/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16946558]

Is buddhism nihilism?

[Anonymous No.16946565]

>>16946558
Yeah

[Anonymous No.16946582]

>>16946558
Just read The Nigger of the Narcissus

[Anonymous No.16946632]

>>16946558
yes, it's passive nihilism

[Anonymous No.16946637]

>>16946558
Yes, an actual longing for annihilation.

[Anonymous No.16946654]

>>16946558
Just read The Nigger Bible

[Anonymous No.16946670]

>>16946558
Unexist yourself, you fucking baiting faggot. We've had this same fucking conversation in like at least 5% of /lit/ threads in the past week.

[Anonymous No.16946681]

buddhism can't be compared to any currents of western thought without distorting it into something unlike itself

[Anonymous No.16946692]

no? nihilism has no mission. buddhism has an explicit mission

[Anonymous No.16946697]

>>16946558
No, Buddha outright rejected the nihilists and probably made fun of them.

[Anonymous No.16946700]

>>16946558
It's post-nihilism

[Anonymous No.16946720]

>>16946692
yes, annihilation. now what component of the word annihilation might be relevant to a discussion of nihilism?

[Anonymous No.16946735]

>>16946720
there is absolutely nothing nihilistic about dharma

[Anonymous No.16946738]

>>16946735
I'm sorry but you don't even understand buddhism at a basic level, clearly.

[Anonymous No.16946740]

>>16946720
He also outright rejected annihilationism.

[Anonymous No.16946818]

People with very little or no understanding of the Dhamma usually see it as nihilistic.

[Anonymous No.16946820]

>>16946558
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.16946842]

>isn't this just nihilism?

babies first buddhism question

[Anonymous No.16946877]

If buddhism isn't nihilistic then where does meaning come into it? it seems to me that it doesn't, anywhere, so people saying it's not nihilistic are dumb as fuck probably just scared of the word "nihilism"

[Anonymous No.16946882]

>>16946842
master's ultimate buddhism truth

[Anonymous No.16947043]

>>16946558
>In the "Doctrine of Nihilism" in the Apannaka Sutta, the Buddha describes moral nihilists as holding the following views:[37]
>Giving produces no beneficial results;
>Good and bad actions produce no results;
>After death, beings are not reborn into the present world or into another world; and
>There is no one in the world who, through direct knowledge, can confirm that beings are reborn into this world or into another world
>The Buddha further states that those who hold these views will fail to see the virtue in good mental, verbal, and bodily conduct and the corresponding dangers in misconduct, and will therefore tend towards the latter.[37]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Buddhism

[Anonymous No.16947205]

No, buddhism is

*bangs gong*

[Anonymous No.16947413]

>>16946558
The ultimate goal is to remove yourself from Samsara aka the cycle of life, age, sickness and death. After that you basically can do anything (although you can't shoot beam from your palms I think), so it's not nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16947557]

>>16947043
nihilism just means there's no meaning it doesn't say anything about an afterlife

[Anonymous No.16947741]

>>16946877
Perhaps you are the dumb one and you just don't realize it.

[Anonymous No.16948303]

>this is literally what rationalist atheistic Buddhists who mock Christianity believe in

[Anonymous No.16948829]

>>16947557
Not generally it doesn't. That definition of nihilism is a specific aberration of modern european thought and doesn't really apply to anyone else even greek sceptics. they would consider it absurd or incoherent.

[Anonymous No.16949632]

We've been having threads about this subject nonstop for months, maybe years. I've read most of them, and I can confidently say that they have not contributed to furthering my understanding of Buddhism in the slightest.
>nirvana is nothingness
>"no it's unqualifiable"
>there's no afterlife in buddhism
>"actually buddhism makes no claim about an afterlife"
>there's no self, you don't exist
>"actually buddhism says there is something that survives samsara"
>yes but it is not you
>"but then what experiences nirvana?"
It's always the same debates and no actual answers are ever given.

[Anonymous No.16949932]

>>16949632
but sometimes the buddhists reveal something of their underlying assumptions, and that's fun

[Anonymous No.16949954]

>>16949632
>nirvana is nothingness
nirvana is union with the Absolute, no-thing-ness
>there's no afterlife in buddhism
after life comes death and then more life until you achieve nirvana
>there's no self, you don't exist
sure you do buddy, but you are not impermanent, only the Absolute is eternal
>yes but it is not you
you are Buddha

[Anonymous No.16951543]

>>16949632
https://puredhamma.net/

I hope this clarifies things a bit better for you, these threads are confusing.

Generally Theravada is the closest to the original source.

What got me into Buddhism was learning about the 3 characteristics of nature: dukkha, anicca and anatta.

My life has gotten considerably better since learning about the dharma.

[Anonymous No.16951564]

>>16949632
All the ones that aren't in quotes are real, the rest are disinformation from trolls

[Anonymous No.16951595]

>>16951564
So buddhism is nihilism then

[Anonymous No.16951616]

>>16951595
Yes, it sees "reality" as an illusion and it thirsts for the annihilation of the endless charade.
Anyone who disagrees has misread buddhism completely or is trolling on purpose

[Anonymous No.16951677]

>>16946558

>From whatever new points of view the Buddha's system is tested with reference to its probability, it gives way on all sides, like the walls of a well, dug in sandy soil. It has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon and hence the attempts to use it as a guide in the practical concerns of life are mere folly. Moreover Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused…Buddha’s doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."

Śaṅkarācārya - Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.2.32.

[Anonymous No.16951686]

>>16951543
>>https://puredhamma.net/

this website is awful and the guru is a retard nationalist

also entirely debunked on dhamawheel forum thing

[Anonymous No.16951695]

>>16951616
>>Yes, it sees "reality" as an illusion

buddhism removes illusion on the aggregates

[Anonymous No.16951699]

>>16951677
poos can't think and just seethe

[Anonymous No.16951710]

>>16951699
>poos can't think and just seethe

Of those who teach that everything exists, some admit the existence both of internal (mental) and also external realities. They admit the existence of elements external to consciousness and of products of those elements, and also of minds and of mental components. For the moment we will confine our refutation to them. In their doctrine, the elements are earth, water, fire and wind. The products are the four qualities, odour, taste, colour and touch, and the senses that perceive them, namely the senses of smell, taste, sight and touch. They hold that the four different kinds of primary atoms, the earth-atoms, wateratoms, fire-atoms and wind-atoms, being respectively solid, liquid, fiery and kinetic, combine to form the earth and other perceptible elements. There are also (as the basis for the appearance of an experiencing individual) the five ‘groups’ (skandha, of momentary factors of existence, dharma). These are formed respectively of the sense-organs and their objects (rupa), consciousness of objects associated with ego-feeling (vijnana), consciousness of objects associated with the feelings of pleasure, pain and indifference (vedana), determinate consciousness of objects (samjna) and the various drives and passions (samskara). And they believe that these groups combine to form the basis of all individual experience.

On this we make the following observation. Our opponents hold to the existence of two separate aggregates, each having their peculiar causes. One is the aggregate forming the elements and the products of the elements, which has atoms for its ultimate material cause. The other is the aggregate formed by the five ‘groups’, which has the ‘groups’ for its material cause. They speak, indeed, of an aggregate arising from each of these two causes (i.e. atoms and ‘groups’), but, says the Sutra, ‘They have no right to do so’. That is, no aggregate is rationally possible (under their terms). Why not? Because the things entering into aggregate are non-conscious, since the mind (as they conceive it) could only acquire the light of consciousness if the aggregate were already assured. They do not admit any other conscious principle such as an experiencer (a permanent conscious individual soul) or a controlling God who should exist permanently and effect the aggregation.

[Anonymous No.16951715]

>>16951710
If, however, they claim that aggregation is a spontaneous activity, it is clear that such spontaneous activity could never come to an end (and this contradicts their doctrine of nirvana or release). Appeal to the existence of ‘currents of consciousness’ (asaya) will not help either, as the latter are indeterminable as either different or non-different (from the series of pulses constituting the current). The theory also breaks down because the currents themselves are assumed to have the form of a series of discontinuous momentary flashes, so that they would be actionless and unable to promote action in others. Therefore the formation of aggregates would not be possible on the principles of the system. To this the Buddhist might reply that although no permanent conscious being effecting aggregation is admitted, whether as the experiencer or the controller, still, empirical experience is explicable on the basis of the causal chain (pratitya-samutpada) beginning with nescience. And if empirical experience is explained, nothing else is required. The factors of empirical experience, which begin with nescience, and each of which is the cause of the next member of the series, are found taught in various ways in Buddhist works, sometimes briefly, sometimes in more detail.

One finds such a list as nescience (avidya), the will to sense-experience which leads to the formation of an empirical personality in a future birth (samskara), consciousness as the core of the individual (vijnana), the psycho-physical organism in its rudimentary state (nama-rupa), the six areas of contact (or sense-experience) (sad-ayatana), sensation (sparsa), pleasurepain feeling (vedana), thirst (trsna), activity based on thirst (upadana), changeful bodily existence (bhava), resulting from the merit and demerit of activity, birth, old-age, death, grief, lamentation, pain and despair. No one, they claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible.

[Anonymous No.16951721]

>>16951715
But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied. To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then (if you wish to defend your system) you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence.

Perhaps you will now try to counter by saying that in this beginningless world-process (samsara) the aggregates beget one another of their own accord in a temporal series, and that nescience and the rest pertain to them. In that case, we ask: Does each new aggregate arise from the previous one regularly, and is it strictly similar to it in kind? Or is it that there is no regularity about the process, so that the new aggregate could be either similar to the previous one or different? If the new aggregate were regularly similar to the previous one, the human individual (pudgala) could never attain birth as a god or an animal or sojourn in hell. If, on the other hand, there were no regularity in the process, the human individual could suddenly become an elephant for a moment, and then a god, and then go back to being a man. So both of the alternative consequences (of taking the aggregates as causing one another spontaneously) result in a contradiction with the tenets of the Vaibhasika school.

[Anonymous No.16951735]

>>16946558

It's closet nihilism. If you cut the reincarnation meme it's nihilism, yeah.

[Anonymous No.16951741]

>>16951721
Further, you hold the view that the aggregate that exists in experience is not ‘an experiencer’ in the sense of constituting a permanent substance. But on this basis experience cannot be anything that is sought by anything else: experience must be for the sake of experience. And so liberation, too, will have to be for the sake of liberation. There cannot be anyone else, any seeker of liberation (mumuksu). If there were anyone who sought either experience or liberation, he would have to exist at the time of his experience of liberation. And if he did this, that would contradict the dogma that all is momentary. So the Sutra means that even if nescience and the rest (of the Buddhist’s causal chain) could cause each other to come into existence, there still could not be an aggregate. For the latter cannot be established when no experiencer is admitted.

It has been shown that it would not follow, from the fact that nescience and the rest ofthe causal chain could produce effects, that aggregates existed. Now (in Sutra 20) the further point is made that even this mere production of effects is impossible. The upholders of the doctrine that everything undergoes destruction every moment maintain that when each new momentary apparition comes into being the previous one is destroyed. But no one who holds this doctrine can establish a causal connection between one moment and the next. For the earlier moment cannot possibly serve as the cause for the later one when it either has already been destroyed or is in the course of being destroyed, as it will then have been swallowed up by non-being.

The Buddhist will perhaps reply that he means that the cause of the later moment is the first moment in its completed state, and (regarded as now momentarily) existent. This, however, will not agree with his system, as to assume that anything existent went into action (to produce its successor) would imply its relation with a later moment. Nor will it help him to say that the ‘existence’ is itselfthe activity. For no effect can come into being that is not in some way charged with the nature of its cause. And if he admits this, then the nature of the cause will persist into the time ofthe effect, and this will amount to a rejection of the doctrine of universal momentariness. And if he claims that causation can take place without the effect being charged with the nature of the cause,
he falls into the doctrine that anything might be the cause of anything.

[Anonymous No.16951764]

>>16951741
Consider again. The rise and destruction of a thing might be taken either as constituting the nature of the thing itself or as another state of the thing or as a different thing. But none of these conceptions is intelligible. If they constituted the very nature of the thing itself, then the words ‘thing’, ‘rise’ and ‘destruction’ would be synonyms. One is therefore driven to assume that there must be some difference, and one might suppose that the words ‘rise’ and ‘destruction’ were names of earlier and later states of the thing, while the thing itself actually continued to exist in between them. But even this would go against the assumption that the thing was momentary, as the thing would then be in relation with three separate moments, the beginning, the middle and the end. Well, let us suppose finally that the rise and destruction of the thing were absolutely distinct from it, as distinct as horse and buffalo. But then the thing would be quite unrelated to rise and destruction, and so eternal, (and not, as the Buddhist dogma requires, momentary). And if it were said that perceiving the thing constituted its rise, and not perceiving it its destruction, then, as perception and non-perception are attributes of the perceiver and not of the thing perceived, the thing would again be eternal. So this is another reason why the Buddhist doctrine is untenable.

We have shown that, on the doctrine that everything suffers destruction after existing for a single moment, no previous moment can be the cause of a later one, because it has already been destroyed before the latter comes into existence. Perhaps the Buddhist might rejoin that the effect comes into being even when the cause has already gone out of existence. But this will result in contradiction with his own tenets. The particular tenet that will be contradicted is his doctrine that phenomena arise through the co-operation of four causal factors. And if they could arise without a cause, then anything could arise out of anything, there being nothing to prevent this absurd consequence. And if they say that the first moment lasts until the production of the next, it would mean that the cause and the effect would be simultaneous, and that would be against the tenets of the system. For their doctrine is that all causal forces are momentary.

[Anonymous No.16951783]

>>16951764
The Nihilists (Buddhists in general) suppose that all ‘factors of existence’ other than ‘the three’ are composite and momentary. They call ‘the three’ the suppression through knowledge of experience arising through passion, the suppression of experience without knowledge and space (akasa). They regard these three as mere negations of empirical phenomena and as of inexplicable nature. For they say that ‘suppression through knowledge’ is the conscious destruction of positive experience, ‘suppression of experience without knowledge’ is non-conscious destruction of positive experience, and ‘space’ is mere absence of destruction.

The Sutras will be refuting their conception of space later; for the present, they go on to refute the two ‘suppressions’. The Sutra says, ‘Suppression can never occur, either with or without knowledge’. That is to say, it is impossible. And it is impossible, the Sutra says, because there can be no extermination. For these ‘suppressions’, with or without knowledge, must relate either to a causal series or to a permanent substance. But they cannot relate to a causal series. For no causal series can ever be exterminated, since its members give rise to one another in an uninterrupted causal sequence. But they cannot relate to a permanent substance either. For there cannot be any such thing as an ‘inexplicable’ but total destruction of a permanent reality, for here recognition reveals an unbroken element persisting continuously amidst the various changing states.

Even in those states where the identity is not clearly recognized, we may infer its presence by analogy, on the ground that we have perceived the persistence of an unbroken element in other substances. So the hypothesis of the two ‘suppressions’ put forward by the opponent cannot stand. And then that ‘suppression of nescience and the rest of the causal chain’, which the opponent imagines he included in ‘suppression through knowledge’, must either arise from right knowledge, together with its auxiliaries, or else just arise automatically of its own accord. On the first supposition there would be a contradiction of the fundamental dogma of the school that destruction invariably takes place uncaused. If the second view were true it would mean that the spiritual path and the teaching were useless. So, as the Sutra puts it, on either supposition this doctrine is wrong.

[Anonymous No.16951811]

>>16951783
Now, we have already seen that they regard the two ‘suppressions’ and space as ‘inexplicable’, and we have refuted the view that the two suppressions could have this ‘inexplicable’ existence that is attributed to them. We now go on to refute the view that space could have an ‘inexplicable’ existence. To begin with, it is in any case wrong to attempt to maintain that space has an ‘inexplicable’ existence, as it is taught as an existent reality, just as the two suppressions are. And space is known to be a reality on the authority of Vedic revelation in such texts as ‘The ether arose from the 'Absolute’. To those, however, who do not accept such revelation (i.e. the Buddhists) we must say that space has to be inferred to be a reality from the fact that it is the vehicle of sound, for we see that it is only real substances, like earth and the rest, which support their peculiar attributes like odour and so on. Moreover, he who maintains that space is nothing more than the absence of obstruction finds himself also maintaining that when one bird is flying in the sky this represents an obstruction, so that no other bird who wanted to get up and fly could do so, and there would no longer be any space. Nor could you reply that the second bird could fly wherever there was no obstruction. For space would then have to be taken as that positive entity that served as the locus of specific cases of absence of destruction, not as mere absence of destruction.

Moreover, in maintaining that space is mere absence of obstruction, the Buddhist contradicts his own fundamental tenets. For there is a passage in their traditions where a series of questions and answers follows from the question ‘On what, holy One, does the earth rest?’, in which the last question is ‘On what does the wind rest?’ The answer given to this question is, ‘Wind rests on space’. This would be impossible if space were not a positive reality, so this is another reason why they are wrong when they say that space is not such. Again, they contradict themselves when they maintain that ‘the three’ consisting of the two suppressions and space are ‘inexplicable’ and not positive realities, and yet are eternal. For what is not a positive reality cannot be either eternal or non-eternal, since attributes can only be predicated of a subject if they are taken to inhere in some real principle. And if substance and attribute were here in evidence, ‘the three’ would be realities like a pot, and hence not ‘inexplicable’.

[Anonymous No.16951833]

>>16951811
Further, because the Nihilist (Buddhist in general) holds that everything is momentary, he must hold that the perceiver, too, is momentary. But the perceiver cannot be momentary. And this is so, as the Sutra puts it, ‘On account of remembrance of one’s past experiences’. Remembrance means in this case the reproduction of an experience one had in the past. It can take place only if the one remembering is the same as the one who had the experience, for we do not find that one person can remember the experience of another. How, for instance, could one have such experiences as ‘Formerly I saw that, now I see -this’, unless it was one and the same person seeing on both occasions? Indeed, everyone in the world is familiar with the experience of recognition in the form ‘It is the same I who formerly saw that who now sees this’, which amounts to a direct perception that the one who now sees and the one who formerly saw are one and the same. If the agent had been different in the two cases, the feeling would have been, ‘It is I who remember, and it was someone else who saw’. But no one ever has this feeling. When such a feeling does arise, people feel that the one who remembers and the one who saw are different, and express it by saying, ‘I remember that he saw that’. But in the other case, even the Nihilist (Buddhist in general) himself recognizes himself as the one sole agent in the remembering and the seeing, and says, ‘I saw this’. He can no more deny his own act of seeing and say, ‘It was not I’, than he could deny that fire was luminous and hot. And this being so, the Nihilist cannot very well deny that, as the connection of one and the same person with the two separate moments ofseeing and remembering has been established, it will follow that the doctrine of universal momentariness has been undermined.

But one might go further and ask the Nihilist why he does not feel thoroughly ashamed to go on recognizing himself as the agent in every successive cognition right up to his dying breath, and to remember all his past cognitions from birth on as having had himself as agent, while continuing to adhere to his doctrine that everything goes to destruction the moment it arises? He might perhaps rejoin that all this comes about through similarity. One might then reply to him that the notion ‘this is like that’ shows that similarity involves two entities. But as the Nihilist cannot admit that there is a single perceiver who could perceive the two similar things, his claim that recognition is based on similarity isjust babble. If, on the other hand, there were really a single perceiver able to perceive the similarity of two moments, then there would be one person persisting during two moments, which would contradict the principle of universal momentariness.

[Anonymous No.16951845]

>>16948829
okay, then what's the word for simply "life has no meaning"?

[Anonymous No.16951850]

>>16951695
Posting on this board can feel like trying to drag things out of special ed students. So many times you just want to say, "And?" "Finish your point?"

[Anonymous No.16951874]

>>16951833
He might perhaps claim that the notion ‘this is like that’ was just a fresh cognition, and not based on the perception of an earlier and a later content. But this would be wrong. If we had to reckon with a fresh cognition revealing similarity which was quite different from what was meant by ‘this’ and ‘that’, this would render the sentence ‘this is like that’ meaningless. All we would be able to do would be to assert similarity (without specifying what was similar to what). For if a body of people engaged in a discussion decide to reject what is otherwise universally accepted as true, then no demonstration or refutation that is made within that circle will constitute an intelligible proposition, either for the speaker himself or for the other disputants. One should only advance that of which one can say, ‘This is verily so’.

Anyone who speaks of anything else is merely proclaiming his own verbosity. Nor, indeed, can any empirical experience (which depends on recognition of ourselves and objects) be explained on the basis of similarity. For in recognizing a thing, what we recognize is the thing itself, and not something like it’. It is true that in the case of external objects we are liable to error and might sometimes have the doubt ‘This is either that same thing or something like it’. But in the case of ourselves as knowing subjects we never experience any such doubt as ‘I am either that same “I” or something like it’. For we have the definite conviction ‘It is that same I who saw something yesterday who remembers the fact today’. So this is another way in which the Nihilist (Buddhist) doctrine breaks down.

And there is yet another point in which it fails. Because they do not admit any persistent material cause, they are reduced to the doctrine that being originates from non-being. They expound the doctrine of the origination of being from non-being according to the maxim ‘Because no effect arises until its cause has been destroyed’. The shoot, they believe, springs forth from the seed only after the latter has been destroyed, curds come only when the milk has been destroyed, a pot only when the lump of clay has been destroyed. If the effect arose from a changeless and indestructible (kutastha) cause, they say, then anything could come from anything, without distinction. And therefore they maintain that because the shoot arises from the seed only when the latter has already been swallowed up in non-being, it follows that being originates from non-being.

[Anonymous No.16951890]

>>16951874
To this the Sutra replies as follows: ‘The existent (sat) does not arise from the non-existent (asat), because this is never actually found to occur’. ‘Being’ (bhava) does not arise from non-being. If it did, then, since non-being is void of any distinctions, it would be meaningless to distinguish one cause from another. There is no difference between the ‘non-being’ of such things as destroyed seeds on the one hand, and the non-being of imaginary creatures like the ‘horned hare’300 on the other, for both non-beings are alike in point of having no definable nature (svabhava). When no distinction in the cause can be established it is impossible to explain how shoots arise only from seeds, or curds only from milk, or how causation follows any rules whatever. If, on the contrary, undifferentiated non-being be accepted as the cause, then the shoots and other empirically real effects could as well be regarded as arising from non-existent creatures of imagination. But this is not found to be the case in our actual experience. If, on the other hand, non-being is assumed to be characterized by distinctions, as a blue lotus, for instance, is characterized by blue colour, then, from the mere fact of possessing distinctions, non-being would automatically become being, just like a blue lotus.

In fact, however, non-being cannot be the cause of the origination of anything, from the mere fact of its being non-being, like the horns of a hare. And if being did arise from non-being, then every effect would invariably be associated with non-being. But this, also, is not found to be the case, for every reality (vastu) is seen to have its own positively existent nature. Nor does anyone maintain that effects like clay dishes, invariably associated as they are with their material cause clay, are really associated with something different, like threads. The world at large takes effects invariably associated with clay as being in fact modifications of clay.

The point, too, about how being must originate from nonbeing because nothing can arise from an indestructible cause, and without the destruction of its cause, was not sound. For it is found that substances of durable nature like gold are causes of such effects as ornaments, and recognized as persisting in them permanently. Even in cases such as the seed, where the whole nature of the cause seems to suffer destruction, we cannot admit that it is the earlier condition of the seed passing into destruction that constitutes the cause of the later condition. For in our submission it is those parts of the seed or other such material cause that are not destroyed that constitute the cause ofthe shoot or other such product. Hence, because existent things are not found to arise from non-existent ones like the homed hare, while they are found to rise from existent ones like gold, this doctrine that being arises from non-being is erroneous.

[Anonymous No.16951906]

>>16951735
Too bad, I like the concept of nirvana, it has a very aesthetically pleasing purity to it.

[Anonymous No.16951907]

>>16951890
Not only this, the Nihilists throw the whole world into confusion by claiming in one breath that mind and mental phenomena arise from the four causal factors, and that the material elements and their products arise from the primary atoms, while claiming in the next that being arises from non-being, thus contradicting their own special theories. A further point is that if being really arose from non-being, lazy people who were not prepared to make efforts to gain a particular end might gain it all the same, as non-being is not hard of acquisition. The farmer who did not work in his fields would still get his crop. The potter who made no effort to fashion his clay would still get his pitcher. Even he who wove no thread on the loom would get cloth, just like the industrious weaver. Nobody would need to make the slightest effort to attain either heaven or liberation. Few would be found to champion so unreasonable a thesis! And for this reason also the doctrine that being arises from non-being falls to the ground.

[Anonymous No.16952201]

>>16951906

You misunderstand.

[Anonymous No.16952213]

>>16952201
Why?

[Anonymous No.16952248]

>>16946637
Oh my god, why do you say this shit when you’ve obviously never read any Buddhist texts? The Buddha explicitly says we should neither want annihilation nor non-annihilation

[Anonymous No.16952279]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nihilism
>1. (usually uncountable) The view that all endeavours are devoid of objective meaning.
Buddhism does not state this, and in fact says that this view is wrong. There is such a thing as objective knowledge.

>2. (usually uncountable) The rejection of, or opposition to, religious beliefs, (inherent or objective) moral principles, legal rules, etc., often due to the view that life is meaningless (sense 1).
Buddhism is a religion, and has plenty of rules, so this doesn't apply.

>3. (usually uncountable, politics) The rejection of non-proven or non-rationalized assertions in the social and political spheres of society.
This is a niche usage in political science.

>4. (uncountable, psychiatry) A delusion that oneself or the world, or parts thereof, have ceased to exist.
Buddhism explicitly rejects the idea of something ever truly ceasing to exist.

>5. (uncountable, Russia, politics, historical) Alternative letter-case form of Nihilism (“a Russian movement of the 1860s that rejected all authority and promoted the use of violence for political change”)
This is a niche usage in Russian politics.

>6. (countable, uncountable, philosophy) A doctrine grounded on the negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life; in particular, the view that nothing in the world actually exists.
Buddhism rejects the idea that "nothing" can exist. It's one of the principle arguments that the Buddha uses for the incoherency of the Hindu doctrines of his time (they end up, or so he claims, positing that being and non-being are indistinguishable). This is actually two definitions in one, I'll deal with the first in the next point.

>7. (countable) Something that is regarded as meaningless.
This is so vague as to be pointless. However, it ties into the first definition in the above, which is that something is "nihilistic" if it negates one or more "meaningful" aspects of life. This is entirely subjective to the point of uselessness, and falsely conflates this "negation of meaningful aspects of life" with "the belief that nothing exists". A coomer could describe Platonism as "nihilistic" because Plato said masturbating, which the coomer views as the MOST meaningful aspect of life, is bad. To say that Plato was a "nihilist" in this sense is just flat out absurd, as although the coomer is actually just saying "his philosophy depresses me", the implication is that his philosophy believes there's no point to life.

Which, I'll count as another definition:
>8. There's no point to life, nothing matters.
Buddhism rejects this.

So, no, Buddhism is not nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16952325]

>>16946740
gib source pls :)

[Anonymous No.16952328]

>>16949632
You've posted this in like seven threads now. What exactly would you like to know?

[Anonymous No.16952333]

No, it is very life affirming and promotes the outlook that all beings are capable of liberation from suffering. It has nothing to do with nihilism.

[Anonymous No.16952347]

>>16952248
Wanting nothing is the closest you can get to being actually dead. Buddhism is not a death cult, but a coult of the undead.

[Anonymous No.16952358]

>>16952325
The belief that after death there's just extinction and annihilation was the position held by the Charvakas (these aren't quite "atheists" as we know them today, because they didn't deny that, say, Shiva existed). The Buddha rejected this position. If you knew how to use google, one of the first hits would be https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=157&start=60 which cites a number of Pali sutras in which the Buddha discusses this.

I'd just cite the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra, but I have a feeling that your lukewarm Protestant-derived materialism would throw a fit about that.

[Anonymous No.16952364]

I swear a number of people commenting are either trolls or have never listened to dharma talks in their life.

[Anonymous No.16952387]

>>16952347
Desire is suffering. It is a trap that ensnares the mind and leads to future rebirth. It's better to let go of attachments and experience the freedom of tranquility that comes from the non-clinging mind.
This has nothing to do with death cults.

[Anonymous No.16952397]

>>16952358
>but I have a feeling that your lukewarm Protestant-derived materialism would throw a fit about that.

No, actually I am seriously considering joining a Buddhist school. I'm just trying to understand Buddhist thought properly and consider not joining if I don't agree with the philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16952420]

>>16952397
Not him, but I can help you understand a bit more if you need. I can link a bunch of books and dharma talks that will clear things up for you.

[Anonymous No.16952422]

>>16952387
What the fuck is there to do all day with no goals, drems, motives (attachments) in the western fucking world? There is only so much you can hike in nature and follow your breath

[Anonymous No.16952428]

>>16952420
Answer me this bro. Dreams*

>>16952422

[Anonymous No.16952444]

>>16952248
Youre supposed to "non-want" your way into annihilation, which is a word game. If you didnt want anything you would not want to be a buddhist or any of it. Obviously what is actually happening is that you want to want nothing. Sorry if this is outside your computational abilities

[Anonymous No.16952462]

>>16946558
Some variants are, some arnt

[Anonymous No.16952496]

>>16952422
There are many things one can do to practice non attachment and the Six Perfections when one has nothing else to do, or when one can make time. The goal of the path is to stop looking and holding on to the view of self, that is ultimately illusory. One can read sutras, copy them, recite mantras or a Buddha name. One can also meditate and do prostrations. You shouldn't listen to your mind when it tells you that is boring and not worth your time. That's part of the trap of self.

[Anonymous No.16952508]

>>16952444
Annihilation is not the goal. The end of rebirth is similar to a fire going out. Instead of being agitated in a physical state, it goes back to being diffused into Samsara, which is ultimately no different from Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.16952520]

>>16952422
Sit there all fucking day like most dedicated buddhists. Fuck what a shit religion.

[Anonymous No.16953266]

>>16952420
Thanks, I'm mainly wonering about the no-self doctrine and nirvana. If consciousness is empty and the observer only arises with something to be observed, then how to 'I' exist in any meaningful way in the state of nirvana if there is no conscious awareness. How can you experience bliss without awareness. What continues apart from unconscious matter?

[doubtposting !!0CYbMy7gCdH No.16953274]

>>16946558
Yes, but also, no

[Anonymous No.16953297]

Seriously, who here think Buddhist metaphysics is probably a correct view of the world? Not really a buddhist but I still havent found a comprehensive/cohesive system of thought like Buddhism that applies to almost all range of life

[Anonymous No.16953317]

>>16953297
as regards what goes on in and/or is a person: I think they got a lot to offer, I gotta say
as regards whether or not enlightenment is real: yea I think so
as regards any presumed outside reality: I don't know
as regards a complete cosmology: I don't think they got one, I think you need God for that and they stop short

t. has hung around threads for a while, this is what I got

[Anonymous No.16953786]

>>16953297
what lol?

it's the most wacked out retarded nonsense I've ever read. past lives? kamma? 31 realms of mythological retardation? hungry ghosts? telepathy? flying unaided? speaking with mara, devas?

are you retarded? this is harry potter tier nonsesne

[Anonymous No.16953947]

>>16953266
The Buddha never denied the self, he denied that all observable and all phenomenon were illusory and not self. "I" do not exist as an independent being, but rather am borne of various karmic influences. One is borne again at each moment. For example, the plants and animals give me food, the farmers and laborers grew it and provided it to food stores, and food stores require other people, equipment, and labor to provide, as well as the basic requirements for their employees to live. Everything is interconnected like Indra's net.
On the topic of experiencing bliss without awareness, I am quite certain the Buddha, even in the Pali Canon, is quoted as stating that one cannot say that one exists in Nirvana, but one also cannot say that one does not exist, or does and does not exist, or neither does not nor does exist. Nirvana is hard to grasp, and these answers will honestly be better explained by qualified teachers. Do you have any Buddhist monks or lay teachers in your area?

[Anonymous No.16953961]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
This is a website that contains suttas from the Pali Canon, or the Theravadan lineages key texts. It also has study guides and dharma talks from the great sages of the Thai Forest tradition.

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/library.html
This is a Buddhist library with free pdf's many of which are very useful for understanding the history and philosophy of Buddhism. Has Theravadan and Mahayana texts.

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
This has Theravadan books and texts that are useful for understanding the lineage.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/
This has many books and dharma talks in the Thai Forest tradition of Ajahn Chah and Bhikku Thanissaro. Great for an introduction to Theravadan thought. Has free physical books for shipping.

[Anonymous No.16953972]

Now, on to Mahayana.
First we have
https://www.amitabha-gallery.org/
A site run by the Venerable Wuling, a Pure Land bhikkuni taught by Venerable Master Chin Kung. Is Chinese Pureland, and focuses on both Other and Self Power.
Has free books and dharma talks on the Pure Land school, as well as introductory books on Buddhism.

https://www.chanpureland.org/
Next, we have a sangha in the Chinese dual cultivation of Chan and Pureland teachings, it's current teacher is Master Yuanghua. Has dharma talks available.

https://zenstudiespodcast.com/
A podcast by Domyo Burke of the Soto Zen lineage. A good introduction to Soto Zen and basic Buddhist thought. Also has an online sangha you can join if you email her.

https://terebess.hu/zen/zen.html
Free Zen and Chan texts and commentaries!

http://cttbusa.org/fas1/fas_contents.asp
This is a sangha first founded by Venerable Master Hsuan Hua of the Pure Land and Chan lineage. Has free dharma talks, books, sutra translations, and commentaries on sutras by Master Hua, as well as physical books for purchase.

https://www.fgsitc.org/
Another Pure Land and Chan sangha, with free physical books (if you pay shipping), and free pdfs as well.

https://www.amitabhalibrary.org/index.htm
Free physical texts on Chan and Pure Land teachings, as well as altar screens which usually run about 25 to 35 dollars plus shipping.

http://www.amtb-usa.org/english_inception.html
Free physical books on the Pure Land and Chan school shipped to you!

[Anonymous No.16953997]

No

“What is the difference between Nihilism and the Buddhist Maxim that Life is Meaningless?” Buddhism acknowledges that life is meaningless because it’s already fulfilled. Nihilism fails to make this connection.

[Anonymous No.16954019]

>>16946558
Imagine interpreting Eastern religion/philosophy through the lenses of Western culture.

[Anonymous No.16954031]

Now to Tibetan Mahayana,

https://studybuddhism.com/
This has an introduction to Tibetan Buddhism that is worthwhile to look into.

https://www.lamayeshe.com/
This has free physical books for distribution in the Gelug tradition, as well as books for purchase.

https://www.dawnmountain.org/
This is a sangha that teaches all lineages of Tibetan Mahayana.

Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche
https://dharmasun.org/

Tsoknyi Rinpoche
https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/

Mingyur Rinpoche
https://tergar.org/

14th Dalai Lama
https://www.dalailama.com/

Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche
https://www.padmasambhava.org

Lama Lena
https://lamalenateachings.com/

Alan Wallace
http://www.alanwallace.org/

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche
https://ligmincha.org/

James Low
https://www.simplybeing.co.uk/

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo
http://tenzinpalmo.com/

Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche
https://www.mangalashribhuti.org/

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
https://khyentsefoundation.org/

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/

Lama Yeshe & Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition
https://fpmt.org/

Thubten Chodron
http://thubtenchodron.org/

Thrangu Rinpoche
http://www.rinpoche.com/

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche
http://www.dpr.info/

17th Karmapa
https://kagyuoffice.org/

Samye Ling monastery
https://www.samyeling.org/

Sakya Trizin
http://hhsakyatrizin.net/

Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche
http://all-otr.org/

That is all. Finally we have:
http://www.buddhanet.net/
This has many pdfs and dharma talks on all three Vehicles.

https://dharmaseed.org/
Has many dharma talks on Theravadan and Mahayana traditions, as well as few on Tibetan Mahayana.

[Anonymous No.16954077]

The only part of buddhism that could be considered nihilistic is nirvana because it assumes that the very premise of life, death and rebirth of samsara which defines the material world is inherently something worth breaking out of.

According to buddhism there is a spectrum of possible livelihoods ranging from, miserable creatures in hell to brief insects to other animals and humans beyond to devas and other higher beings. There are different orders of deva, from those closer to humans which still experience negative emotions such as lust, anger and hatred but live for thousands of years, to higher devas that live for billions of years in meditative bliss but which nevertheless are mortal. And it is not a simple matter of leveling up, at which point you become a higher deva and graduate into nirvana. You can backpedal and be stuck in various rungs of the cosmology for aeons.

Within the wheel of life, however, there is always the same repeating cycle of birth, age and death, with all the good and bad and all the possibilities of pleasure and suffering that entails. Nirvana is the escape hatch, a way to exit this endless cycle and therefore transcend the boundaries of materiality. That can only be seen as nihilistic if you are still attached to life and death and therefore see transcending it as distasteful. Nirvana is though of as death, a dreamless sleep, but this conception of death is an illusion that consists of the trappings of Duḥkha (suffering and mortal ignorance).

[Anonymous No.16954147]

>>16953947
Thank you fren,this has helped my understanding. I must read more Buddhist texts and philosophy to understand these points more deeply. And there are probably a few Buddhist centres near me, never been to any but I'll consider it :)

Also, what are the philosophical justifications put forth to explain being outside existence and non-existence, or is this not able to be expressed in words?

[Anonymous No.16954163]

>>16954147
>or is this not able to be expressed in words?
Exactly so. Some things are beyond mere words. Also definitely hit up your local centers, they can teach you a lot. What lineage are you considering looking into more?

[Anonymous No.16954181]

>>16954147
>I must read more texts
If you want to read a text central to Mahayana, I would start with the Vimalakirti Sutra. It's very funny on top of being very informative regarding what it means to be a Buddha or Bodhisattva.

[Anonymous No.16954379]

>>16954163
I am leaning towards some sort of Mahayana school, but within that, i've no idea really. My plan is to research different schools and see which one resonates. I've been drawn to Guan Yin Bodhisattva, but I question how much of this is due to a real connection or just that it'd be 'cool' to have such a connection with her because of some subconscious needs/wants re partially met by her symbolic and aesthetic form. Maybe devotion is more something you cultivate and it doesn't matter who you start becoming devoted to. Idk.