/lit/ - Literature

Because it's for fucking sissy kids who still think there's a way out of this shit - there's not. Take the black pill like me and read Stirner; take what you want from this fucking shit world.

Pic related: It's me, the face of a fucking ubermech

>>7216409
Why does philosophy persist?

Why does it persist when Jesus of Nazareth discovered a state of salvation available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two millenia ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the Way, the Truth and the Life is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.

I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?

I also wonder if Christianity is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.

>>7216409
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>7216409
It's life-denying and also probably a lie.

Stop reading the scriptures and go watch and read accounts of actual monks online.

People leave the monastery and then they're just people with problems like you or I. All the hype comes from them sitting in a cave and smiling a lot.

Also, Buddhism has the somewhat black mark of being a con to get out of back-breaking farm labor. Would you rather:
>work 12 hours a day doing dangerous shitty work in the fields
OR
>ordain at the monastery, clean up a bit, sit in a hut, pay attention to your breath, and eat some scraps

Nice work if you can get it.

>>7216409
>>7216422
Why does philosophy persist?

Why does it persist when Cthulhu discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two and a half millenia ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the middle way is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.

I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?

I also wonder if Buddhism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.

>>7216429
I'm not saying meditation isn't useful, but "enlightenment" is probably a myth. Tens of thousands of monks strive away at monasteries and, by their own admission, next to none of them become enlightened, even after lifetimes of meditation.

>>7216409
>>7216422
>>7216432

We have a new meme

>>7216432
You didn't even change the other references to Buddhism you lazy memer.

mysticism =/= philosophy

Is this bait?

>>7216446
>lazy memer.

What a pleonasm

>>7216456
Hey, there are some expert memers out there, like the guy who made the original chicken tendies post and Sam Harris.

>>7216422
Says yet another fag who doesn't know shit about Buddhism and decides to imagine "well, that must be same shit as Christianity, amirite?"
Read a book for once, fag -- or don't post on /lit/

>>7216463
This has got to be bait

>>7216409
because people love hedonism
because rationalism is still strong, even though the rationalist are losing it day after day since they are not able to show any substance whatsoever.
because the philosopher is not a sage by definition of the philosopher.
because the contemplative life has been in abeyance in a secular society since the liberals.


>>7216433
so you are saying that monks are not buddhas and you judge buddhism through people who are not buddhist ?

Do you judge christianity through what some bourgeois in an orgy tells you about Jesus ?

>>7216432
>cthulhu

Fuck off back to reddit

>>7216450
Read Plato nigger

>>7216429
Epic bro, you've cracked the case.

>>7216438

>>7216409

because for the most of western philosophy the main figures of the movement were not even aware of Buddhism or only vaguely aware, and so when there is this huge history of philosophy people are not going to just abandon it all just because translated Buddhist texts are now available.

Also many of the main tenets of Buddhism are antithetical to western consumer culture and the only people that get into it tend be the ones curious enough to read about it in-depth which is not most people. The average sports-watching and video-game playing dude thinks of Buddhism as the funny-looking fat guy in Chinese restaurants that has something to do with feeling good.

Schopenhauer was of the opinion that Buddhism was pretty correct and that it aligned with most of his opinons on things btw.

Cause we're hard-wired to have egos and want things on a biological level. Society is pretty much defined by people motivated by their desires and thus does nothing to help people circumvent their natural impulses and chill the fuck out, so that each individual human effectively starts from scratch in learning to cope with shit.

Also cause most people aren't willing to abandon perceived sources of please to reach a state without sufferring.

>>7216433

Actually its not unheard of for actual monks in modern times to reach the stage of arahant, its just that them informing the newspapers or the internet about it would be the complete opposite of what an actual arahant would do so people usually dont hear about it if they don't live near a monastery/retreat.

>>7216409

>Buddhist shit
>in my lit


Dude, go smoke some dank stuff and shut the fuck up.

>>7216409
Get out of here, you nihilist

>>7216561

>When it comes to Nietzsche's criticisms of Buddhism, such an investigation uncovers what seems to be a misunderstanding of the real meaning of Buddhist doctrine.

http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm

>>7216557
lol ok chief

>>7216569

From what you call an article :

>So both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer greatly >misunderstood Buddhism,by interpreting >Nirvana as non-existence. The Buddhist >response to them both would be that they >failed to understand the system fully because >they failed to adopt Buddhist practices aimed >at enlightenment - at which point they would >have developed the capacity to conceive of >Nirvana.

Basically he's saying that you can't understand Buddhism if you aren't a Buddhist.
According to Popper, it's a shit argument

>>7216585

you just skipped to the very last part of it without reading the part that explains where he misunderstood it

>By interpreting the Buddhist conception of inaction as a cessation of all action, Nietzsche presented Buddhism as an escapist, and 'weary'ideology. Rightly understood, however, the Buddhist ideal of kamma-niradha actually comes closer to Nietzsche's ideal - being, in his own words, action that is 'beyond good and evil', or outside the moral categories of a dogma.

>>7216520
Metaphysics and a search for Virtue =/= mysticism

>>7216601
umm....

"the self-deceit of moral concepts
already behind it — it stands, expressed in my language, beyond good
and evil. "

>>7216601
>Rightly understood, however, the Buddhist ideal of kamma-niradha actually comes closer to Nietzsche's ideal - being, in his own words, action that is 'beyond good and evil', or outside the moral categories of a dogma.

Well, if you analyse this phrase, you'll see that all the content stems from "rightly understood": the author doesn't say what this understanding might be.

Also, THIS:
>By interpreting the Buddhist conception of inaction as a cessation of all action,

Come on, it's called "inaction"

>>7216621

Nietzsche praises Buddhism in some of his works and also criticizes Buddhism in some of his works including in "The Anti-Christ" but many academics have agreed that his criticism of Buddhism in rooted in a misunderstanding of it likely in part to him being exposed to it through Shopenhauer's biased understanding of it. Nietzsche in "The Anti-Christ" refers to Buddhism as a sort of a way to avoid pain and suffering where the correct way to understand it would be more like the cessation of suffering is just a side-effect of becoming enlightened and understanding the transient and illusionary nature of all transient phenomena.

>>7216627

from the link:

Kamma-niradha is the Sanskrit word for 'cessation of action'. This state is achieved through adherence to the eight-fold path, which guides the Buddhist into kusula, or 'skillful action'. Therefore, it is not simply ceasing to perform actions that the Buddhist believes will eventually lead one to his or her goal. Rather, the type of actions that are performed is the deciding factor. Likewise, it is wrong to conclude that just because one has attained Nirvana that one ceases to act. Such a conclusion implies a misconceived interpretation of kamma-niradha, as it is understood in Buddhism. This is the misconception Nietzsche seems to have made in characterising Buddhism as being centered on the guideline not to act. That such an interpretation is indeed misconceived is apparent when we consider the life and words of the Buddha. After attaining enlightenment and Nirvana, he continued to lead an active life for the next forty-five years. Again, it is the nature of the action that differentiates the enlightened, described in the following passage from the Vinayapatika:

'I, monks, am freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. And you, monks, are freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. Go, monks, and wander for the blessing of the manyfolk, for the happiness of the manyfolk out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the blessing, the happiness of devas and men. Let not two (of you) go by one (way). Monks, teach the Dhamma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, and lovely at the end.'
As this passage illustrates, there are certain kinds of actions that are enjoined on the enlightened. However, it is inaccurate to use the word 'enjoined'in this context because the skillful actions are naturally done by the enlightened Buddhist, and are no longer performed as if they are obligations in a code of behavior. Following the Buddhist 'code', the eightfold path, is merely a means to the end of making it obsolete upon enlightenment. This is because of the way 'skillful action'is defined in Buddhism. The action that ceases is not activity in general, but only the unskillful actions that originate in spiritual ignorance. An action originates in spiritual ignorance when it is affected by one of three biases. These biases are sense desire, desire for some future form of existence, and spiritual ignorance. Buddhism further classifies actions into three categories. Wrong actions run counter to the goal of enlightenment and are driven by one or more of the biases. Of right actions there are those that tend toward enlightenment but are still driven by one the biases and those that are completely free of the biases and based on the correct understanding of the enlightened agent.

>>7216642
It's more clear .
Thank you

>>7216650

no problem homie

OP here.

I'm surprised by all the wild unfounded prejudice in this thread. I might guess a few of you are clutching onto big-manly-man philosophies as a response to the mass cuck hysteria but there's no ruling out good old western xenophobia.

It's easy to get entrenched in the spiritual terminology but in it's purest essence Buddhism is a system of thought (not a religion) and it's entirely secular. Comparing it to Christianity is ridiculous. It isn't a storied mythology, it assumes your current life is the one that matters, and it entrusts your salvation to you alone.

The idea that it's a cop out from real life is even more ridiculous because the point of Buddhism is to engage with and understand the the world to the fullest possible degree. That's what nirvana is. How much of /lit/ is engaging in back breaking labour 12 hours a day? Our society is hardly one of effort and work: we go to low intensity jobs and pick up our meals from a shelf in a store where it's conveniently placed for us. We exercise at our leisure and socialise with who we like. It has never in history been easier to fully explore your conscious mind than in the present day West. The thing that stops us is this anxiety and paranoia we all have lurking in the back of mind. We're afraid to be "wasting" our time.

Anyone who thinks they care should listen to this and anything else you can find by him, he puts Buddhist ideas into excellent historical and scientific context http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jX8PqznN0ao

>>7216609
lmao actually that's exactly what real mysticism is

>>7216974
>It's easy to get entrenched in the spiritual terminology but in it's purest essence Buddhism is a system of thought (not a religion) and it's entirely secular.
No. There is zero sense or utility in caring about Buddhism if you don't believe in reincarnation and souls. Buddhism is nothing but a manual for committing suicide for those that believe in the immortality of the soul.

>>7216974

Disregard OP, he says cuck and expects to be taken seriously.

>>7216994
Some mystics do believe in a literal soul but any secular buddhist would stress recognising the oneness of everything yoy consider your "self" and the rest of the universe. You aren't an entity independent of the outside world, you very much are the outside world. That's where the supposed "immortality" comes from.

>a manual for committing suicide
>immortality of the soul

Buddhists don't do/believe what you think they do. This sounds more applicable to an Abrahamic religion.

>>7217017
Found the cuck

>>7216994
>There is zero sense or utility in caring about Buddhism if you don't believe in reincarnation and souls

That is a silly thing to post, even if you don't believe in rebirth Buddhism still offers a huge wealth of knowledge and advice on stuff like controlling emotions, increasing mindfulness, lessening stress and cultivating happines, etc.

>>7216974

>buddhism
>secular


toppest kek
Go tell all the buddhists in asia that their worshipping, their rituals and so on is "secular".

>>7217134

I'm not that poster but in many ways Buddhism is secular and the stuff it teaches about the mind and emotions and ways to eliminate suffering can be secular. The example you cited is the very most religious example of Buddhism. The rise in popularity of "mindfulness" seminars and retreats in the western world is almost exclusively due to Buddhism, they tend to teach basic principles of the Buddhist attitude to mind but in a secular way and without calling it Buddhist.

>>7217134
Worship of Buddha =/= Buddhism. Not really sure what you're trying to prove apart from your own ignorance

>>7216983
mysticism
ˈmJstJsiz(ə)
noun
1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
"St Theresa's writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism"
2.
vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult.
"there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the show's title"

>>7216549
>most people aren't willing to abandon perceived sources of please to reach a state without sufferring.

why would they gamble on buddhism when they already have something that brings them pleasure/happiness?

take your life-denying drivel elsewhere, dothead

>>7217167

Not him but if Buddhism dosn't work for them they can always go back to the same old same old. The reason many people stick with Buddhism though is that it can bring about a sublime joy that seems better then indulging in regular pleasure. Being free from all attachments is like a state of constant and subtle bliss.

>>7217181

despite being depicted in some Buddhist art the Bindi is mostly worn by Hindus

>>7217181

Saying Buddhist is "life-denying" is a complete misunderstanding of it, its been debunked and explained as false so many times already that repeating it is on par with saying western philosophy is useless because its the study of "dead white people".

>>7217220

*Buddhism

>>7217163
So you think Plato's concept of virtue is divorced from the Good/God/Absolute? Do you clowns even know what planet you're on?

Buddhism is pretentious because it assumes that human thinking can lead to realization.

>2015
>believing that practicing rituals will make you happier
Happiness is innate, you're either born happy or you're not, there's no choice in the matter

>>7217252
>Buddhism
>thinking leads to enlightenment

lmao you're ignorant as absolute fuck

>>7217252
I'm curious.

Have you ever seriously tried meditation?

>>7217297
Let me rephrase, Buddhism assumes human action or inaction can lead to realization or understanding about the world around us, and is therefore pretentious.

>>7217300
Provide an example, I've heard too many conflicting ideas about what meditation is

>>7217301
As opposed to science? Any other religion? Or literally any set of principles and methods designed to achieve a certain outcome?

>>7217313
Yeah, they're all pretentious, what do you want me to say?

>>7217276

Are you attempting to imply that practicing the tenets of Buddhism or following the 8-fold path is some sort of meaningless religious ritual?

Because if so you are mistaken. Following the 8-fold path is more a method of conscious regulation of thinking and behavior, and many people find that it does lead them to happiness. Also its incorrect to say happiness is determined at birth, there is a lot of choice in it. People can choose to engage in activities which they find joyful, which would lead to happiness, or they can engage in unpleasant activities which would lead away from happiness. Likewise people can choose to be unhappy at external events they are affected by or they can choose to not let it affect their happiness.

>>7217323
>Because if so you are mistaken. Following the 8-fold path is more a method of conscious regulation of thinking and behavior
How is that not a ritual?

>>7217276
Did he just say....born....happy?

>>7217330

>ritual - noun - a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order

Following the eightfold path is not a ritual because it is not some special thing you do at a certain time or for a certain reason. Instead it is a set of principles that you live in accordance with at all times. That does not meet the definition of the word anymore then following the first commandant of not killing people means you are practicing rituals all the time.

>>7217317
>nothing means anything, all action is futile because we cannot know the world

ok thanks for contributing absolutely nothing bro

>>7217330
lol i think you might be retarded kek

>>7216585
And? Popper was a retard. His opinions aren't wrong because he's a retard, he's a retard because of his wrong opinions.

>>7217323
It's a fucking set of rituals, get over it

>>7217236
goodness is not a deity.

>>7217389
We treat it as one though

>>7217386
see
>>7217347

>>7217389
it's synonymous with the Absolute

>>7217386
ok friendo

>>7217347
>not a special thing you do
You change the way you think, thinking is an action
>at a certain time
All of the time you're awake
>for a certain reason
8 Fold path is specifically advertised as a way to enlightenment

>>7217416
your definition of ritual is so loose you've argued yourself into a corner. stop

>>7217425
please tell me how thinking isn't an action

>>7216432
Iä! Iä!

>>7217428
being mindful of your thoughts and emotions isn't a "ritual" you absolute fucking mong

>>7217489
but it can be ritualized and is in the form of meditation

>>7217497

Just because it can be ritualized does not mean that the 8-fold path is by default a ritual, an incorrect assertion which was your original argument.

>>7217497
>>7217386
>>7217330
Rituals are symbolic. They point to something else and therefore have a meaning.

Meditation is the practice of letting your mind think of nothing. It is a purpose, it has no "meaning" other than itself.

>>7217670
except it isn't "letting". the mind has to be trained, forced, to think of nothing. you don't understand meaning or purpose or rituals.

>>7216974
>I'm surprised by all the wild unfounded prejudice in this thread.

You must be new here.

>>7217679
You don't understand meditation. It isn't training, it's therapy

>>7216416
careful with that edge bruh. might hurt yourself.

>>7216429
BUDDHISM IS NOT LIFE DENYING OR NIHILISTIC, UNLESS BY "LIFE" IS IMPLIED AN AESTHETIC PREDILECTION TOWARDS THE EMBRACING OF THE ABSURD - TO LIVE, TO LOVE, TO HATE, TO CRY, TO FUCK, TO STRIVE, TO DIE. IT IS THE INEFFABILITY OF THE EXISTENTIAL TRUTH WHICH FORCES THE MASTERS TO USE THE LANGUAGE OF NEGATION WHICH THE IGNORANT TAKE FOR NIHILISM; BUT FOR ALL THAT IS DENIED AND ALL THAT IS DECLARED EMPTY, THERE REMAINS THE POSITIVE, UNWAVERING AFFIRMATION OF BEING. TO SPEAK OF- OR STRIVE AFTER - ENLIGHTENMENT AS IF IT WERE SOMETHING TO BE ATTAINED IS DUALISM AND ANTITHETICAL TO THE WAY.

Wowie. The degenerates of /lit/ are shining through today. Why come here if you haven't actually read anything?

>>7217837

Are you just using "degenerate" as a catch-all term for people who do things or say things you disagree with? Because posting your opinions about something you have not read much about is certainly a little foolish but its hardly degenerate in the classic sense of the word.

>>7217865
I'm applying to people who have very strong opinions on something they are knowingly uninformed on. And i use that word because blindly and viciously attacking something is the act of a degenerate.

>>7217784
yo p much this tbh fam

>realize i am the universe experiencing itself simultaneously through all beings
>realize the foundation of existence is void
>realize life is for fun
>attain a state of carefree happiness, love, compassion, kindness, and bliss
>tfw every day is a blessing and it is a joy to simply be
>tfw plebs will never feel this

>>7218091

Hey man whatever floats your boat

>>7216409
>Ie not being a selfish ass.

Seeking enlightenment is the most selfish thing a person can do.

>Why does it persist when the Buddha Guatama discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two and a half millenia ago. I

The fact that so few people have attained buddhahood ie less than 50 shows just how dodgy the teachings are

>>7218091
>tfw ignorant of the unimaginable suffering of the world

Buddhism is just another pussyshit ideology that doesn't dare use its metaphysical model to make claims about the capabilities of the mind.

>>7217167
Hedonistic dopamine fixes are suffering

>christians tell me both me and the buddhas are burning in hell
>mfw they don't understand that it's merely a problem of perspective and that god is the one who is burning in 'hell' and that we are trying to bring him to enlightenment
Even god is trapped by suffering, it is our duty, as followers of the great vehicle to free him.

>>7218509

you obviously dont know what your talking about

>>7218846
Does buddhism offer an explanation for the experience of the agent, which is the single abnormality of the human psyche? An explanation for why humans do not experience just things, but in some cases also the "becoming" of things?

>>7216409
Why does philosophy persist?

Why does it persist when the Apostle of Allah was given a Message available to all people and jinn - and handed it down without corruption - more than fourteen hundred years ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the straight path is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.

I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?

I also wonder if Islam is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.

>>7216409

>why does philosophy persist

So they can lead us to a time of ignorance when mankind has forgotten the Buddha. Then, a Bodhisattva will appear and rekindle the flame. The teachings of Buddhism are indeed timeless. No matter the celestial sphere, dimension, or time, the teachings of the Buddha can come to be known.

Attaining enlightenment is not something that people should or need to do. Rather it is something that they will do. All beings have a chance at enlightenment. In an infinite universe there are infinite chances.

Chant "Amituofo" thrice, and know that there are no concepts, no selfhoods, no other, and no such thing as time. Chant "Amituofo" as if tuning your brain like an instrument. That is the first step.

>>7216409

Not everyone wants to give up discursive knowledge for mystical experience.

I don't do philosophy as some huge existential to make my life "better". I do it because it is fun.

>>7217252
And with your human thinking you came to this realization correct?

Why does philosophy persist?

Why does it persist when the Karl Marx discovered a scientific understanding of capital and a method available to the proletariat- and made it clear how to attain it - more than one-hundred and fifty years ago? I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems that dialectical materialism is the only philosophy that isn't needlessly ideological or founded around some form of bourgeois individualism.

I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?

I also wonder if Marxism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie fetishising the present state of things rather than treating them as historically contingent developments.

>>7219271
We're still waiting for that revolution.

>>7217784
That's a ruse. Like all religions, it uses weaselspeak. Buddhism's "love" for reality is actually hatred. Same with God's "love" for humanity. If it were actual love, it wouldn't need to be explained or justified.

>>7219301
there is equanimity, since there is no no need to love the reality.

there is no love, except with the hippies and the occidental buddhist and the little smart-asses who think that they understands buddhism through books

>>7219319
One of the core parts of Buddhism is 'loving friendliness' you dip

>>7217134
the buddhismS are religions to the laymen, and probably to some bikkhus, or rather a philosophy to what they call aryans.


the dharma is not a religion nor a philosophy to anybody

>>7216409
It isn't available to all people. It's entirely dependent upon the karma of your past lives, and it may take hundreds of thousands of lives to reach what Buddha reached. Hence it is an untenable philosophy at best.

>>7216432
Ai ai cthulhu gnatm at met. Mao ei tel di.

Where there was light there is dark

>>7216637
>Nietzsche in "The Anti-Christ" refers to Buddhism as a sort of a way to avoid pain and suffering where the correct way to understand it would be more like the cessation of suffering is just a side-effect of becoming enlightened and understanding the transient and illusionary nature of all transient phenomena.
well you have indeed two roads to the dharma
-the intellectual path which is the phenomenology
-the hedonists who understands that hedonism fails sooner or later

most people being hedonist, they become interested via this path and do not expected that the dharma is indeed a phenomenology which has a side product of going out of dukkha

>>7219353
Hedonism only falls because of the way our brains work, not because of some fundamental reality.

Biotechnology offers a better path to Nirvana than the eightfold path.

>>7216422
That 'salvation' comes at a cost no one should be asked to pay.

>>7216585
But that is basically true though.

Entire Buddhist narrative depends on realization experience. You don't have to be a buddhist, but you definitely need to have that realization, either through reading or meditation or learning from people. Its an experience based religion/philosophy that greatly depends on a person's mind clicking to certain axioms that Buddhists sets out.

What does it take for somebody to come up with the idea of meditation for themselves? Meaning, no exposure to it in anyway beforehand.

>>7219394
It takes genius. Which is why Gautama Buddha was a genius.

>>7219485
Buddha didn't invent meditation. Infact he learned it from old sramana masters before him. Meditation has a very long history that might even predate Buddha by more than 2000 years before.

But I'd certainly classify Buddha as one of the ancient genius for coming up with such a system like Buddhism. Even though he might not have invented all of it, he certainly did come up with a system that is coherent enough for many people.

Philosophy isn't a selfhelp guide how to stop caring about things, that's the most pleb opinion you can possibly have

philosophy today shares the goal of the sciences

>>7219387
Damn anon that's a good point. That post kind of helped me realize how some Catholic, Mormon, and Irreligious friends of mine get along and share similar moralities.

t. Buddhist

>>7219503
My mistake then, thanks for the correction. The idea if meditation is still an incredibly impressive one.

>>7216585
>According to Popper, it's a shit argument
a rationalist hates any practise and is stuck with ''arguments'' as if the imagination is connected to the other senses...


all that a rationalist can do, like pooper, is spouting some statement that he consider as an counter-argument to
some other statements, from somebody else, that he does not like.

>the rationalism is a nihilism

>>7219369
>Hedonism only falls because of the way our brains work, not because of some fundamental reality.
yes, hedonism does not fail because we need to work to acquire means to get pleasure and cry when we do not get the expected pleasure.

>>7217297
Take your pop-zen nonsense elsewhere. Not in a single place in the discourses will you find support for the claim that bodhi comes about through anything but studied reflection. There is arguably a single example in the Bahiya Sutta, which is part of the late and spurious Udana.

>>7218963
If philosophy is "fun," then you are doing it wrong.

>>7219301
"NO"

>>7218963
>>7219609
In fact, if you look at MN 2, the Sabbāsava sutta, you will find evidence that enlightenment cannot be reached without discursive reflection. The relevant passage is long, so I will paraphrase. In an exhaustive list of the āsavas, first the Buddha gives the taints which are to be abandoned by seeing. He says an untaught person attends to things that are unfit and does not give attention to those things that are fit. He gives examples of questions unfit for attention: whether you existed in the past or will in the future, whether you exist at all. These lead, the Buddha says, to wrong views about the existence of the āman. "This is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views the ordinary person is not freed from birth, aging, and despair..."
The things fit for attention, on the other hand, are those which lead to the abandonment of taints. "He attends wisely: this is dukkha... this is the origin of dukkha... this is the cessation of dukkha... this is the path leading to the cessation of dukkha."

meditation->contemplation+meditation-> last contemplation of the path-> last meditation of the path (to acknowledge what happens in the last contemplation)


16) Knowledge of review - paccavekkhana-nana

What happened? Has he fallen asleep? No, because of the suddenness and clarity of the beginning and end of the experience of unconsciousness, and because there has been absolutely no physical movement. What the meditator has experienced is the total cessation of the mind-body process. He did not "know" this while it was happening., because there was no sense of a mind to know it. All he "knows" about the experience is his reflection on what has just happened. This reflection is the final nana, the knowledge of review (paccavekkhana-nana).

>>7217149

Yes, enlightened westerner who learned of buddhism on the internet, please inform those peasants that practice a religion the same way it has been practiced for centuries that they're doing it wrong.

>>7218862

I'm not sure, its entirely possible that it does but at the same time Buddha made it very clear that his teachings was only meant to be about certain things and wasn't made to explain everything, and in fact he would rebuke people who would come at ask why Buddhism doesn't explain metaphysical things like why the universe exists or when life in the universe started etc.

As for the the experience of the agent, I'm not 100% sure what you mean but in case you didn't know in Buddhism there is no self or soul. As one Buddhist monk phrased it "There is no thinker behind the thought, remove the thought and there is nothing there".

>>7219736

Nowhere in that post did I claim anyone was doing anything wrong, all I did was point out that the various teachings of Buddhism related to mindfulness can be used and taught in a secular manner.

bum[

Hello friends

>>7216409
Buddhism is great if you experience life as inherently problematic, as an illness. If you are weak and weary.

People who embrace life as it is don't need such elaborate therapy.

>>7220709
>>
>People who embrace life as it
hopefully, this is the explicit goal of buddhism. all is well.

>>7220709
For some, self-delusion is not possible

>>7220723
Yes, but people who already do so to reasonable degree don't really seem to need Buddhism. Buddhism seems more of a correctional therapy to people who excessively suffer from existence.

>>7220752
I don't see how one value judgement is more delusional than the other. 'Life is fun' is no more delusional than 'life is suffering'.

Is there a term for an idea that by nature can't be disproved? For example, solipsism.

>>7220775
You should learn about buddhism before discussing it. This goes for the rest of the thread as well. It amazes me that /lit/ can have such a pleb-tier understanding of Buddhism while they have such a good understanding of Western literature. All of you are attacking a straw man you've named "Buddhism."

>>7220793
Literally nothing can be disproven

>>7220797
How are the judgements and ethical prescriptions any less delusional than any others?

>>7216409


Why does philosophy persist?

Why does it persist when Hitler discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than a century ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems Nacional Socialism is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of kikes.

I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?

I also wonder if Nazism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a kike ass, oy vey

>>7220804
I'm asking that question under the general philosophy that things such as infinite regress are ignored on the basis of their lack of effect on reality.

>>7220793
Unfalsifiable.

>>7220819
>needlessly destructive

So its ok to be destructive, just as long as its towards jews and people who agree with jews?

>>7220829
Thanks anon.

>>7220836

yes, it's necessary to reach enlightenment to destroy them

>>7220797

Agreed, sometimes there is good discussion in Buddhism threads or people familiar with it debate whether they disagree with some aspects of it but it seems like 90% of the time the whole thread is just filled with people saying "Buddhism is stupid because its X" and other people correcting them and then as soon as they realize they are wrong another ignorant anon comes in and says "Buddhism is a death cult, Buddhism is nihilistic" and its just an endless cycle, the ride never ends.

>>7220805

not the poster that you responded to but in what I'm assuming is your previous post you attempted to simply Buddhism as "life is suffering" what is an incorrect simplification. I'm not that much of an expert myself but the truth about Buddhism is that it just realizes suffering exists in life. Alot of it has to do with misunderstanding of the word "dukkha" which many people wrongly assume means "suffering" while it actually encompasses more then that.

From wikipedia because I'm lazy:
Dukkha can mean

1.The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
2.The anxiety or stress of trying to hold on to things that are constantly changing.
3.A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.

Instead of teaching "existence is suffering" Buddhism recognizes both that suffering exists and that everything including pleasure and good-health is transient and not permanent, it is inevitable that people at some point will experience suffering as they get sick and/or die. The experience of losing a source of pleasure or disconnecting from something that gives you happiness is itself an unpleasant situation. Buddhism recognizes that due to the transient nature of all things there is an inherent unsatisfactoriness. I would say this is not that delusional as it is something most people can agree upon even if they don't believe in Buddhism.

>>7219288
>American education

>>7219271
This one is actually right though.

>>7219609
Which is founded on an awareness of what is wholesome and unwholesome. You do not achieve enlightenment by thinking. Reflection is a far cry from intellectualization. While an understanding and contemplation of these concepts is paramount, the final leap into Samadhi can only be made by a mind that neither thinks nor not-thinks.

Stop trying to turn everything into a logic chopping game.

>>7216409
>is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.

Western philosophy isn't about these things. It's about what's true and what's morally right to do. Western philosophy isn't a failed form of Buddhism. It's something different.

>>7221005

I agree, OP's post was badly phrased.

Man it's so fucking easy

There are things under your control

There are things that will fail or become good that are outside of your control

You need to be couragerous with the things of destiny, and to be cautious with things that are under your control. This will release all the fucking anxiety that you have about tfwnogf or tfwnojob or tfwnofuture

You prepare the boat for the sea, but if there comes a hurricane and it blows up all your shit, then at least drown with a smug shit-eating-grin face. Some boats are made to sink in the sea but you can at least be calm that you know about this.

For the same reason religion persists. Outdated beliefs take a long time to go away. Art was deprecated by religion, which was deprecated by philosophy, which was deprecated by science.

>>7221047
>buckling down and learning how your mind operates to reduce the influence of negative thoughts and emotions in your life
>outdated belief

buddhism threads bring out the most ignorant fedoras on /lit/

Why does philosophy persist?

Why does it persist when the George Gurdjieff discovered a path to unlocking the full potential of humankind - and made it clear how to attain it - more than a hundred years ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems The Fourth Way is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.

I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?

I also wonder if The Work is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.

>>7221065
>learning how your mind operates

Right, it doesn't do this at all.

Religion at best is a very handy tool of evolutionary psychology. It's basically right for the wrong reasons. At worst it can and does completely destabilize society, as you can see today in the Middle East and Africa

>>7221078
Dude you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Lol you're embarrassing yourself, get outta here with your stock fedora responses lmao

>>7221065

Its funny isn't it. With Christianity threads you have a few militant atheists but for the most part people don't really mind Christ-posting unless it turns into spamming or its obnoxious.

With Buddhism threads however for some reason there are hordes of ass-pained people that flock to it to criticize their own faulty understanding of it. Christians, people virulently opposed to anything related to religion, people who can't be bothered to read anything not from the West, and just plain ignorant people. It really gets under peoples skin, I've been in Buddhism threads before that reach 200+ replies and sometimes its the same butt-hurt anon from the beginning of the thread who keeps criticizing it but just ignores it every time their criticisms are pointed out as misguided.

>>7221078

>equating Buddhist teachings about the mind/emotions with religious and sectarian violence between the 3 Abraham religions.

Confirmed for not knowing much about Buddhism

>>7221115
*Abrahamic

>>7221115
buddhism is fucking awful

>>7221115
Buddhists didn't know what neurons were until science discovered them. Explain how Buddhism isn't just mental masturbation

>>7221126
>he thinks not knowing about neurons prevents you from making positive psychological changes in your life

Ah ahhah ahahahahahahababab

>>7221135
Well it certainly didn't help you make the right life choices if you're pursuing this pointless mental wankery instead of science

>>7220666

Sing to me about spooks you lovable rogue.

>tfw in a few years all this religious mumbo jumbo will be dismissed by eliminative materialism forever

>>7221135
Furthermore, how can you teach us anything meaningful about the "mind" if you don't even know what a neuron is?

This is why no one takes religion seriously.

>>7216519

>cthulhu
>reddit

Yeah, wow, okay, everything is Reddit now. Suck me faggot.

>implying suffering isn't fucking awesome

>>7221143
Not him, but zany Lovecraftianism is extremely reddit, even when a whole lot of other things are not.

>>7221078
>as you can see today in the Middle East and Africa
Daily reminder that the Middle East and Africa were the hotbeds for secular, materialist-minded, internationalist yet localized movements, and Euro-American power assassinated most of the people involved in these developments, isolated those they couldn't assassinate forcing many of them to take authoritarian nationalist paths, installed reactionary puppet-regimes to kill off the local resistances, and aided uneducated peasantry in weapons and reactionary propaganda in fighting their "enemies" (including those puppet-regimes later down the road).

>>7221137
Lmao when scientism goes too far

>>7221150
>[something] is extremely reddit

And how is this established again? What is and what isn't 'reddit'? What does this even mean in non-autist?

>>7221137
Lol you know the big fad in psychology is buddhist mindfulness right? And that CBT's principles are directly derived from stoic teachings (the founder said as much, it isn't that they're just similar)?

>>7221161
Tweeny lovecraft shit is the quintessence of reddit, sorry you had to find out this way

F'lgahn taft haghn xDd

Buddhism in the west is a mem religion, tbh. It's purpose in western culture is not to actually help anyone but to awe them -- there was DEEP wisdom discovered long ago in a far eastern country. Ignore that they didn't really know jack shit about the universe back then: it is old and esoteric and not-of-this-culture, and that's what makes it important.

Look at them in this thread. They're not arguing or debating but instead crowing about their special knowledge. 'I understand Buddhism and you don't'. There's no attempt to inform because that would defeat the point of their existence -- to hold some form of authority over knowledge in a world too complex for them to be able to properly grasp at it any more.

They're the religious equivalent of hipsters, and I wish they'd all just suffer themselves into an early grave rather than making the rest of us suffer with them.

>>7221078

You are so stupid that I sincerely hope you die. I don't even know how I ended up on this thread of all places, but you are making a fool of yourself and you need to fucking stop. You talk about Buddhism when you don't even seem to grasp the basics; are you just trolling or are you that full of yourself that you can't read a fucking book before you start talking on random topics?

Saying meditation and deep thinking is just religious doctrine is as fucking stupid as saying that being positive or embracing some sort of ethical code is bad because it happens to be preached by major religions as well - when the majority of these have scientific backing (at least if your aim is to achieve the same thing as most other people).

>>7221137

Because science didn't start with conceptualization before the empirical method, right? I guess the Pre-Socratics are also just mental wankers to you as well, along with everyone else that attempted to theorize the natural world and the workings of the mind before "science" was invented.

What pains me most is that piece of shit niggers like you are so stupid, so backwards, so fucked in the head, that you don't get how much of a sheep you are - you are literally blind to the fact that if you were living in Greece 2500 years ago, you'd probably be the one throwing rocks at philosophers because of how silly they are, because everything you needed to know about the world was already established by Homer and Hesiod. People like you are literally cancer, and I'm not tipping my fedora when I say that. In every fucking age there's faggots like you that hang on to whatever is popular at the time, thinking it's infallible, naming everyone else idiots, while failing to realize that you're generally being as closed-minded as the generation that came before you - except, you know, you're one step ahead, and you're too dumb to look back, so that never occurs to you.

This is exactly what Nietzsche (*tips fedora* I guess) was talking about when he said that people never EVER think that their age is anything but the best.

>>7221171

That's not what I asked, you dumb faggot. I asked you how you established whether something is 'reddit' and what the hell that even means.

There are people here who don't have assburgers, you know

>>7221179
>You are so stupid that I sincerely hope you die.

You sound very at peace with yourself

>>7221166
Psychology is barely a science and borders on the psuedoscientific. Also, that's a fad by your own admission.

>>7221195
So if i have a mental problem, i should go to a neuroscientist cause psychology is pseudoscience and systems like buddhism are too mired in religious symbolism right? Fucking clown

>>7221179
It doesn't matter how it started. It superseded philosophy as a way of understanding reality ages ago.

You sound angry btw. This buddhism nonsense clearly doesn't work if this is how you respond to criticism. You would be better off reading deepak chopra if spiritual woo is what interests you

>>7221177

Are you so stupid that you don't understand how self-explanatory your own words are?

Yes, Buddhism, Hinduism, most of them are definitely hipster religions in the West (insofar as anyone actually practices them as religions), but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who have actually spent a lot of time learning about them from the sources rather than say, fucking Reddit.

And also,
>I understand Buddhism and you don't

Is a totally valid thing to say, because the whole image of Buddhism is fucked in the Western perception. Just look at how many people think there's never any violence in Buddhism, or extremism, or how Buddhism advises self-defeatism, or how karma is about doing good and getting good to come back to you. All misinterpretations, yet they'll probably live on for a long time (I mean people still do movies where vikings are using wooden clubs and horned helmets).

Anyway, the point isn't that it's about special knowledge, or anything SOOO BEEEYOOND science and the Western tradition that people can't come to the same ideas via another route - but simply that Buddhism IS misunderstood by most, and the 16 yo fedora tippers on /lit/ who think Buddhism is all about going away in the woods and giving up on life are incredibly annoying in general, and if you think that's not the case it's only because they're not fucking around with a topic you happen to know a lot about. I've fucking beat nerds up for getting shit wrong regarding TES lore, so you best bet when some kid tells me he knows everything about Buddhism because he's watched an Alan Watts video on YT and he disagrees with it, I catch fire immediately.

>>7221209
You should see a psychiatrist or a good psychologist. I suppose you think you should talk to a buddhist hipster in some ridiculous monk outfit

>>7221190
He is. Just not as peace with that anon.

>>7221179
Fuckin rekt. I cant believe this scientism shit itt, its cringey as fuck. 'you cant train your mind to do anything if you haven't studied neurobiology!!'

Retards

>>7221190
>>7221212

Maybe because I'm NOT A BUDDHIST you RETARDED pieces of DOG SHIT.

Not every person who disagrees with you necessarily holds views you fucking hate.

And no, it's nothing to do with spiritual woo, or anything like that - I simply dislike things being written off by people who clearly do not understand them well enough to do so. I'm not a Buddhist, but I can also say I know enough about Buddhism to say that I genuinely disagree with it, as opposed to "lel le ancient philosophy xd le science /r/atheism guis!!!."

But again, like I said, not everything in religions is spiritual mumbo jumbo; if you don't think there's any practical advice in the Bible, then you probably haven't read it or just take for granted already believing everything it advises (and I do mean the 1% that's logical and beneficial).

I guess I'm not so much talking in favor of religion, or spirituality, or esoteric knowledge, or anything - I just hate science faggots with a passion and I want them to fuck off back to /g/ and r/atheism where they belong.

YOUR NAME IS FUCK

I AM YOUR GOD

I AM YOUR SON

COME TO MY TONGUE

COME TO MY LUNG

>>7221213
This tbh

>>7221222
You write a lot but you don't say a lot. I also don't believe you're not a buddhist but that doesn't matter.
>practical advice in the Bible
Like stoning homosexuals? It's 2015. We have the scientific method. There are better books to obtain "practical advice" from.

>>7221231
The Reddit is unbearable.

>>7221154
>>7221217
>muh scientism boogeyman

Translation: I failed math class

>>7221236

Your autism is unbearable

>>7221231

>if you don't think there's any practical advice in the Bible, then you probably haven't read it or just take for granted already believing everything it advises (and I do mean the 1% that's logical and beneficial).
>and I do mean the 1% that's logical and beneficial

On /lit/, yet you can't read a simple fucking post and understand things stated plainly.

Yes, anon, stoning homosexuals is exactly what I meant by the 1% practical advice that I went out of my way to indicate. Thank you for being such an understanding and capable conversationalist.

Also,
>we have the scientific method

Once again, proof of retardation surfaces. Have luck with your blessed scientific method that's clearly solving all your problems. If only it had a way of teaching you how to read and understand posts on an imageboard. Maybe in another 50 years anon.

>>7221231

Not that anon, but are you fuckin stupid or something

>>7221242

No, he's right, and you are literally r/atheism incarnate. You also make irrelevant replies

>guy says only some shit in the bible is true and that it's not entirely worthless
>obviously remarks there are more helpful books by now

Basic. Reading. Comprehension. Logical. Argumentation.

>>7221231
Hahahha please be bait. Jesus christ you people are so out of touch with reality you think books like proverbs and ecclesiastes are just woo woo because its in the bible.

You retards have no concept of the fact that religion was where the life experience and wisdom of a community was finally put down and codified. The divine and the every day were inseperavly linked, which is why the ancients have such reverence for the sacred, as opposed to pasty faggots who have never left their state


But what did they know right? They didnt even have iphones!

>>7221261
>>guy says only some shit in the bible is true and that it's not entirely worthless
>>obviously remarks there are more helpful books by now

Sorry, where was he saying this? And where exactly was anyone saying that the Bible is 'entirely worthless'?

>>7221250
You didn't indicate anything specific, so I filled in the blanks based on what contemporary Christians believe. Whatever bullshit you come up with, it's either wrong or you can find it elsewhere in a far more modern and enlightening book. We don't need luck for science btw. Prayer is silly. We actually do shit

>>7221122
boy you sure convinced me with that flawless logic

>>7221141
>I want people to stop thinking about things I disagree with, even if it helps them in their lives!

>>7220666
satan trips checked

>>7221153
also the religous violence is mostly due to Saudi Arabian state funding causing the intolerant sect of Wahabism to go from a small backward sect in one country to being prominent in every Islamic country

>>7221177

>Buddhism in the west is a mem religion, tbh. It's purpose in western culture is not to actually help anyone but to awe them .
Thats a stupid thing to say, you are taking the reasons of a few silly college kids for being into Buddhism and attempting to assert that those reasons are everyones reasons for liking or studying Buddhism. You make yourself look stupid with such broad generalizations. There are tons of people that that are into Buddhism because they find it helpful and not because they are awed by its exoticism.

>Ignore that they didn't really know jack shit about the universe back then
lmao you don't need to know chemistry and physics in order to have insights about human life and their minds

>Look at them in this thread. They're not arguing or debating but instead crowing about their special knowledge
Thats not true, nobody here is bragging about their knowledge of Buddhism or acting like it makes them superior to others. There are tons of examples in this thread alone of people explaining it in a polite and non--patronizing way. Most of this thread is just people correcting other peoples misconceptions. When people act like ignorant assholes and are rude and dismissive of a thing that they don't know much about they yeah the people correcting them won't always be super polite but nowhere in this thread are any people saying "oh look at me I'm so special because I understand X and you don't. If you think correcting others about false statements is crowing about special knowledge then you have a problem tbh.

>>7221231
>You write a lot but you don't say a lot.
Not that anon but holy fuck this just drives me crazy. I don't know what you call this but it's one of the kings of non-content statements. Pure projection.

>>7221268
>religion was where the life experience and wisdom of a community was finally put down and codified

>Stoning homosexuals

wow such wisdom

please tell me more about your magical beard man in the sky

>>7221271

>Like stoning homosexuals? It's 2015. We have the scientific method. There are better books to obtain "practical advice" from.

It's implied you fucking retard. Or should I not expect that people on a LITERATURE board can read a sentence that isn't ANNA ATE AN APPLE an understand more than what's on the surface?

If one person tells you that only the tiniest fragment of something is okay, and then you go and say that even that fragment is bad, then yes, anon, you're pretty much saying it's worthless, so if you're going to try and spin this in some way where he was JUST SAYING THOSE THINGS XD but was somehow making a differet point, go fuck yourself.

>>7221288
I'm giving him constructive criticism. His posts are too long and full of fluff so he should condense them.

>>7221280
This nigga's argument is the bible is obsolete now cause we got guys like sam harris to tell us about morality. Your fetish for what is modern and progressive is a sickness, get it checked.

>>7221231

This is incredibly sophisticated trolling, I for one am impressed.

>>7221290
Literally mentioned two bible books with a wealth of practical knowledge and life advice in the very post you quoted you absolute fuckin bozo

>>7221298
The point is you aren't. You're disengaged because you're unable to actually address anything. You've resorted to attacking form and not content. It's a refuge of an anti-intellectual.

>>7221311
No thanks. I'm not interesting in what *you* think is "practical knowledge" and "wisdom". /diy/ is a better repository of practical knowledge than the Bible.

>>7221280

>Whatever bullshit you come up with

You realize I'm a fucking atheist, right? You retard. God. Uninstall yourself.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with you people. If we were given papers right now to check what we believed in, they'd probably come back identical, yet I am nothing like you. People like you are literally the worst of the worst, and you think you're so much better than Christians because you've got "science" backing you up.

Well, listen here faggot, I was always an atheist. I'd be an atheist even if all the science in the world told me that was flat out wrong. So in that sense I suppose I do empathize with the Christians, because I don't think altering matter and making a computer is really all that, nor do I need SCIENCE to tell me that it's OKAY for me to be an atheist. I am literally an atheist on faith alone. Yes, the irony. Eat shit.

You think that because I spend my time reading books and working a normal job as opposed to conducting lab research into the minutiae of a particular field, I'm not "doing shit"?

But this is another one of the ways in which retards like you try to pull meaning and action into things that represent only the activities you're interested in. You're like those guys who thinks Stephen King is a good writer because things "happen" in his book, and that most noncommercial /lit/ is boring because nothing happens.

If you need science in your life to tell you what to believe, what to feel, and where to find meaning, then I truly feel bad for you, and that's not sarcasm.

>>7221290

Because stoning homosexuals is the only thing the Bible says, right? By that logic Newton was a retard because of the other wacky shit he believed in.

But oh, wait, you can't actually judge the validity of a single statement based on other unrelated ones. :/ What a shame.

EAT. SHIT.

>>7216409
Human nature is self-interest. Literally everything we do or aim to do is in the form of self-interest originally.

>>7221321
But I am. His post is literally "butthurt: the post" except for that bit about there being "practical knowledge" in the bible, which is what I responded to.

>>7221323
Kek you're such a sniveling little faggot.

I feel this needs to be posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

>>7221295
>There are better books to obtain "practical advice" from.

This implies that the Bible is worse than these, not that it's 'entirely wrong', like you suggested. You blatantly misrepresented him

Also, stop with the capslock. It makes you look like the biggest sperglord ever

>>7216416
Who the fuck is this guy?

>>7221290
The thing is your conclusions are correct, but your method is shit. Biblical law is horrendous in many areas (its militant homophobia, as you mentioned, for example) and seeking its application is intellectually indefensible. That said, you're taking a giant topic and collapsing it into a minor one, and, perhaps worse, your solution is a misappropriation (the scientific method doesn't apply here).

>>7221358

Damn, I BLATANTLY misrepresented him. Lol.

Man just fuck off already. If you think your pulling at straws is impressing anyone, it's not.

>>7221332
What does that have to do with you pointing out the practical knowledge in bible? And why would you continue to be an atheist if it was shown to be flat out wrong? That doesn't sound rational to me. Then again, none of your posts make sense and you seem to be mentally unstable

>>7221213
Holy fuck shut up.
I haven't even read all the posts itt, but your self righteous douchebaggery is enough to make me want to punch you in the face.

>>7221360
/r9k/ poster who got mistaken for the recent school shooter.

here's one of his videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tuf59ex-U0

>>7221444
He's like an uglier Bill Hicks

>>7221388

You seriously sound like the biggest spastic ever. Good luck with your fatal amounts of autism

>>7221231
Where in the bible does it say that we should "stone homosexuals"?

>thread about Buddhism
>easily the angriest thread on /lit/ right now

>>7221404

>What does that have to do with you pointing out the practical knowledge in bible?

Holy shit, are all you faggots retarded? My point was simply that no matter how much spiritual stuff ancient writings are steeped in, that doesn't mean they're entirely void of useful things, whether it's practical advice on day to day matters, or instructions on how to calm yourself down and how to stop wanting the wrong things as in the case of Buddhism. To say that science has gone forward with this is entirely besides the point; it doesn't discredit the fact that the men who wrote these works made tremendous leaps.

And not to sound like a Christian preacher, but much of what I'd call "practical advice" from the Bible, the positive kind, is still largely unheeded today (like being more forgiving, etc.) so I don't think that writing off the Bible and other ancient materials is in any way. But of course I'm not just talking about religion, even stuff like Zeno's paradoxes are just as relevant to what I'm saying. I just don't see the need to try and bury the history of literature and the positive things in it just because science presents the same shit in a different light, after more than 2000 years.

>And why would you continue to be an atheist if it was shown to be flat out wrong

Because there's no amount of evidence that would make me change my mind. The notion of a god existing is so wrong to me that I literally couldn't accept it. It's the complete opposite to the whole persona I've built over three decades. Maybe saying I'd be an atheist was a bit of a stretch, but I certainly wouldn't become a worshiper simply because I was proven wrong. But for the most part I was just trying to say that most of the things we believe come from our personality (at least for those of us that aren't sheep) rather than our environment. You don't need science to disbelieve in the Bible, or Buddhist teachings, or any of this, and I find it cowardly to bring science into such discussions. It's like talking about paleo cooking and how you can get a cookie to taste good in one method or another only for some other faggot to show up and tell you how great this recipe he found on Reddit is that isn't even paleo. If I wanted a recipe that wasn't paleo, I'd find one fucking easily, but that isn't what's being discussed.

Highest state that you can reach in Buddhism is a form of suicide. To free yourself in Buddhism way of life, you must literally kill yourself (physically):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasamādhi

>>7221456

You have no idea how intense my Dwarf Fortress sessions are. It's a blessing and a curse.

>>7220966
The sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is not salvific, and in fact not even necessary for nibbuti. Once again, these claims are textually unsupported.

>>7221469

Mahasamadhi is a practice that comes from Siddha Yoga which itself is a cult that was started in the 20th century, its has nothing to do with Buddhism.

The Buddha never taught or advocated that people should do that, next time do a little more reading before posting.

>>7221484

adventure mode is for true patricians

>>7221467
The bible is a bad source of practical advice. It is literally a book of nonsense. Just because 0.1% of it happens to be reasonable by chance doesn't mean it isn't garbage as a whole. If you turn in an essay and only 0.1% of it is good, guess what? You get an F.

Now, based on what I've read here tonight, my guess is that you suffer from some sort of mood disorder and you seek comfort in religious and spiritual woo. My suggestion is to seek professional attention.

>>7221518

You are coming off as an obnoxious jerk, just stop. Being open-minded is a virtue, and you really shouldn't be so eager to tell people they are wrong for disagreeing. Its not even correcting false statements, you are just needlessly nit-picking and shitting up the thread.

>>7221518
Ok kiddo

>>7221518

M8, if I wanted spiritual woo I'd watch anything written by Damon Lindelof, not the Bible. That's too grounded compared to the standards Lindelof set me to.

>>7221548

Who the fuck is that. Wtf. Her smile quelled all my rage.

If it's a boy I'm in love.

>>7216409
To answer the OP:

Not all of philosophy is concerned with "being happy"; that is but a small part of it. Even if everyone were enlightened, much of western philosophy would still have a purpose.

Buddhism itself - although it reaches the truth all metaphysicians have tried to reach - isn't actually concerned with anything else than the ending of suffering. Or to say it in a positive way: ultimate happiness(but there is a very good reason the Buddha /mostly/ taught it in the "negative" sense).

It's mostly to do with two factors, one being the dilution of Buddhism(as, it has nothing to do with Buddhism). Eg: mahayana, vayrajana and this:

" In 1994, the then President of the Pali Text Society stated that most of these translations were unsatisfactory.[63] Another former President said in 2003 that most of the translations were done very badly.[18] The style of many translations from the Canon has been criticized[64] as "Buddhist Hybrid English", a term invented by Paul Griffiths for translations from Sanskrit. He describes it as "deplorable", "comprehensible only to the initiate, written by and for Buddhologists".[65]"

Not to mention that buddhism is hard to grasp to begin with. Even the Buddha admitted as much.

Then you have the unnecessary repetition(the only reason it exists is because by repetition the canon was more easily remembered by monks before it was written down and orally transmitted).

As a man that has studied the Tipitaka for 10 years i can say that because of the preceding reasons, one should lead a contemplative life(yes, this involves very much discursive thinking - despite what the zen-"buddhists" claim) and also not get caught up only reading the Tipitaka. Atleast from my own experience, I didn't understand it's message until i had lead a investigatory life myself.

Read the texts, but if you don't get it, put it down and come back to it when you have a bit more life, book and experiential experience.

Can any Buddhists here explain why they believe that rebirth exists? It really comes off as someone having a practical teaching to give, but needing to throw people a metaphysical bone so they'll actually follow it. I could understand the reasoning if it went "I am Everything, more life will emerge from Everything therefor I will be reborn" but that takes out any notion of a specific phenomenological division of the Everything that is continuously being reborn, which I call "me".

>>7221046
wish i knew you irl

>>7221695

I am not 100% sure whether I believe it or not but it seems the most likely outcome. The idea that once you die thats it and you cease to exist and never experience anything again seems a little too good to be true. It seems more reasonable and natural and rebirth is the case. There is a reason rebirth is one of the most commonly-held belief among indigenous tribes all over the world.

Also there is actually alot of scientific evidence for it. There have been tons of cases of kids remembering past lives and speaking about details from it that were later validated as true that the kids should not have been able to know, there are also cases of kids having scars or birthmarks when born that correspond to the things that killed them previously.

http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html

http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

http://listverse.com/2014/12/30/10-claims-of-physical-evidence-for-reincarnation/

I believe that it could be possible to be reborn as something other then human or something maybe even on another planet btw in case you are one of those people who think the huge change in the earths human population somehow debunks rebirth.

>>7220900
What if someone is totally cool with change and growing old, etc?

If in theory they were at total ease with impermanence and existence as is? They wouldn't have any use for Buddha's teachings, so would they be enlightened?

buddhism is for unproductive and tired people
let em have it

>>7220900
>3.A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.
This is exactly what the words 'nihilism' and 'death cult' mean. You're denying and backpedaling real hard, just man up and accept that Buddhism is nothing but nihilism Hindu-style.

>>7221759

They would not be enlightened in the Buddhist sense of the word. Frankly however I doubt that a person such as you described exists. They could be the chillest most laid-back okay-with-anything person in the world and they would probably still become upset upon learning their they have terminal cancer or if one of their relatives died or something along those lines.

And even if they were okay with impermanence and the transient nature of existence unless they become enlightened they would still never know the bliss of true equanimity which comes from being free of all attachments and fetters. This may or may not be hard to understand but simply craving something or relishing in the experience of something is itself a step down in quality from what is possible in terms of mental states. True bliss is being free from all craving and associated states.

>>7221793

No anon if you look up those the word 'nihilism' and 'death cult' they do not mean those things.

> A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.

This is an objective statement, its not a matter of the glass being half-empty or half-full. All forms of life are changing, living, being born and dying as time passes. Nothing is permanent. There is nothing negative about this viewpoint however. Interpreting this as nihilistic is a personal reaction by the person interpreting it and not an accurate representation of it.

Everything changes and nothing stands still - Heraclitus

>>7221742
>seems

There's the key word, it indicates to me that you're having an emotional response to the idea and mistaking that emotional response for some kind of actual logical proof. The fact that something 'seems' one way or another should count for less than dogshit in your actual judgement unless you can develop that response into something real and tangible.

>there is a reason etc.

Yes, so do many things, we're human beings so there is naturally a lot of overlap in our behaviors. I shouldn't have to tell you that this demonstrates nothing other than that it occurs.

>ian stevenson

If you take this guy seriously I think I may know an interesting psychic you'd like to meet who can even tell you your dead relatives names, he's legit I swear! (seriously anon, just look at the second half of the intro to his wiki page to begin to see the multitude of problems in his work)


I'm not trying to shit on your beliefs but I'm confused as to why you're trying to make this out as anything but a giant leap of faith? Rebirth is one of those unfalsifiable things.

>>7221822
>This is an objective statement
No.
>All forms of life are changing, living, being born and dying as time passes.
This is only your opinion and doesn't match reality.
>Nothing is permanent.
This is only your opinion and doesn't match reality.
>There is nothing negative about this viewpoint however.
There is. Denying that permanent things exist when they objectively do is a form of nihilism, a pathological psychological reaction to personal failures.

>>7221875
>Denying that permanent things exist when they objectively do
Please give examples

>>7221828

lmao anon, you politely asked why a Buddhist would believe in reincarnation and then when I responded you angrily tried to take my answer apart. I have a sense that you have some sort of personal issue that you're currently dealing with by arguing with people you disagree with.

Anyways when I wrote seems I meant it to mean intuitively and intellectually as much as emotionally. I hate to break it to you anon but the idea that when we die thats it and we cease to exist, that also unfalsifiable. Literally every single idea or theory about what happens when we die is unfalsifiable because there is no way to prove or disprove it, including the theory that we just cease to exist.

Also Ian Stevenson is pretty respectable, he was the chair of the department of psychiatry at a respected medical school for 50 years. Yeah there was some flaws in his work, not all of it was perfectly accounting for error but at the same time there was still a lot of evidence that couldn't easily be explained away.

>>7221875
>He thinks recognizes the transient nature of reality is a psychological reaction to personal failures

>>7221875
>He thinks recognizing the transient nature of reality is a psychological reaction to personal failures

>>7220775
>Yes, but people who already do so to reasonable degree don't really seem to need Buddhism. Buddhism seems more of a correctional therapy to people who excessively suffer from existence.


well you have indeed two roads to the dharma
-the intellectual path which is the phenomenology
-the hedonists who understand that hedonism fails sooner or later

most people being hedonist, they become interested via this path and do not expected that the dharma is indeed a phenomenology which has a side product of going out of dukkha

>>7216429
>Also, Buddhism has the somewhat black mark of being a con to get out of back-breaking farm labor. Would you rather:
>>work 12 hours a day doing dangerous shitty work in the fields
>OR
>>ordain at the monastery, clean up a bit, sit in a hut, pay attention to your breath, and eat some scraps

I think I might rather work 12 hours a day. At least that's not boring as shit.

>>7221695
>I could understand the reasoning


exactly, you fail to understand that your faith in rationalism is only a faith since you fail to connect your discourse to any empiricism...


rebirth matters to you because you have another moral doctrine than the one of the dharma being equanimity+charity. The point of the dharma is precisely stop caring about the rebirth, not because you cared before, which precisely is not equanimity and even less charity (towards you), but the moral doctrine of the dharma (which IS the dharma) stems precisely from the dharmic phenomenology.

Rebirth matters to those who are not the dharma, typically those bikkhus and laymen who remain hedonistic and who do not wish to stop being hedonistic.

>>7221875
I cant believe how autistic this post is

>>7221903
You said some stupid things that taught me nothing and I felt I should tell you why they were useless to me.

Let me just get another couple out of the way here:

>angrily

You're interpreting it as an attack and projecting that onto me, as you are with the following sentence (personal issue etc.), none of which is true.

>intuitively etc.

Intuitively knowing something is exactly the emotional based logic I was describing. If it was intellectual you could present outside the word "seems".

>also unfalsifiable

I would never deny this and would insist upon it. I don't know why you're bringing it up, we're talking about positive belief (i.e. belief that rebirth DOES exist, as opposed to not).

>ian stevenson

Read the second paragraph of the introduction to his wiki page. His evidence isn't evidence. It's potential evidence that's too marred by potential error. It doesn't merit anything other than "somebody should look into this properly". Look into the many such proofs for Christianity et al, everything has this stuff. The drawer is still locked.


I'm asking you why you choose to believe in rebirth, i.e. "because I think there's sufficient evidence", not actually telling me the evidence. I'm talking about on a personal level, what makes you trust that it is the case.

>>7221962

Back in the time when Buddha was alive he instructed the Sangha that they should continuously travel around in order to avoid developing an attachment to certain areas or places. The Buddha said that someone living in society and having an occupation and so forth could still become enlightened but that it would be very difficult. People can attempt it any way they want but the way to do it closest to what the Buddha taught would to become a wondering bikkhu in the way many hindu monks do today in India.

>>7221796
I see. But why opt out of it all when you could surf and enjoy the rolling transience?

>>7221068
>George Gurdjieff
this guys is legit

>>7221875
wew lad
I'm going to have to hide this post. It's painful for me to read again.

>>7221993

I didn't interpret it as a personal attack on me but just that you were/are angry and angrily wrote out your post even if I wasn't the one you were angry at. I thought you were angry because your post was full of negative connotations that someone usually wouldn't use in a friendly or even neutral conversation.

I don't know why you insist that intuitively feeling, suspecting or leaning toward something on the basis of intuition is emotional-based logic because its not, emotion and intuition are two different and separate things; however much the intuition of an emotional person might be clouded or influenced by emotion.

Just because some people have some doubts about the research of Ian stevenson does not mean that is automatically bunk. Its virtually guaranteed that anyone who investigates these sorts of things will have other people saying their research is flawed.

I don't know what answer you are looking for but my answer is that on a mainly intellectual and institutional answer it makes the most sense to me and that its also of interest to me that there is plausible evidence for it in my opinion.

>that which is called mind, mentality or consciousness arises and disappears continuously both day and night. Just as a monkey swinging through the trees grabs one branch, letting it go only to grab another, so too that which is called thought, mind or consciousness arises and disappears continuously both day and night.

-- S.II,94

>>7222071
>I didn't interpret

You judged what met the criteria for what you described (friendly conversation etc.) and interpreted based on those judgements. It's entirely an interpretation.

>intuitive feeling

Intuition is feeling (FEELING) that you are right despite having no logical justification for that particular belief. A feeling is an emotional response. It's an emotional state, like feeling that you're being watched, or that you're not alone (which can be simulated through electrical impulses to specific areas of the brain).

>ian stevenson

Re-read my post. I said it's potential evidence, i.e. it could be right (IT COULD BE RIGHT) or wrong, but it's so riddled with holes it firmly stands in neither category at the moment, and thus it's useless as any sort of actual indicator. You do realize that a possible cause of people guaranteed to be saying that type of research is flawed is because it actually is flawed, right?

>>7222017

Because the bliss that comes from freedom from all attachments is better then the joy you receive from attachments (at least according to the Buddhist view).

I personally am not enlightened but I have gotten a small taste or sense of it so I feel like I can speak on this with some certitude.

At one stage in my life I was at a reform-type school that kids get sent to when their parents catch them smoking weed too many times. For 80% of the day we either were not allowed to speak to others or we did not have an opportunity to, and I was there for about 9 months. I read up on and studied Buddhism during my free time there and since I had so much time in my own head not speaking with anyone I tried to see what it would be like to follow the eight-fold path as much as I could and to try to free myself from non-attachment. At almost every waking moment I attempted to guide my every single though, action, and emotional reaction to anything and everything according to the eight-fold path, pretty soon it was something I could do without even thinking about it. It was like experiencing pure bliss. I didn't get unhappy at anything, not from boredom, hungry, pain, tiredness, nothing. The flip side was I didn't dwell in and relish pleasurable sensations but merely continued on, experiencing them but not letting myself be affected by them. What I found was that after about a week of this I was basically feeling the best I had ever felt and it was ever better then that because there were no second-thoughts or analyzing or doubt about my present situation.

It was pure effortless bliss. It was akin to a permanent state of waking up from a midday nap without a care in the world or in a permanent state of near the end of a LSD/mushroom trip where you are not tripping anymore but still remember all the insights into how to go about life in a way that makes it all go better. Eventually of course I stopped doing it but for the while I was doing it I was in a state of constant equanimity and contentedness and all I would ever have to do to go back to that state is just put in the effort to do it.

When you give up attachment to all things including pleasurable as well as unpleasant sensations you experience bliss that its almost impossible to describe. After I had done it even stuff like enjoying eating delicious food or relishing in various physical pleasure like sex or laying down after hard work seems kind of lowly in comparison. A way to summarize it is that being free from being affected by all pleasant and unpleasant things alike is itself the most sublime pleasure someone can experience, in my opinion.

Also you don't have to give up everything now too, in many Buddhist countries in Asia its common for people to live normal lives and then seek enlightenment in old age.

Why is /lit/ so hostile against eastern conceptions?

Is this derogatory point of view held just in this taiwanese doll factory forum or is it widespread in the western world?

>>7222170
>I personally am not enlightened but I have gotten a small taste or sense of it so I feel like I can speak on this with some certitude.
are you a stream enterer as they put it ?

>>7222170
>At almost every waking moment I attempted to guide my every single though, action, and emotional reaction to anything and everything according to the eight-fold path, pretty soon it was something I could do without even thinking about it.

detail this please. I try to be detach myself from the train of thoughts, pains, pleasures, but I fail. I try to meditate, but I cannot even get a nimita. I try to do vipassana, but since I spent all my day before the screen as I am a NEET, I cannot tell myself ''read, read, read'' while I read, since I can only do one thing at a time. I try to understand that I am sitting while I spent the whole day before the computer, but I think that it will not lead to a detachment form the mind.

>>7222217
>not liking Buddhism means you're racist

I really wish white Buddhists would just kill themselves. They're all petit bourgeois liberals anyway.

For the record I like Taoism

Because you need an ego in order to browse 4chan.

Are there any other Buddhists ITT?

I know it's pretty much a given that these threads tend to be bad for practice or whatever, but you're here forever and whatnot.

Theravada master race, btw.

>>7222301
>tfw American Buddhist
>tfw everyone thinks you're some hippy that thinks we're all one, maaan

>>7222155

I used the word interpret to convey that I did not interpret something you said in a certain way, I did not use it to imply that I did not interpret things in general. That was clear from my post and I'm surprised you appear to have missed it. Either English is not your first language or you are so eager to pick apart the sentences that I write that you are misunderstanding what they say.

If you have a serious question or something you want to talk about I'm down but I don't care for arguing over semantics.

>>7222217

It is relatively minor in the western world. If anything people don't just know that much about eastern stuff outside of college campuses or certain hippy/bohemian areas and cities. I think its just that people on 4chan frequently try to be contrarian because it scratches some psychological itch for themselves, and since they associate kind, gentle and open-minded people with eastern religion/philosophy then naturally the way to be most opposite and contrarian to that is to be rude, disrespectful, demeaning and proudly ignorant.

>>7222261

It is possible, I don't know. It is also possible that me or any or us could have reached that stage or even higher in previous births. Ultimately I think it isn't really that useful to focus on labels like that as it can easily become a thing people develop an ego over or use as a comforting thought that doesn't deal with whatever is making them uncomfortable.

>>7222313
I would consider myself to be Theravada as well

>>7222323
I know this feel. Its the worse when it comes up in conversation and some chick talking in response about Buddhism is like "I love how (insert misconception)" and then you can either smile and nod your head at what you know is wrong or you correct them and risk looking like a pretentious asshole even if you try to be nice and helpful.

>>7222299
one thing that had helped was that I had done psilocybin mushrooms previously, and I think that experience made me more aware of what a significant change in consciousness or a change in mode-of-thinking was like so that I wasn't fooling myself by thinking I was doing it and then forgetting about it the next moment. So if you have not tried shrooms or maybe LSD I would recommend trying some, if you can't obtain it where you live you should know psilocyin-containing edible truffles can be legally bought in Amsterdam.

One thing that might help is a change of scenery or your living situation. You can go camping in the forest and dont bring electronics except maybe an ipod for music, just bring books on Buddhism and meditation. You can also trying signing up for a vipassana mediation retreat. The S.N. Goenka Vipassana group runs free 10 day meditation retreats all over the world that provide completely free food and housing for the course as long as you follow instructions and actually meditate. I recommend a change in your day-to-day stuff because it will be alot harder to assiduously follow the 8-fold path if you just stare at a computer all day. You can even just sign up for some sort of volunteer activity.

Ultimately what it comes down to is living in the exact present moment and thinking about every single thing you do. You shouldn't even be going on the internet unless its for something important, much less 4chan. Of course you don't have to go all out 100% hardcore but it you want to at least try you have to be mindful of every action and thought. You don't literally have to do it at every moment but if you are going to do something like read the newspaper or take a shower just remember to try to go about it in a way that is in accordance with the path and then when you are done think about what you are going to do next but also be aware of why you picked certain things to do next and what your motivation is for doing so.

In the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula he gives a really good explanation of what the 8-fold path means in terms of its practical application in day-to-day life. The book can be found free online as a PDF but its worth owning, the stuff on the 8-fold path is in the section of the book on the 4th noble truth. Here is a link to a pdf of the whole book.

http://hermitmusic.tripod.com/rahula_buddha.pdf

bump

>>7220932
No, it's not.

>>7222323
In SN 12.48, the Buddha refers to the view "everything is a oneness" as being "lokayatika", or materialism. The Carvaka/Lokayatika school and their founder Ajita Kesakambali are held up as the paradigmatic example of holders of wrong view in DN 2 for teaching that with death, all is annihilated.

>>7221161
>proofs im reddit??

fuck off mate

>>7222313
I would have considered myself one 15 years ago, but now I don't. Coincidentally, I'm more inline with buddhist views now than I was 15 years ago. I'm no longer bothered by labels so much as the value itself.

>>7222638
>idealists

>>7222458
How much of a new age faggot do you have to be to recommend people to indulge in psychosis inducing drugs to embrace Buddhism?

Hippies are truly the most damaging factor to Eastern philosophy.

>>7223414
Newage american bullshit 99.99% certainty.

Smoke weed erryday XDD 420 noskope.

>>7223414
One of the fundamental moral injunctions of Buddhism is total abstinence from intoxicants. Over and over, the Buddha firmly condemns intoxication of the senses, chemical or otherwise. To be a serious practicing Buddhist and take drugs is a contradiction in terms.

>>7223496
This is why it puzzles me that stoners are so attracted to it. Buddhism is arguably the least druggy religion.

>>7223506
Because people like Ginsberg and Kerouac led to an association with the 60s counterculture, which stoner "culture" is the pale descendent of.

>>7221115
>equating Buddhist teachings about the mind/emotions with religious and sectarian violence between the 3 Abraham religions.

Well, considering Buddhist monks are currently murdering Muslims in South-East Asia, I'd suggest you retract that statement.

>>7223521
>implying every single monk in the entirety of southeast Asia does, or even condones this

It's literally one group led by Ashin Wirathu. This is by no means mainstream.

>>7223516
Probably. Kerouac wasn't so bad though. Misguided, but he meant well. At least when I read The Dharma Bums I got the feeling he wanted to get away from the whole druggy beat thing and aspire to be 'saintly' or at least take his practice seriously.

>>7223531
So fucking what? They are still Buddhists.

It's like saying ISIS aren't muslims just because their brand of Islam isn't mainstream.

Face it nigger, ALL religions suffer from the same intellectual traps, but keep deluding yourself into believing that you've found the correct one.

>>7223537
>he actually thinks terroristic outliers represent their religions

It's not Buddhism that's failed, it's the monks.

>>7223496
>>7223506
Psychedelics definitely have the potential to induce 'mystical' states of experience and why I think the association with Buddhism.

But yeah, using intoxicants is expressly against Buddhist beliefs.

>>7223535
It's also worth nothing that they were exposed to Buddhism through Japanese Zen, where there has not been a Vinaya ordination for 1000 years and the monks drink alcohol.

>>7223544
>being this deluded

>>7223537
One has a book that permits killing infidels in various ways in various situations.

Other completely prohibits taking any life to the point of self-sacrifice in some case.

You can blame one book for its followers doing what it asks of them. But not the other for doing something that the book explicitly prohibits.

>>7223550
How does this even happen?

Do zen monks literally not know about the precepts, or do they have some view for them like, "As long as you're being mindful while you're breaking them, you're alright"?

I swear, I discuss shit on a Buddhism forum and every single Zen practitioner is one step away from a drugged out hippy. To them, the rules don't matter. In fact, there aren't even any rules to begin with. The Buddha actually didn't teach anything, you can literally pick what you want to follow or not.

Blows my mind. Why even follow the religion?

>>7223555
see
>>7223559

I haven't seen a good argument out of you so far.

>>7223559
The Qu'ran is a book, like all the books of the Abrahamic religions, that are full of contradictions.

ISIS are currently focusing on one specific portion of the text, which no one has the Islamic authority to deny them to do, because there is no Muslim Pope, i.e they are Muslims by any stretch.

The same applies to the Buddhists, because from their perspective they are not violating anything in their religion, and who the fuck are you to say they are? Are you the spiritual leader of all Buddhists?

>>7223564
Zen is just another sect of Buddhism. Look at all the tons of different sects in medieval Japan. They each had their own interpretations off the foundational teachings.
Many of them were so vastly different from the sentiments of the original, but they kept at it and had hundreds of followers.

>>7223572
Dumbass, the Pali canon isn't contradictory on this matter at all. Killing is bad, period, no question about it.

There is not one single passage in the Pali canon (which is what these monks base their teachings off of) that permits killing for any reason whatsoever. There is no text in the entire religion that they can focus on that would excuse what they are doing.

>>7223531
>It's literally one group
You're either lying or ignorant. It's multiple groups in multiple states. Myanmar and Sri Lanka namely.

I do love the incredible failure that is Suu Kyi though. "Peace" activist gets Westerns moist over her suffering and the first thing she does in a position of power, when specifically asked about Buddhist genocide against Muslims in her country, is say there's no problem. Fucking liberals.

>>7223582
So what? The Qu'ran also states that if you kill a person, it's as if you have killed the entirety of humanity.

>>7223583
Is there any other group other than the 969 movement that is doing this? I haven't heard of them if there are.

>>7223537
Couple of thoughts.
To the extent that Buddhist holy literature categorically rejects violence in all applications, it is almost without equal in the world's religious literature, excepting the Jain scriptures. Just one example is from the "Ball of Honey Discourse" in the Majjhima Nikaya. The disciple of the noble ones has abandoned all resort to rods and bladed weapons. In the "Simile of the Saw," the Buddha tells his monks they should abide full of goodwill even if brigands hack them apart with a saw. In contrast, all Abrahamic scripture is full of examples of internally justified violence. No such parallel exists in the Mahayana sutras, the Agamas, or in the Pali Canon.
Second, in Theravada countries the belief is widespread that we live in the final, degenerate age of the Dhamma, and it is no longer possible to obtain enlightenment. All traditions agree the dharma will eventually become unknown to this earth. Modern corruption and violence in the Sangha would agree with these beliefs, not contradict them.

>>7223585
Since when are we talking about Islam at all?

The Qur'an permits killing in certain situations, we've established that. The other thing that's been established is that the Pali canon in no way permits killing for any reason.

>>7223559
>he thinks Buddhism is a religion oriented around books and not leadership transmission
>he thinks he understands usul al-fiqh because le al qweyeda

>>7223594
So why do the Buddhists kill people then?

>>7223602
Because they are not following the teachings of the Buddha. They are Buddhist by label only.

>>7223590
But we are talking about capital "B" Buddhism, not specifically about Jainism. I know Jains specifically renounced all violence, but I sincerely doubt that Buddhism is this non-violent as you people are trying to make it, because there have been several Buddhist groups in history that have been massively violent.

>>7223586
I just mentioned Sri Lanka. Buddhist Sinhalese nationalism is led by monks and government officials harass, kill, and vandalize Muslim, Christian, and Hindu minorities. Even if this wasn't going on, Buddhism still has a long, long, proud history of violence. We've been over this before, mate.

>>7223611
No, what you mean to say is, they are not following your interpretation of Buddhism, therefore they are violent.

I sincerely doubt you would not kill someone in self-defense. If you are what I think you are, some early-mid 20s middle-class white male from America, who has never really encountered any hardship in his life, and just now has found his spiritual dope in Buddhism, I doubt you really follow it yourself.

>>7222170
>Because the bliss that comes from freedom from all attachments is better then the joy you receive from attachments (at least according to the Buddhist view).
do not seek pleasure, seek equanimity. in truth, do not seek anything

>>7223617
>but I sincerely doubt that Buddhism is this non-violent as you people are trying to make it, because there have been several Buddhist groups in history that have been massively violent.

What makes you think you can judge the entire religion by the actions of some of its followers?

Go look through the Pali canon and find a passage that permits killing of any kind. It's all for free online here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

>>7223632
>What makes you think you can judge the entire religion by the actions of some of its followers?

Because if the most extreme people within are violent, then that means that the religion has a capacity for violence.

>>7223611
You don't get to decide who is or isn't Buddhist to make your religion squeaky clean. Every genocidal monk is more Buddhist than you are.

>>7223618
>>7223617
Personally, I am not troubled at all if groups aligned with Buddhism have been violent in the past, because I am not a part of those groups. The purported records of the Buddha's teachings, even the ones made up hundreds of years after he died, unanimously reject violence. I am a follower of the system of thought laid down by the Buddha, not any historical institution.

>>7223630
>No, what you mean to say is, they are not following your interpretation of Buddhism

It's literally the only interpretation. There is no logical way possible to interpret any teaching in Buddhism as permitting killing. I linked nearly the entire Pali canon here >>7223632

Find a teaching that permits killing. The interpretation of terrorist monks is objectively wrong, there is no argument.

>Even if this wasn't going on, Buddhism still has a long, long, proud history of violence

Even if every Buddhist in the world committed murder, it wouldn't change the fact that they are not acting in accordance to the Buddha's teachings.

You don't seem to know anything about the actual religion itself, and yet you're in here talking as if you are the most knowledgeable.

>>7223630
Somehow people interpret do not kill to "kill people"?

Are you even reading you post or just trolling like the usual trolls?

>>7223646
>>7223650
Look you faggots. There has to be a reason that people who supposedly believe in a religion that renounces all violence, suddenly starts murdering people.

Unless you have a way to explain that, I'm going to assume they have some kind of theological justification for it, because people who ACTUALLY believe in non-violence don't suddenly start killing people.

>>7223637
>Every genocidal monk is more Buddhist than you are.

If I don't get to decide who isn't a Buddhist, then why do you get to decide who's the better Buddhist? I'd seriously like to know why you think this since you don't seem to know anything about Buddhism at all.

>>7223635
>Because if the most extreme people within are violent, then that means that the religion has a capacity for violence.

I really don't think you have the mental capacity for these types of discussions. You seriously can't seem to make the connection that just because a student of someone does something, that doesn't mean that the teacher is fine with it.

Go actually read about Buddhism before you try to talk down to people.

>>7223661
>Unless you have a way to explain that, I'm going to assume they have some kind of theological justification for it

What makes you think they have justification for it? Why does that HAVE to be true? You're making things up.

What makes you think there aren't just people who claim to be something and then act completely different in real life?

>people who ACTUALLY believe in non-violence don't suddenly start killing people.

Uh, yeah. This is what I've been saying. If they actually believed in the Buddha's teachings, they wouldn't be killing people.

>>7223635
>Because if the most extreme people within are violent, then that means that the religion has a capacity for violence.


lel, just like the buddha himself made up the rules of the monks because they were degenerate already at his time....but yes, put this on buddhism.

the point of buddhism is not to impose anything, which renders explicit the aristocracy of monks, instead of imposing non-violence and still not knowing who is non-violent only to follow the rules.

>>7223661
In Southeast Asia ordination is a matter of course for young men in several countries. Many join the Sangha for nefarious reasons, such as avoiding the law. The Theravada monkhood is, by and large, not a sample of diligent, well-meaning men serious about Buddhism. This has probably been the case for the last few hundred years.

>>7223670
>Uh, yeah. This is what I've been saying. If they actually believed in the Jesus's teachings, they wouldn't be killing people.

I wonder how many times I've heard the same thing.

>>7223665
>If I don't get to decide who isn't a Buddhist, then why do you get to decide who's the better Buddhist?
Monks are generally by definition better practitioners of their religions than laypeople. The monk has training, education, and the authority to interpret. You can't just say "oh this person that's dedicated their life to the study and practice of this religion isn't really a practitioner of it". He understands it better than you do, I assure you, seeing as you don't seem to understand Buddhism at all.

>>7223677
>Monks are generally by definition better practitioners of their religions than laypeople.

See >>7223673

>You can't just say "oh this person that's dedicated their life to the study and practice of this religion isn't really a practitioner of it"

I'm not saying he isn't a practitioner, I'm saying he's a really shitty one because he's doing things that the religion that he, supposedly, dedicated his life to forbids.

>seeing as you don't seem to understand Buddhism at all.

Please enlighten me then, I can almost guarantee you I know ten times more about Buddhism than you do. In fact, I know I do. You will cite nothing from any scripture, instead you'll just say, "LEL Y DEY BE KILLIN PEEPLE DEN???" and think you're smart.

>>7223672
So what you're essentially saying is that the text doesn't really matter, what matters is people's actions.

Well good job, because that's my point.

>>7223674
And they're still right, too.

If Jesus says not to do something, and one of his followers did that thing, they're being a shitty follower.

This isn't that hard to understand.

>>7223677
>Monks are generally by definition
no, the definition of a monk is some guy claiming more or publicly to attempt to apply part of the precepts and the rules for the monks.

>>7223687
>Well good job, because that's my point.
you point is also to jump from the behavior of some people and infer from this a judgement on a doctrine.

if the text did not matter to you, you would not blame the text, but the people.

>>7223692
I'm well aware that's it not hard to understand, but you do understand how little it matters if people like you stand in front of a crazed mob of Buddhist monks with AK-47s and say "This isn't what the Buddha meant".

Religion is by definition unstable, and most likely not even true, which is why the most elementary statement: "Thou shalt not kill" becomes "You can kill, but only these specific people" given enough generations and time.

Religions are not just the text. They are also the social aspect, and they are also just simply people's interpretations of them.

>>7223707
>you point is also to jump from the behavior of some people and infer from this a judgement on a doctrine.

Yes, because I still believe that if these Buddhists did not identify as Buddhists, they would not kill anyone. So the fact that they self-identify, as a specific religious group, at a specific time and place, makes them feel the need to murder people.

So it clearly is about the religion and the label.

holy shit you faggots

Muslims are absolute garbage

living breathing garbage that are worth less than diseased mice

Buddhists are already bro as fuck, and now they're taking out the trash

travel to Saudi Arabia or Somalia then Bhutan or Cambodia and you'll know which is objectively better.

>>7223721
It is generally well-agreed that "Thou shalt not kill" was meant to apply to only your fellow Jews. No original message has been misunderstood. Judaism has always held that killing may be justifiable under some circumstances. Buddhism has not.

>>7223721
No, the religion is the religion, i.e. the teachings.

The followers are the followers. The two are separate. "Thou shalt not kill" is always "Thou shalt not kill" to the religion, it doesn't matter what other followers want to change it to.

>but you do understand how little it matters if people like you stand in front of a crazed mob of Buddhist monks with AK-47s and say "This isn't what the Buddha meant".

You seem to think that these people are ignorant of the Buddha's teachings, and that they'll stop if they're just told that the Buddha told them not to do these things.

The truth is that these men know that Buddhism doesn't permit killing, but they do it anyway. They do it because their hatred of muslims exceeds their desire to follow the Buddha's teachings.

>because I still believe that if these Buddhists did not identify as Buddhists, they would not kill anyone.

Well this is just a meaningless guess, so there's really no need to address it.

>So the fact that they self-identify, as a specific religious group, at a specific time and place, makes them feel the need to murder people.

The fact that they call themselves Buddhists, and nothing else, is what makes them want to murder people?

Can you prove this at all?

>>7223739
>The fact that they call themselves Buddhists, and nothing else, is what makes them want to murder people?

Have you actually viewed the interviews with these people? They believe that they are defending their religion against Muslim agitators. It's literally the story of religion, in plain view, just with a Buddhist wrapper.

>>7223734
That sounds like some theological flap-doodle, and for most people who are practicing Christians, that statement clearly reads as not killing anyone.

>>7223742
>They believe that they are defending their religion against Muslim agitators.

And just because they think this means that they're right?

>>7223744
>and for most people who are practicing Christians, that statement clearly reads as not killing anyone.

The very next chapter after the one in which the ten commandments appear imposes capital punishment for a variety of different offenses.

>>7223747
No?

The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter if the Buddha said all violence is wrong, because Buddhists will do it anyway.

>>7223758
>it doesn't matter if the Buddha said all violence is wrong, because Buddhists will do it anyway.

So you now understand that the Buddha taught against violence, good. Now you can use that knowledge and know that if his followers partake in violence, they are not being good followers and are not representing the teachings very well.

>>7223766
All of this applies to every single religion on the planet.

There is no religion that exists, that doesn't think violence is abhorrent.

>>7223770
>There is no religion that exists, that doesn't think violence is abhorrent.

Except for all the passages in the Bible, Qur'an and Torah that allow killing for certain things?

You won't find passages like this in Buddhist texts. Even Hinduism has passages from the Bhagavad Gita that can be used to justify fighting a "just" war.

>>7223730
>travel to Saudi Arabia or Somalia then Bhutan or Cambodia and you'll know which is objectively better.

Somalia is pretty much the same as most African countries (child soldiers with machetes hacking your legs off).

Saudi is run by a Aramco fiefdom that mostly exists to collect oil profits and buy gold toilets and hookers for the royal family.

I don't know much about Bhutan, but I know Cambodia is a smelly poverty-ridden shithole known mostly for its insane history (Pol Pot, killing fields) and for being full of 5 year old kids asking to suck your dick for a dollar.

It all sounds like 3rd world garbage to me.

>>7223770
Except very specifically in Bible and Quran. There are multiple verses across the books that ask for violence and killing for various reasons from adultery to apostasy to infidels to etc.

These books promote violence in various stages. Buddhist works do not in any way promote violence.

>>7223686
Your analysis of Theravadan monkhood is both ideologically oriented and wrong. There's nothing to address.

>I'm saying he's a really shitty one
It doesn't matter what you think. Otherwise you wouldn't be going on about radical islamists killing people because they don't follow Islamic jurisprudence and have been ostracized by every major jurist and theologian in the world.

And there is no "he". This is a matter of thousands of Buddhists, monks and lay people. The Buddhism of your fantasy doesn't exist and never has existed. No one cares about what you want it to be.

>>7223696
And part of living as a monk is receiving the dharma from a master, which is not the case of laypersons.

>>7223776
>>7223782
Fine. Have it your way then.

>>7223730
>travel to Saudi Arabia or Somalia then Bhutan or Cambodia and you'll know which is objectively better.
>Cambodia
>Using Cambodia as a positive example of a SE Asian Buddhist country.

Are you a pedophile sex tourist by any chance?

>>7223784
It's not his analysis, and it isn't wrong. See "The Broken Buddha," readable here:
http://www.buddhistische-gesellschaft-berlin.de/downloads/brokenbuddhanew.pdf
This book is a critical reflection on the Theravadin Sangha by a man who spent decades as a Theravadin monk. He is conversant in Thai and Sinhala, his thoughts are cogent, well-developed, and well-supported, he has every motivation to downplay, not exaggerate, the extent of malfeasance in the Sanga, which he documents at length, and he is much more credible than you or I.

>>7223784
>Your analysis of Theravadan monkhood is both ideologically oriented and wrong.

Am I just supposed to agree with you on this, or what?

>The Buddhism of your fantasy doesn't exist and never has existed. No one cares about what you want it to be.

Is it physically possible for you to understand that I'm talking about the actual teachings that the Buddha gave? I use these to gauge the behavior of people, and I can gauge by the teachings against killing that anyone that kills, be they a monk or not, is not following Buddhism very well at all.

This is not a matter of Buddhism being a failure because it fails to prohibit violence, because it does just that multiple times. It's a matter of thousands of "followers" not caring what the Buddha taught and still wanting to call themselves "Buddhists" anyway.

>And part of living as a monk is receiving the dharma from a master, which is not the case of laypersons.
>which is not the case of laypersons.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

>>7223793
>Using Cambodia as a positive example of a SE Asian Buddhist country.

Most South-East Asian countries are fucking shitholes m8. Their religion obviously didn't help much.

>>7223776
>>7223782
You're missing the big point. The difference between Abrahamic and Buddhist scripture is that the former recognizes societies exist and that some kind of standard needs to exist. Abrahamic doctrines provide reasoning for when killing may or may not be acceptable for a community, whereas Buddhist doctrines are focused on the practices of monks and nuns. The latter ignores violence on the social level. You think by allowing limitations to violence and simply mentioning it that Abrahamic religions aren't tenable, but it's this idealist taboo which is exactly why violence has always been so prevalent and justifiable within Buddhist societies. Of course we do not like any violence, it just isn't allowed. But you will be forgiven for killing the foreigners and heretics- Buddha is compassionate.

>>7223801
Well you just showed your ignorance of Buddhism. Its very ingrained in society.


Thanks fam for your trolling attempts.

>>7223797
>Is it physically possible for you to understand that I'm talking about the actual teachings that the Buddha gave?
Is it physically impossible for you to understand that we don't live in an idealist world and that this means fuck all when real world Buddhists use their Buddhism as justification for killing people?

>>7223807
Every single time someone comes with a serious critique, you just say they don't understand Buddhism.

How's about you kill yourself, you fucking ideologue?

>>7223801
It is not incumbent upon a Buddha to "forgive" anyone, nor would an arahat be capable of doing such a thing. Your kamma is yours and yours alone, and you are the arbiter and heir of your actions.

>>7223807
>la la la buddhists are so peaceful did do nuffin la la la I can't hear you

Typical. Every time.

>>7223812
>serious critique
>buddhist don't recognize society
>ignores society

kek

>>7223813
Maybe in your Buddhism. Then again we know that your Buddhism is THE Buddhism.

>>7223812
When you say serious, there should be some thought put into it. Mindlessly regurgitating ignorant shit is not in any way serious.

If you want to be serious, put more thought into your post.

>>7223824
>muh ignorance
>muh buddhists dindu nuffin
>muh textual perfection

You're literally like any religious fanatic.

>>7223824
>Buddhists recognize society
>the sangha is literally a monastic order intended and designed to exist outside society

>>7223832
BUT MY SCRIPTURE SAYS VIOLENCE IS BAD SO IT'S AUTOMATICALLY DOUBLEPLUS GOOD :)

>>7223825
I'm not the person you think I am. Nonetheless, let me support my claim textually, which you cannot do for a counter-claim.
Anguttara Nikaya 5.57:
"I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir."
You cannot be absolved of your actions by someone else. This is clear.

>>7223841
PLEASE PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE 2000+ YEARS OF VIOLENCE BY OUR PRACTITIONERS PLEASE PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE GENOCIDES OUR BOOKS SAYS IT'S NOT GOOD

SILLY MOSLEMS AND XRISTANS SO EVIL IT'S IN THEIR BOOKS

>>7223801
>The difference between Abrahamic and Buddhist scripture is that the former recognizes societies exist and that some kind of standard needs to exist.

The Buddha talked with kings and lay people many times and was never strictly apolitical. He assigned five precepts for lay followers as a societal standard.

>whereas Buddhist doctrines are focused on the practices of monks and nuns.

The Buddha gave many teachings to lay people, and lay people today go to monks to learn the Dhamma.

>But you will be forgiven for killing the foreigners and heretics

This is not a concept in Buddhism. You reap whatever you so, and not even the Buddha can keep you from reaping the fruits of your kamma. One of the Buddha's two chief disciples was murdered because of kamma he accrued in a past life.

>>7223811
Do you think I'm just saying we should just ignore them and say, "Well, they're not justified, so it's okay." They should be punished for what they're doing, all I'm saying is that they have no religious justification in Buddhism.

>>7223812
What if you just actually don't understand Buddhism? Because from your posts here that's what my guess would be.

You seem to lack even basic knowledge of Buddhism, let alone knowledge of deeper teachings.

>>7223846
I know. I know.

Take a breath.

There is more to Buddhism than the Pali canon

>>7223832
>spout ignorant shite
>get corrected by someone more knowledgeable than you
>"FUCKING FUNDIE GET FUCKED"

>>7223850
You dumb fucks can't even realize that no one, not one time, has denied that Buddhists have committed crimes. The only thing we're telling you is that they have no religious justification for their actions. That's it.

>>7223857
The area in which violence is occurring against muslims is largely Theravada, which is based on the Pali canon.

The killing of muslims is also being done by monks claiming to belong to the Theravada tradition. Therefore, it would make sense to cite a Theravada teaching.

Anyway. The idea of violence in Buddhism might be a softball for you Western converts, but that's the least of it's problems.

All this other metaphysical bullshit about karma and dharma, and reincarnation and Nirvana, is literally woo-woo on par with the Christian concepts of witchcraft and the Kingdom of Heaven.

>>7223872
>>>/r/atheism

>>7223879
Zero arguments.

>>7223887
What was I given to argue with? Your post was nothing more than just "Man, those religious people sure are stupid, huh?"

You made a stupid post and you got a stupid reply. Maybe make a better one next time.

>>7223872
Not sure what pains me the most - the misuse of "metaphysical" in the list of "it's problems," the reference to "reincarnation," or the theological equivalence drawn between Christian ideas about witchcraft and Christian ideas about heaven.

>>7223896
Nah, it's more of a "Why on Earth to people believe things things" type argument.

I never once mentioned that religious people are stupid.

But I get that for someone like you, hearing opposite opinions to your preconceptions makes you defensive.

>>7223902
How is religious belief not metaphysical?

How is reincarnation in the Buddhist sense, not metaphysical?

How is this not equivalent to equally faith-based claims, such as the existence of witchcraft and Christian ideas about heaven and hell?

>>7223905
>"Why on Earth to people believe things things"
This is pretty much just calling people stupid, though.

Aside from that, as this post explained >>7223902 you can't even mention the religion you're criticizing without revealing how ignorant you are of it.

>>7223911
I honestly don't believe you're posting in good faith, and I'm going to bed, but I invite you to investigate why Buddhism has never taught reincarnation.

>>7223911
>he thinks Buddhism teaches reincarnation

This is literally Buddhism 101, man.

>>7223920
>>7223922
>Buddhism has never taught reincarnation

Well, now I know you're both full of shit.

>>7223928
You are actually, objectively wrong this time.

Please, just google it for ten seconds.