/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21346723]

How does he respond to the Bhuddist idea that a self doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.21346752]

>>21346723
Like anyone else, I imagine he’s tell those retards that it’s literally self-evident.

[Anonymous No.21346939]

>>21346752
That’s not good enough.

[Anonymous No.21346943]

>>21346723
"Shit, I didn't think about that".

[Anonymous No.21346947]

>>21346943
lmao i just imagined this mans entire life work being rekt by some shit some old ass monks figured out 4000 years ago

[Anonymous No.21346951]

>>21346943
>>21346947
Jung was more well read than anyone on /lit/. Especially (you), you cockroach.

[Anonymous No.21346962]

>>21346947
> this mans entire life work
you mean all of western civilization?

[Anonymous No.21346989]

>>21346723
Probably that the Buddhist concept of the 'self' is the ego, or that like many ascetic practices it doesn't develop the individuation progress but pulls them out far away from life. In a word, killing any growth of the ego.

[Anonymous No.21347231]

>>21346723
That is not a Buddhist idea. The Buddha refused to say whether a self exists.

[Anonymous No.21347302]

>>21346723
>The illusion regarding the nature of self is the common confusion of the ego with self. Nukariya understands by “self” the All-Buddha, i.e. simply a total consciousness (Be wusstseinstotalität) of life. He quotes Pan Shan, who says, “The world of the mind encloses the whole universe in its light,” adding, “It is a cosmic life and a cosmic spirit, and at the same time an individual life and an individual spirit.” However one may define self, it is always something other than the ego, and inasmuch as a higher understanding of the ego leads on to self the latter is a thing of wider scope, embracing the knowledge of the ego and therefore surpassing it. In the same way as the ego is a certain knowledge of my self, so is the self a knowledge of my ego, which, however, is no longer experienced in the form of a broader or higher ego, but in the form of a nonego (Nicht-Ich).

[Anonymous No.21347404]

>>21347302
Does Bhuddism recognize an idea that was similar to Jung’s definition of the Self?

[Anonymous No.21347416]

>>21346943
>>21346947
chuddhist fantasy

[Anonymous No.21347434]

>>21346723
>Why would we be embodied if the self was not a vital part of our exisztence?

[Anonymous No.21347475]

>>21347404
Does Buddhism recognise fragile trans girls who need to be broken badly or the koan of the silent argument for bedding.

<makes a fist>

[Anonymous No.21347481]

>>21347475
What the fuck are you talking about retard?

[Anonymous No.21347533]

>>21346723
He’d probably say that what Buddhists call the self is what he calls the ego, and what Buddhists call Dharmakaya is what he calls self.

[Anonymous No.21347586]

Read Alchemy & Religion. Jung basically sees primitives as believing in a sort of animism; they 'participate' in the world by believing themselves to be as much controlled by the invisible hand of nature as by their own conscious choices, particularly at moments of heightened emotional affectation (such as in the mytheme of the spirit animal; in a necessary moment, an animal form renders help to the individual).
The Eastern and Western traditions Jung sees as pursuing two opposite paths towards individuation away from the primitive animism: denial of the animal, natural, primitive and subconscious drives in the West, while denial of the conscious, individual, logical and ambitious drives in the East. The Buddhist concessions of predestination, denial of materialism and ultimate denial of the individualized conscious self is an attempt to reach the deeper self, or Soul, that must exist within the collective animating forces of the natural/spiritual world, to achieve an immortal and divine form of effortless being. Conversely, the Western ideas of asceticism and higher logical moral order seek to lift the individual Soul out of the muck and mire of nature and material impulses to a divine immortal form perfected existence.
Jung felt personally that the Western religious tradition was more advanced and offered a greater promise of achieving true spiritual individuation, but he also foresaw the complete collapse of Western religion in his own lifetime and attributed it to the form of Western religion achieving higher heights than the function; once Christianity collectively lost awareness of the primitive state, it lost all context for its own existence and spiraled off into cynical manipulation games. Eastern religion, Hinduism and Buddhism, he believed were essentially more basic and slow to develop if only because individual development of logic and theology were not key tenets to the religion (some sects of Buddhism of course disagree). Jung believed that both traditions would benefit from awareness of the opposite tradition in context, but cautioned against fetishism (New Age spiritualism like yoga, crystals, etc.) because fetishizing the activities of the tradition without a lived cultural background in the underpinning beliefs would just revert the practitioner to a primitive state of 'participation mystique'.

[Anonymous No.21347644]

>>21346723
Why would anyone respond to the most self-refuting statement a person can possibly make? No pun intended

[Anonymous No.21347896]

>>21347586
Based effortpost, I'm reading Man and His Symbols at the moment and it sounds like your suggestion would be a good supplementary read

'Preciate ya

[Anonymous No.21347900]

>>21346951
and look what that got em. nows hes just some bones in a box being talked about by smug arrogant pieces of shit like you

[Anonymous No.21347926]

>>21347586
Damn , a Wild Effortpost.

[Anonymous No.21347929]

Ok, go to website

[Anonymous No.21347931]

>>21346723
Why does he look like an Old Charlie Sheen , lul.

[Anonymous No.21347940]

>>21346723
Have Asians not read Descartes?>>21346752
Haha nice

[Anonymous No.21347944]

>>21347586
>fetishizing the activities of the tradition without a lived cultural background in the underpinning beliefs would just revert the practitioner to a primitive state of 'participation mystique
this applies to pretending to be a Christian fundamentalist to signal against secular culture as well, all the more so if your parents were mainline protestants/lapsed catholics or perhaps even a literal marriage of one to the other

[Anonymous No.21348013]

>>21347404
Depends which. Certainly many Mahayana streaks.

[Anonymous No.21348049]

>>21346723
One of the main issues I have with Buddhism is the negation of the self towards others leads to other questions like how does the selfless person (s) defend their beliefs against those who seek to atomize society?

[Anonymous No.21348064]

>>21348049
>how does the selfless person (s) defend their beliefs against those who seek to atomize society
If you're treating religion like a strategy game, Islam deals 4x damage to Secular opponents. There's not really a "Buddhist" answer to your contemporary political anxiety except to regard the opponent as delusional and feel bad for him.

[Anonymous No.21348083]

>>21348064
can you explain more about religions into strategy game?

[Anonymous No.21348085]

>>21348064
So Buddhists are not bound to defend their faith against heretics like Christianity does?

[Anonymous No.21348147]

>>21348083
Basically, if you can surround a Secular force on mountainous terrain while Muslim, you could deal up to 32x.
>>21348085
Holy war is quite rare east of the Abrahamosphere. But as a rule of thumb, the further Buddhists get from India the more tolerable militarized violence becomes. Consider the history of Tibet, which has a skeletal army from the middle ages onward, ending with its conquest by communist Chinese forces. Right next to India. But in Japan you had warrior monks siding with this daimyo or that daimyo in the middle ages. Can't even get to India, had to import all its Buddhism from Korea and China. Point being, Buddhism is fairly malleable to the needs of a historical society. It's also worth noting Buddhism in central Asia, west of Tibet, was genocided by Islamic armies. Islam is the most efficient premodern ideological system. There is no country where Islam was introduced and has become no longer predominately Muslim, with the exceptions being those which involved an international or imperial military effort to remove the religion e.g. Spain, Ukraine, Greece, etc.

[Anonymous No.21348159]

>>21348147
the further buddhism spread outside of india the more corrupt it became.
China, Tibet, Japan buddhism isn’t the same with India/SEA buddhism at all and these just blend with the native religions like Confucianism or Shintoism

[Anonymous No.21348172]

>>21348147
What's with the need for conquest though? Is it not enough to respect the cultures of others? Seems counterproductive and will just produce a bunch of apostates

[Anonymous No.21348178]

>>21348159
>deviation from the manual is corruption
That only matters if you are thinking about religion within a Protestant hermeneutic. But by that logic Buddhism was lost within a generation. Also nearly everything Mahayana/Vajrayana can be traced back to India in some form, so if we are going to call the ex-India forms of Buddhism "corrupt" we can blame the the Indian Buddhists who increasingly emphasized rituals and spells and royal patronage over the strictly monastic form of the religion.

[Anonymous No.21348181]

>>21348172
How very secular or pagan of you.

[Anonymous No.21348188]

>>21348181
Not really. I'm fairly religious and its more a matter of faith for me personally. The thing is all cultures began with a religious center that is the sun of their solar system. To pollute that essence is nothing short of disgusting.

[Anonymous No.21348465]

>>21346723
Like anyone else, I imagine he’s tell those retards that it’s literally self-evident.

[Anonymous No.21348545]

>>21348172
> What's with the need for conquest though?
Haven’t you read anything that the other anon posted? The strong conquer and genocide the weak. If you are not conquering you are getting conquered. Retards, I swear to god…

[Anonymous No.21348568]

>>21348049
the concept of "non-self" isn't the dissolution of your boundaries. keep your boundaries!

it is the rejection of essentialism. what this means is that you cannot define yourself or anyone else for that matter with a strict unchanging, all-encompassing label. the idea with this is to nudge people to the understanding that everything is subject to change including your own notion of what your "self" is hence impermanence.
TLDR it's the antidote to identity politics

[Anonymous No.21349644]

>>21346723
>mfw following this logic archetypes wouldn't meaningfully exist either (outside of story books)
>mfw the self and archetypes may just be reified concepts by westerners

[Anonymous No.21349721]

>>21347481
I’m so sorry for you, consider tylanol. The overdose is irreversible painful and takes weeks.

[Anonymous No.21350424]

>>21347586
What do you mean higher heights over function?

[Anonymous No.21350432]

>>21346723
like Taoist, if you actually know your asian philosophies/religions

[Anonymous No.21350461]

>>21347586
where does one find well read and self educated people like you to talk to in real life? what places do you frequent, what kind of friends do you have? im genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.21350509]

>>21346752
No

[Anonymous No.21350692]

>>21348172
>What's with the need for conquest though? Is it not enough to respect the cultures of others? Seems counterproductive and will just produce a bunch of apostates
Judaism, Christianity nor Islam are actual "Religions" ; They are Political Statements. ; they are Counter-Religions.

"The Bible" is a Testament ; its a Contract with God ; Its a Compromise.
It's not a "new Cosmology" ,
but Law.

>The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority
https://archive.is/QMWAa

>Jews as a Metaphysical Species
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751470?seq=1

>Jan Assmann; Moses The Egpytian
>The Hatred Born on Sinai:
https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/moses-the-egyptian/

>Ancient Egyptians believed that “the gods are social beings, living and acting in ‘constellations,’” wrote German Egyptologist Jan Assmann. Yahweh, on the other hand, is “the Jealous One” (Exodus 34:14). He is a solitary god who manifests toward all other gods an implacable intolerance that characterizes him as a sociopath among his peers. Egyptians tried to explain this aggressive exclusiveness of Jewish religion by identifying the Jewish god with Seth, the evil god of the desert, famine, disorder and war, who had been banished by the council of the gods after having murdered his elder brother Osiris out of jealousy.

>From the third millennium BCE onward, nations founded their diplomacy and foreign trade on their capacity to match their gods, thus acknowledging that they were living not only on the same earth, but under the same heavens. “Contracts with other states,” explains Jan Assmann, “had to be sealed by oath, and the gods to whom this oath was sworn had to be compatible.

>Tables of divine equivalences were thus drawn up that eventually correlated up to six different pantheons.” But Yahweh could not be matched up with any other god; his priests forbade doing so. “Whereas polytheism, or rather ‘cosmotheism,’ rendered different cultures mutually transparent and compatible, the new counter-religion [Yahwism] blocked intercultural translatability.” And when Yahweh directed his people, “You will make no pact with them or with their gods” (Exodus 23:32), or “Do not utter the names of their gods, do not swear by them, do not serve them and do not bow down to them” (Joshua 23:7), he was in effect preventing any relationship of trust and fairness with the neighboring peoples.
https://russia-insider.com/en/history/god-israel-bloodthirsty-vindictive-sociopath-does-explain-misanthropy-jews/ri24154

[Anonymous No.21350706]

>>21346752
Is it?

[Anonymous No.21351925]

>>21346723
Pick up a real book and find out

[Anonymous No.21352011]

The self exists. I can see it right now. But who created it? Who created sensory information? Who created you, and who created me? Who created 4chan? Who created moot? Who created people? Who created language?

[Anonymous No.21352114]

>>21348178
Interestingly, isn't Buddhism practically non-existent in India these days? And most of em that are there are Navayana, which could be argued to be parked pretty far from the rest of the vehicles. Which, don't get me wrong, it's still very interesting in its own right, but it has a lot of extra pieces on it. Idk, I've only read the 22 vows and a little about Ambedkar.

>>21348568
Great explanation. Anatta is subtle but worth looking into, and makes a fantastic critique of identity politics.

[Anonymous No.21352266]

>>21346752
The way a mirage looks like water is self-evident as well.

[Anonymous No.21352288]

>>21347644
You need to think a little harder about the nuanced interpretation of what “self” means to different schools of thought. It is possible to deny an ontologically fundamental “self” as distinct, intrinsic object and not deny witness consciousness/subjectivity.

[Anonymous No.21352326]

>>21347586
>while denial of the conscious, individual, logical and ambitious drives in the East.
It's best not to listen to anything Jung says about the "East."

[Anonymous No.21352431]

>>21348568
You have somehow managed to distort the doctrine in exactly the opposite way it is meant in reality, I seem to notice that this occurs here quite a lot. You say "it isn't the dissolution of your boundaries"; this is in fact closer to what anatta entails than what it doesn't entail. What it is not is the rejection of essentialism, as per the Buddhist doctrine of name and form (which is also found in Hindu doctrine with the same terms, albeit in Sanskrit and not Pali) which still asserts the existence of formal essences of beings. A man will never be a woman, a cat will never be a dog, etc., what does transform is the substratum rather than the essence.

[Anonymous No.21352453]

>>21352114
>Interestingly, isn't Buddhism practically non-existent in India these days?
yes, most buddhists in india get brutally murdered by muslim invaders while Hindu fight back.

[Anonymous No.21352466]

>>21352453
*during the muslim invasion back in the old day

[Anonymous No.21352472]

>>21352266
>The way a mirage looks like water is self-evident as well.

Socrates: I am afraid I do not follow here, Dennett. For you seem to be confusing two things as though they are one, mixing up what is naturally separate. First you would mix the idea of water up with its appearance, as you say that a man would try to drink a mirage. But do we not obviously distinguish between appearance and the thing? Let us consider this point a little closer. When you see water in the distance, what would you say?

Dennett: Why, Socrates, I would exclaim, "I can see water."

Socrates: And, to speak perfectly correctly, you would not say, "that is most certainly water."

Dennett: Why, Socrates, only if my reason had fled me.

Socrates: And so we maintain that there is a difference between what is seen, and what, we might say, is?

Dennett: It cannot be denied.

Socrates: And insofar as something is seen, we have established that we can only rightly comment on our relationship with the thing, in this case that it is merely seen? And to know what an object is requires some other kind of knowledge. This much we acknowledge?

Dennett: I'm not sure I follow you, Socrates, but I will consent.

Socrates: Let me put it this way: do we not distinguish between the sight of water and water itself only in point of its being? When we drink water, even if it tastes as we expect, we would be more confident in asserting that this substance is, in fact, water. And would we not rightly assent that such a substance is in fact what we believe it be?

Dennett: Necessarily.

Socrates: And do we admit the perception of falsities? I mean errors of sight, for example the little transparent letters we occasionally see floating before our eyes? We admit that these are false sights?

Dennett: Why, Socrates, one might affirm they are false in reality, but how could they be false as far as sight is concerned?

Socrates: You have led me along the path my own mind was just taking me, Dennett. But ought we to call the mere sight true or false? Surely it is a sight, but whether it is true or false we cannot say. We must admit truth and falsity pertain to the reality of a thing.

Dennett: You have said what I had in thought but could not put into words, Socrates!

Socrates: And so, in point of fact, the perception itself, for example the sight of water, is neither true nor false. It is only when we connect this with an idea that it gains truth or falsity. And in so far as a perception conforms with an idea, we say it is true, and in so far as a perception does not conform, we say that it is false, this is given?

Dennett: Certainly.

[Anonymous No.21352474]

>>21352266
Socrates: And so we must admit then that we have no more right to assert that consciousness is a unified field than we do that it is a multiplicity, or nothing at all, if we are to gauge its reality or non-reality on our sight, or any other sense we may have. Neither would it be correct to say that the water we see with our eyes or taste with our mouths is the water we assert it to be, but rather that it is something which, perhaps, cannot be seen nor felt nor tasted, if we want to speak of it unequivocally. And it is precisely what is good which allows water to be what it ought to be, as we say of something which meets its idea.

Dennett: I am reluctant, but I cannot deny what has been said.

Socrates: And so, Dennett, we admit that, in order to have these beliefs at all and to be able to see the like from the unlike and the equal from the unequal, we say that these things which are equal, beautiful and good really do exist. And what of our soul? It is not the proper place to venture to deep on this question, but we must admit that we do see things, and we know the equal, the unequal, the like and the unlike, as things which are already in us, which enable us to know the being of water. And so, while we do not, as the Delphic Apollo says, "know ourselves", we at least know its likeness. And is it not the goal of the philosopher to really know its being, as it might be the goal of the natural philosopher to really know the being of water, among other things?

[Anonymous No.21352566]

>>21346723
That's not a Buddhist idea, more like a consequence of Buddhist logic which is intrinsically contradicting.

[Anonymous No.21352575]

>>21347302
Lol, does anyone take this stupidity seriously? Eastern spiritual thought is so overrated.

[Anonymous No.21353199]

>>21352431
it seems like you are confusing the hindus and buddhists
look up Sassatavada

usually translated "eternalism" is a kind of thinking rejected by the Buddha in the nikayas (and agamas). One example of it is the belief that the individual has an unchanging self. Views of this kind were held at the Buddha's time by a variety of groups.

The Buddha rejected this and the opposite concept of ucchedavada (annihilationism) on both logical and epistemic grounds. He proposed a Middle Way between these extremes, relying not on ontology but on causality.

[Anonymous No.21353306]

>>21352266
You've never seen a mirage you piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.21353384]

>>21348545
That's not the point I was getting at, faggot

[Anonymous No.21353390]

>>21348568
Didn't ask