Why do people equate buddhism with nihilism? What differentiates these two philosophies/ideologies?
americans are such miserable hedonic animals they think sense-restraint is void worship lol
Buddhism is nihilism + mind tricks that make bad feelings go away.
>>23398050Buddhism is none of those things. It's a way of living
>>23398050Because they're retarded. They don't actually care enough to learn about Buddhism so they just disregard it as nihilism
>>23398050Buddhism is just nihilism on steroids or the other way around, whichever way you prefer
>>23398050Nāgārjuna refutes all views of existence and non-existence with his metalogic. Read Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.>Nāgārjuna argues, however, that there is no such end-point and denies the existence of an ontological foundation (see Westerhoff 2017. For the relation of this idea to the debate about the well-foundedness of grounding in contemporary metaphysics see chapter 3 of Westerhoff 2020). This fact is sometimes used as support of the accusation that Madhyamaka is really a nihilistic doctrine, a doctrine that nothing exists. For if the secondary existent is reduced to the primary, and if there is no primary, what is there left? This interpretation has a relatively long history, beginning in ancient India and continuing to find supporters nowadays (see Spackman 2014, Westerhoff 2016). Nevertheless, there are powerful systematic and historical reasons against it. First of all, it is not clear that this kind of ontological nihilism is in fact a consistent position (if there is nothing, is there not at least the fact that there is nothing, i.e. something? See, however, Westerhoff 2021). Secondly, the Mādhyamikas themselves are very clear that their position avoids both of the extreme views, the view that believes in the existence of svabhāva as well as its nihilistic opposite.
>>23398121I refute existence because arising is dependent I refute non-existence because it le doesn't exists (it's pretty self evident. What are you stupid?)Both can't exist because have you heard about something called non-contradiction bro?? Now we're left with neither which sort of logically follows but it'd anti climactic for neither to exists either so fuck you neither of them don't exist either
>>23398121Another niggerjuna copypasta thread
Ive literally never heard people say that until the recent threads youve been spamming here
>>23398188A little bird told me they do
>>23398050It's literally just metaphysiclet Muslims that do that
>>23398058Americans don't say this though, Americans don't talk about buddhism or nihilism at all, its a yuro thing
>>23398197Metaphysics is a fantasy, it's not based in anything scientific, spiritual gobbledygook for advanced armchair enthusiast. What he fuck is le ontology lmao
OP are you from the middle east? Because Ive noticed muslims make this exact claim but ive never once heard anyone else say that
>>23398221I grew up in Jordan
>>23398221I might be schizophrenic
>>23398221It's the conclusion that I had previously reached from listening to Buddhists talk.
>>23398050No Buddhists ever reached moral nihilism. Spiritual and political nihilism maybe
>>23398121This is a lie and was already debunked in the last thread. Nagarjuna has no master argument that refutes Svabhava or absolute existence as a general category but only argues against specific instances of it, so it’s a lie to say that he refutes it as a general category.
>>23398484Refuted lol
>>23398488No, it wasn’t. Even the most reputable scholars of Buddhism admit that Nagarjuna has no master argument against Svabhava that can be said to refute it once and for all. You can keep coping and pretending otherwise but people will call you out for lying.
>>23398197Ironic considering Muslim intellectuals and theologians have been the forefront of science during the middle ages while the best Buddhist intellectual that you pajeets could ever come up with is niggerjuna. The later being a completely irrelevant sophist
>>23398209There are plenty of Americans who care about Buddhism but it's mostly hippie white women think it's just about being, like, zeeeeennnn maaaaannnnn...
>>23398484The master argument is "neither the same nor different"https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments
>>23398537>master argument is "neither the same nor differentHow is that Nagarjuna you speak of even taken seriously?
>>23398515Trying something beyond that shit Robinson paper guenonfag?
>>23398550That is only a logical contradiction if you assume things exist inherently, not if you accept things as dependently arisen mere imputations. Is a compounded thing the same as or different from its parts?
>>23398534probably the best form of buddhism
>>23398397And then there is moral relativism but there point only holds as long as they're relevant
>>23398569Logic is based on constructed axioms. They do exist inherently. Therefore niggerjuna contradicts himself using his own system of logic.
>>23398580Is a constellation the same as or different from the stars that comprise it?
>>23398580Socrates is immortal All men are mortal Socrates is not a man
>>23398589Stop begging the question you retarded nigger. Why do you pajeets keep doing that everytime you get caught in your own sophistry. You're like Jews who start heckling you and calling you an antisemite whenever you point out their behavior. Purely sophist trickery
>>23398537>The master argument is "neither the same nor different"Buddhist scholars disagree that this is the master argument and there seems to be no primary source which says as much. You also have to be completely retarded or trolling to think that's some kind of "master argument", lmfao.Nowhere in that text you cited does Mipham provide any logic argument that refutes Svabhava or Absolute Existence as a general category. All he does is attack the idea of skandhas and composite worlld objects being singular and then says with regard to other types of singularity "it can't be found" and "it can't be established", but this does absolutely nothing to refute the general concept of Svabhava in its own right, either as a general notion or when identified with the Absolute like God or Brahman having Svabhava. You can take Mipham's same trash argument there and flip it around and direct it back towards Buddhism and say"Sunyata cannot be found or established, therefore it's not true"or "Nirvana cannot be found or established, it's nowhere in experience, therefore it's not true."To say that a theoretical notion is ruled out and disproven because an example of it cannot be found in experience as Mipham writes is engaging in the question-begging fallacy. Lastly, Mipham isn't even being consistent here but he contradicts himself and defends consciousness being a partless unity in other works of his.And someone who accepts a non-Buddhist analysis of mind can simply disagree and offer their own analysis of mind that regards consciousness as a partless unity that overcomes the 'neither-one-nor-many' argument, the Buddhist has no proof or demonstration that their own analysis of mind is correct and that the analysis of non-Buddhists is wrong, so a """refutation""" that hinges on accepting this unproven Buddhist analysis of mind is no refutation at all. The Buddhist analysis of mind into skandhas is completely unproven, so it's a fallacy to act as though it's some sort of self-evident truth accepted by both parties upon which logical arguments can be based.
>>23398566>beyond that shit Robinson paperBuddhists still malding at Robinson (PBUH)Nagarjunafags were never able to recover from Robinson (PBUH) debunking that sophist.
>>23398600It is not a logical contradiction to say a constellation is neither the same nor different from its stars, because it is just an imputation upon parts. It's not the same, because there is nothing in the stars which can establish them as an individual entity independent of mental imputation, but it is not different because it cannot be found anywhere apart from those stars.
>>23398619This is an atomist argument. But if I recall Nagarjuna refuted that too
>>23398515>Even the most reputable scholars of Buddhism admit that Nagarjuna has no master argument against SvabhavaThe only one who said that was Robinson and he wasn't reputable or respected at all, he even confused whole chapters of the karika among other retarded mistakes
>>23398841>>Even the most reputable scholars of Buddhism admit that Nagarjuna has no master argument against Svabhava>The only one who said that was RobinsonThat's wrong you liar, it not Robinson but Jans Westerhoff who says so in his SEP article on Nagarjuna and in saying this he cites Mark Siderits also saying so to back it up.>It is interesting to note that despite the fact that arguing for the non-existence of svabhāva and the establishment of the theory of universal emptiness is the central concern of Nāgārjuna’s philosophy we do not find a “master argument” to accomplish this (see Siderits 2000: 228 and 2003: 147). Of course we do find systematic lists of the core Madhyamaka arguments, in particular in the later scholastic developments of this school but none of them is regarded as the single argument that settles the matter once and for all. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
>>23398121Niggerjuna?
>>23398163basically correct but also basically wrong
>>23398530>muh middle ages >muslim science islam is not a serious religion. The fact that there's so many butthurt muslims in here goes to show they're the ones that keep making buddhism-hate threads
So anyone gonna explain why they aren’t both nihilism
Buddhism has an actual system of ethics (precepts + vinaya) and metaphysics (sutta + abhidhamma) because there's a telos to it. Nihilism has no center around which to build such things.
There are multiple forms of Buddhism. For many it is not a religion but a philosophy of living without supernatural or metaphysical aspects. Others venerate divine beings or there is a syncretic element such as with Shinto and Buddhism in Japan.
>>23398050Westerners misinterpret Eastern teachings habitually. With the nihilism thing they're probably thinking about non-attachment.Non-attachment is more of a principal where you're only in one of your lives for 70 or so years, which isn't that long. Trying to get a mountain of treasure and holding onto it forever will therefor only lead to dissatisfaction. It's something to keep in mind.Westerners will usually instead think that Buddhism teaches that happiness associated with an object is bad or evil, hence the nihilism. It's not really the case. Buddhism has its middle path where neither riches nor poverty is likely the best way for your life.There are the autistic tiers of enlightenment but I don't worry about those.
>>23398050Because people are goofyBuddhism dunks it's head in nihilism to remind everyone they've got no real excuse That's different than inhaling nihilism and living inside of the downward spiral
>>23399375For many it is not an ontological system with a necessary orientation towards a position with regards to ethics (note *not* an ethics) but rather a system of sexual mythopoesis involving uncertain other worlds being real in the sense of physical rather than Really Real in the sense of Lacan.
>>23398569Arise from what?Madhyamaka shit is just sophistry.
>>23399375>For many it is not a religion but a philosophy of living without supernatural or metaphysical aspects.Not for any traditional Buddhist school, that's a modernist invention. Buddhism doesn't make sense without rebirth, if you reject rebirth you're better off being an epicurean.
>>23398867Jans Westerhoff has an entire book explaining how Nagarjuna's system doesn't only make sense, but is at the front of paraconsistent and many-valued logical systems
>>23398908Ironic considering the only people who take Buddhism seriously today are western upper middle class roasties who call themselves spiritual but not religious.
>>23398908It's true tho. Muslim civilization dominated you niggas. They were a stronger political and religious force. That's why even modern Hindus seethe so much about their existence.
>>23399963>>23398867the nagarjuna's rambling still false wrt to reality, so it's a glorified scifi novel akin to harry potter.
>>23400167You're right, India wouldn't be the shit show it is rn if it weren't for the anglos and the muslims
>>23398867>>It is interesting to note that despite the fact that arguing for the non-existence of svabhāva and the establishment of the theory of universal emptiness is the central concern of Nāgārjuna’s philosophy we do not find a “master argument” to accomplish thisThat's because "master arguments" don't exist, even Berkeley's master argument arrives at a partial answer and as Kant already show, any master argument remy on a set of unproven axioms, so the whole idea is shallow and childish, that's why Nagarjuna never attempted to do that and instead goes a step beyond and he shows how any attempt to logically articulate a svabhava ends up in contradiction, he's point is not that svabhava doesn't exist but that the whole idea just doesn't make sense, that the metaphysical tendencies you have to accept to develop those ideas are rooted on unskilfull ways of seeing reality, if he merely show that svanhava doesn't exist you can replace it with something else, some other conventional idea,but the real problem is the alienated metaphysical epistemomogy that let those bizarre ideas ariseHe shows that all those ideas(unity,duality,trascendence,substance etc) are just part of the conventional world and not the ultimate reality, and not even skilfull ideas
>>23399963Jan Westerhoff considering Nagarjuna to ‘make sense’ is not incompatible with him admitting that Nagarjuna has no master argument that refutes svabhava. He regards Nagarjuna to be without significant contradiction but admits at the same time that Nagarjuna never conclusively refutes svabhava as a general concept, contrary to what liars and copers on /lit/ say.>>23400518> instead goes a step beyond and he shows how any attempt to logically articulate a svabhava ends up in contradictionThat’s not true and is another falsehood, he only argues against a few specific instances and examples of svabhava but he has no argument which shows that the general concept invariably results in a contradiction.>He shows that all those ideas(unity,duality,trascendence,substance etc) are just part of the conventional world and not the ultimate reality, and not even skilfull ideasThis is another falsehood, Nagarjuna has no argument that demonstrates any of this, you are just making random shit up.
>>23398050Europeans translated the core Buddhist concept as "emptiness" which gives it a nihilistic tone. The original Sanskrit for this means more along the lines of "infinite possibility." "To become empty" really means "to align with the infinite possibility inherent in every moment." Buddha wasn't saying to do away with thoughts and feelings, but to learn to play with these things.
Teachers from all over have things to teach but converts to buddhism are always talking about atheist nonsense.>If you avoid doing heroin for a few lifetimes you get super-heroin for eternity but not from some phony gods blessingGood luck with all that.
>>23400658Shunya means zero or hollow
Read this
>>23398050the goal of buddhism is to stop existing, how is that not nihilistic/bad?
>>23401394You never existed in the first place
>>23401019Hollowness is another poor translation because it misses the point. It only captures half of it. I still contend that "infinite possibility" is the best translation.
>>23401019Shunya meaning zero is literally too literal, there's no imagination in it
>>23401439Translating "shunyata" as "infinite possibility" is interpretation, not translation
>>23401451Emptiness means there is nothing on the side of an object which establishes its existence, it is empty of such an establishing characteristic
>>23401564Translation without interpretation is worthless.
>>23401669>TranslationTrans-latio taken literally means movement through space so I always translate the word "translator" to mean "astronaut". I'm helping.
>>23398050Well, for starters, one is a religion.>but muh no-god, muh philosophic studies, muhShut the fuck up you fucking nigger, its a religion you fucking poser
>>23399846>but my traditional schooldoesn't matter, anon was referring what buddhism is for many people and pointing that are many interpretation of it those being modern or traditional doesn't change it nor truly impacts it's credibility for the people that go with those because it makes sense for them instead because it's "old" or "traditional"
>>23401723Really? I always translate the word "translator" to refer to the empty space between the ears [of the "translator"]. It seems you're a professional in this area.
>>2340184815th century latin science was so far ahead they already had astronauts.
>>23401669Interpretation is the domain of commentary, not translation
>>23401820What is the goal of secular Buddhism? What does its path look like? What does it offer over philosophies like stoicism or epicureanism?
>>23398121Read Avi Sion's Buddhist Illogic.
>>23399387No, the part where Buddhists think all of reality except nibbana should be extinguished is what people mean when they say it's nihilistic (which is objectively correct).
>>23402039Why shouldn't samsara be extinguished?
>>23401973What curse on the world produced retards like you? How do you think words work?
>>23402111Well, the (basic) question of existential philosophy is broader than this thread's topic. I just wanted to clarify why Buddhism is equated with nihilism, specifically of the existential variety. Its basic premise is a world-denying one, a nihilistic one.
>>23398530>niggerjunaYou're weird but I'm not afraid to let it ride because you're like a dog with a bone about something that I think you're right about (that nagarjuna never substantiated his viewpoints/arguments and that they are also, merely philosophical rather metaphysical-and-correct)
>>23398659>But if I recall Nagarjuna refuted that tooCan you give an example of what you call a refutation by Nagarjuna? My current regard for the arguments of Nagarjuna is that they are facile and ignore at least one factor/facet/path of exploration and thus drawn/construct conclusions based on an incomplete information set.
>>23399354I think when people ask about Buddhism as it relates to Nihilism that they ask about Buddhism its containment/non-containment of the sentiment that might be characterized as "This thing, beloved by many, is actually of no consequence, significance, or value."That sentiment is a sentiment contained, obliquely or explicitly, in the doctrine of nihilism. That is why, at least the people who question because of bewilderment/confusion and/or because they want knowledge, ask about the proper place of nihilism, buddhism, and buddhism and nihilism.In reference to asking questions and the (possibly nihilistic viewpoint, depending on disposition) senses and sense-objects, these suttas are relevant:https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN5_165.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.html
>>23399387>Non-attachment is more of a principal where you're only in one of your lives for 70 or so years, which isn't that long. Trying to get a mountain of treasure and holding onto it forever will therefor only lead to dissatisfaction. It's something to keep in mind.I think that's not correct. Instead, I think that non-attachment is most typified in suttas like these:https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN5_49.htmlFrom the 1st:>“Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow, in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.>“As he is touched by that painful feeling, he is not resistant. No resistance-obsession with regard to that painful feeling obsesses him. Touched by that painful feeling, he does not delight in sensuality. Why is that? Because the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns an escape from painful feeling aside from sensuality. As he is not delighting in sensuality, no passion-obsession with regard to that feeling of pleasure obsesses him. He discerns, as it has come to be, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, and escape from that feeling. As he discerns the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, and escape from that feeling, no ignorance-obsession with regard to that feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain obsesses him.>“Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined from it. This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
>>23399387>>23402783From the 2nd:>“There are, Puṇṇa, forms cognizable via the eye—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire. If a monk relishes them, welcomes them, and remains fastened to them, then in him—relishing them, welcoming them, and remaining fastened to them—there arises delight. From the origination of delight, I tell you, comes the origination of suffering & stress.>“There are sounds cognizable via the ear… aromas cognizable by the nose… flavors cognizable via the tongue… tactile sensations cognizable via the body…>“There are ideas cognizable via the intellect—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire. If a monk relishes them, welcomes them, and remains fastened to them, then in him—relishing them, welcoming them, and remaining fastened to them—there arises delight. From the origination of delight, I tell you, comes the origination of suffering & stress.2/3 because posting both excerpts hit the character limit
>>23399387>>23402790From the 3rd:>“Now, it happens to an instructed disciple of the noble ones that something that is subject to aging ages. With the aging of what is subject to aging, he reflects: ‘It doesn’t happen only to me that what is subject to aging will age. To the extent that there are beings—past & future, passing away & re-arising—it happens to all of them that what is subject to aging will age. And if, with the aging of what is subject to aging, I were to sorrow, grieve, lament, beat my breast, & become distraught, food would not agree with me, my body would become unattractive, my affairs would go untended, my enemies would be gratified and my friends unhappy.’ So, with the aging of what is subject to aging, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. This is called an instructed disciple of the noble ones who has pulled out the poisoned arrow of sorrow pierced with which the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person torments himself. Sorrowless, arrowless, the disciple of the noble ones is totally unbound right within himself.>“And further, it happens to an instructed disciple of the noble ones that something that is subject to illness grows ill… that something subject to death dies… that something subject to ending ends… that something subject to destruction is destroyed. With the destruction of what is subject to destruction, he reflects: ‘It doesn’t happen only to me that what is subject to destruction will be destroyed. To the extent that there are beings—past & future, passing away & re-arising—it happens to all of them that what is subject to destruction will be destroyed. And if, with the destruction of what is subject to destruction, I were to sorrow, grieve, lament, beat my breast, & become distraught, food would not agree with me, my body would become unattractive, my affairs would go untended, my enemies would be gratified and my friends unhappy.’ So, with the destruction of what is subject to destruction, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. This is called an instructed disciple of the noble ones who has pulled out the poisoned arrow of sorrow pierced with which the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person torments himself. Sorrowless, arrowless, the disciple of the noble ones is totally unbound right within himself.
>>23399743Are you a Theravadan? Are you learned in the suttas of the Pali Canon and have you rightly put them into practice? I hope so. Ideally, I would want for you to be someone who knows what is good for them and what is bad for them and is merely on an excited crusade against what is bad for others.
>>23400658>Europeans translated the core Buddhist concept as "emptiness"Wasn't that the mahayanists?
>>23398050It’s passive nihilism due to its ascetic nature and denial of the will. Which is arguably worse than active nihilism because at least destruction leaves room for creation.
>>23401394>nihilism means to stop existing
>>23400658>The original Sanskrit for this means more along the lines of "infinite possibility." "To become empty" really means "to align with the infinite possibility inherent in every moment."I don't have proof but I think that the text doesn't bare this out. Perhaps post some sanskrit to english translations with etymology and etymological reasoning included?>Buddha wasn't saying to do away with thoughts and feelings, but to learn to play with these things.If the dharma was a 3 out of 3 estate, I think that would be a 2 out of 3 estate. I think that he said not to "play" with those things and I think you're a hypocrite/fool/person-middling-in-integrity to say so.Slightly relevant sutta:>“Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles (lit: dirt houses): as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that’s how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.>“In the same way, Rādha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.>“You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.>“You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.>“You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.>“You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness—because the ending of craving, Rādha, is unbinding.”Source: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN23_2.html
>>23398050the reason buddhism is misinterpreted is that Buddha never makes it clear that Nirvana = JoyBuddha is basically telling you to remove the barriers to joy through meditation, and then to know joy directly rather than through concepts The problem is that he basically had the opposite of Neoplatonism where he believed that rather than evil being absence of good, GOOD was the absence of EVIL. Essentially nirvana = Bliss but Buddha thought that the bliss was merely a phenomenal byproduct of getting rid of fetters, when in reality bliss IS nirvana. This is why Mahayana Sutras are so life affirming and joyous despite Buddha saying that Bliss is merely a phenomenal state of consciousness and NOT Nirvana. Buddha didn't understand himself.
>>23402857forgot pic to go with part of what I said
>>23402857>when in reality bliss IS nirvanasource?
>>23402857>the reason buddhism is misinterpreted is that Buddha never makes it clear that Nirvana = Joy>Then the thought occurred to Gavesin the monk: 'I obtain at will — without difficulty, without hardship — this unexcelled bliss of release. O, that these 500 monks may obtain at will — without difficulty, without hardship — this unexcelled bliss of release!' Then those 500 monks — dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute — in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of the chaste life, for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for themselves in the here & now. They knew: 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.' And thus did those 500 monks — headed by Gavesin, striving at what is more & more excellent, more & more refined — realize unexcelled release.Source: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.180.than.html>Buddha is basically telling you to remove the barriers to joy through meditationAnd skillful conduct I reckon.References: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html>and then to know joy directly rather than through conceptsYeahThere is this sutta which can be reference:>“And then there is the case where one individual, through discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies (his reasoning), from the way he addresses a question, he is discerning, not dull. Why is that? He makes statements that are deep, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. He can declare the meaning, teach it, describe it, set it forth, reveal it, explain it, & make it plain. He is discerning, not dull.’ Just as if a man with good eyesight standing on the shore of a body of water were to see a large fish rise. The thought would occur to him, ‘From the rise of this fish, from the break of its ripples, from its speed, it is a large fish, not a small one.’ In the same way, one individual, in discussion with another, knows this: ‘From the way this person rises to an issue, from the way he applies (his reasoning), from the way he addresses a question… he is discerning, not dull.’https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_192.html>when in reality bliss IS nirvana.No. You've certainly put the cart before the horse. In this case, the conclusion is the cart and the insight/goal-borne-of-insight is the horse. Nirvana is more than merely bliss. Or blissful feeling. Nirvana is that which is unexcelled. What of those who languish in feelings of hopelessness, listnessness, and most significantly to the argument I make now, meaninglessness? Can you say that bliss/blissful feelings is/are a proper and eternal redress? I know what you don't. And Nirvana is bliss and more, not less.>This is why Mahayana Sutras arebullshit borne of the undiligent and exuberen
Probably because they learn about it through Nietzsche who butchered his understanding of it. To be fair to him though he probably wasn't reading the best sources and only got some watered down broken telephone version
>>23402930I would agree that insight and mindfulness are more than bliss because they are what produce bliss, if you think nibbana = prajna + mindfulness then I agree with you but if you think that Nibbana is an unspeakable product of insight and mindfulness then I disagree
>>23402911>source?obviously I made it up based on my own attempts to make Buddha's teaching make sense
>>23402946>I would agree that insight and mindfulness are more than bliss because they are what produce bliss, if you think nibbana = prajna + mindfulness then I agree with you but if you think that Nibbana is an unspeakable product of insight and mindfulness then I disagreeI'm pretty sure, but not certain because I'm drunk posting (I'm in school and I only post on the weekends nowadays and usually at the end of day aka drunk) that you you responded to nothing that I actually said and all that I a) didn't say b) you were well equipped to respond to.Nirvana is more than just pleasant feeling (or satisfaction). It is thar which is the result of final and direct knowledge. It is unfortunate for those who read what you say and follow it, (having notions of that which is better), to do so.
nirvana is the highest blissbelow this is the bliss of meditationbelow this is the bliss of sensual hedonismand there is no other bliss because below the human/animal realm is just hell and ghosts
>India's parliament has fewer Muslims as strength of Modi's party growshttps://youtu.be/awODy9h1C4YGOOBYE ABRAHAMISTS
>>23399743Arise from their dependent origination
>>23400629>, he only argues against a few specific instances and examples of svabhavaNot specific instances, but all the logical instances, any other form of argument in favor of svabhava rely in contradictions or non-sequitorsWith this he proves that the idea of svabhava itself arise from unskilfull ideas of conventional truth
>>23403304Literally 1984
>>23403402"There's not even an attempt at double speak" 1985 even
>>23403304I love bjps unbridled optimistic propoganda. They don't even care that they may seem genocidal to the peace loving international west
>>23399387Man, I want to get into the arupa lokas
Thoughts on Metta as a practice?
>>23402852Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche:>The sense of openness people experience when they simply rest their minds is known in Buddhism as emptiness, which is probably one of the most misunderstood words in Buddhist philosophy. It is hard enough for Buddhists to understand the term, but Western readers have an even more difficult time, because many of the early translations of Sanskrit and Tibetan texts interpreted emptiness as “the Void” or nothingness—mistakenly equating emptiness with the idea that nothing at all exists. Nothing could be further from the truth the Buddha sought to describe. While the Buddha did teach that the nature of mind—in fact the nature of all phenomena—is emptiness, he didn’t mean that their nature was truly empty, like a vacuum. He said it was emptiness, which in the Tibetan language is made up of two words: tongpa-nyi. The word tongpa means “empty”, but only in the sense of something beyond our ability to perceive with our senses and our capacity to conceptualize. Maybe a better translation would be “inconceivable” or “unnamable.” The word nyi, meanwhile, doesn’t have any particular meaning in everyday Tibetan conversation. But when added to another word it conveys a sense of “possibility”—a sense that anything can arise, anything can happen. So when Buddhist talk about emptiness, we don’t mean nothingness, but rather an unlimited potential for anything to appear, change, or disappear.
How do I detach from mundane worries?I'd like to be able to meditate and just leave behind all my concerns about my life, my money, what I'm doing, the shit I have to take care of, my relationships, my worries, all that stuff. But it inevitably comes up regardless of the method I try.I'd like to be able to reach a jhana and just abide in this peacefulness.
>>23398058>implying it's not void worship
>>23398213>Metaphysics is a fantasyYou'd be surprised how real fantasies can become if enough people believe in them.
>>23399354The way I see it, anything beyond worldly pleasures is emergent from those worldly pleasures.
>>23404000youll be trapped there for eons though, and would probably fall into one of the hell realms after exhausting your karma
>>23401433Yes I did. I may cease existing in my current form, but pieces of me will still be carrying on and becoming new things. I'll never be truly destroyed. Merely dissolved.
>>23404246>How do I detach from mundane worries?Why would you want to do this? You've got a tiny window in the entirety of the universe to experience them in their entirety. Why would you want to give that up?
>>23404305I don't think so, isn't it only anagamis and higher which enter those realms?
>>23404313Because fundamentally I don't give a fuck about my bank account, my career and the social drama that goes on around me. Deep down I yearn for something else.
>>23404318anagamis have abandoned the view of a self, you can see how the buddha’s former teachers reached the formless spheres through jhana and were born there after death but were not anagamis
>>23404332Right, you can reach them through the formless jhanas too, isn't it extremely difficult though?
>>23404323>Deep down I yearn for something elseYou're currently using the little time you have on this mortal coil to seek the company of a gestalt of degenerates. Out of all the options you had available to you this morning, that is the path you chose.
>>23404339What exactly is the point of your post?
>>23404337that goes without saying
>>23404341Your engagement feeds the gestalt at the cost of your own mortality. Much appreciated, my friend.
>>23404349This is not insightful in the slightest.
>>23404346Can you attain those jhanas with Metta?
>>23402111why should it?
>>23404561Because it's shit
>>23404569according to what? your own value judgements? buddhism is against value judgmenets(paradoxically) youre clinging righ now by saying its shit.
>>23404246either the first jhana or stream entry, but either one requires dedication like a side hobby. Think of it like the main activity you do outside your job or the house life. Try meditative retreats for free. they do it over 3 days, 7 days, 15 days now.
>>23404058>>23404058>>>The sense of openness people experience when they simply rest their minds is known in Buddhism as emptiness, which is probably one of the most misunderstood words in Buddhist philosophy. It is hard enough for Buddhists to understand the termhuh no, emptiness is well understood and it's not openness>>23404058>While the Buddha did teach that the nature of mind—in fact the nature of all phenomena—is emptiness,the buddha never said this>>23404058>So when Buddhist talk about emptiness, we don’t mean nothingness, but rather an unlimited potential for anything to appear, change, or disappear.and that's not the teaching of the buddha
>>23404597>Think of it like the main activity you do outside your job or the house lifeHow would I get started? I meditate on and off but have never managed to make it a real habit. I don't really follow the precepts even though I live a relatively uneventful life (I kill mosquitoes, drink beers on the weekends, etc).
>>23404020Metta is good will and it's a good entry into spirituality.
>>23404608Can it lead to nibbana?
>>23404305I don't think the sutta you're referring to is an accurate description of reality and what naturally follows.
>>23404020I think it's good and also a concentration that is fundamental/indispensable when it comes to practicing/living in a way that has what is heavenly or pleasant as it's outcome.
>>23404058Thanks. That's not rigorous enough for me. Do you perhaps know of a more academically rigorous...platform which espouses the same the viewpoint with examples of traditional usage that is precisely in line with that stance about the meaning and usage of the word which is popularly translated as "emptiness"?I ask this because I would rather not fall into the trap of believing something that may be mere facile apologetics (defense of something, usually religious, by communicating what is either untrue, half-true, or some other adulteration of the facts).
>>23404246There are lots of suttas with practices that would, if you undertook them and practiced them, help you with that. This is one of them:https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.html
>>23404313>You've got a tiny window in the entirety of the universe to experience them in their entirety.That's not true. There is life after death.
>>23404337Extremely difficult is a judgement that only makes sense if you're comparing it to something. Try comparing it to something harder and then it will look "comparatively easy".
>>23404730By difficult I mean that it requires decades of meditative experience
>>23404727Yes, but it's not your life anymore
>>23404355I think that you can't attain them without metta. In reference to metta, these suttas are relevant:https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_126.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Khp/khp9.htmlIn reference to jhana, this sutta is relevant I think:https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN111.htmlIn reference to mindfulness, these suttas are relevant:https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN47_38.htmlhttps://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN10.html
>>23404614One does not, I believe, attain nirvana without the qualities of goodwill, equanimity, compassion etc. So I think you should mark Metta as "essential" in your mind palace or memories or whatever and not do without the other things that are essential: like mindfulness and good bodily/mental/verbal conduct.
>>23404733That's wrong. I don't even need to know what you mean by that to know that that is wrong. Do tell though, if you want, want you mean by that.
>>23404750Stage 1 of Grief: Denial
>>23404758Denial also has a place in things that are unrelated to grief or unskillful application of mind.
>>23403362>Not specific instances, but all the logical instancesNot true, this is another lie. Why do you constantly lie about Nagarjuna? You do realize that lying violates a fundamental Buddhist precept right? There is no such argument in Nagarjuna's works and you can't cite which passage of which work it's found in because there is no such passage>any other form of a argument in favor of svabhava rely in contradictions or non-sequitorsMerely attacking certain arguments for an idea does nothing to directly refute the idea itself, because an idea can be true independent of any arguments for or against it.>With this he proves that the idea of svabhava itself arise from unskilfull ideas of conventional truthNo he doesn't, that's another lie. What is "unskillful" is a completely subjective Buddhist dogma, it's not something that can be logically proven lmao. With each response your posts get dumber and dumber.
>>23398050Because western converts to Buddhism spend all their time stressing over shit the Buddha specifically said not to. Shit that natural born Buddhist laypeople don’t spend 5 minutes thinking about.
>>23405020>Merely attacking certain arguments for an idea does nothing to directly refute the idea itselfIt does, because it show that the idea arise from a misguided conceptualisation of reality, if the idea cannot be proven empirically and cannot be sustained logically without falling into contradictions, then all the possible ways that idea could exist are exhausted, since any third form of existence wouldn't be how an "idea" exist, ergo it doesn't exist
/// These Cretan institutions were much extolled by some writers of antiquity, but receive only qualified praise from the judicious criticisms of Aristotle /// The game took an unexpected turn after the first quarter when an opossum scampered onto the field /// He was taken to Havana, and died by garrote in the little fortress La Punta /// I'd love to come to Hawaii with you, but I'm a little strapped /// Expect a breeze to allay the heat /// We decided to brave the elements and go for a walk /// He used his speech to sound a clarion call for affordable health care /// That is the fundamental perversity of dog whistle politics, whereby political parties send coded messages that will be heard one way by their core supporters and another way altogether by others /// The sound of the telephone was drowned out by the vacuum cleaner /// That's the spot where Sara and I used to while away the hours between lectures /// She scrawled her signature on the receipt /// The car pulled up too fast and skidded on the dusty shoulder of the road /// They were in constant contact, conferring about every aspect of the construction project /// How are we ever going to scrape enough people up to form a team by this weekend? /// You can count on him to ham it up for the camera /// The fat man loudly prattled unctuous apologies /// Some respondents who renewed contact with children or siblings had positive responses, but others were rebuffed /// Everything seemed to go wrong. For one, we had a flat tire /// Retailers are moving into high gear as the holiday season approaches /// She wrote several vignettes of small-town life /// Market sentiment can turn on a dime /// Symptoms include a wobbly gait, stumbling or a droopy lip /// The victim wasn't able to identify the perp /// It certainly is no formal, prissy garden - no clipped hedges, manicured lawns or "Keep Off The Grass" signs /// Everyone goes out of the way to make every guest feel special ///
Theravada Buddhism is just Sethian Gnosticism without the hellenic and jewish influences
>>23398050it liberates you from your responsability making you a child forever
>>23406582>It does, because it show that the idea arise from a misguided conceptualisation of reality,No it doesn't, this is another lie. You still have not cited the exact verse of which work of Nagarjuna's work contains the supposed argument, and that's because it doesn't exist; yet you continue to lie about Nagarjuna in violation of Buddhist precepts about truth-telling. Moreover, attacking logical justifications for an idea in addition to not directly refuting the idea itself also does not apply to ideas which are accepted via revealed scripture or through the supramundane enlightenment/insight of sages, which are not logical arguments. In most Hindu schools they accept the absolute existence of God on the basis of scripture without trying to provide logical proof for it, just like Buddha's accept non-empirical supernatural claims by Buddha based on his claimed insight, it's not ultimately different as a justification. Since they don't accept this idea on the basis of a demonstrative logical argument, what you said about Nagarjuna doesn't even apply to them as a refutation (setting aside that what you said wasn't even true and that Nagarjuna has no such argument).>if the idea cannot be proven empirically and cannot be sustained logically without falling into contradictions, then all the possible ways that idea could exist are exhaustedBuddha doesn't empirically prove Nirvana or rebirth, but he just claims knowledge of it based on his magic insight (no different from revealed scripture as a justification), therefore according to you Buddha is wrong. Nice job, according to your logic you refuted Buddha lol.
>>23398050how can i be nihilistic if it believes in enlightenment? strikes me as very silly to say theyre the same. but i guess its because it calims theres no purpose. highly doubt nietzche was a bhuddist at all tho.
>>23404313I mean if my life is that short is better to spend it not attached to shallow and mundane things right?
