the insight that indeed two distinct processes are going on), the reactions being unpleasant, and instead experiencing the pain nakedly as it is. When you directly and mindfully confront pain, you see it isn't inherently unpleasant and in fact very useful as alerts one to limitations of the body etc. People that the disorder that renders them unable to feel pain very easily damage their bodies.

>>6249175
They dont "want" nirvana. Buddhism is a set of rules that you simply follow. If you follow those rules with a goal in mind, your practice is flawed.

>>6254259

>They dont "want" nirvana. Buddhism is a set of rules that you simply follow. If you follow those rules with a goal in mind, your practice is flawed

I would disagree. One could intellectually or intuitively grasp the idea that becoming a Buddha would be a goal worthy of ones time because of the benefits of no longer experiencing suffering.

This wouldn't itself immediately make a person enlightened although having this be a goal would not itself be an impediment to progress unless the person fixated on it or let their ego get involved while thinking of it.

For example one could wish as a goal to realize and to awaken to the false nature of self, from which point they would attempt to follow the 8-fold path and generally meditating and doing as best they can to follow Buddhas advice on how to act. Just because they are doing so with the intent of awakening to the false nature of the self wouldn't mean that they would be prevented or hampered from doing so.

Find energy in fighting the New World Order

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhAmelfLvzw

>>6254259
>>6254317

see
>>6249523

>>6255544
meme are legun

>>6249158
why do people ask this utterly retarded question thinking it makes them super duper geniuses?

buddhism threads are shit. because ya'll don't know a goddamn thing and are unwilling to actually learn beyond your wikipedia entry level purview of things.

>>6255780
>confirmed for not reading the whole thread
The first portion of the thread was shit, most of us see that. Especially with statements like the one you linked. These things were addressed though, such as here:>>6249523

>>6249297
:)