/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13423840]

>Buddhism is life denying
You do understand that it was literally written as a critique to actual life denying movements of the time?
To deny life is to cling to the idea of some escape, instead he teaches not to cling to he idea of pleasure of pain as both are fleeting and static. You don’t deny life by admitting that one cannot and therefore shouldn’t hold onto a permenant reality.

Not even Buddhist desu, but you guys have such a poor understanding of it that it’s blows my mind. Seriously stop getting all your ideas of Buddhism from the atheist who meditates 10 minutes a day and considers him himself an enlightened being.

[Anonymous No.13424003]

So you were in that thread too. Honestly, /lit/ isn’t too horrible when it comes to more Eastern philosophy. The rise of non-meme Traditionalism has been pretty strong. The issue I think comes into daily practice. It’s just like you describe, Buddhism isn’t meditating 10 minutes a day. The perception of Buddhist practice in the west is ultimately life denying. It isn’t what Buddhism is, but it is what it appears to be. This is why Hinduism has more appeal imo.

[Anonymous No.13424006]

>>13424003
>non-meme Traditionalism
A & ~A

[Anonymous No.13425190]

>Buddhism is nihilistic
I unironically hear this all the time and it blows my mind.
Buddhism teaches us that we all have an internal nature of Buddhaness that must through the course of many lifetimes be cultivated with meditation, knowledge and contemplation.
It literally gives you meaning for multiple lifetimes if you believe in that how is it possibly nihilistic?

[Anonymous No.13425237]

>>13423840
>You do understand that it was literally written
It wasn't.
>critique to actual life denying movements of the time?
No.
>To deny life is to cling to the idea of some escape
Semantics. Go back to school.

[Anonymous No.13425251]

>>13425237
Spoken pointless argument, semantics

Yes.

Except it literally is.
Buddha thought the want of moksha was a major obstacle to obtaining it

[Anonymous No.13425255]

Anyone who uses "life denying" as an argument is not worth taking seriously anyways. The power-crazed Nietzschean use it for nothing more than a petty insult without any argument to it. They throw it around at literally anything they choose and then automatically act as if it completely destroyed the argument of the opposing side. It is rather sad and simply is projection of their own power fetishes by implying that life has to be some larping warrior fantasy.

[Anonymous No.13425273]

According to westerners schopenhauer invemted buddhism

[Anonymous No.13425302]

>>13425273
Buddhism is like an abandoned path that is discovered and lost over and over again through the ages. Schopenhauer did invent it, in much the same way that the Buddha did not.

[Anonymous No.13425847]

>>13425190
>>13423840
So I guess locking yourself in a cave just to die is a high sign of life, eh?
Buddhism is pure nihilsim.
At least it's not fucking batshit satanism like hinduism at least.

[Anonymous No.13425850]

>>13425251
So was he an idiot, a hypocrite, or both?

[Anonymous No.13425888]

>>13423840
It denies the materialist life, which is all any unreflective person who would critique it as "life denying" would be familiar with. To deny materialism, consumerism, ownership, the spectacle, ect, is to deny life, as no alternative is offered that operates outside of the cube. You'll notice that even most modern buddhists have fallen within this spectacle.
>literally written as a critique to actual life denying movements of the time
This is exactly correct. The movements that endorsed mortification quite literally denied life, in the most basic and radical sense, they sought death.
To a materialist, or one lost in the labyrinth of a western thought, to do deny that which is the life blood of the "great society" is to seek death. People of this mentality have never, and probably will never, know the liberation that is gained from denial of ownership.

[Anonymous No.13425896]

>>13425847
>satanism like hinduism
The concept of Satan and the evil being vs good God duality originates from Zoroastrianism, which is itself a descendent of the same Indo-European religious traditions that eventually formed into Hinduism. Calling Hinduism satanic is like taking the archenemy of a MLP-Harry Potter crossover fanfiction series and then implying that the Harry Potter of the original series was actually the MLP-fanfiction archenemy all along

[Anonymous No.13425897]

>>13425847
>buddhism is nihilism
>hinduism is satanism
The Christians on this board espouse the depth of tradition, beauty, and philosophy in Christianity that atheists overlook and then assign 1 word misnomers to other religions. You're atheistic in every other direction but your own. Same hat on a different head.

[Anonymous No.13425924]

>>13423840
the conception comes from people like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.13425951]

>>13425847

locking yourself in a cave indefinitely to die would not provide you any insight into the structure of reality and how to transcend it. in short, you don't know what you're talking about or what buddhism is

[Anonymous No.13425982]

>>13425847
I really hope this is bait

[Anonymous No.13426057]

>>13425896
>>13425897
I can see where that anon is coming from, and in a sense he's correct. Hinduism, with it's devotion to various complex deities, hierarchical social order, very advanced system of metaphysics, ect, can all be equated to luciferianism (intellectualism), which most christians equate to satan. I don't think it should all be thought of as "evil", but, to my knowledge, in Buddhism as taught by Siddhartha, there are none of these gods, social structures, or metaphysics found in orthodox Hinduism. I think the Buddha, like the original lost teachings of the "Christ" character, taught of a different path. Of course the later Buddhism we see in Tibet, Southeast Asia, China, ect, is not of this inclination, so I of course could be mistaken.

[Anonymous No.13426103]

>>13423840
>To deny life is to cling to the idea of some escape, instead he teaches not to cling to he idea of pleasure of pain as both are fleeting and static
How can something be fleeting and static? Are you retarded?

Regardless, Buddhism is life denying because life itself is fleeting and it fails to reconcile that.

[Anonymous No.13426119]

>>13423840
>You do understand that it was literally written as a critique to actual life denying movements of the time?
>To deny life is to cling to the idea of some escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha
Imagine being as dumb of a faggot as op

[Anonymous No.13426123]

>>13425847
based christposter

[Anonymous No.13426130]

>>13426057
>Hinduism, with it's devotion to various complex deities, hierarchical social order, very advanced system of metaphysics, ect, can all be equated to luciferianism (intellectualism), which most christians equate to satan.

what a load of shit. what is luciferian is intellectualism for its own sake. that other anon was absolutely right. "same hat on a different head", you're just as culturally and philosophically illiterate as fedoras

>>13426103
impermanence is one of its central tenets. "Form is Void, Void is Form"

[Anonymous No.13426139]

>>13426119
enlightenment was never supposed to be some highe realm, but always being reconciled with what-is, even Zizek who criticizes Buddhism understands this.

[Anonymous No.13426153]

>>13426130
>>13426139
>impermanence is one of its central tenets. "Form is Void, Void is Form"
If life itself is fleeting what makes the pursuit of fleeting things like pleasure or the avoidance of fleeting things like pain mistaken?

[Anonymous No.13426155]

>>13426139
Zizek afaik criticizes Zen, particularly its more sect-specific aspects ie stuff not found in the earliest texts

[Anonymous No.13426156]

>>13423840
Idk dude seems pretty life denying to me if by “life” we mean something like flourishing organic beings maximizing on their capacities or some shit like that. Nietzsche would agree with me, as would Schopenhaur, which isn’t an appeal to authority so much as it is a cue to better investigate the perspective that would perceive Buddhism as such. Now Hinduism, that’s a different story.

[Anonymous No.13426164]

>>13426139
Doesn’t he just criticize materialist western Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.13426190]

>>13426153
because the only thing that doesn't change is change (and the knowledge of change) itself

[Anonymous No.13426198]

>>13426156
lol if you think the unreflective pursuit of desires is synonymous with self-realization you don't know what it is you're even arguing against

life itself is life-denying

[Anonymous No.13426209]

>>13426190
And there we have it, some conception of eternity that offers escape from life. You now understand what's meant by buddhism is life denying by the OP's own definition.

[Anonymous No.13426210]

>>13425847
>It’s ok when Chrisitan hermits do it!

[Anonymous No.13426214]

>>13426164
to an extent, he still thinks buddhism can't think lacan's "self-repelling" void or whatever it is, which I disagree with: it is the foundation of the tradition itself

[Anonymous No.13426217]

>>13426155
*also worth mentioning that Zizek criticized DT Suzuki by name and Suzuki is essentially poorly interpreted and accessible Soto Zen for Westerners

[Anonymous No.13426229]

>>13426209
no, it is a knowledge that banishes the hope of escape just as it banishes the fear of being imprisoned

[Anonymous No.13426239]

>>13426130
Luciferian = Promethean
No need to throw insults. The "Light of the Morning Star" represents the Intellect, the "Knowledge of Good and Evil, and so on. The knowledge of good and evil in practice is mastery of the physical world, which itself is representative of satan, the beast. The notion of one being "good" or "bad" isn't what I'm trying to promote here. This is the philosophy behind the western esoteric tradition. It's not "for it's own sake".

[Anonymous No.13426252]

>>13426239
which doesn't apply in the slightest to Hinduism

[Anonymous No.13426258]

>>13426229
I've no interest in your semantic game, it's a simple fact that one of two things must be true within its context.

1) Everything is finite, and therefore there's nothing wrong about pursuing the finite.
2) There is some notion of eternity, which renders the aforementioned wrong.

That's sort of what...words...mean, yeah? Logic, definitions, all that? Good day.

[Anonymous No.13426269]

>>13426258
>my sophomoric dichotomies are axiomatic or bust
>yeah? logic? yeah? words? yeah?

don't embarrass yourself

[Anonymous No.13426280]

>There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html

[Anonymous No.13426292]

>>13426269
>this complete lack of an argument
Shocking...shocking stuff.

[Anonymous No.13426295]

>>13426103
Non-static sorry

Also like I said I’m not a Buddhist but isn’t the entire point of Buddhism to reconcile life to its fleetingness?

[Anonymous No.13426296]

>>13426258
'finite' and 'infinite' are fabricated mental conceptions built from attaching to the contents of immediate experience - neither can be said to be any sort of unfabricated ultimate truth

[Anonymous No.13426304]

>>13426280
>The born, become, produced,
>made, fabricated, impermanent,
>composed of aging & death,
>a nest of illnesses, perishing,
>come from nourishment
>and the guide [that is craving] —
> is unfit for delight.
>
>The escape from that
>is
>calm, permanent,
>beyond inference,
>unborn, unproduced,
>the sorrowless, stainless state,
>the cessation of stressful qualities,
>the stilling of fabrications,
> bliss.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-043

[Anonymous No.13426316]

>>13423840
props to the people on this board who earnestly study Buddhism and don't fall for all the misinterpretations and memes about it being nihilistic, about emptiness meaning "nothing exists," about it supposedly being an eternalist religion in its true form and thus not more than a shit version of Vedanta
keep reading suttas lads

[Anonymous No.13426336]

>>13426296
>dude reality doesn't real sit under this tree until you die lmao

[Anonymous No.13426342]

>>13426292
Nagarjuna's Tetralemma.

[Anonymous No.13426360]

Meditation And Buddhism is the mf tea right now on lit

[Anonymous No.13426361]

>>13426336
also inaccurate since real and unreal are both fabricated conceptions
also, all sects of Buddhism maintain that a lay follower can become fully enlightened - what they think happens afterwards varies but this is one consistency, so you don't have to sit under a tree until you die.
Even enlightened monks don't do that, since with the absence of self-conceit their compassion (now the only motivating force for action in a mind purified of defilement, as opposed to self-interest which would've been present before) they spend the rest of their lives to devoted to helping others to alleviate and end their suffering.

[Anonymous No.13426364]

>>13426252
If you say so. I've found that it springs from the same source. The cultures of ancient Phoenicia, Sumer, and the Indus Valley are close enough in dating, geographic location and early phases of cultural development that their later expressions are essentially capable of comparison.

[Anonymous No.13426371]

>>13426360
Hinduism and Vedanta especially are far more popular on here

[Anonymous No.13426406]

>>13426361
>real and unreal are both fabricated conceptions

[Anonymous No.13426407]

>>13426361
>all sects of Buddhism maintain that a lay follower can become fully enlightened
don't some sects of buddhism say you die if you become an arahant and don't become a monk in 7 days or something like that?

[Anonymous No.13426409]

>>13426361
>to alleviate and end their suffering.
i think all people who say buddhists are "life denying" is because they deny the suffering in life. the critics of buddhism of this branch believe suffering is an intrinsic part of life (i believe it too...). buddhism is just one more comforting lie in a sea of psychological comforting lies.

[Anonymous No.13426420]

>>13426361
Milindapanha III.19
>"You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
>"The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."

[Anonymous No.13426423]

>>13426409
And what’s the truth?

[Anonymous No.13426434]

>>13426409
the ending of suffering in Buddhism comes from not equanimously accepting the suffering and transience inherent in life.
Doesn't seem very life-denying to me.

[Anonymous No.13426438]

>>13426409
pain is a part of life, suffering is not, because suffering is a narrativization of pain and so depends on the mind

[Anonymous No.13426448]

>>13425850
None of the above.

[Anonymous No.13426458]

>>13425847
cringe

[Anonymous No.13426470]

>>13426407
>>13426420
Yea that's why I said here: >>13426361
>what they think happens afterwards varies but this is one consistency
It is only Theravadins who believe that you must ordain as a monk or die, by the way. Theravada does not perfectly adhere to the early texts as well (just look at the inconsistencies in Abhidhamma and the commentaries). Milindapanha is PC but still has some inconsistencies with the suttas (though still generally a good resource).
Afaik they got "ordain within 7 days or die" from the fact that in the suttas, every layman who becomes an Arahant happens to either die or ordain, but nowhere does the Buddha or anyone in the suttas say specifically that that must always be the case. You can agree with their reasoning if you wish.

[Anonymous No.13426474]

>>13426406
>he thinks he can be certain that there is or is not a real external objective universe independent of mind and perception
>he thinks that literally any stance on this question could be anything more than conjecture

[Anonymous No.13426489]

>>13426434
>>13426438
>not equanimously accepting the suffering and transience inherent in life.
this is not some therapeutic shit. this is a guy saying you can be totally away from suffering. you are saying that if you accept suffering you can end the suffering?. that is the buddhist teaching?... sounds like shit self help to me (and probably to you too...).

>pain is a part of life, suffering is not
dont play games you cant end.

[Anonymous No.13426495]

>>13426434
*should say
>suffering in Buddhism comes from not equanimously accepting the suffering and transience inherent in life, and being deluded about the reality of your experience

[Anonymous No.13426515]

>>13426489
well yea because once you die as an Arahant you are not reborn again since birth entails suffering - ie the end of suffering. Rebirth is part of Buddhism, it is a religion after all.
Although the Buddha does teach that suffering (more specifically Dukkha) entirely ends in this very life for the Arahant. Confusion about this topic typically stems from the difference in the meaning of Dukkha and the meaning of suffering. It is a bad translation, but to try and give some idea: no-self, no problem. Pain just becomes pain, it's not happening to anyone. It is just a passing and conditioned sensation not unlike pleasure.

[Anonymous No.13426517]

>>13426361
>also inaccurate since real and unreal are both fabricated conceptions
And how is the concept of fabricated conceptions distinct from the 'unreal' exactly?

[Anonymous No.13426547]

>>13426517
the concept of fabricated conceptions is too a fabricated conception - this relates to the Emptiness of Emptiness as Nagarjuna calls it, Even the doctrine of Emptiness is Empty of essence. This is not to say that concepts are useless - this is where the teaching of Conventional Truth vs Ultimate Truth comes in. We have to use conventional truth (concepts) to operate and to lead towards Ultimate Truth (nirvana). The best we are taught to do when it comes to concepts it to avoid objectifying things (as either being or not-being, existence or non-existence...etc).
And again, Buddhism calls nothing real or unreal, since that is assigning objectivity to things. What it teaches of is the conditioned/fabricated/prepared (phenomenal world) and the unconditioned (nirvana)

[Anonymous No.13426548]

>>13426406
Lol good thing you posted a picture of a dumb brainlet because you are one ;}

[Anonymous No.13426585]

>>13426434
>>13426489
>T HE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH: DUKKHA
The First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca) is generally translated by almost all scholars as 'The Noble Truth of Suffering', and
it is interpreted to mean that life according to Buddhism is nothing
but suffering and pain. Both translation and interpretation are
highly unsatisfactory and misleading. It is because of this limited,
free and easy translation, and its superficial interpretation, that
many people have been misled into regarding Buddhism as
pessimistic.
It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit duhkha) in
ordinary usage means 'suffering', 'pain', 'sorrow' or 'misery', as
opposed to the word sukha meaning 'happiness', 'comfort' or
'ease'. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha's view of life and the world, has a deeper
philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses.
It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of 'suffering', but in
addition it also includes deeper ideas such as 'imperfection',
'impermanence', 'emptiness', 'insubstantiality'. It is difficult therefore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the
term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave
it untranslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it
by conveniently translating it as 'suffering' or 'pain'.
T he Buddha does not deny happiness in life when he says there
is suffering. On the contrary he admits different forms of happiness,
both material and spiritual, for laymen as well as for monks. In
the Anguttara-nikaya, one of the five original Collections in Pali
containing the Buddha's discourses, there is a list of happinesses
(sukhdni), such as the happiness of family life and the happiness of the life of a recluse, the happiness of sense pleasures and the
happiness of renunciation, the happiness of attachment and the
happiness of detachment, physical happiness and mental happiness
etc.1
But all these are included in dukkha. Even the very pure
spiritual states of dhyana (recueillement or trance) attained by the
practice of higher meditation, free from even a shadow of suffering in the accepted sense of the word, states which may be
described as unmixed happiness, as well as the state of dhjana
which is free from sensations both pleasant (sukha) and unpleasant'
(dukkha) and is only pure equanimity and awareness—even these
very high spiritual states are included in dukkha. In one of the
suttas of the Majjhima-nikdya, (again one of the five original
Collections), after praising the spiritual happiness of these dhyanas,
the Buddha says that they are 'impermanent, dukkha, and subject to
change' (anicca dukkha viparinamadbamma).2
Notice that the word
dukkha is explicitly used. It is dukkha, not because there is 'suffering'
in the ordinary sense of the word, but because 'whatever is impermanent is dukkha' (yad aniccam tam dukkham).

from What The Buddha Taught

[Anonymous No.13426588]

>>13423840

Reminder that Buddhism is Catholicism, i.e. Atheism.

[Anonymous No.13426602]

>>13426547
You didn't answer the question.

[Anonymous No.13426628]

>>13426585
You literally said nothing of any value whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.13426638]

>>13426547
How do you know your conventional truth is not a lie?
Especially when all conventional truth in hinduism is contradictory larp about worshiping everything as God, but God, making yourself near to a God by ignoring God, etc.?

[Anonymous No.13426651]

>>13426602
quite right, that was quicker than the others

[Anonymous No.13426660]

>>13426588
It’s the every religion is atheist Muslim!

[Anonymous No.13426680]

>>13426515
i have to reach the no-self first and after that i reach no suffering and no problem anymore.
the no-self thing is the life-denying thing and you cant even understand it. if buddhism is a religion there is no sense in arguing. a religion is a religion for a reason. (the unquestionability of his premises...)
but if you see buddhism like a philosophical teachings of a guy, the thoughts of someone, no-self is only a phrase, is only a thought,
self is life too.
your position is a position inside life, not outside life, like buddhists pretends it to be. no-self is not better than self.
not suffering is not better than suffering. is only a proposition not a truth.

[Anonymous No.13426697]

>>13426680
So you're saying you want to go out of your way to kill your individuality because then you won't have suffering somehow? In other words, killing yourself?
Wow.

[Anonymous No.13426706]

>>13426588
Siddhartha:
>Doesn't use proper nouns or descriptors to define the Ineffable
Turd burglar anonymous poster on Channel 4:
>"MUST BE ATHEIST!"

[Anonymous No.13426707]

>>13426680
no-self, no problem is a common modern monk phrase - ie when you cease identification with the aggregates there is no problem
But what was said earlier in this thread about how early Buddhism only uses anatta in reference to specific objects of experience, and does not categorically say there is "no self" or a self - it just points out what isn't self.

[Anonymous No.13426711]

>>13426697
How is anatta killing individuality? Anatta is just a matter of not identifying with the transitory aggregates. Has nothing to do with personality or anything

[Anonymous No.13426712]

>>13426588
boomer prottie bait is stale

[Anonymous No.13426715]

>>13423840
Could one say any form of intellect is life denying

[Anonymous No.13426733]

>>13426711
>Anatta
Imagine if Jews or Christians use Hebrew in their debates.
You people, I swear.
Better look up what this anatta word means then.
Wow. It actually means
NO
FUCKING
SELF
I guess it can't mean killing your individuality then.

[Anonymous No.13426742]

>>13426588
>>13426660
>>13426706
>>13426712

Curiously, or rather not so at all, Catholicism is not merely a perversion of Christianity, there is no initial Christian, nor Philosophical, core covered in Catholic perversion. There is only perennial perversity masquerading under the deliberate veneer of Christianity. Much like French perversity has nothing at all to do with Marx or Freud, which are just a superficial disguise for the very same perversity. Buddhism approaching said perversity in its pure form.

[Anonymous No.13426747]

>>13426742
This thread is not about Catholicism. Stop baiting and taking it off topic.

[Anonymous No.13426748]

>>13426697
that is what buddhists say. not what i said. in fact they say there is no individuality to kill in first place.
they are just
fanatical when they want

>>13426707
what are you trying to say exactly?. that buddhism is an introspective school of thought without terms or concepts?.

[Anonymous No.13426758]

>>13426742
You're delusional.
At worst, Catholicism is a mask for perversion, also acting as its deterrent which is a factual truth especially in this abortion age.
Buddhism is just Hinduism removed from bullshit idolatry and concentrated on the self instead of whatever deity is useful to worship that week.
In a sense, Buddhism does more to Hinduism that however much you think Catholicism reduced Christianity.

[Anonymous No.13426767]

>>13426747

My point being they are one and the same, Atheism of the most fearsome kind: Demiurgic.

[Anonymous No.13426774]

>>13426748
I firmly believe all the far eastern religions are just too contradictory and end up as clusterfucks of spirituality.
I mean, I definitely don't understand their doctrines, but from all that I have ever gathered from talking to them, neither do they. Like seriously, I have yet to meet a hindu who's not a hippie weirdo or a budhist who's not just an actively depressed cunt repressing himself as best he can for a limited time.
So what's the point in it?

[Anonymous No.13426776]

>>13426767
>>13426742
>perennial perversity masquerading under the deliberate veneer of Christianity.
Imagine unironically writing like this. Can you get anymore pseud?

[Anonymous No.13426783]

>>13423840
The problem is that McMindfulness is what the average person knows about Buddhism, as traditional Buddhism isn't commercialized

>>13425190
People just think it's nihilistic because Buddhism has a non-soul doctrine.

[Anonymous No.13426796]

>>13426774
i dont know. ask it to them, not me. i dont believe in his bullshit. in fact i cringe myself everytime people talk with a layer of respect to "eastern religions" like it was something deep and philosophical.

[Anonymous No.13426810]

>>13426733
No it means denying that a self ego driven soul exists.
Imagine it instead as us being all part of a great world soul or God to which we all return

[Anonymous No.13426814]

>>13426796
As opposed to what?
The base materialism and uselessness of western philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13426817]

>>13426810
Okay, I'll bite.
And how do you deny this self ego?

[Anonymous No.13426829]

>>13426817
Through nibbana.

[Anonymous No.13426835]

>>13426829
>nibbana
Fucking shit man.

[Anonymous No.13426840]

When you deny the self, who does the denying?

[Anonymous No.13426853]

>>13426817
Through a realization that what you consider to be “I” is merely illusionary and created by your clinging to the senses.

>>13426829
Nibbana is far too controversial a concept in Buddhism to say that.

[Anonymous No.13426854]

>>13426835
The idea is that as you practice Buddhism, you will sense that the path you are on is inconceivably true, and feel yourself getting closer to extinguishing everything.

[Anonymous No.13426856]

>>13426840
the Self denies the self

[Anonymous No.13426866]

>>13426840
Awareness

[Anonymous No.13426869]

>>13426853
This is a bit more sophisticated, but I still deny the approach of it.
>>13426854
You're still basically saying to practice specific rituals that may or may not be out of reach to some people and you STILL end up killing yourself.

[Anonymous No.13426877]

>>13426814
dont misunderstood me. i didnt say that. opposed to nothing. to nothing cultural at least. they are an organized religion. i think it help to understand the buddhists postulates better if you know they are a religion. not some abstract deep truth.

[Anonymous No.13426878]

>>13426869
How is it killing your self?
Is giving yourself entirely up to the will of god on abrahamic faiths killing yourself?
Serious question just so I understand your mindset

[Anonymous No.13426880]

>>13426866
>>13426856
Whose?
>inb4 God, though in a Buddhist sense either God created you to kill yourself or you're a random mistake that may or may not have the capacity to kill yourself and just keep repeating the circle until you may randomly get to kill yourself

[Anonymous No.13426902]

>>13423840
I feel like I see a lot more of a spinoza in buddhist philosophy than schopenhaur. Acknowledging the body as the source of passions and integrating practices designed to bring your body to a higher state of joy is very much life-affirming and a rejection of the right to rule professed by kings and the state. I just think that the temple format is insufficient for this end in light of the oncoming intensification of eco/ethno-fascism

[Anonymous No.13426910]

>>13426878
In abrahamic faith it's more alike that God kills you, or that which you cannot kill.
Who are you to know the spiritual realm and live when you can't comprehend the material realm you live, let alone to claim to know your supposed infinite self?
God, the maker of all, who has made you in love and mercy for suffering and who, contrary to what fundamentalist nutjobs say, will pick you up if you are worthy of God's ways. But as the Buddhists say, suffering is life, yet unlike them the Christian doesn't seek some mythical doctrine of fatality, but must embrace himself, his flaws and mirror the ways of God in his everyday life to achieve nabbana norvana or whatever the fuck as his best self, to his best ability, not as someone else.

[Anonymous No.13426927]

>>13426877
Ah ok, yeah I agree.
It helps mainly if you understand Buddhism is trying to be a system of political rule and worship similar to the Catholic Church

[Anonymous No.13426935]

>>13426853
How so?

>>13426869
It doesn't reach out to anybody. It's just about recognizing that all your senses and mental formations are impermanent, and you let yourself get dragged around by them mindlessly, seeking out fleeting pleasures. Nibbana is just about ending the cycle of craving and reincarnation. There can't be a soul in an impermanent world, because that would imply some aspect of eternity, ergo it is your karma that carries on. But this karma isn't something owned by your soul, or self. Obviously, like any other religion, you just have to have faith that impermanence is the universal truth.

[Anonymous No.13426998]

>>13426935
>It doesn't reach out to anybody
It's still a ritual based dogma. Christianity has that too, but prayer is sufficient for repentance, while you still need all sorts of crap for you supposed path.
I agree with the dragging yourself part, but Buddhist metaphysics are flawed.
You say the world is impermanent, but are its building blocks? How long does space last, how long does it take for an atom to fall apart on its own? My point being, where is the connection between eternity and futility truly?
Who counts your karma if its not you and why is that which does grant everyone a chance at reincarnation? And if it matters most, why posses a soul at all? Who sets the rules for karma and why are you bond by it, even though your soul gets bought out after every cycle and your self is literally irrelevant? You seem to have far too much order for the price of nothing.
Also you can end your cravings right now, if you're strong willed enough. And you take reincarnation for granted far too much as if everyone is automatically worthy of it.

[Anonymous No.13427043]

I MEDITATE TO FEEL GOOD.

t. western buddhist

[Anonymous No.13427107]

>>13426998
>You say the world is impermanent, but are its building blocks?
Impermanence is just the thing which binds everything, so building blocks would be subject to it as well.
>Who counts your karma
Karma in Buddhism is different than the karma in Hinduism, which is based on the idea that karma is something your soul carries to the next life. Karma in Buddhism is just the law of conditionality, so unwholesomeness creates unwholesome outcomes. And with respect to reincarnation, a death filled with clinging and unwholesomeness creates a birth that carries that same clinging. Put bluntly, that's all reincarnation really is, there isn't a "you" that gets reincarnated like in Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.13427137]

>>13426998
And being reincarnated is not a good thing. The ultimate goal is to escape karma itself and end reincarnation. And things like suicide, while the Japanese did conceptualize through Buddhism, do nothing to end the cycle of reincarnation, and leads to more suffering. Again, it is a religion that requires faith like any other, and as other people have mentioned, most people don't read the original literature anymore, so now there's this strain of Buddhism which is devoid of divinity or philosophy, it's becoming a scientific health benefit in the eyes of liberal types.

[Anonymous No.13427179]

>>13427043
I mean it does make me feel good

[Anonymous No.13427211]

>>13427043
>>13427137
in the end is the same. i believe in karma, reincarnation, karmic wheel and no-self like real-self to feel good.
they needed divinity as an excuse in the past. now they have the scientifical approved meditation. they are the same people with the same goals. its a perfectly understandable evolution.

[Anonymous No.13427244]

What should I read to learn more about Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.13427305]

>>13427179
>>13427211
spiritual materialism, doing "meditation" to feel good is not the teaching of gotama, it is being unimpacted by good aswell as by the bad.

[Anonymous No.13427322]

>>13427305
I never claimed it was the teachings of Siddy.
That doesn’t change the fact daily meditation improves my mental state and leads to a better daily life.

[Anonymous No.13427330]

>>13427305
go saying that to all the "life is suffering except if you follow me" buddhisth path. or the totally enlightned people who still live only to help people to end suffering with his buddhist teachings.

the divine and the reincarnation and karmic wheel is only a narrative. at least that is how i saw it. i mean, if you see it like a lie not like a deep unquestionable truth. westerners dont need the divinity bullshit, i understand it.
but i wouldnt call them materialists because that.

[Anonymous No.13427331]

I've been reading a lot of Buddhism lately and I wouldn't mind going full-on but the fucking vegetarianism is fucking me up. I don't want to be a vegetarian and I do not honestly see why it was seen to be so necessary. I don't see it flowing undoubtedly from Buddhist metaphysics/epistemology.

Seems unfortunate to me that Buddhism was started in India where vegetarianism was so strong. Had it started in Europe then if everything else about it would have been the same, I don't think vegetarianism would have been a thing.

Am I just clinging to an attachment of eating meat or what? But like what the thread is about, I find it life denying. Animals eat each other. But not only that, denying yourself the ability to hunt or fish your own food leaves you only with factory farmed meat(which is something I hate). And since Buddhism actually allows you to eat meat but only if someone else kills it, this is another life denying aspect in my view as it implies the practitioner is just retreating from responsibility?

help
Greatly into Advaita too and this would solve much of my issues, but I like the systematized and organizational parts of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13427340]

>>13427331
Not all Buddhists eat meat, but all abstain from butchering meat.

[Anonymous No.13427341]

>>13427331
Lrn2Cook
Vegetarianism is not that hard to do.

[Anonymous No.13427343]

>>13427322
maybe if you pray one non-stop hour to a random religion god with a random religion praying really believing is truth, maybe you end feeling the same.

[Anonymous No.13427348]

>>13427331
>>13427340
It's because monks in the past begged for food, and they aren't going to turn down meat.

[Anonymous No.13427360]

>>13427343
English?

[Anonymous No.13427388]

>>13427331
A Buddhist begging for alms is allowed to eat meat if the fish given to him has meat in it.
Throwing away a meat dish given to a monk would be seen as highly wrong and disrespectful to the animal so monks can eat meat if offered to them.
Howevera monk can never have an animal killed in order for himself to eat, as he is taking another life for his own pleasure. You also can kill an animal in a life or death situation and there’s a ritual of some sort you gotta do to calm the animals spirit of something like that who knows.

[Anonymous No.13427407]

>>13426733
I assumed that you were familiar with anatta since you were bold enough to try and criticize it as if you understood it.
It also means not-self, as in "x is not-self," not "no self."

[Anonymous No.13427420]

>>13427388
eating vegetables ends up killing animals to, Buddhists should starve themselves to death

[Anonymous No.13427428]

>>13426817
insight meditation
Accepting the selflessness of the five aggregates - form, sensations (or feelings, received from form), perceptions, mental activity or formations and consciousness on a conceptual level means very little when you still intuitively perceive things as if they were otherwise. Insight meditation changes the intuitive/automatic aspect of your perception.

[Anonymous No.13427434]

>>13426840
Buddhism does not deny the self it just points out what is not-self.
Denying the self categorically is nihilism and not what the Buddha taught.
He didn't teach of a self/soul either, but I promise you that not-self is only in reference to the lack of self/essence in experiential phenomena, not a statement on the ontological status of the self.

[Anonymous No.13427465]

>>13427341
>Vegetarianism is not that hard to do.
It is if you've taken the Unabomber/Varg pill and want to at least have the opportunity to go inna woods.

[Anonymous No.13427493]

>>13427420

>eating vegetables ends up killing animals

elaborate on this interesting fact

[Anonymous No.13427507]

>>13427340
And you do not see that as a problem? It makes factory farming the superior way for people to eat meat. And not only that, a Buddhist country necessarily depend on non-Buddhists and or they need a certain number of Buddhists to basically destroy themselves through the accumulation of bad karma by butchering animals so that the rest of the population can live with a clean conscience.

Buddhism lacks self-sustainability and it doesn't appear to be a complete system capable of saving the individual, the Nation or even Dharma itself. I'm no fan of Abrahamism but at least you couldn't say the same thing about those religions.

[Anonymous No.13427523]

>>13427493
farming kills ton of small animals, especially monocrops farming.

[Anonymous No.13427524]

>>13427507
You and him misunderstand.
It’s not prevented from butchering it’s preventing animals from being slaughtered due to ones desires.
So getting meat from a slaughter hous is supporting the killing of sentient life for desire.
But if you kill an animal in the woods to survive on you are killing not out of desire and it can be forgiven

[Anonymous No.13427529]

>>13427523
Well you always have Jainism anon

[Anonymous No.13427534]

>>13427507
The question of vegetarianism isn't very important in Buddhism, but I would just say that the cultivation of meat back in the Buddha's time was completely different than the factory farms today. Most Buddhist's would view mass consumerism to be a negative thing.

[Anonymous No.13427543]

>>13427507
nah the Buddha points out the codependence between the lay community and the monastic community
Buddhism isn't just for monks.
Buddhists also acknowledge that vegetarianism and veganism are morally superior to eating meat, and that lay followers who have the option of deciding their diet would benefit karmically from adopting such a diet.

[Anonymous No.13427548]

>>13427529
they should all starve themselves to death to minimize harm to living things and the environment.

[Anonymous No.13427556]

>>13427507

your conception of how people actually eat meat in any centuries prior to this one is really incorrect to the point of absurdity. first of all, you don't need to eat any animal flesh to live. even 100 years ago, people that weren't wealthy were lucky if they got to eat meat twice a week. in the time of gautama, meat was really only even eaten after a sacrifice for god(s), or during some kind of piety festival. your conclusion is absurd because you genuinely think that our ancestors were eating cheeseburgers every day

>>13427523

you're not going to get out of this life doing absolutely no harm, the point is intent and reduction of harm. better that a few animals die for a farm that can perpetuate itself instead of perpetuating the meat industry

[Anonymous No.13427558]

>>13427548
They do

>>13427524
In addition these rules are monastic rules. The average Buddhist is not forbidden to eat meat that’s a western meme

[Anonymous No.13427574]

>>13427524
From what i've read that isn't really true. Eating meat as a layman isn't a problem at all since you without any problems at all really can eat meat without harboring any ill intent toward animals whereas this is impossible to do as you're about to or is butchering it. And intent is the name of the game in Buddhism.

Which is why killing is haram while eating is fine. And this to me is completely backwards, although I suppose it makes sense in Buddhist ethics.

[Anonymous No.13427575]

>>13427388
>We would never take the life of a living creature, not even for life's sake.
- AN 8.12
What you said does not line up with the ethics of the earliest Buddhist texts.

[Anonymous No.13427577]

>>13427556
you don't need meat "industry". prohibiting killing animals harms human. a person buying meat in supermarket it not harm, since they produce surplus amount of it and would just throw it away anyway.
>>13427558
>They do
didn't know that, cool, they are on the right path.

[Anonymous No.13427597]

>>13427574
>Eating meat as a layman isn't a problem at all since you without any problems at all really can eat meat without harboring any ill intent toward animals
The only "rules" for lay followers are the 5 Precepts which are the bare minimum for lay ethical code. This doesn't mean that there is no merit in going beyond them. Eating meat still contributes to animal slaughter, and a vegan or vegetarian diet is considered very meritorious for a layman.

[Anonymous No.13427606]

>>13427556
human ancestors evolved to incredible amount of meat, what do you think people ate in cold places?
what do you think people did before the invention of agriculture?
what do you think pastorals ate?
filthy peasant people during the medieval ages is not significant, not eating meat causes many deficiencies that easily would lead you to your death, they didn't have avocados and other rare vegetables arriving with planes from different places.

[Anonymous No.13427607]

>>13427556
>your conclusion is absurd because you genuinely think that our ancestors were eating cheeseburgers every day
You're not at all being fair. Fishing(especially) and animal husbandry was definitely a big part of how my ancestors ate. And I suppose hunting too if you go far enough back in time.

[Anonymous No.13427639]

>>13427330
Buddhism is a religion and you can't spin it any other way

[Anonymous No.13427649]

>>13427577

...you're spending money as a form of exchange, without that exchange the merchant that sells the meat wouldn't be able to sell anymore...try again

>>13427606

unless you're an inuit or something you have no claim to that, and certainly not without claiming all of the health problems that would result from eating an nearly all meat diet. the primary food that most people ate day to day were various grains and cereals, other vegetables and fruits were secondary. also try not to forget that people who were vegetarian lived relatively healthy lives then, and people of all diets live extremely unhealthy lives right now

>>13427607

i'm not saying it wasn't fairly important. my post was in context of the joke claim that a vegetarian or vegan society wouldn't be self sustaining because they don't eat meat, which is wrong. if you're willing to go far back enough to hunting and gathering, it was mostly gathering

[Anonymous No.13427660]

>>13423840
>not to cling to he idea of pleasure of pain as both are fleeting and static
But everything is. Even meditation doesn't stop time. The clock ticks regardless.

[Anonymous No.13427678]

>>13427244
Copy and pasted from an old thread
Hopefully it's not too late and you'll see this:
The best translations in basically every case are those by the Pali Text Society.
Here's a PDF for What The Buddha Taught, an excellent introductory text:
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~buddhism/docs/Bhante_Walpola_Rahula-What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf
Here is the best place I'm aware of for reading suttas online for free. The website contains multiple translations of almost every sutta (includes those by Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Bhikkhu Sujato, I.B Horner, and most importantly: those by the Pali Text Society, abbreviated as PTS):
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm
Another sutta site, only contains Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations, but it has a convenient search function for looking for specific suttas/topics:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
Another sutta site:
https://suttacentral.net/
This next site here is the best place for secondary works on Buddhism that I have ever found, and I have searched a ton. It contains the works by Ven. Kaṭukurunde Ñāṇananda Maha Thera, all available for free. Ñāṇananda is the only translator I would say is better than the Pali Text Society, but unfortunately he only translated the suttas that he was immediately discussing in his books, and never set out to translate entire Nikayas. He covers the deepest topics (Nibbana, dependent origination, emptiness, concept and reality) that are to be found in Buddhism. He is the most valuable resource I have found apart from the original suttas (which he strictly adheres to). Here's the link:
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
Here's a good site for translating Pali to English, and just for finding the meaning of individual words:
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/
I also recommend A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities by David Kalupahana - for a great overview of the way that different philosophies and perspectives have historically developed in Buddhism.
And lastly, Buddhist India by TW Rhys Davids is probably the best book for someone looking to learn about Buddhist history in India, with the political, cultural and religious environment

[Anonymous No.13427681]

>>13427649
merchant? what century are you living in? if enough people didn't buy meat all the animals being produced would be harmed to get rid of them. one person has zero impact.
>>13427649
>unless you're an inuit or something you have no claim to that, and certainly not without claiming all of the health problems that would result from eating an nearly all meat diet. the primary food that most people ate day to day were various grains and cereals, other vegetables and fruits were secondary. also try not to forget that people who were vegetarian lived relatively healthy lives then, and people of all diets live extremely unhealthy lives right now
you are completely ignorant of history, not just inuits, but humans overall have low stomach pH level, similar to the category of scavengers, so we at some points ate parts of animals that other animals couldn't get into, like brains, we are capable of eating rotten meat too because of this. our intestines are quote shorts. inuits are not the only people who had winters, don't forget that it was colder in the past too, now we have global warming.
indo-Europeans, mongols, all those strong steppe people ate big amounts of meat, meat is only bad when consumed along with lots of carbohydrates.
you need to stop trusting vegan pseudo-science, meat is healthy.

[Anonymous No.13427691]

>>13427534
>Most Buddhist's would view mass consumerism to be a negative thing.
Yeah but they have no solution to it. Pretty much all other religions except Jainism could potentially deal with this problem without sending their entire population into the hell realm.

And like another anon pointed out. The main reason people in most parts of the world today can even live off a vegetarian diet is because they can go buy fucking avocados and bananas in the super market. Good luck owning a few acres in Norway for example and feeding your family off the vegetarianism you and/or your neighbors are able to produce.

This brings the mind to Tibet. Where really no one is a vegetarian, not even the Dalai Lama. Why? Because it's absolutely impossible to sustain it in the environment of Tibet. So now you have an entire Buddhist country that is unable to follow what by most is considered the most important precepts of all.

[Anonymous No.13427747]

>>13427681

>if enough people didn't buy meat all the animals being produced would be harmed to get rid of them.

if the vast majority of animals in factory farms died as a result of factory farming somehow completely stopping, then that would be unfortunate but acceptable, yes

>one person has zero impact

and here we are talking about the teachings of one person

>some points ate parts of animals that other animals couldn't get into, like brains, we are capable of eating rotten meat too because of this...

our capability to eat meat, especially in climates where we can't eat something closer to our natural diet doesn't mean that we should be eating meat. there are herbivores that will very rarely eat meat if it's been cooked by a forest fire or struck by lightning, but that isn't their food. the overreliance on eating meat in the cultures you mentioned comes from either from migrating to an environment that humans can't ideally live in, or not to waste the pasture animals from the farms, or religious sacrifice. i don't that any of those people are morally deficient due to their circumstance, but you with the triple cheeseburger are unnatural

[Anonymous No.13427815]

>>13427747
>if the vast majority of animals in factory farms died as a result of factory farming somehow completely stopping, then that would be unfortunate but acceptable, yes
seems like maximizing harm, by punishing both animals and humans. also you keep mentioning the factories, in most countries they do the old way.
>>13427747
>and here we are talking about the teachings of one person
so? I don't get it. one person still has no impact by buying meat in conventional, modern way.
>our capability to eat meat, especially in climates where we can't eat something...
I'm not talking about any specific culture or any kind of climate, this is pre-history, there are many cultures all over the world.
No, over-reliance on vegetables, grains only happened after agriculture, we have been eating cooked meat for millions of years. we are not herbivores, we are carnivores(meat-eaters), herbivores aren't adapted to digest meat, we are. on the other hand we are not adapt to digest only vegetables and fruits, it's why vegans have ton of gut issues, it's why we have short intestines. you can't be healthy and not eat meat for a long time.
I'm not arguing for cheeseburgers.

whatever, don't want to turn this thread into argument about this, so I won't respond anymore.

[Anonymous No.13427824]

>>13426638
this is a Buddhism thread not Hinduism
God or Brahma isn't relevant in Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13427939]

>>13426998
>Buddhist metaphysics are flawed.
>You say the world is impermanent, but are its building blocks?
Original Buddhism isn't concerned with the substance or "building blocks" of any idea of an "objective world," - the stuff about impermanence and conditionality is taught in relation to SENSORY EXPERIENCE, sensory phenomena, as in, all sensations through the six sense doors (seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, feeling, thinking) are transitory. It is concerned with experience, not any actual substance. Sarvastivadin Buddhism tries to teach pluralism, but they're basically nihilistic materialists who don't adhere to the suttas.
>How long does space last, how long does it take for an atom to fall apart on its own?
Again, not a concern of Buddhism because substance is not relevant.
>My point being, where is the connection between eternity and futility truly?
Could you elaborate?
>Who counts your karma if its not you
Karma isn't tracked by anyone or counted, and isn't a universal justice system. Karma is simply the conditioning of the nature of experience by one's actions. In a simple form, one can observe that the most kind/generous people are generally the happy (live a pleasant experience) and unvirtuous people ex thugs and criminals are generally very unhappy ans mentall unstable (unpleasant experience). Actions determine the quality of your experience as it arises in the future, and this relates to rebirth because it carries on after death (unless you're and Arahant and cease to produce karma)
>and why is that which does grant everyone a chance at reincarnation? And if it matters most, why posses a soul at all?
Everyone is reborn because their actions produce the karma which produces birth. Why possess a soul? Buddhism doesn't use a soul to explain rebirth. Again, it's more like the conditioning of experience produced by the propulsion of actions, which all have consequences/effects.
>Who sets the rules for karma and why are you bond by it, even though your soul gets bought out after every cycle and your self is literally irrelevant?
The stuff about the soul being bought out after every cycle - I have no idea where you got that from. Are you mixing this up with something from another religion? In Buddhism there is nothing about a soul and being bought out of cycles in relation to rebirth. Karma is very difficult to get specific about on a deeper level than "actions produce equivalent effects." There's no sort of list of 'karma points' you get for every meritorious action. It's more like a guideline for understanding the way actions influence experience, moreso than it is some sort of metaphysical justice system.
(cont.)

[Anonymous No.13427959]

>>13426998
>Also you can end your cravings right now, if you're strong willed enough.
As far as I can tell, with sheer willpower you can deny and repress your baser instincts to crave for things, but it takes thorough spiritual development to truly uproot them. I don't know anyone who can just make their cravings go away through some sort of mental decision like "I will not desire anymore now."
>And you take reincarnation for granted far too much as if everyone is automatically worthy of it.
Again, there is no worth involved in rebirth or being 'allowed' to be reborn. It is just the result of karma produced by one's actions - leads to becoming. In the same way that actions determine the quality of your future experience in this life, so it applies to becoming/birth after death.
Apologies for typos, I'm typing this quick because I got stuff to do soon.

[Anonymous No.13428694]

>>13423840
bumb

[Anonymous No.13428830]

>>13425847
This. My pastor said that while Buddhism, Hinduism etc. is interesting is all ultimately leads to hell. Only Jesus offers us salvation. Read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.13429006]

Is meditation, the sitting and breathing kind, compatible with Catholicism

[Anonymous No.13429099]

>>13425255
Do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to continue frothing at the mouth?

[Anonymous No.13429109]

>>13429006
yes of course. meditation by itself isn't really a religious thing (and if it is it's def not breaking any rules of Catholicism).just sitting and breathing isn't anything other than sitting and breathing

[Anonymous No.13429111]

>>13429006
Some catholics will tell you that it is inviting demons to possess your body but if we are being pragmatic about this, meditation (whether it be breath meditation, vipassana, asubha) can work to profoundly reduce one's tendency to sin, to indulge in evil mental states.
Plus I've seen people say old traditional Catholicism had their own kind of meditation apart from prayer. Not sure how true this is but it's probably worth exploring.

[Anonymous No.13429139]

>>13425847
You cannot lock yourself in a cave, there is no door to shut.
After cavetime the sage returns to the people. Christ did the same, if you remember

[Anonymous No.13429152]

>>13425847
>>13429139

[Anonymous No.13429153]

So getting a hobby like reading or watching movies is life denying to them? sounds pretty life denying

[Anonymous No.13429227]

>>13429153
if you're a lay follower it's kind of expected that you'll still do things for fun
Or else what is the point of not being a monk?

[Anonymous No.13429235]

>>13423840
>As even a little excrement is of evil smell, I do not praise even the shortest spell of existence, be it no longer than a snap of the fingers.


honononononononhahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

[Anonymous No.13429267]

>>13429235
of course the line you quoted comes from the Theravada commentaries and not the suttas

[Anonymous No.13429460]

>>13429152
Tell Buddhists to apply themselves when they throw their enlightenment in their own reach and put the ordinary in an endless cycle of suffering beyond their means of escape.

[Anonymous No.13429465]

>>13429139
Christ went to the cave already dead for us all and returned.
Where does a living Buddhist go, but to die for himself and never come back?

[Anonymous No.13429525]

>>13429465
>Where does a living Buddhist go
Heaven/Hell/this life depending on their karma
It’s still unclear where Awakened Buddhists go to, the Buddha didn’t answer this directly

[Anonymous No.13429559]

>>13425847

>christcuckery
>not the most nihilistic doctrine of them all

[Anonymous No.13429564]

>>13429465
They all return, out of compassion. That is the finally image which I already posted.
What else do you expect from an awakened being?

[Anonymous No.13430198]

>>13427343
>if I change a letter in scriptures then it's different religion
based retard doing rituals he hopes are correct ones, not what is beneficial to him based on law of cause and effect

[Anonymous No.13430275]

>>13426748>>13426697

>that is what buddhists say. not what i said. in fact they say there is no individuality to kill in first place.
what is there is upadaya (grasping), which retards takes for self, the point is that upadaya had nothing to do with self and there is not self in the first place. all there is grasping and end of grasping by removing the condition for grasping.

[Anonymous No.13430540]

>>13426210
These monks have an object to attain and the lifestyle and psychological reconditioning is a way to get to the object.
It is a major difference to larping about inner states.

[Anonymous No.13430551]

>>13429006
Respiratory exercices can be good for you. Putting a 'spiritual' veneer to them is disgusting though.
The only 'meditation' worth anything is thinking (in the sense of activity of the self).

[Anonymous No.13431758]

>>13429465
Christ also appears to have been a mentally insane person whereas Buddha was at the minimum just an ascetic.

[Anonymous No.13431788]

>>13430551
Quiet thinking time is not the same as meditation. If you choose to practice meditation you will find those spiritual/religious feelings. Don't see why you have to be disgusted by them however, it's not like you're being force-fed any ideologies with the same spoon

[Anonymous No.13431860]

>>13423840
>who meditates 10 minutes a day
what's wrong with that

[Anonymous No.13431881]

>>13426638
>all conventional truth in hinduism is contradictory larp about worshiping everything as God, but God, making yourself near to a God by ignoring God, etc.?
completely wrong
>>13426758
>Buddhism is just Hinduism removed from bullshit idolatry
The Upanishads condemned ritual, promoted monasticism, urged concentration on the Self and not on a divine 'other' all long before Buddha was even born. You have no idea what you are talking about, as is sadly the case with many Buddhists when they talk about Hinduism.

It seems to me that when westerners become fans of Buddhism then they project all their dislike of Christianity onto Hinduism and make it their enemy despite there being so much agreement on spiritual teachings between them and despite most of Buddhisms ideas and themes coming from Hinduism, an ironic but also sad situation.