[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 75 KB, 250x335, buddha017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6476281 No.6476281 [Reply] [Original]

How old were you when you realized "you" didn't exist?

>> No.6476324

>>6476281
I took acid when I was 16-18. MDMA and psilocybin too. Since then I've found it hard to take my view of the world seriously. It's made me a lot more reflexive for sure

>> No.6476330

>>6476324
Get a load of this guy. He needs drugs to contemplate basic philosophical questions.

>> No.6476343

Hold old were you when you realized that begging the question is not a foolproof way of persuading anybody?

>> No.6476348
File: 22 KB, 220x567, Stirner02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6476348

>>6476281
Insanity strikes people at any age.

>> No.6476353

>>6476330
Enjoy never knowing what the experience of complete ego-death feels like, faggot.

>> No.6476368

>>6476353
you can experience ego-death without drugs. consuming the sensation of ego-death is a contradiction, and those on drugs experience the illusion of ego-death due to the incapacity of their brain to support the ego, and not through appropriating the vacuous truth which annihilates the self

>> No.6476376

>>6476368

excuse, but do you have any proof to support this ?

>> No.6476401

>>6476368
This. Comparing being on drugs to ego-death is like comparing anaesthesia to sleep.

>> No.6476406

>>6476376
no, i'm making all of this up to troll people

>> No.6476412

>>6476348
When will you actually read Stirner? His notion of the world and the self is remarkable similar to Buddhism.

>By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."

>... [F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

>> No.6476418

I wish we used Buddhism as therapy in the worst.

It creates a calmer mind and a more industrious work ethic.

>> No.6476422

>>6476281
25

>> No.6476427

>>6476353
>defends his drug use by claiming you can only experience certain things through drugs.
What is meditation?

>> No.6476428

>>6476418
>worst
West*

>> No.6476435

>>6476324
>I took acid when I was 16-18. MDMA and psilocybin too. Since then I've found it hard to take my view of the world seriously. It's made me a lot more reflexive for sure


The psychedelic experience is a doorway which leads to a hallway which leads to only what you want to find within yourself.

In other terms, a drug is nothing but a high-yield technique to reach what your reason and heart cannot achieve in your opinion. If anything, it is a total lack of confidence in your reason and in your abilities to philosophy to be at ease with life.

>> No.6476446

>>6476353
The self is a narrative, all you have to do is sit still and be quiet to experience 'ego death' as you so dramatically put it.

>> No.6476447

13

>> No.6476453

>>6476324
>>6476353
People like you are the worst.

There is nothing wrong with someone using drugs. But there is everything wrong with someone who claims that their drug use has allowed them to reach otherwise inaccessable philosophical propositions. It makes you look fucking stupid.

>> No.6476456

If I don't exist then who just typed this post? And if I don't exist then why do I have memories that you don't have?

>> No.6476458

>>6476418
We sure need a more industrious work ethic, we only work one third of our lives.

>> No.6476460

around 24ish

although to claim a full realization is tantamount to claiming arahant-status. i would prefer to say that after years of studying buddhism, meditating, thinking, etc the anatta teaching became clearer and i saw its truth in my own life.

anyone wanting to get into this more should ignore all mahayana and get into the nikayas. specifically the khanda-vagga of the samyutta-nikaya contains many suttas on anatta.

it's a logical proposition: all things are impermanent, not within "self's" control, therefore they are not a substantial self essence, but dependently arisen and conditioned phenomena.

afaik buddhism is the only ancient spiritual tradition to reject the consciousness=self theory. in buddhist thought, consciousness is even more flimsy and unworthy of being considered an eternal self than the body. there's a sutta where the buddha specifically says it would be better to consider body as self, since it lasts for many decades, over a hundred years sometimes, while the mind changes moment by moment and has no stability at all.

i would advise anyone who thinks they've "realized" it to keep going, don't stagnate now you think you've "got it" or you'll be no better than a psychedelic drug user who thinks he's got it. in the suttas there are many gradations of this realization, for a while there is a lingering sense of self even though one logically realizes that the khandas are not-self in their very nature.

>> No.6476475

>>6476456
this reply is good, it reveals the thought process of someone who takes his self entirely for granted as the totality of the organism and mind, not understanding that the op's buddhistically tinged statement really means that "you" as a separate self (separate from the body and mind) do not exist, but are completely bound up in the process itself.

it is not a denial of your reality as a living being and mind, posting here. op knows he is here just as much as you, but his sense of self may have been attenuated by buddhist theory.

>> No.6476495

>>6476343
What is the deal with this "beg the question" thing? Is there some meme-text that /lit/ saw that I missed? What do you mean by that?

>> No.6476500

>>6476453
Drugs have been used for that purpose for thousands of years

>> No.6476504

>>6476456
You do exist, but "you" as a singular independent do not. You're the result of causation and a vehicle of causation, as well as an effect. Being one part in a chain "you" are an illusion.

>> No.6476508

>>6476504
when the perception of impermanence is developed and cultivated, it erodes all sense of "i am".

- the buddha

>> No.6476530

i know the age thing is a joke (hurr durr i was 12) but to be serious, the buddha was like 35 when he made the breakthrough, most of us still have time. ;-)

there's no rush, and the idea of competition reinforces egotism.

>> No.6476533

>>6476446
Self is also a feeling.

I still feel like a self when I am not speaking to myself

>> No.6476535

>>6476281
Excuse for bad English, but where you when you find out you don't exist
Was reading Sophist logic when Plato summons me
"You not exist, you are simply form"
"No"

>> No.6476538

>>6476530
Lol. The Buddah was also functioning without the internet and over 2 thousand of years of added knowledge.

While i'm not saying that everyone should be able to reach enlightenment at the drop of at hat, they should at least be aware of these ideas.

>> No.6476540

Damn I didn't know every third poster on lit was an enlightened yogi guru

>> No.6476548

>>6476533
that does not mean you are a self. we must learn to look beyond what seems to be the case. if only it were so easy to determine things by what we feel, how things seem!

>> No.6476557

>>6476538
why should anyone be aware of buddhism if it is not in any way relevant to their lives? do you think a 15 year old girl should be conversant in buddhist philosophy just because she has internet?

>> No.6476572

>>6476557
I'm not saying that they should have a grounding in Buddhism but I hope that by the age of 18 or whatever that most people in a Western Education have atleast engaged with the "self" as an idea.

>> No.6476597

/lit/ - discuss Buddhist texts, koans, and literature

>> No.6476605

>>6476557
Not sure where you live but in the US the basics of Buddhism is taught in high school world history.

>> No.6476612

>>6476500
People have been wrong for thousands of years too.

>> No.6476615

Is there anything valid in Buddhism which isn't just meditation in some
different form.

Surely no one takes the reincarnation and the idea that the Buddha reached a level of wisdom that he could master anything immediately seriously any more

>> No.6476621

>>6476615
>reached a level of wisdom where he could master anything
What do you mean? That isn't enlightenment.

>> No.6476647

>>6476605
that means nothing. i also read the basics of buddhism years before truly understanding them.

protip: you cannot understand buddhism from a 5 minute reading of the four noble truths. the content of the buddha's enlightenment, which he won (according to buddhist theory) due to innumerable lives lived pursuing the truth, cannot be grasped by some fucking teenagers reading a textbook in class.

>> No.6476650

>>6476612
Not them

>> No.6476660

>>6476615
buddhism does not teach reincarnation. rebirth (another term not found in the suttas) is different to reincarnation.

buddhist texts speak of kharma and continuity from life to life, but not reincarnation of a soul as such, like in standard hindu view.

for example, bhagavad gita says soul is uncreated, eternal, not subject to death. it merely changes bodies like clothes, retaining its essential self nature. this is absolutely unbuddhistic and it's important to know the difference.

buddhist theory is more like the energy of consciousness, like a flame, skips from one body to the next, unless its fuel is exhausted.

nibbana is likened to a fire going out due to lack of fuel. it does not go anywhere but ceases to burn. similarly, consciousness ceases at the death of a fully awakened being, does not become established in a new body.

>> No.6476671

It's not that you do not exist, what is said is that the self is an illusion, which is not the same as to say that it is fake, merely that it exists only through certain circumstances and we must not forget that these circumstances also have an end, so the self is not an immortal solid rock, it is always changing.

The realization is that you are a product and a producer, you emerged from within a context, it is a convention. Your body is not your cells, because they change and you remain. Your mind is not your memories, because they are constantly being rewritten, not your emotions or thoughts or opinions, because they change while still giving the impression that they sprout from the same source. Any quality or characteristic of the self is not the self. Beyond that, you're not just your mind and your body independent from your surroundings, you are an expression of your society, of your family, of your references. Buddhism goes beyond the discussion on will or determination, because they come together, your will is not your will and what you were determined to do is by all means yours and your responsibility. It is like an hourglass shape in which on one end you get the entire universe converging towards yourself in that time and place and then expanding once again towards infinity as your attitudes reverberate and affect all. In this respect, the self is not a stone travelling through time, but a knot that is infinitesimal small but of infinite consequence. That's why there is strong attention to how one can do well in each giving situation, however small it is. And how we must not cling to a notion of a continuous self, because that too is far too small and will vanish. The effects of the actions of this self is much greater than a stubborn desire to remain as it is.

>> No.6476682

>>6476615
Wat

>> No.6476689

anatta is a strategy for detachment.

whatever is not yours, whatever you have no attachment to or interest in, does not disturb you. if your mom dies, you suffer, but someone's mom is always dying somewhere, and you feel nothing. this 'logic of indifference' is then applied to what makes up the apparent self. body is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, etc are taught as a way of detaching from them. if you identify self with body, then suffering continues, since a body is unstable and subject to sickness and death. but if you don't identify with body, removing all sense of it being yourself or belonging to you, then indifference takes the place of disturbance.

the suttas in the nikayas are fractals of one basic teaching, the core doctrine can be summed up in a sentence. whatever is impermanent, abandon it.

for early buddhism, non-attachment is non-suffering. this is ataraxia.

>> No.6476717

>>6476647
What you originally said was
>why should anyone be aware of buddhism
Which is exactly what those 5 minute readings are for. To make kids aware that buddhism is an influential world religion (or "religion" to some) that has had a major impact on Asian history and Eastern thought. They don't need to understand it, just need to be made aware of its existence and impact, which is I think how we should go about talking about religion in schools in general.

I also should've made it clear I'm not the guy you were originally responding to.

>> No.6476722
File: 297 KB, 1663x1080, 1429140399251.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6476722

About psychedelics:

I once heard the Zizek meme man say that, and while I'm sure he'd never make shit up (lol), I heard him say that in strict terms of brain chemistry there are psychedelic experiences which are identical to a state of enlightenment. While he was by no means saying that the psychedelic experience is the same as "being" enlightened, I think that if it really is the case that one can undergo the same kinds of mental states through the use of drugs then some interesting questions about the Buddhist practice are raised.

What does /lit/ think? Does anyone have a source that might corroborate or deny Zizek's claim?

>> No.6476726

>>6476401
But for someone who has never slept before and doesn't know how, an approximation of the sensation could be very helpful in sleep-exploration.

>> No.6476747

>>6476533
Narrative does not necessarily imply constant words. Your feeling of self is a conceptual narrative. You still have an image of yourself as a person.

During some activities, this image disappears, but you don't really notice it precisely because you are not self-aware in that moment and are therefore 'selfless'. It's like what they call 'flow' in psychology. Hence the phrase 'to lose oneself' when you're really getting into an activity.

>> No.6476779

All words are vessels,
"you" being no more useless than any other word.
It would be pedantic and pointless to say it does not exist.
I am aware of what you are implying,
however.

>> No.6476790

>>6476281
>you

define it first

>> No.6476804

>>6476453
It demonstrates to you that they're true in a really visceral way. There are a lot of things you just assume to be true. A radical shift in perspective allows you to move past established beliefs, assumptions, etc. It's a really useful tool

>> No.6476808

>>6476495
In the original post you've just assumed that the self does not exist, with no reasoning or argument to back it up, and then from that assumption you've gone on to ask a question. You've just assumed a conclusion/position (the self does not exist), without saying or proving why this is so. The person you're responding to obviously thinks the self does exist, he holds a different position than the one you've just assumed, and is saying that simply asserting the assumption that the self does not exist is not going to persuade anyone (like him) that the self does not exist. "Begging the question" is an informal logical fallacy - a type of circular reasoning.

>> No.6476811

>>6476804
I see drugs in the same way I see leaving Bleach out for a baby to drink from.

>> No.6476817

>>6476811
Then you're an idiot. You should take psychedelic drugs, they would help you with that

>> No.6476833

>>6476817
How do you mean, idiot?
As in I have a mental retardation?
It seems irrelevant and this is the first I have heard of such a thing.

I have no intention of taking drugs at this point.
I do not know what I will do in the future.
I infer to not regulate the sale of substances would be ignorant on the part of those who govern a geographical region.

I am not knowing substances to help me with not being mentally retarded, provided I actually am, which I doubt.

>> No.6476839

>>6476790
Unenlightened pleb detected

>> No.6476840

I've never met a single intelligent person who has taken a psychedelic and wasn't drastically impressed or improved by the experience.

>> No.6476841
File: 146 KB, 1173x392, Picture 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6476841

>>6476281

24, as I was gradually coming to understand the general argument of the transcendental deduction.

I wouldn't say I "realized" any fact about the self, because I didn't take the argument as definitive and become a Kantian; I only realized a different way of thinking about the self - a way which is bizarre and deep and fun.

I also can't say for sure how closely Kant resembles Buddhism here, since I haven't really studied any of the many traditions within the latter, but in discussions like these I tend to find posts that in whole or in part describe many of Kant's key points: >>6476460
>>6476671

>> No.6476848

>>6476804
But again you act as if the only way to achieve this is through drug use.

I'm all for people making informed decisions to take drugs - and I have partook. But people who assume that
>a radical shift in perspective
and such is only obtainable through drug use is incredibly ignorant and naive. Hell, even as a random guy i've managed to reach "level 4" of CEV pereception. Not that i'm saying that as some kind of achievement or great releveatory thing, but simply that something which you can use drugs to achieve you can also achieve on your own.

>> No.6476854

>>6476833
You sound like an autist who doesn't write to communicate. When you reply, do you imagine yourself engaging in a conversation (considering the other person's point of view, trying to persuade them, etc.) or do you just like to see the shape of your own thought?

>> No.6476855

>>6476808

To be pedantic, that fallacy is more accurately called a "loaded question."

>> No.6476857

>>6476281
>not recognizing the Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma and the valid base and subtle existence.

Okay.

>> No.6476860

15, though I did not fully grasp it until 16

>> No.6476889

>>6476848
No, that wasn't my intention. A lot of people don't structure their thought the same way a lot of other people might. But I would say (and take this with a grain of salt) that it would probably be useful for at least 90% of the human population. I don't think most people have the ability to shift paradigms (I'm talking basic things people assume to be true about *reality*, not even politics or personal stances) by force of will. A lot of people aren't so reflexive

I wasn't the guy who talked about ego death btw. The people you linked in >>6476453
were two different people

>> No.6476891

>>6476848
you got CEV through meditation alone?
please elaborate.

>> No.6476904

>>6476891
Wasn't intentional just came about through exploration of sleep paralyisis. It's got to the point where I get to especially level 2 accidently when i'm trying to sleep and have to reposition posture/compose myself to actually get to sleep.

>> No.6476911

>>6476904
It might be easier for you because of your past "partaking." The door has been opened

>> No.6476912

>>6476904
what did you see?

>> No.6476917

>>6476911
When first experienced had only done alcohol. I've never actually taken lsd so I dunno if what I experience is actually what someone who takes lsd does but then everyone experiences drugs differently anyway. All I can say is that going through descriptions on wikipedia and other places I can recognise similarities of experience up to "level 4". Especially interesting is when they mention that "A side component of this is the ability to feel motion when the eyes are closed". Because I sometimes experience a lil bit of vertigo while it is going on as well.

>> No.6476920

>>6476912
Idk about OP but I see lights and patterns. "Sacred geometry" if you're a new age fag. It's not just about the visual though, you feel connected to the space around you. The line between self and environment begins to blur.

>> No.6476924

>>6476912
At level 4? I just see blackness that is punctuated by black characters that come and go, like a film infront of me but entirely in different shades of like darkness. What is most weird is that I can intereact with them and sometimes they interact with me and it feels as if i'm being lightly touched - like I have kissed one of these shadowy people before. Some are "original", at least to my memory, inventions while sometimes they bare the outline of epople I know.

>> No.6476928

>>6476924
Just for clarity when I mean lightly touch I mean mostly by stretching my arms out (as i'm lying on my back while this is happening).

>> No.6476934

>>6476917
That's really interesting. I've always found it hard to close my ego off and relax when I try (my mind drifts a lot and I have anxiety if I sit in the dark and think for too long). How do you do it? Is there a specific method that you have, or is it just naturally easy for you to let go?

>> No.6476949

>>6476920
>>6476924
so do you guys just meditate and wait? how do you get started?

>> No.6476950

>>6476934
It took I dunno 2 years of practice. Ironically, i've never been able to successfuly sustain a lucid dream. I would lie flat on my back with my arms and legs a part and just not move - basic sleep paralysis stuff. I would focus on stuff like breathing and not moving rather than "thoughts". At this point, if I want to reach level 4, I focus on doing that - although I don't have 100% success but I can usually get it some degree.

>> No.6476952

>>6476949
Just go about as if trying to achieve sleep paralyisis. I've never reached it outside of that environment.

>> No.6476959

>>6476950
dunno about the sleep paralysis thing.
but i've found that for meditation it's definitely better to focus on breathing and not moving versus trying to get rid of your thoughts or whatever, your thoughts just naturally go if you don't move i find.

>> No.6476969

>>6476949
Don't have a laptop or phone with you in bed and just try laying there without thinking about those things. That's a start. Then try to relax your mind without falling asleep. Focus on the boundaries of your nervous system (the edge of your skin, what you feel there) and try to extend it all. You'll feel sort of tingly, and gradually like you don't have a body or like you're falling into a trance. I'm the sacred geometry guy, not lv4 though. I'm interested in what he has to say

>> No.6476970

>>6476959
That sounds right. I always had quite a strong imagination as a kid and would try imagining things without actually imagining it - as if it came from something other than the conscious. For instance I would imagine a dragon and then not think of the dragon but try and sustain the image and see where that led.

>> No.6476974

"You" and "Exist" are a bit nebulous in this context.

Of course you can create a fairly logical train of thoughts leading to this conclusion with particular definitions of those words, but ultimately you aren't playing anything more than semantical games.

No more profound than a bathroom stall epigram.

>> No.6476976

>>6476969
It's interesting that you focus on the geometry because even though that's "level 3" i've had that far less than level 4. It mostly seems to skip from level 1 to level 4, and if I start experiencing level 2 then it's pretty unpleasent and I just kinda try and abort it.

>> No.6476983

Again going back to wikipedia the paragraph:
> For a person who tries to actively observe this closed-eye perception on a regular basis, there comes a point where if he or she looks at a flat-shaded object with his or her eyes wide open, and tries to actively look for this visual noise, he or she will become aware of it and see the random pointillistic disorganized motion as if it were a translucent overlay on top of what is actually being seen by his or her open eyes.

Is something I can also identify as occuring. I can be lying there with my eyes open and I just see darkness squirling and round and consuming my vision - so my eyes are still open but it's as if the vision is being choked by darkness.

>> No.6476998

>>6476974
Exactly. People don't realize how limited the language is and inevitably dismiss enlightenment claims as broad or stupid because they don't fit neatly into the philosophical vocabulary. They hear people say things like "I felt like the line between me and other things was blurring" and imagine it from their own frame of reference, which can't really comprehend it. Some things are just beyond words

>> No.6477049

>>6476722
Zizek knows fuck all about drugs, the only drug he takes is Pepsi Max. He's pretty straight edge.

Zizek also understands little about Buddhism.

>> No.6477072

>>6476998
you are right.
people nowadays think they are enlightened and "post-human" purely through information, science in particular. i'm not saying science is bad, but i think it is rather unfortunate that subjective experience has been tossed aside and people think it can be replaced by pure scientific inquiry.
religious people tend to understand these experiences more although they also tend to give it too much credit. .

>> No.6477076

I contemplate the moment of my own crucifixion.

>> No.6477080

>>6476722
Not exactly the most creditable researcher, but Timothy Leary's Marsh Chapel experiments with LSD produced effects in both believers and non-believerss that were compared by the subjects to a state of religious euphoria.

>> No.6477101

>>6477080
There was an article about this and psilocybin in the New York Times. Most people report that the experience is spiritual and healing

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/science/12psychedelics.html

>> No.6477110

>>6477049
>He's pretty straight edge.

The guy is a fucking massive cokehead tho.

>> No.6477128

>>6477101
I can confirm that in both cases I personally found it to be so.

a 125 UG dose of LSD25 and I was frolicking around a golf course shirtlesss hugging trees and making sand-trap angels.

But more importantly I was doing this because I was posessed by a theretofore unknown zest for life and wonderment at the mechanisms of nature.

As a hard Athiest I maintain that it was the closest thing to a spiritual experience I have ever had.

I would appreciate input from theistically inclined anons regarding their experiences (if any) with psychedelics, and how they would describe the whole thing.

>> No.6477164
File: 37 KB, 1921x695, 1423108152246.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6477164

Drugs can quickly bypass most of the filters your brain uses to process information, which a large proportion of people don't even realise exist.

One could potentially reach this in a meditative state, but you'd have to be completely aware of all these filters in the first place.

To completely disregard drugs altogether as a method of therapy is illogical.

>> No.6477171

>>6477101
This is a really interesting article too:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/trip-treatment

I'm excited to see what this study produces; as far as I'm aware, the brain has never properly been imaged under the influence of LSD:
https://walacea.com/campaigns/lsd/

>> No.6477212

>>6476722
an easy refutation of this point is that consciousness is rejected as self in early buddhism. no state of mind is final enlightenment, it's not the attainment of a state, which could be induced by drugs. buddhism is to be detached even from lofty states of mind, seeing they are as insubstantial and not-self as mundane mind states.

zizek's point only has validity in non-buddhist spiritual traditions, he has completely mixed the two up unfortunately. his point has no meaning in buddhism.

the buddha would probably say something like, LSD altered consciousness is one thing, DMT altered consciousness is another, etc, just as he refuted Sati's view of a "one consciousness" that sees, hears, and transmigrates life to life, by saying that consciousness is dependently arisen and conditioned by other factors.

zizek reveals much ignorance about buddhism, to be honest.

>> No.6477216

i like how pissed off zizek makes buddhists

>> No.6477224

>>6477216
it doesn't piss me off. he's said complimentary things about buddhism but keeps raising the stupid point about drugs, failing to realize it has no significance in buddhism.

early buddhism was an incredibly sober, clear-headed tradition. it's not mysticism, it wasn't yogis tripping on soma and smoking ganja, it was stone cold sober monks withering away the will to live. there's really no relation between drugs and early buddhism.

>> No.6477366

Why I think Buddhism has nothing to do with drugs and why I think taking drugs does little to clarify Buddhist theory or speed up one's progress along the path:

From the very first discourse, B* tells us that the way he prescribes is neither hedonism nor asceticism. Drugs are used in both; hedonists use drugs to induce pleasant feelings and experiences, ascetics use drugs to induce mystic states and so on. B rejects these two extremes as dead ends.

The second discourse pulled the rug from belief in self and prescribed nibbida (disgust), viraaga (dispassion) as the correct way of viewing the khandas (attributes of being). This removed the basis for hedonism and asceticism - the self-driven pursuit of pleasure or pain.

The third discourse vividly expressed the Buddhist view of things; everything is aditta (burning) with lust, anger, ignorance. The life process is the continuity of craving. B prescribes a path of radical non-involvement in order to exhaust this process of craving and, in a sense, life itself as we know it.

How many people who smoke weed, while claiming it has spiritual benefits and so on, really use it to induce pleasant vedana (sensation, feeling), alter sanna (perception), alter vinnana (consciousness) for pleasure (kaama)? Isn't it really all about pleasure? You feel bored, dull, whatever, so you decide to smoke to enhance things. Whether you're a yogi in India or a skater in America, you smoke weed to induce some preferred pleasure.

So right here from the start, I say Buddhism implicitly rejects the whole basis of drug taking. By expounding the anatta teaching, B pulls the rug from under the whole thing. Are you tripping on mushrooms, acid, DMT, etc to find your "true self"? What do you expect to gain or attain from it? That consciousness bound up in the experience is impermanent and not-self.

I think Buddhism marked a paradigm shift away from mystical traditions (which used drugs) seeking ultimate states of mind, towards a sober, rational system that had a fundamental teaching that all mind-states are not-self (the implication being, not worth striving for, holding on to, etc).

How can a monk claim to be non-attached, when the source of his non-attachment is a drug he must take to induce the feeling? It is clearly absurd. This is the big problem with drug users, they claim so many fantastic things, but it's just a faint memory of an impermanent experience caused by a chemical change in the brain. The amount of times I've seen people on 4chan or youtube comments discussing far out things related to psychedelics would give you the impression they are all perfectly enlightened shamans, but they're just ordinary fools who play video games the next day and shitpost here. Clearly something is missing even in those glorious mind-expanding drug experiences, it cannot even last a day.

I personally find that impermanence of effect very troubling. B said whatever is impermanent, abandon it.

>> No.6477381

>>6476904
Ever went into REM while awake? I got that during the shadow shapes stage thing when trying wake induced lucid dreaming, was pretty spooky.

>> No.6477394

>>6477366
What you're describing is absolutely unattainable for human beings. I refuse to believe a monk in Tibet or Thailand has actually met any of these qualifications for 'non-being' so outright dismissing anything which produces a temporary glimpse of it is not much better. A Westerner who's tried a psychedelic understands the idea better than one who hasn't most of the time

>> No.6477397

>>6477381
As in you felt your eyes rapidly moving about? Nope can't say I have, sure doesn't sound pleasent lol.

>> No.6477400

>>6477397
I mean your eyes moving slower* and looping.

>> No.6477432

>>6477366

I agree somewhat.

There is nothing wrong with using psychedelics every now and then just to enjoy them or to explore new ideas and patterns of thought but at the same time someone who is seriously committed to living according to the teachings and the 8-fold path shouldn't be using them.

If you have the desire to experience drug/plant-induced altered states then you know you are doing something wrong, you haven't fully removed yourself from the clutches of desires and the ego.

Studying buddhism and believing in it though dosnt mean you have to go 100% all the way in it. Some people forget this and think its all or nothing. Its possible to try to live your life in some way in accordance with buddhist teachings without going 100%, but if you are going 100% then you shouldn't even have the desire to trip or use drugs.

>> No.6477440

>>6477432
While I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you,
>believing in it through doesn't mean you have to go 100% all the way in it
is a very controversal statement.

>> No.6477447

>>6477397
Eyes start having a life of their own and moving all kinds of ways and body getting tingly waves and feeling sort of exited and tight but also starts becoming absent at times with just conciousness and eyes remaining. Seemed like I just got at the onset of entering a dreamstate but never quite manage to do so.

>> No.6477457

>>6477447
Crickey. Yeah can't say i've ever had that. You got it just through normal sleep paral posture?

>> No.6477489

>>6476854
Again,
any prescribed mental conditions seem irrelevant to the discourse.

I have absolutely no idea how I should answer your question and I am not sure as to why you are asking it.
Alternatively I would prefer you actually elaborated on the points I had argued as opposed to bring the discourse in to absurdity,
but it is your choice.

>> No.6477499

>>6476808
I'm not OP nor any other poster. I just kind of remember seeing other anons saying begging the question this or that and thought there must be a reference to it. I got what you mean now.

>> No.6477754

>>6477440

i just meant that you can believe it to be true without deciding that at that point in your life you are going to go 100% all out, for example you could just decide you want to go 100% later in life even if you think its the real thing.

In several asian countries its not uncommon for people to count themselves as buddhists but then they only renounce possessions and live a monastic/ascetic lifestyle when they get old.

>> No.6477767

>>6477457
>You got it just through normal sleep paral posture?
Not sure what this means tbh.

>> No.6477780

>>6477767
Well I assume you were prepping for sleep and it happened? How were you lying on your bed when it occured?

>> No.6477811

>>6477780
Some times quietly stretched out on my back with my arms besides my body, another time lying on my side in a sort of fetal thing and another time lying on my stomach. Position doesn't really matter, when I try to stay concious but still allow myself to go to sleep at the same time I enter this sort of purgatory between being awake and dreaming where the visuals and the 'body high', 'body absence' and eye moment come. Often it has this sort of rollercoaster feel to it, or the feeling of what I imagine one would have when suddenly pulling the joystick towards you in a fighter jet and making a sharp turn upwards or pulling a loop. I just can't seem to break through to the other side though.

It only happens when I deliberately try to stay aware while falling asleep though, it doesn't happen on accident. I wasn't preparing to sleep conventionally as much as preparing to step straight into a dream. I've never been succesful this way though, I have only managed lucid dreaming by becoming aware of the dream state while already in a dream, sort of by luck.

>> No.6477870
File: 15 KB, 250x312, 1429013713720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6477870

Buddhism is fucking stupid and I hate everything related to it, I'm actually trying to don't do anything those kind of philosophy recommend.

>> No.6478066

There was a time when I thought that, but now I'm more convinced that 'I' sort of exist. I will only ever experience the world exactly as I do for exactly the amount of time I am conscious. I now sort of look at my life as a single event that's really the result of many other things in one all encompassing event, and that I will only ever experience the world as myself in this single event. It's like there's a line segment, and will only be able to experience MY life in that line segment. I can't fucking explain this shit.

>> No.6478093

The ego is an illusion, of course, but I believe that we each posses an individuated self which is a part of the collective whole; in other words, there's a semblance of "self" or "individuality" within all of us, but it's inconstant and doesn't survive death.

>> No.6478101

>>6477499
'begging the question' is often thrown around intro to philosophy college courses so that's why you'll see it on /lit/

>> No.6478117

>How old were you when you realized changing the definition of words allows to pontificate like a pseudo-intellectual sperg
>How old were you when you began parrotting the cognitive dissonance of narcissistic drug abusers

>> No.6478127

>>6476427
he's right, though. Nothing like takin' way too much acid. Nothing quite like it and you can never go back.

>> No.6478132

>>6477870
Buddhism is religious opium, it's just more subtle, and therefore more poisonous than Christianity. Christianity subverts with the stick while Buddhism does it with the carrot.

>> No.6478181

When I was 19.

I had managed to view beyond my normal senses for a moment in meditation. I saw that the "I" which is seen to possess agency in this universe does not come from this body. It is the singular puppet master pulling the universe forward, and this shell is able to see the strings.

>> No.6478188

>>6476281
Hasn't happened yet. . .

>> No.6478189

>>6478132
Zazen is therapeutic, in Zen you do something you must exhaust yourself

If you're a novelist or poet you must write every day

If you're a personal trainer you must be both compassionate, but stern and demanding and in peak physical shape

If you're a doctor you must be the best physician possible and help all you can

etc, etc and if you're a monk you must master the history and texts of Buddhism as well as meditation, I see no flaw in a therapeutic philosophy that advocates self-control, egalitarianism, and strong conviction to your trade

>> No.6478215

>>6476833
you probably take caffeine alcohol and various painkillers (tylenol, ibuprofen, codeine, etc), you might have even tried nicotine

>> No.6478223

Never. I clearly exist. I'm writing this sentence right now. I don't know how anyone could deny that.

>> No.6478226

23

>> No.6478230

>>6478223
You exist. Just not as individually as you think you do. But if there were NO separation between us there would be no separation between us, so you're half right

>> No.6478236

>>6478230
To amend this, I mean most of us are connected, to the point where individualism/talk about "you" seems kind of ridiculous in some cases. But there is clearly some separation, as small as it is

>> No.6478281

>>6478236
what are you on about?

there is almost complete separation, in that nobody experiences what I do, and I no one else.

is why solipsism is irrefutable

>> No.6478430

>>6478281
>solipsism is irrefutable
Language is why it most certainly is not

>> No.6478529

>>6476281
18

>> No.6478604

>>6478132
i hope it is, have you tried opiates? we need something longer lasting! perhaps buddha is it?

>> No.6478608

Buddhism and Islam, perfect combination. The mind and body are inferior to the spirit, but Buddhism seems to prefer the mind. In this way, it is necessary to read Pali texts to transcend the physical world, but eschewing the spirit and thinking you cannot effect change within that realm is a spiritually defeatist attitude.

>> No.6478659
File: 153 KB, 615x405, lois jan17 p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6478659

i think buddhism can be difficult to understand when we are young and in relatively good health. many suttas in the buddhist canon are directly concerned with sick and dying monks facing their last moments. the buddha taught and believed in a life to life khammic continuity, so death was no mere end, but a transition into a new life unless one has rooted out all craving (and thus attained parinibbana at death). for a sick and dying monk, it was imperative to understand the doctrine that leads to detachment and dispassion, to correctly grasp it and realize its truth. so many suttas deal with this near death scene, not life in one's 20s at full vigor and enthusiasm, but life in the later stages, worn out and disfigured by time, disillusioned by the charms of youth.

it is in such a context that we can better understand buddhist doctrine and theory. for a dying monk, it was important to realize that the khandas are impermanent, suffering, and not-self, in order to induce the profound detachment necessary to die in the noble way and attain parinibbana. for someone at the peak of life, it doesn't matter much what the self is, or whether the body is self or not self or whatever else, as long as it functions smoothly there are no complaints. it is when sickness strikes and decay sets in that the buddha's wisdom comes back to haunt anyone clinging too tightly to identification with the attributes of being. then, disgusted by the very nature of the body, disillusioned by the changing nature of all things, the time is ripe to detach from identification with the body, with feelings and sensations, with perceptions, with volitional activities, with consciousness.

the goal of attaining nibbana has the meaning of transcending the realm of change, birth and death, and attaining the deathless dimension. for a dying monk who believes he has already lived innumerable lives, driven on life to life by avijja (ignorance) and tanha (craving), who has lost all interest in conditioned activities, the thought of transcending the vicious cycle of samsaara was of the highest importance. we in our 20s, raised by watered down religion and scientific materialism, inclined to believing in #YOLOism, do not feel this enthusiasm for the concept of nibbana. it is only when we start to age and get to know more of the world that we start to see the logic in the buddha's teaching, the internal consistency of it all, the practical application of it in one's life. i hope that you all arrive at such a point where the teaching of the buddha speaks deeply to you.

>> No.6478665

i think buddhism can be difficult to understand when we are young and in relatively good health. many suttas in the buddhist canon are directly concerned with sick and dying monks facing their last moments. the buddha taught and believed in a life to life khammic continuity, so death was no mere end, but a transition into a new life unless one has rooted out all craving (and thus attained parinibbana at death). for a sick and dying monk, it was imperative to understand the doctrine that leads to detachment and dispassion, to correctly grasp it and realize its truth. so many suttas deal with this near death scene, not life in one's 20s at full vigor and enthusiasm, but life in the later stages, worn out and disfigured by time, disillusioned by the charms of youth.

it is in such a context that we can better understand buddhist doctrine and theory. for a dying monk, it was important to realize that the khandas are impermanent, suffering, and not-self, in order to induce the profound detachment necessary to die in the noble way and attain parinibbana. for someone at the peak of life, it doesn't matter much what the self is, or whether the body is self or not self or whatever else, as long as it functions smoothly there are no complaints. it is when sickness strikes and decay sets in that the buddha's wisdom comes back to haunt anyone clinging too tightly to identification with the attributes of being. then, disgusted by the very nature of the body, disillusioned by the changing nature of all things, the time is ripe to detach from identification with the body, with feelings and sensations, with perceptions, with volitional activities, with consciousness.

the goal of attaining nibbana has the meaning of transcending the realm of change, birth and death, and attaining the deathless dimension. for a dying monk who believes he has already lived innumerable lives, driven on life to life by avijja (ignorance) and tanha (craving), who has lost all interest in conditioned activities, the thought of transcending the vicious cycle of samsaara was of the highest importance. we in our 20s, raised by watered down religion and scientific materialism, inclined to believing in #YOLOism, do not feel this enthusiasm for the concept of nibbana. it is only when we start to age and get to know more of the world that we start to see the logic in the buddha's teaching, the internal consistency of it all, the practical application of it in one's life. i hope that you all arrive at such a point where the teaching of the buddha speaks deeply to you.

>> No.6478874

>>6476460
>i would advise anyone who thinks they've "realized" it to keep going, don't stagnate now you think you've "got it" or you'll be no better than a psychedelic drug user who thinks he's got it. in the suttas there are many gradations of this realization, for a while there is a lingering sense of self even though one logically realizes that the khandas are not-self in their very nature.
this graduation is why I want to study the buddhism, but I am afraid not too believe in the reincarnation, kharma and all that, so it will seem more a odctrine quite amusing but that's it.

I understood that the self is phony when I noticed that I had no idea why I choose to use one word instead of another words, whan I had no idea wher emy thoughts come from, why do I say such and such things in such and such phrasing.

>> No.6478886

>>6476281
What is meant by the term "you" in this context?

>> No.6479128

>>6478281
>in that nobody experiences what I do, and I no one else.
You're claiming the existence of a one-way road. That is logically absurd.

>> No.6479207

Why must Buddhism always be assumed if someone achieves this sort of realization? Can one not understand this and still live the same regardless? Isn't the act of practicing self destruction acting on some whim of the self, perhaps not the self conscious but unconscious? Why do Buddhists resign from suffering, if the self is an illusion then the suffering is not serious in the first place?

>> No.6479215

>>6476453
i can tell you are a complete asshole from a single post

>> No.6479290

About 11 or 12. Hadn't read any philosophy or anything, but had a thought process something like "if I remove a finger I'm still me, if in remove my arm, I'm still me, etc., etc., so what is this "me"? Basically a sort of ship of Theseus ideation. Didn't fully understand the implications of what I was on about, but that's how it began anyway.

>> No.6479297

>>6479290
On a side note, I distinctly remember trying to explain what I was thinking to my best friend on the bus ride to school, and he could only respond "that's deep, man". Funny memory for me.

>> No.6479308

>>6476353
>ego-death is an enjoyable experience

Mine was initiated by a mushroom trip about five years ago, still having difficulties dealing with it.

>> No.6479335

>>6478281
>is why solipsism is irrefutable
I think so too, but then why does my mind would put me trought the bad upbringing that I had and other unpleasant events ?

unless the part that creates this is just mean, or wants to teach me something through unpleasant things, but hten , I bet that it could teach me these things directly.

>> No.6479421
File: 126 KB, 1175x909, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6479421

>>6478223

Oh, he does exist
>I do exist

>> No.6479558

>>6478223
>Never. I clearly exist. I'm writing this sentence right now. I don't know how anyone could deny that.
you are not fooling me mate, only I exists

>> No.6480182

>>6478127
literally untrue.

>> No.6480200

then who is Big Sean not fucking with?

>> No.6480488

>>6477366
buddhism is a form of hedonism

>> No.6480785

>>6478659
no I do not follow you. I think that parents could teach their children far more. ANd oddly enough, the monks have no children. This is why most of the humanity will never be enlighten, and anyway, most people are not on earth to be so since society would basically collapse.
the monks are basically leeching off the society in asking for food etc. I find this the good way to live (leeching off), but clearly most people must remain in some rat race.

>> No.6481239

Just right before realizing that "existence" is not an ontological verb.

>> No.6481820

>>6479207
this

>> No.6482225

I ARE ALL WE

>> No.6482229

>>6476281
never. i feel this is a common misinterpretation among college freshmen

>> No.6482273 [DELETED] 

Everyone who thinks he can be enlightened by taking drugs, meditation, lucid dreaming, hypnosis or everything else is stupid as fuck and gets tricked by his brain.

>> No.6482281 [DELETED] 

Everyone who thinks he can be enlightened by taking drugs, meditation, lucid dreaming, hypnosis, being in trance or everything else is stupid as fuck and gets tricked by his brain.

>> No.6482288

Everyone who thinks he can be enlightened by taking drugs, meditation, lucid dreaming, hypnosis, being in trance or everything else is stupid as fuck, deluded and gets tricked by his brain.

>> No.6483089

I was having Sartrean observations of self around age 10. At 20 I'm as lost as ever. Anyone at Amherst College looking to fuck?

>> No.6483094

Fucking retarded

>> No.6483100

>>6480785
Maybe that's why it's not a good religion by itself.

>> No.6483470

>>6483100
>Maybe that's why it's not a good religion by itself.
good is a strong word, but I think that any doctrine must have some hierarchy
people could well begin the path though

>> No.6483478

>>6483089
This post, top keks had

>> No.6483487

>>6478430
why are transcendent experiences required for the existence of language?

I can easily imagine a world in which it is only myself and p-zombies, having conversations, reading the paper, etc.

Why is this 'extra', transcendent experience associated with the p-zombie needed for language to function? You talk in your dreams right?

>> No.6483490

>>6479128
I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

>> No.6483494

>>6480200
underrated

>> No.6483495

I realized there was no ontologically real, and separate self (who thinks, and 'wills' things), when under the influence of LSD. This doesn't mean that the self doesn't have any sort of existence though. It just exists in a particular way different to what one thinks it does.

Personally, I hate Buddhism. It appears to me that if the Buddha were born into the modern world, where notions like karma and reincarnation have no scientific evidence and are basically seen as being grouped with things like astrology and numerology, then the buddha would have simply killed himself. There would be no need to attain nibbana, because life ceases at death, and all one needs to do to end the cycle of suffering and desire etc, is to put a bullet through your head.

This is what I hate most about buddhism. It's essentially a death cult and is so thoroughly nihilistic and pessimistic that I find it hard to take seriously.

>> No.6483498

>>6479558
you are nothing more than pixels physically lighting up on the screen in front of me. there is no evidence there is anything existing beyond this. Clearly the only thing that exists is my experience, I mean what would evidence of anything else existing even look like? Seeing as though I'd have to experience this evidence myself to know about it, and so it would come under the umbrella of my own existence.

>> No.6483510

>>6483490
You are claiming that there is inaccessible information, yet the very act of making that statement is conveying information. It's a paradox.

>> No.6483516

>>6483495
>It just exists in a particular way different to what one thinks it does.
Do you know what that way is?

>> No.6483531

lol 100% spook

of course depending what you mean, but odds are you mean something dumb

>> No.6483536
File: 73 KB, 334x425, hillary-They_see_me_frumpin-They_hatin_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6483536

>>6483470
>>good is a strong word, but I think that any doctrine must have some hierarchy
>people could well begin the path though
also, most people will never accept to change their habits on sex, and even if they do, only a fraction will manage (most priests refuse the celibacy and try to change the rules since they cannot follow them), especially today, where nobody accepts to compromise on their desire of sex.

>> No.6483601

>>6476848
eh I kinda feel like this CEV level stuff is some pseudo bullshi, just read it the wiki and I've naturally achieved "levels 1-3" and I've definitely felt the motion feeling of level 4 occasionally throughout my life for as long as I can remember.

>> No.6483679

26

>> No.6483713

>>6480182
he kind of is right, but its the same with meditation i would assume.

>> No.6483744

>>6478215
I do not willingly drink either.
I do not and have not taken ibuprofen in the past.
I choose to refrain from taking "pills" or substances I presume are dangerous.

>> No.6483900

>>6483516
not really

as a particular aspect of the existential structure of experience, as discourse, as a transcendent nothing that lays behind any description of the self, always left out of the description that which is describing, much like an arrow which cannot shoot at itself

what am I? any description I give contains the blindspot of whatever is doing the describing. I transcend myself

>> No.6484007

>>6476435
>>6476453
I took acid at 18 and I firmly believe it helped me reach great levels of self understanding that other wise would have taken me much longer to achieve. While I was high I could watch my mind, identity and life from an almost objective point of view.

A normal person often unconsciously engages in lots of self deception to justify why their lives are like they are. The acid just wiped this away. I looked into the mirror and into my mind and I didn't see who I wanted to be or who I thought I was. I saw myself for what I actually was.


I agree that people who claim they have gained "otherwise inaccessible philosophical propositions" are probably wrong. But drugs most certainly give you new perspectives that could otherwise be very hard or even impossible to reach.


You shouldn't scoff at people who claim drugs have given them new insights.

>> No.6484049

>>6484007
>almost objective point of view.
tell us more in details on this


>>6484007
>I saw myself for what I actually was.
which is ?


>>6484007
>You shouldn't scoff at people who claim drugs have given them new insights.
indeed, but drugs are not necessary, perhaps sufficient. Like I said, it is a technique with a very good yields, but promoting drugs does not solve the question "what to do after you take the drug".

I do not have pbs with drugs a priori, but the realtionship that too many people have towards them is flawed.

>> No.6484052

>>6484007
>>6484049
>>>almost objective point of view.
>tell us more in details on this

For instance, what do you call objective ?

>> No.6484060

>>6476535
think you mean aristotle

>> No.6485438

>>6483900
>contains the blindspot of whatever is doing the describing
"Time" is the thing that "does" the describing, because "time" is the thing that "does" everything. If you see anything with the quality "causes change" then you are seeing "time".

>> No.6485517

>>6477366
This, and it should also be noted that all sorts of strong hallucinatory experiences can happen during meditation, but they are completely meaningless. Whoever thinks those are some kind of transcendental visions or whatever is deluding himself.

>>6477432
>There is nothing wrong with using psychedelics every now and then just to enjoy them or to explore new ideas and patterns of thought
Following the 5 Precepts clearly prohibits you from using drugs m8. If you're not going to follow the precepts then just stop studying or believing in Buddhism because that is the barest minimum you have to do.

>>6477754
Yeah, but that doesn't imply that those people party hard for all their lives and then suddenly turn into Buddhism 100% when they get old. Very few among those who do will be able to move forward in the path. And householders can become enlightened, at which point they will leave the household life.

>>6477394
>What you're describing is absolutely unattainable for human beings
>I refuse to believe
OK.

>> No.6485567

>>6476368
>those on drugs experience the illusion of ego-death due to the incapacity of their brain to support the ego, and not through appropriating the vacuous truth which annihilates the self
clearly you've taken psychedelic drugs

>> No.6485621

how old were you when you realized that feelings are a consequence of your consciousness and don't actually exist?

>> No.6485623

>>6480785
>ANd oddly enough, the monks have no children. This is why most of the humanity will never be enlighten, and anyway, most people are not on earth to be so since society would basically collapse.
First things first. Are you aware that the Buddha never promised the eventual enlightenment of all mankind, or all sentient beings? He said that the path he laid out is to be taken by individuals who want to save themselves and others, so that they work for their own salvation and help others at the best of their abilities. Whether infinite sentient beings remain in samsara forever or whether miraculously they all eventually attain enlightenment has no importance whatsoever. Those who decide to save themselves can do so, the others will either do it eventually, or remain in suffering forever.
Second, monks are not the only ones privy to enlightenment. It's simply easier for them because it's basically their job. Traditionally they taught not only children, but also adults including the parents of those children. Householders (especially today because historically very few had access to the teachings the way they have today) can go all the way up to the Once-returner stage while remaining as "normal" householders.
Third, the whole thing about leeching off is a completely materialistic outlook at things, whether you are a capitalist or a marxist. Originally monks had to give the "gift of Dharma" (teaching or advice according to the dharma) to people from whom they received alms, and this was seen as a perfectly valid thing. Hell, the very act of leaving the household life for spiritual practices was seen as something very valuable in India 2500 years ago.

>>6483536
>especially today, where nobody accepts to compromise on their desire of sex.
Yeah, this is one of the points that is the hardest to deal with for modern people getting interested in Buddhism. A good deal of them are completely cool about following all the other precepts, but god forbid inhibiting anything related to sex. Some outsiders are even shocked at the mere proposition because they are unfortunately deluded enough to think sex is something "divine", "transcendental" or anything along these lines.
It's funny because for laypeople following the 4th precept starts with little more than refraining from illegal sexual activities and having sex as part of a proper relationship instead of doing it casually with whomever. This can gradually deepen and eventually go all the way of the complete eradication of sexual desire (for both partners if a relationship is present), but even Once-returners can keep being non-celibate.
As for "most priests refusing celibacy", institutional lack of it where present is due to various reasons. For example in Japan monks are allowed to marry because the Meiji government had decided back in the day that obliterating Buddhism would be cool, and lifted the ban on marriages as part of their efforts to undermine the cohesive structure of the religion.

>> No.6485649

>>6476281
I do exist. You don't.

>> No.6486650

>>6480200

Good one, Anon!

Nice doubles, as well.

>> No.6487951

>>6485623
>>Second, monks are not the only ones privy to enlightenment.
who else ?

thanks for the input.

>> No.6487957

I guess 15, because I started smoking weed. Then I grew up in my 20s.

Sage.

>> No.6489370

>>6476281
I choose to believe I do.

>> No.6489385

>>6476281
12, my parents were always into this sort of thing, so I had access to the relevant material my whole life.

>> No.6489394

>>6476353
I'll experience ego-death plenty when I'm dead.

>> No.6489505

>>6483744
If you think ibuprofen is dangerous you're probably a tree-hugging idiot. Just saying.

>> No.6489586

>>6489505
If you think any drug can't become dangerous you're probably a drug-addicted moron.

>> No.6489587

>>6487951
Laypeople.

You're welcome.

>> No.6489690
File: 30 KB, 310x232, kant1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6489690

>>6476475
>buddhistically
I'm not gonna take technical philosophical advice from someone who can't even coherently form thought. If you can't into language the philosophico-semantic realm is not for you. You'll be eaten alive.

>> No.6489747

>>6478101
kek

>> No.6489952

>>6489505
It is about developing a habit.
If I have to choose between pain or taking some thing which may have a negative effect,
the ideal is pain.

>> No.6490110

>>6483487
You can only imagine this world because you have been given language and certain cultural imaginations which are only transmitted via society or other (human) minds or whatever the fuck is not you to you.