/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17164061]

I feel like this guy transcended metaphysics. Any framework can be contained within his view of reality and/or rendered meaningless by it.
Does anything come after, or did Siddartha actually solve everything 2500 years ago?

[Anonymous No.17164092]

inb4 cryptobuddhist schizo posting

[Anonymous No.17164149]

>>17164061
No shit, it's almost like he's the Buddha!

[Anonymous No.17164491]

>>17164061
Metaphysically, Buddism is best, but Yoga is much superior as a practice.

[Anonymous No.17164505]

>>17164491
Why?

[Anonymous No.17164636]

>>17164491
>Metaphysically, Buddism is best
How?

[Anonymous No.17164640]

>>17164636
>>17164061

[Anonymous No.17164661]

>>17164640
Interesting, but my metaphysical framework contains all buddhist metaphysics and renders it meaningless. You see, after parinibbana there is actually another form of existence which we cannot comprehend. If Nirvana is level 10, this existence 2.0 is level 11.

[Anonymous No.17164678]

>>17164661
>after parinibbana
>if Nirvana is level 10
You don't seem to understand buddhist metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17164700]

>>17164678
once the flame is simply 'out', we realise we were never the flame or absence of the flame, The whole paradigm is wrong. The flame is out. We were never the flame. Our eyes adjust to the darkness around us, and we see what 'existence' really is.

[Anonymous No.17164712]

>>17164700
>Our eyes adjust to the darkness around us
>'existence'
Again, you don't understand buddhist metaphysics at all. This is basic stuff covered in many suttas.

[Anonymous No.17164883]

>>17164061
>Does anything come after
Yes, Adi Shankara (pbuh) in the 8th century AD refuted and invalidated the entirety of Buddhism. Buddhists can only weep and gnash their teeth in despair

[Anonymous No.17164891]

>>17164883
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17164922]

>>17164891
>Shankara championed monism because he was so stupid he could only count to one
kek

[Anonymous No.17165199]

>>17164061
Isn't Taoism even more all-encompassing than Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.17165319]

>>17164891
holy based

[Anonymous No.17165654]

>>17164061
>I feel like this guy transcended metaphysics.
Buddha: just follow my practice but don’t ask me about the metaphysical basis for anything I say to see if it holds water or you’ll never gain access to my promised erasure from existence
NPCs: wow, so profound, truly metaphysics has been refuted

>>17164883
based

[Anonymous No.17165672]

>>17165654
Filtered

[Anonymous No.17165810]

>>17164491
Can you do both yoga and jhana meditation? Is it even beneficial?

[Anonymous No.17166268]

>>17165810
Why would you? The jhanas are enough.

[Anonymous No.17166417]

>>17164061
take the deleuze-pill, there is much in common with deleuze's notion of immanence and buddhist emptiness/paticcasamuppada, except that for deleuze after you find that any viewpoint can be contained within the principle of immanence, you not only get liberation but a sort of playful pluralist creativity where you can mess around with different frameworks without clinging to any single one, just exploring the infinity of intensities this world has to offer for you, each one being an object of affirmaton (only to be done after reaching a certain level of liberation through the buddha's teaching, however)

[Anonymous No.17166427]

>>17166417
Where do I start with Deleuze?

[Anonymous No.17166460]

>>17165199
Zen is a combination of Taoism and Buddhism and is the best

[Anonymous No.17166478]

>>17166427
his early monographs on nietzsche and spinoza are a nice place to start, easier to digest than his later works and lays out his deepest influences, nice intro to his philosophy of immanence, joy, and affirmation

for his viewpoint on immanence in relation to the playful and unclinging orientation in philosophy, check out 'What is Philosophy?'

for that playful philosophical orientation in action, check out 'A Thousand Plateaus'

'Difference and Repetition' for the metaphysics that underpins his idea in its purer form

[Anonymous No.17166482]

>>17166478
Thanks

[Anonymous No.17166886]

>>17165199
Is Taoism nihilistic? Is there an eternal self?

[Anonymous No.17166897]

>>17164883
What does Advaita think of deity worship?

[Anonymous No.17167087]

>>17166897
They consider it to be a bad thing if you worship the deity as something other than yourself. For men pursuing the path of knowledge, they can experience the Supreme Lord of the entire universe in their own consciousness and have no need of worship. But for people on lesser paths, Advaita condones the worship of and meditation on the qualified form of Brahman as long as the worshipper understands that the statue or art worshipped is purely symbolic and that Brahman is actually formless and all-pervasive and is also their own inner self.

[Anonymous No.17167150]

>>17166886
>is "thing that isn't nihilism" nihilistic?
No.

>Is there an eternal self?
No.

[Anonymous No.17167293]

>>17167150
What remains if there is no self, from a Taoist perspective?

[Anonymous No.17167310]

>>17164061
>transcended metaphysics
>solve metaphysics
Talking like this is a symptom of being 20.

[Anonymous No.17167317]

>>17164061
Plato<Buddha<Hegel

[Anonymous No.17167318]

I've just finished reading "In the Buddha's Words", it was a good introduction, although I didn't learn much that I didn't already know (the book just went into detail on things I wasn't well acquainted with).
Should I read this next? Or is it useless to read another introductory book and it would be better to start reading sutras now?

[Anonymous No.17167331]

>>17167310
And yet it's true.

[Anonymous No.17167345]

>>17164061
>Does anything come after
Cioran defeated him
and we will never know peace

[Anonymous No.17167350]

>>17167317
What makes Hegel superior?

[Anonymous No.17167359]

>>17164061
>I feel like this guy
but you are not
and neither was he.

[Anonymous No.17167360]

>>17167345
You can't appreciate Cioran if you're not a francophone since the only thing of value about any of his works is his prose, same as Camus

[Anonymous No.17167367]

>>17164061
>did Siddartha actually solve everything 2500 years ago?
the prettiest lies are still false

[Anonymous No.17167369]

>>17167331
>tfw i should have listened to the undergrads

[Anonymous No.17167374]

>>17167367
Cioran is such a whiny faggot

[Anonymous No.17167375]

>>17164061
>Any framework can be contained within his view of reality and/or rendered meaningless by it.
We can arrive at meaninglessness without the pseudo religious comfort blanket of Buddhist thought

[Anonymous No.17167381]

>>17167375
Stop spamming your shitty quotes

[Anonymous No.17167388]

>>17167360
>>17167374
Your God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.17167390]

>>17167375
kek

[Anonymous No.17167392]

>>17167388
>buddhism
>god
Are you being retarded on purpose?

[Anonymous No.17167407]

>>17167381
>Stop spamming your shitty quotes
Have you been upset by these words?

[Anonymous No.17167410]

>>17167407
I'm not reading them. Spamming is against the rules

[Anonymous No.17167413]

>>17167350
Hegel emphasises the centrality of Motion, which is not accounted for in Buddhism.
In Buddhism and Zen Buddhism in particular, the central notion is 無 (nothingness). In Hegelian philosophy the central notion is the Logos, which is always in motion and development.
Buddha is correct when he says all things are impermanent. But the paradox is that this very impermanence is itself permanent.
Impermanence is change, i.e. motion.
Hegelian philosophy accepts the paradoxical nature of reality: paradox structures and drives reality at the most basic level. Buddhism does this to an extent as well, but moreover, Hegelian philosophy accounts for how phenomena emerge from paradoxes through the notion of sublation and synthesis.
Buddha is silent on this, and restricts himself to phenomenology.

[Anonymous No.17167420]

>>17167392
>Are you being
You tell me,. Buddha baby blanket boy

[Anonymous No.17167421]

>>17167413
>the paradox is that this very impermanence is itself permanent.
That's not a paradox, samsara is explicitly described as something that will go on until every last being is liberated from the cycle.

[Anonymous No.17167428]

>>17167392
Buddhism has a large pantheon of deities, although it doesn't have an equivalent to the Abrahamic God

[Anonymous No.17167438]

>>17167413
>the central notion is 無 (nothingness).
You mean emptiness? It's not the same thing, and should be understood as the cornerstone of dependent origination, i.e. the inherent impermanence and perpetual change of all things.
>>17167428
Buddhism accepts the existence of gods, but Nirvana is above all of them, and they are all subject to impermanence, death and rebirth, even if their lifespans are incomprehensibly large compared to ours.

[Anonymous No.17167441]

>>17167410
>"I'm not reading these relevant quotes that apply directly to OPs question, stop spamming or I'll call the jammies!!"
You refuse to engage with ideas that threaten your world view. This is a place for discussion of literature, not coping for some religion you won't even admit to following

[Anonymous No.17167445]

>>17167441
>engaging with nihilism
lmao. Fuck off Aalewis, I'm not interested

[Anonymous No.17167495]

>>17167438
I'm a little unclear on the distinction between 無 (nothingness) and 空 (emptiness). Maybe they're the same thing.
Perhaps someone can clear this up and correct me.

>>17167421
>That's not a paradox, samsara is explicitly described as something that will go on until every last being is liberated from the cycle.
the question is what is the origin of samsara/avidya in the first place.
Another way to phrase it would be: if all beings are originally stuck in samsara, then where does liberation come from, or rather, how is the attainment of the knowledge of liberation originally possible.
Buddha is silent on this, as far as I know, just as he was silent on questions such as the existence of god, etc.

Hegel provides a framework by which this can be accounted for.
Buddha focused more on praxis (i.e. do what I say first, then you'll see why I'm right, and even if you don't, you'll still lead a better life than you would otherwise)

[Anonymous No.17167522]

>>17167495
Emptiness (shunyata) is either a way to refer to non-self, especially the non-self of the skandhas (mostly in Theravada) or to introduce other concepts (in Mahayana).
Nothingness isn't really a concept. Gautama only talked about nothingness when he introduced the Dharma as the middle way between eternalism and nihilism, as far as I know.
>the origin of samsara
You're right, this is part of the unanswered questions.
But if Hegel manages to answer these questions while providing a framework that is compatible with Buddhist thought, why did the Buddha refuse to answer those questions in the first place?

[Anonymous No.17167539]

>>17167445
> the only way to defeat nihilism is to pretend it doesn't exist
lmao... uh oh meaningbros

[Anonymous No.17167580]

>>17167522
>But if Hegel manages to answer these questions while providing a framework that is compatible with Buddhist thought, why did the Buddha refuse to answer those questions in the first place?

Because most Oriental thought lacks the idea of the Logos, which can arise only within the conception of linear time.
Buddha came from the Vedic tradition which recognises time as cyclical, not linear.
However, linear time is, as far as we know, originally a Zoroastrian concept and derived from Zoroastrian eschatology, which was later adopted into Western philosophy (somehow. don't ask).

[Anonymous No.17167594]

>>17167318
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.17167605]

>>17167580
Why can't there be a Logos if time is cyclical?

[Anonymous No.17167607]

>>17167522
>Emptiness (shunyata) is either a way to refer to non-self, especially the non-self of the skandhas (mostly in Theravada) or to introduce other concepts (in Mahayana).

I've heard before (partly from that infamous crazy guy who says that Buddha preached the existence of God and modern Buddhism has perverted the original teachings), that when Buddha speaks of non-self, in the original sutras he doesn't actually say that "the self does not exist", but rather he identifies a list of things which the self is not (which is something entirely different).
In other words, he does not deny the existence of the self, but merely denies its identity with a number of other phenomena.
Is there any truth to this, as far as you know??

[Anonymous No.17167633]

>>17167607
>Is there any truth to this, as far as you know??
Yeah, though I'm far from having read all the suttas, in all the ones I've read where Gautama talks about non-self, he does so by asking the bikkhus to recognize that the skandhas/aggregates they cling to are "not self".
However this doesn't imply the existence of a transcendent self. Gautama also insists on the fact that all phenomena is impermanence (anicca) and suffering (dukkha) as well. Non-self (anatta) is the third mark of existence that characterizes all phenomena.
One of the characteristics of stream-enterers is that they've abandoned clinging to the aggregates as self, however there remains within them a clinging to a more abstract idea of "I am" that is only eliminated upon becoming an arahant (reaching Nirvana itself).

[Anonymous No.17167654]

>>17167605
Cyclical time is static: yes, certain periods or eras replace preceding ones in a regular fashion, but the underlying cycle is eternal and does not change.
The Logos implies development, i.e non-trivial novelty that leads to fundamentally new states that undermine and supersede old ones.

[Anonymous No.17167666]

>>17167654
What is Hegel's argument for linear time?

[Anonymous No.17167699]

>>17167633
>Gautama also insists on the fact that all phenomena is impermanence (anicca) and suffering (dukkha) as well. Non-self (anatta) is the third mark of existence that characterizes all phenomena.

But what classifies as a "phenomenon"? For instance, Nibbana is not a "phenomenon", is it?
In fact, anything eternal is not a phenomenon by definition, is it? Because in that case it would be noumenon, not phenomenon.
In that case Buddha talking about the impermanence of phenomena would not disqualify the transcendent self from existing, since it would not be an impermanent phenomenon, but an eternal noumenon, no?
I would really like to know the precise definitions/etymologies for the terms the Suttas use.

[Anonymous No.17167728]

>>17167699
Everything is a phenomenon except Nirvana, I think. Don't quote me on this, I'm not an authority on the subject. But everything that is conditioned, so everything in Samsara, is a phenomenon.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
As I understand it, there cannot be a "transcendent self": if the self is contained within the skandhas, it is not transcendent. If it isn't contained within the skandhas but influences them, it is not transcendent, because something that is transcendent would not give rise to impermanence and suffering. If it isn't contained within the skandhas and doesn't influence them, why call it a self?
I'll stop here before gu*nonfag intervenes with five max character walls of text though.

[Anonymous No.17167767]

>>17167728
> If it isn't contained within the skandhas but influences them, it is not transcendent, because something that is transcendent would not give rise to impermanence and suffering

Ok, this is probably just worthless, drunk New Year's eve speculation on my part, but let's say the Self is something that is not contained within the skandhas, but influences them.
Surely this is not the same as giving rise to suffering and impermanence?
"Influencing" skandhas which already exist as suffering and impermanence is not the same as "giving rise" to them, surely?
Perhaps you could treat it as something that merely influences the specific direction this impermanence and suffering will take, even if it does not directly give rise to them?
How else does one reach Realisation and Nibbana other than by navigating the waters of impermanence and suffering?
Perhaps the Self is something that helps us navigate these waters, but only as long as we do not end up falsely identifying the Self with any part of them, or we will get "stuck".

Again, this is just dumbass drunk speculation, but I'm going based off what you've cited.

[Anonymous No.17167788]

>>17167728
>. If it isn't contained within the skandhas and doesn't influence them, why call it a self?
Guenonfag here, the Ātman isn’t contained in the skandhas and it doesn’t influence them. Why call it a self then? Why, precisely because of the fact that it allows us to consciously perceive the activity of the skandhas by its intrinsic luminosity. But if the Ātman doesn’t control the skandhas, why would we regard it as ourselves and not the mind illumined by it which is characterized by volition? Because as Śaṅkarācārya explains in his introduction to his Isa Upanishad bhasya, the Ātman is not a doer or agent, doership and agentship are superimposed on the Ātman by ignorance.

>Pure awareness must be disengaged by intense investigation from the sheaths within which it is enveloped, as a grain of rice is separated from its husk.

>Although our self permeates everything, it is not manifested everywhere; it manifests itself in the mind just as an image is reflected in a polished surface.

>This Atman must be distinguished from external perceptions, bodily sensations, feelings, and thoughts. It must be directly seen as the eternal witness of these activities as a king is seen watching over his ministers.

>When the organs of sense are in action it appears to the ignorant that it is his self which is acting, as the moon itself appears to be moving when clouds pass across it,

>The body, the organs of sense, manas, and buddhi, accomplish their respective functions under the watchfulness of the self, just as men accomplish their affairs by the light of the sun.

>Qualities or acts of the body and the organs of sense are attributed to our self which is pure life and intelligence through a lack of discrimination, just as the color blue and other properties are attributed to the sky.

>Emotions and other faculties which belong to manas are attributed to our Self through ignorance, as one attributes the agitation of waves in water to the moon whose image they reflect

- Śaṅkarācārya, Atma Bodha

[Anonymous No.17167826]

>>17167767
This cleared it up perfectly for me, maybe it will for you: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59/en/bodhi
How would a transcendent self "influence" the skandhas yet make it so that the three marks of existence remain? When the unconditioned is realized, that's the end of impermanence and suffering.
>How else does one reach Realisation and Nibbana other than by navigating the waters of impermanence and suffering?
Rather than "navigating the waters", Nirvana is realized through the abandonment of clinging/craving, of ignorance, etc. No self is needed for the realization of Nirvana to take place.

[Anonymous No.17167836]

>>17167788
>Why, precisely because of the fact that it allows us to consciously perceive the activity of the skandhas by its intrinsic luminosity.

Is perception not the same as influence?
Does any activity happen at all if it is not perceived?

[Anonymous No.17167848]

>>17167836
>Is perception not the same as influence?
Yes, it is. Don't bother. Perception is not predicated on the existence of a transcendent self, but he spergs out every time this is stated.

[Anonymous No.17168200]

>>17167836
>Is perception not the same as influence?
No, they are entirely separate functions. Do you exert an influence over the objects which you perceive from far away through a telescope? Obviously not
>>17167848
nice try sophist

[Anonymous No.17168209]

>>17168200
>what is the observer effect
Shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.17168250]

>>17168209
what is the influence I exert over Uranus when I see it through a telescope? Please, be specific

[Anonymous No.17168295]

>>17168250
>what is the influence I exert over Uranus when I see it through a telescope?
I'm not sure Uranus even exists until I see it through a telescope.
In fact, even if I see it through a telescope, I'm not entirely sure that I'm seeing Uranus rather than a virtual, artificially created, projected image of something that looks like Uranus.
It is my looking at Uranus that leads me to identify it as "Uranus", as an object among other objects.
Without my perception, there are no objects and no entities, i.e. no phenomena.
My perception is what creates phenomena out of the noumenon.

[Anonymous No.17168341]

>>17167826
>Nirvana is realized through the abandonment of clinging/craving, of ignorance, etc.

But this is itself a process that is accomplished through/despite a state of ignorance, no?
There is a certain navigation through ignorance that potentially leads to realisation of the unconditioned more directly than other means.
Another way to phrase this would be to say: abandonment of clinging by what?
Who/what is doing the abandoning?
If what is necessary for Nirvana is the abandonment of clinging, then both the clinging and the abandoment must be in the purview of the mind before Nirvana is realised?

These are my preliminary thoughts, but let me check out your link now.

>https://suttacentral.net/sn22.59/en/bodhi
>Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ >But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’

I'm not sure what is meant here by the phrase "to have it of (something)", e.g. "to have it of consciousness". I'm not sure what the "it" is referring to.

Also, I'm not sure how consciousness itself leads to affliction. Consciousness seems to be able to perceive and register affliction, but to me that is not the same as causing affliction. Any more than perceiving happiness is the same as causing or creating happiness.
In addition, Buddha here is listing phenomena that possess form, and he argues that all things with form are impermanent.
But I don't see how consciousness itself has any form whatsoever.
What "form" does consciousness take? I don't see it.
Consciousness appears to be formless. It is what allows form to be perceived, but I don't see that as the same as possessing form.

[Anonymous No.17168356]

>>17164883
>>17165654
Filtered

[Anonymous No.17168369]

>>17168295
>I'm not sure Uranus even exists until I see it through a telescope.
Well, Science™ tells us that it exists, the same Science™ that tells us about the observer effect which you just cited a moment ago, its funny how you accept their conclusions at one moment but then question what they say about planets existing at the next. It’s a contradiction, perhaps induced by your cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.17168373]

>>17167375
>>17167388
>>17167407
Filtered hard

[Anonymous No.17168374]

>>17168369
>which you just cited a moment ago
That guy isn't me. I stopped responding to you because you're a fucking retard and I'm tired of your schizo shit.

[Anonymous No.17168384]

>>17168374
>fucking retard and I'm tired of your schizo shit.
If it takes a fucking retard to point out how contradictory and absurd Buddhism is, what does that say about Buddhists?

[Anonymous No.17168393]

>>17168384
You didn't point out shit lmao. You never have and never will.
This is the last (you) you'll get out of me you absolute nutcase.

[Anonymous No.17168396]

>>17168369
> It’s a contradiction, perhaps induced by your cognitive dissonance.

My position is the Hegelian one, i.e. that reality itself is fundamentally structured by contradictions and paradoxes.

[Anonymous No.17168417]

>>17168396
then I consider you as self-refuted, like Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17168423]

>>17168417
Your opinion means a lot to all of us

[Anonymous No.17168432]

>>17164661
>You see, after parinibbana there is actually another form of existence which we cannot comprehend
It's all about levels like much vidya
>>17164700
>we see what 'existence' really is.
Just stop. Or maybe start, but you clearly need some kind of ego breakdown to shake you up, because this is the ignorance of /x/ blended with car park opinions.

[Anonymous No.17168433]

>>17167317
>>17167413
You would love Julius Bahnsen since he was influenced by both Hegel and Schopenhauer. His realdialektic deals with both the inherent aporia and processual nature of reality. If you know German, something tells me you would win up liking Bahnsen even more than Hegel.

[Anonymous No.17168441]

>>17168423
All the (you)s I receive would indicate so as well

[Anonymous No.17168448]

>>17166886
>Is there an eternal self?
This is a theme in any threadlike this: unexamined ideas that just sit, like the self. It's terrifying to realize, that is, to make real, that the self is just a concentrated little pinched up bubble in the ocean of consciousness and will pop one day without changing the ocean.

[Anonymous No.17168462]

>>17168448
thats just the little self or ego, the ocean is the Self or Atman

[Anonymous No.17168466]

>>17168417
>then I consider you as self-refuted, like Buddhism
I'm honored.
thank you.

[Anonymous No.17168473]

>>17168433
Never heard of him. Thanks for the recommendation, anon. Will write him down.

[Anonymous No.17168478]

>>17164061
>Any framework can be contained within his view of reality and/or rendered meaningless by it.
Isn’t that true with any belief system? Either your perceptions fit in its worldview or are irrelevant to it?

[Anonymous No.17168499]

>>17168462
Yep, and little kids sometimes 'get it' without having read a book, quoted a single author, or ever been to school. They can't post in run-on sentences that mention five writers, they don't have any labels for the things they understand. Their understanding, though, is a standing indictment to philosophy and religion as activities, since academia and writing seem to catch and hold those who'd rather all interactions were mediated through symbols and terms.
TL/DR: It's either lived joyously or it's sperged about endlessly.

[Anonymous No.17168501]

>>17168448
>It's terrifying to realize, that is, to make real, that the self is just a concentrated little pinched up bubble in the ocean of consciousness and will pop one day without changing the ocean.

I like to think that one day I'll get tired of the self that I currently identify with, and simply switch to another one as my understanding and experience grows, perhaps even culminating in the rejection of the notion of self altogether (maybe even replacing it with a more complex notion).
But I don't view this as inherently terrifying. It's only terrifying if you haven't had time to grow bored of the self yet.

[Anonymous No.17168523]

>>17168499
>Their understanding, though, is a standing indictment to philosophy and religion as activities, since academia and writing seem to catch and hold those who'd rather all interactions were mediated through symbols and terms.

The attainment of all understanding occurs through symbols and terms.
Whether they are discarded or not when understanding is attained is a different matter.
Or do you think a newborn infant is enlightened simply by virtue of not being inducted into the symbolic space?

[Anonymous No.17168527]

>>17168466
Your welcome, the pleasure was mine

[Anonymous No.17168543]

>>17168432
I was making a bad joke. I was trying to say that just because everything else fits into a doctrine, infinite consciousness and one with the absolute is subsumed by nirvana, doesn't give it legitimacy, someone can always claim to one-up it. But I probably missed the mark somehow..

[Anonymous No.17168554]

>>17168501
>the soap bubble thinks it can plan it's way out of finity.
You're going to die. You're going to die and rot in the ground leaving a patch of black grease with teeth in it. You'll be gone.
Plot twist: 'you' were only and always an optical illusion, the Universe looking into a sand grain of mirrors and enjoying a very precise and intensely focused view of itself. The real You is everything, nothing can ever be lost, nothing ever had a name or a separate existence of its own, the Universe is one thing and your sense of self was only useful for navigating this little body around.

[Anonymous No.17168564]

>>17168448
>>17168462
Yeah, of course i didn't mean ego. I mean some sort of eternal sentience.

[Anonymous No.17168592]

>>17168523
>The attainment of all understanding occurs through symbols and terms.
Nope. They are for communicating about things to others.

>do you think a newborn infant is enlightened simply by virtue of not being inducted into the symbolic space?
I'm saying it's possible to be good at life without having any terms for talking about it. You seem to be clinging to that attainment word. Enlightenment is not some 'achievement unlocked'.

[Anonymous No.17168608]

>>17168554
>You're going to die. You're going to die and rot in the ground leaving a patch of black grease with teeth in it. You'll be gone.
You don't know that. I don't know that.
We can only induce that with a high degree of certainty based on the regularity of prior events. Is that not the same as the "planning" which you're rallying against so vehemently?
Or are you simply accepting dogma as fact?
Is t

[Anonymous No.17168610]

>>17164883
>imagine thinking this
filtered

[Anonymous No.17168619]

>>17168592
>Nope. They are for communicating about things to others.
Communication works both ways.

>>17168592
You can exist within a universe of symbols without talking about them.
And I'm not even talking about enlightenment, as far as I'm concerned, it's a spook (and I'm not even a Stirner-fag)

[Anonymous No.17168628]

>>17168554
You planned that post out before you wrote it.

[Anonymous No.17168639]

>>17167318
It can be complicated but maybe try Edward Conze. He translated a lot of Mahayana sutras and also wrote a book called "Buddhism: Its Essence and Development" that is a good starting point.

There are a ton of really good things to dive right in: Maybe try "Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way" with commentary by Gyel-tsap (one of Tsongkhapa's (considered the Buddha of Tibet (and Tibet has the strongest current lineage of Buddhism in the world)) two principle disciples).

And Way of the Bodhisattva by Santideva is quoted in many scriptures and is a beautiful journey of the Buddhist path with each chapter focusing on certain topics. A fantastic read!

[Anonymous No.17168690]

>>17168639
>>17168639
>and is a beautiful journey of the Buddhist path

there is nothing beautiful about awakening from a dream. there is only either harsh reality hitting you in the face, or a brief moment of relief as you realise the nightmare isn't as real as you thought.

[Anonymous No.17168726]

>>17168628
I've had to say the same thing so many times that it's down to a patter by now. I'm not trying to 'win' anything.
>>17168608
>You don't know that. I don't know that.
A fifth of the Buddhist mediatations are on corpses. Coming to terms with your personal limited nature, within the impermanence of all things, is entry-level stuff. Teaching people there's an escape from becoming a pile of bones one day is a cheap, ugly, stupid trick to turn the fear of death into a control mechanism.
>>17168639
>A fantastic read!
At some point, people grow beyond 'knowing' and 'winning arguments' and move into 'living values'. It's a wider world that gives worth to the previous one. These threads always seem full of point-scoring little bookworms who by their actions and the life they've lived are just smart-ass shoplifting monkeys.

[Anonymous No.17168737]

>>17168690
>harsh reality hitting you in the face
The Universe is one thing, nothing can hit anything else.

"This morning in the valley

I heard the ringing of a bell

For a moment, there was no bell

and no I

just ringing"

[Anonymous No.17168743]

>>17168737
> nothing can hit anything else.
If I were next to you right now, my fist would beg to differ.

[Anonymous No.17168843]

>>17168743
Yep, there's suffering and we can all make choices to make the amount of suffering in the world LESS. Five minutes alone with me and a length of garden hose would illustrate how IMMEDIATE and COMPELLING the illusion of suffering is. It's still an illusion though. Just because it's an illusion doesn't mean people aren't creeping about on their stomachs all day trying to avoid it or just endure it. That's why you can be a Buddhist with a machine gun if you want, because a few well aimed rounds can make the world suffer less. Some people hate this aspect of Buddhist thought, they are looking for some religion or philosophy that will remove all apparent CAUSES.

Not gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.17168844]

>>17168726
>A fifth of the Buddhist mediatations are on corpses.

The fact that there happen to be lots of Buddhist meditations on corpses doesn't mean anything.
I have some experience with this kind of meditation.
Even though I have once had a profound experience from it, it doesn't achieve anything, and it certainly does not prove anything other than the fact that if you so wish, you may imagine yourself as a corpse.

>Coming to terms with your personal limited nature, within the impermanence of all things, is entry-level stuff.

I'm not making the case that "my personal nature" (whatever that is) is unlimited. Nor am I making the case that it's limited.
I have no compulsion to arrive at one or the other conclusion at this point.

>Teaching people there's an escape from becoming a pile of bones one day
Except "you" never actually experience becoming a pile of bones, because "you" vanish from existence far before that ever even happens.
There is no "you" that turns into a pile of bones. There is a physical body (apparently) made of cells that decomposes to a stage where only bones are left.

So tell me, "who/what" is doing the meditation?

[Anonymous No.17168889]

>>17168743
>my fist
...would cause damage, which would cause suffering. Examine why you just said that and feel the gut-liquefying shame that you wanted to cause suffering because your ego is a nasty cancer that's overtaken your existence. Imagine a world without ferocious, fist-clenching egotists, unless you're from the USA, then there's actually no hope for you.

[Anonymous No.17168916]

>>17168843

>Five minutes alone with me and a length of garden hose would illustrate how IMMEDIATE and COMPELLING the illusion of suffering is
Physical pain is not the same as suffering / dukkha

>That's why you can be a Buddhist with a machine gun if you want, because a few well aimed rounds can make the world suffer less.
People with nukes and a bad childhood must be the best Buddhists then.

[Anonymous No.17168927]

>>17168889
Pain is not suffering/dukkha

[Anonymous No.17168943]

>>17168844
>I have no compulsion to arrive at one or the other conclusion at this point.
Then you didn't really get it. That corpse is you, one day, dead and gone from this world. Completely extinct. Not on holiday, not retired to some theme park, gone. The point of the meditations is exactly that compulsion, then you have to live as if it's true.

>>17168844
>So tell me, "who/what" is doing the meditation?
The Universe, looking through a tiny pinhole you like to think is a separate self. The pinhole, tiny and insignificant in size and duration, will completely disappear, soon. It's doing the meditation to escape from the warping waste of consciousness that is the ego, the past trying to live in the present by causing suffering, pride, nostalgia, shame. It feeds on the moment by forcing the past and the future into the NOW.

[Anonymous No.17168972]

>>17168927
No, it's not, you win one point. Suffering is the experience of pain. Some maniacs say you can put down the coin of dkkha by embracing whatever experience you have entirely. When I've broken bones i can see the point of that. Happiness and sadness are flipsidse to the coin of suffering, chasing one and avoiding the other is a sure fire way to stay enslaved to it.

Again, some people get this without trying to absorb millennia of oriental thought just after leaving college.

[Anonymous No.17168981]

>>17168916
>People with nukes and a bad childhood must be the best Buddhists then
>SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS
You're being an asshole. Maybe you know you are.

[Anonymous No.17169072]

>>17168943
So when I am dead, am I corpse *in* this world?
Or something "gone" *from* this world?
You can't have it both ways. Either I am gone, or I am a corpse.

>The Universe, looking through a tiny pinhole you like to think is a separate self. The pinhole, tiny and insignificant in size and duration, will completely disappear, soon.
I'll let the Universe do its thing then. Doesn't concern "me", since "I'll" be gone soon anyway.

>you like to think is a separate self
the implication is that "I'm" not a separate self. If "I'm" not a separate self, then the "Universe" is doing the thinking. In which case either I'm not thinking right now (in which case, who cares), or I am thinking and I am the universe, so I guess I'm real and unlimited after all. Neat.
Will be waiting for the theme park ticket for my next life.

>the warping waste of consciousness that is the ego
I'm not really sure how you can "waste" consciousness: that implies consciousness is some kind of finite resource that can be depleted.
Unless you mean that consciousness can be wasted in time, but that would mean that time itself as a finite resource is also real, which means that the Universe is also finite, which means it's not actually real either (because impermanent things have no substantial reality).

>It feeds on the moment by forcing the past and the future into the NOW.
Thinking of the now as a junction of past and future is actually a really nice image. I'll have to remember that one, that's a really good way of thinking about the now: as a synthesis of potentiality (future) and actuality (past).

[Anonymous No.17169076]

>>17168981
You literally said that a few well-aimed rounds with a machine gun can be used as a tool by a Buddhist to reduce suffering (and don't tell me you didn't mean killing people).
And then you said I'm the asshole.

[Anonymous No.17169108]

>>17169076
You could find support for this in any number of Mahayana sutras as a way of describing the depth of the bodhisattva vow. Of course, the average aspirant isn't really expected to become a compassionate killer. But in theory the poetry could be practice.

[Anonymous No.17169150]

>>17168972
>Suffering is the experience of pain.

Suffering is the framing of pain (or indeed anything else) as something unpleasant and undesirable by the mind.
It's a matter of framing, and framing is, in turn, a matter of terms/symbols/language (i.e. "phenomena" - the impermanent and insubstantial).

>Happiness and sadness are flipsidse to the coin of suffering, chasing one and avoiding the other is a sure fire way to stay enslaved to it.

You chase one and avoid the other only if you frame one as desirable and the other as undesirable. Which requires some kind of means to formulate such a framing by means of concepts or images (name/form - nama/rupa).

>Some maniacs say you can put down the coin of dkkha by embracing whatever experience you have entirely

The Aghori say that evil does not exist, because the entire world was created by God, who is all-powerful and all-knowing and benevolent. Therefore every single event that occurs, and every single entity that exists, is as perfect and good as God himself.

[Anonymous No.17169155]

>>17169108
except that completely goes against the buddhist notion of rebirth, and the notion that the human realm is the most advantageous realm for an entity to seek liberation.

[Anonymous No.17169170]

>>17164061
>Any framework can be contained within his view of reality and/or rendered meaningless by it
So what?

[Anonymous No.17169983]

>>17169170
So it's pretty cool

[Anonymous No.17170025]

>>17169155
Well a bodhisattva is pretty much already liberated at the point where they are engaged in expedience to help others. The point of the hyperbole is to demonstrate there is nothing a bodhisattva does which does not benefit others, even things ordinary people would consider unethical.

[Anonymous No.17170300]

>>17169155
Mahayana isn't buddhism anyway

[Anonymous No.17170346]

>>17164061
>Any framework can be contained within his view of reality and/or rendered meaningless by it.

This isn't a good thing. Read Popper. Now.

[Anonymous No.17170351]

>>17170346
Cope