>>23310976
>Why are there so many canons?
Our growth wasn't held back by a certain draconian institution.

>>23310976
There’s multiple types of Buddhism. A lot of people in the west were first acquainted with Zen Buddhism, which is more spiritual and interior. A lot of westerners then got the idea that Buddhism is just philosophy and a way to grow your personal spirituality. Buddhism exists as a massive organized religious tradition across numerous countries, which has a lot of different variations by localities. Most Buddhists across time probably weren’t even aware of other canons, for instance. One of the most common types of Buddhism in the east is called pure land Buddhism. Basically some Buddha said he was going to create a perfect heaven realm where people could meditate all day and easily reach enlightenment, and a lot of people are calling on the devas and Buddha’s to allow them to go to this pure land when they die. It’s a bit similar to Christianity, where people call in Jesus to bring them to Heaven.

File: IMG_2042.jpg (51 KB, 606x639)

51 KB JPG

>>23310995
>a certain draconian institution.

>>23311018
The church, of course.

>>23311011
Do any Buddhist sects believe in a monotheistic god?

>>23311062
No, that would be ludicrous and completely irrational.

>>23311064
How is that any more irrational than believing in samsara or nirvana?

>>23311064
Nigga you need give nuanced answers instead of this half assed shit.
Fucking board is a midwit farm

>>23310976
Only a newbie pseudo Buddhist but I’ll give it a shot

Why do Buddhists deny an all powerful deity but regularly pray to devas and Buddha's ?

Different Buddhist schools have different relationships with the Gods but Buddhism doesn’t believe in one eternal being that created the universe nor do they believe that the Gods can not give you Nirvana. The deities, bodhisattvas, and etc can however influence your current life though and maybe help you on the path.
Also their thinking borders on pantheism but for some reason they still deny the notion of god.

Depends on the school depends on what you conceptualize God to be.


Also why is there something rather than nothing? If the universe is eternal what set it in motion?

The Buddha said these questions aren’t worth even thinking about as it doesn’t help you overcome the problem of suffering and rebirth. But he taught that something like that the universe has no beginning or end just constantly comes and goes out of existence.


Why are there so many canons?

Buddhism isn’t as strict about orthodox interpretations and heresy so many different scriptures and commentaries have been written. If you added up all the Christian writings its probably larger.

How is it even possible to follow any of that shit?

Billions have tried to greater or lesser success. It’s a religion with a strong emphasis on monastics who are the focus of the religions most serious practice. The lay community has historically varied in their level of deep intellectual engagement and commitment. It’s not totally uncommon for people to be something like a cultural Christian where they are follow the holidays, rituals, go to temple occasionally but otherwise don’t think about it. Many lay practitioners aren’t trying to achieve Nirvana just get a better rebirth for practice in the next life.

>>23311076
Not him but you can basically understand the basics of Samsara by reflecting on the suffering inherent in existence. You and everyone you know is eventually going to get old, sick, and die. Things come into existence break apart and go out or existence therefore samsara. Rebirth and other questions are more complicated and require discernment.

>>23311110
>suffering inheritent in existence
pain is just chemical reaction not a feature of the universe . But so is happiness. Why should I want to avoid suffering by killing my ego instead of just embracing the good and bad life has to offer

>>23311110
Ok but that doesn't prove the universe is eternal or whether whatever we're experiencing will go on forever. Also you can still fit a prime mover within those notions of rebirth and what not. Something had to come from nothing right?

File: 1713221103412345.jpg (57 KB, 463x662)

57 KB JPG

>>23310976
>>23310995
>>23311011
>>23311018
>>23311035
>>23311062
>>23311064
>>23311076
>>23311096
>>23311101
>>23311110
>>23311130
>>23311139
Buddhism is a satanic suicide cult disguised as postmodern woke marxism

>take miserable, misguided people
>lovebomb them, indoctrinate them with far-left postmodernism that life is meaningless, truth is relative, traditions don't matter, God doesn't exist and nothing really exists except the void, not even you, so might as well accept identity politics, that men can become women and viceversa, and postmodern marxism, everyone suffers anyways so might as well become a weak willed cattle consoomer
>and if you live a virtuous, fruitful existence and fight evil, you reincarnate as an animal millions of times and suffer, so you must be a cog in the system and let psychopaths like the satanic pedophile elite walk all over you
>your friends and family don't matter, only escaping your suffering by any means necessary does, so join our suicide cult, we'll teach you the practice of an ancient satanic sorcerer of how to kill your soul, and plunge into eternal oblivion ("Nirvana")
>live as a complacent servant of the neomarxist satanic world order, contribute to the decline of harmoniously christlike white civilization, die having developed no virtues or repentance and go to Hell

>>23311151
It's literally just a pagan suicide cult that branched off Hinduism
How did it take off so much in Asia?

>>23311139
>Also you can still fit a prime mover within those notions of rebirth and what not
It would violate the principle of dependent origination
>Something had to come from nothing right?
We don't know, that's one of the few things the buddha didn't to answer

>>23311151
>nothing really exists except the void, not even you, so might as well accept identity politics, that men can become women and viceversa, and postmodern marxism,
these things dont logically follow from each other, you connected them in your head but i dont see how the idea of impermanence necessarily leads to tranny or identity politics shit. if anything it goes against that- identity is fake and illusory so whats the point of focusing on it so hard or trying to change it
>everyone suffers anyways so might as well become a weak willed cattle consoomer
weak willed consooming is what leads to suffering in the first place, suffering comes from desire and attachment to worldly shit

File: Vasubandhu.jpg (2.59 MB, 1553x2000)

2.59 MB JPG

>>23310976
Vasubandhu conclusively refutes theism in his Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. For years, I studied classical Anglican theism, and after reading the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, I realized that the incoherent nonsense of theism relies on nothing more than logical fallacies and the common tricks of sophists.
>Infinity: The infinite cannot be distinct from the finite. If God is infinite, then God is identical to created things.
>Immutability: An omniscient God would know mutable things, but the immutable cannot know the mutable.
>Eternity: An omniscient God would know temporal things, but the eternal cannot know the temporal.
>Oneness: Unity is an imperfection.
>Knowledge: Knowledge is caused and cause implies composition.
>Life: The soul is the principle of life and a separate principle implies composition.
>Will: The will is caused and cause implies composition.

>>23311226
All the dharmas that arise arise by reason of the five causes and the four conditions that we have just explained. The world does not proceed from a single cause that is called God, or Purusa, or Pradhana, or any other name.

How do you prove this thesis?
If you think that the thesis is proven through arguments, you betray your doctrine that the world arises from a single cause.

64d. Not from God or from any other cause, since there is a succession, etc.
That things are produced by a single cause, by God, Mahadeva, or Vasudeva, is inadmissable for many reasons.

1.) If things were produced by a single cause, they would arise all at the same time: now each of us knows that they arise successively.

[The Theist:] They arise successively by virtue of the desires of God, who says, "May this arise now! May this perish now! May this arise and perish later!"

If this were the case, then things do not arise from a single cause, since the desires (of God) are multiple. Moreover these multiple desires would have to be simultaneous, since God, the cause of these desires, is not multiple, and things would all arise at the same time.

a. [The Theist:] The desires of God are not simultaneous, because God, in order to produce his desires, takes into account other causes.

If this were so, then God is not the single unique cause of all things. And the causes that God takes into account are produced successively: they depend then on causes which are themselves dependent on other causes: an infinite regression.

[The Theist:] It is admitted that the series of causes has no beginning.

This would admit that samsara does not have an origin. You then abandon the doctrine of a single cause and return to the Buddhist theory of causes (hetus) and conditions (pratyaya).

b. [The Theist:] The desires of God are simultaneous, but things do not arise at the same time because they arise as God wishes them to arise, that is, in succession.

This is inadmissible. The desires of God remain what they are. Let us explain. Suppose that God desires "May this arise now! May that arise later!" We do not see why the second desire, at first nonefficacious, will be efficacious later; why, if it is efficacious later, it will not be so initially.

What advantage does God obtain from this great effort by which he produces the world?

[The Theist:] God produces the world for his own satisfaction (ptiti).

He is then not God, the Sovereign (Isvara), in what concerns his own satisfaction, since he cannot realize it without a means (upaya). And if he is not sovereign with regard to his own satisfaction, how can he be sovereign with regard to the world?

>>23311231
Further, do you say that God finds satisfaction in seeing the creatures that he has created in the prey of all the sufferings of existence, including the tortures of the hells? Homage to this God! Well said, in truth, is the popular stanza, "He is called Rudra because he burns, because he is excited, ferocious, terrible, an eater of flesh, blood, and marrow"

3.) The followers of God, the single cause of the world, deny visible causes,—causes and conditions,—the efficacy of the seed with regard to the sprout, etc. If, modifying their position, they admit the existence of these causes, and pretend that these causes serve God as auxiliaries, this then is no more that a pious affirmation, for we do not maintain any activity of a cause besides the activity of the so-called secondary causes. Furthermore, God would not be sovereign with regard to auxiliary causes, since these cooperate in the production of the effect through their own efficacy. Perhaps, in order to avoid the negation of causes, which are visible, and in order to avoid the affirmation of present action by God, which is not visible, the Theist would say that the work of God is creation: but creation, dependent only on God, would never have a beginning, like God himself, and this is a consequence that the Theist rejects.

We would refute the doctrine of Purusa, of Pradhana, etc., as we have refuted the theist doctrine, mutatis mutandis. Thus, no dharma arises from a single cause.

Alas, persons are unclear! Like the birds and the animals, truly worth of pity, they go from existence to existence, accomplishing diverse actions; they experience the results of these actions and falsely believe that God is the cause of these results. (We must explain the Truth in order to put an end to this false conception.)

Why is all the talk about buddhism on 4chan either retarded ignorance that doesn't know the difference between Theravada and Mahayana or dyed in the wool buddhist sycophancy? Like literally read a single introductory textbook ffs.

>>23311239
I would like a demographic breakdown of the Buddhist population on this board.
>Anglos
>Indians
>Chinese
>Japanese
>Cradles
>Converts

File: 1612201217607.jpg (2.71 MB, 3000x7000)

2.71 MB JPG

>>23310976
It sounds like you should read some actual material instead of skimming articles and subsituting your own definitions for whatever vocabulary is used
>>23311130
pain is a very narrow reading of dukkha, that the elements (dharma) of experience are in a state of commotion or unrest and this causes us distress is a more accurate picture
>>23311183
>How did it take off
because you and him are entirely wrong in your hostile, spiteful, and disfigured presentation of the religion
>>23311139
>you can still fit a prime mover within those notions of rebirth and what not
Why do prime moovers think they don't need to argue for their position and can simply claim it is so? If we agree everything has a cause or causes behind it, why should there be a cause which is itself outside of causation?

>>23311130
>Why should I want to avoid suffering
Not sought by buddhism. Suffering is inherent to existence. Struggling against suffering is what makes us suffer. To avoid it is to accept it. The waves never stop. If you fight a wave, you get knocked on your ass and sand up in your taint. Learn how to duck-dive headlong into the water and it's much nicer.
>by killing my ego
Also not sought by buddhism. You shouldn't be killing anything. Certainly not yourself. Recognize that you are an emergent phenomena, part of a larger incomprehensible cycle of other phenomena? Maybe. Depends on which guy you ask. Your soul is the whole world. Definitely don't kill it.
>instead of just embracing the good and bad life has to offer
This is generally closer to what buddhism seeks. Accept suffering as inevitable. Work towards the comfort and happiness of those around you.

>pain is just chemical reaction not a feature of the universe
Brother, where is that chemical reaction taking place? ;)

>>23311096
>okay so there's this thing
>and there's only one of it
>and anyone who says otherwise is actually being deceived by others of it's class
>but no really there's only one
>and what it can do is entirely controlled by this book some barbarians wrote 2000 years ago to justify feeding their enemies' babies into a fire
Monotheism is a complete joke and if it weren't for a certain tribe running the media no one would take it seriously.

>>23311139
>Something had to come from nothing right?
What if all this shit just IS? No was. All is.

>>23311139
Buddhism has a complex multiversal ecology, so yes there's Prime Movers. They're more or less constantly creating universes, watching them go up in smoke (literally, as the system breaks down it causes things to catch fire due to immorality), then making new ones so the souls from the last one can go to the new one. If we suppose a Prime Mover (either a single entity or a procession of entities taking up the torch when the last one falters) then there's by definition no beginning as the Prime Mover is eternal, meaning that they've always been moving, ergo there's always been a universe other than them.

This is why in Aristole the 47-55 Prime Movers who are the Gods of Hellenism are constantly creating the universe, which has no beginning and no end. A beginning and end would naturally have to include the Prime Mover in an absolute sense.

Buddhism is based because it makes churchers seethe

>>23311350
Correct

>>23311282
>okay so there's this math problem
>and there's only one answer to it
>and anyone who says otherwise is actually being deceived by others fake proof
>but no really there's only one answer
>and what it is was entirely explained by this proof some dude wrote 2000 years ago
Science is a complete joke and if it weren't for big nasa running the show no one would take it seriously.

>>23310976
Buddhism is true, unfortunately. I will never become buddhist because my mind is too poisoned to reach even basic level of detachment, but I'm not going to deny that it is true any longer.

File: that damn smile.jpg (395 KB, 1000x751)

395 KB JPG

Buddhism is sun worship. Texts like Lotus and Avatamsaka Sutra are the most joyous and life affirming books ever written, it is the highest form of sun worship.

>>23311062
Sort of. There’s none that believe in a single first source in the Christian sense, but Buddhas like Vairocana are similar to God in the sense of being all power, all present, and all knowing.

>>23310976
George Grimm. Doctrine of the Buddha.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70145

Because it's schismatic syncretic trash the further from the source it got, barring schools that maintained some semblance of the apophatic method.

>>23311011
>There’s multiple types of Buddhism

There is only One Buddha and he did not have 'many' Buddhisms. In the few places he does relent and name his teaching in the Pali Canon, it's PATH TO BRAHMAN.

File: 1707310654937535.jpg (524 KB, 1242x2688)

524 KB JPG

>>23310976
>Why do Buddhists deny an all powerful deity but regularly pray to devas and Buddha's ?
>Why are there so many canons? How is it even possible to follow any of that shit?
Just read these, little nigga: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/

>>23311110
>Not him but you can basically understand the basics of Samsara by reflecting on the suffering inherent in existence.
According to these suttas, at the least, suffering isn't inherent to existence but a result of unskillful conduct/lack of skillful conduct:

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.html

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_196.html

>>23311255
>list of races
>cradles
>converts
I really like how you took a break from form to be inscrutable instead of communicating clearly. Just kidding. No I don't. What is a cradle? How is a convert at the end of a list that is ostensibly about race?

Cradle means raised buddhist from birth as opposed to converting later on

File: 1684037040033062.gif (1.51 MB, 498x279)

1.51 MB GIF

>>23311967
But that's not a race.The end part of your list is incongruent with reference to the beginning: and vice-versa.

>>23311962
>>23311979
The list is of demographics broadly conceived, not exclusively race. The last two are obviously not mutually exclusive with the first four.

>>23311989
You forgot black? I'm black.

>>23312009
You are not statistically representative of the people who post on /lit/, let alone of the half dozen people who regularly argue in Buddhism threads on /lit/. I expect that the plurality of Buddhists on /lit/ are Anglos, with minorities of Indians, Chinese, and Japanese.

>>23311468
Icchantika.
Buddhism is about attaining enlightenment, not worship.

>>23312020
That's a half-assed way of looking at the matter

>>23312034
How would you like me to collect these statistics then?

>>23310976
The smallest confrontation with Buddhism changed my life because it is 100% true. If you're selfish, narcissistic, arrogant, etc to any degree, Buddhism will change that for you very quickly. And most of us are, therefore it is probably the best "religion."

>>23310976
Buddhism is similar to advaita from what I gather. But in advaita they still worship the Brahman while believing they're not separate from it. Like in sufism to an extent. Don't know why Buddhism denies this and goes the polytheistic route. It could have been a kino religion desu

>>23312247
buddhists reject all constructs created by brahmins

>>23312288
It's still panentheistic

>>23310976
>If the universe is eternal what set it in motion?
if it was set in motion by god then what set god in motion?

>>23312022
>Buddhism is about attaining enlightenment
and yet so far nobody ever has

>>23311468
>Buddhism is sun worship.
There's no worship in buddhism.

>>23311468
>Texts like Lotus and Avatamsaka Sutra
They're not even buddhsit texts.

>>23312327
>Buddhist using retarded reddit tier arguments against monotheism
Lmao didn't need any more proof that Buddhism is a retarded religion for gay chinks

>>23310976
>Why do Buddhists deny an all powerful deity but regularly pray to devas and Buddha
Dunno. Probably the same answer Catholics have with Saints and guardian angels. That answer being they're based.

>>23312333
Lmao kys

File: IMG_6440.jpg (332 KB, 1080x1539)

332 KB JPG

>>23311834
>There is only One Buddha
That’s not true

>>23311351
It doesn't make them seethe. Buddhism is too incoherent and convaluted to survive long enough. It's dying at incredible speeds compared to Christianity. It has no cultural relevance outside of some Asian shitholes.

>>23312042
I think you just defined my communication in a way that's beneficial/defensible for you rather than interacting with it in an open and earnest way.

>>23312330
>and yet so far nobody ever has
Me when I say something stupid for effect

>>23311834
>it's PATH TO BRAHMAN.
Are you indian? Do you guys have some sort of indian bullshit that is completely made up that is only in sanskrit/hindi or something? Because as an American who has only read suttas in english, that seems stupid and wrong to me. Emphasis on wrong...but also stupid.

>>23311130
*Punches you in the face*

>>23311151
Buzzwords buzzwords buzzwords.

>>23311151
>racebaiting christcuck garbage
yawn

>>23312672
>Buddhism is too incoherent
>btw this jew is god btw

>>23311404
kek true tho

>>23312800
>>23312796
Is he wrong tho?

>>23311226
None of these statements refute god tho unless your notion of god is some bearded nigga in the sky

>>23312940
Profoundly

File: 1651521573912.jpg (172 KB, 470x591)

172 KB JPG

>>23312946
If the premise of even the most serious theology is pure fantasy what use is there to knock down all six quadrillion permutations of isvara/brahmā/yahweh/zeus/demiurge? Those theologies which shy away from a personal, active, and anthropomorphic god the most are virtually crypto-atheisms themselves, e.g. Spinoza, Shankara, etc., preserving the label of God but not its content. The final step is to admit the label is a placeholder, which the Buddhist does freely

>>23313068
Prove reincarnation
Prove nirvana is real and attainable
If christian theology is built on fantasy so is Buddhism. It all depends on beliefs
Pro tip, you can't

>>23312968
Prove it

>>23313068
But Buddhism has a whole pantheon of gods tho. They're just subject to samsara. But they're still gods...

>>23312672
anon you know Buddhism is older than Christianity right? It's actually older than most Abrahamic religions I think. And it never had as much cultural relevance yet it survived this long.
Anyway everything makes Abrahamic religions seethe. That's pretty much all they do.

>>23313154
That's quite the concession you've made, that we can't prove anything, therefore we should assume some sort of transactional pact is in effect with the Israelite war god's wife's son to save us from the planet he specifically created, and that this is uniquely true and all other systems are false. Another way we might look at this, since I do agree there are fantastic or faith based claims to Buddhism—is there anything left of the religion if it were totally disenchanted? With Buddhism there is a philosophy of mind and psychology, explanations for how phenomena arise in apparent dependence on other phenomena, meditative exercises etc., even if we reject the soteriology and the myth of the Buddha's awakening and entry into nirvana. If the Christian god is dead however, as Nietzsche points out, that just unleashes the nihilism Christianity was preparatory for in its world denial and ideology of ressentiment. There is no Christianity if the wizard didn't raise himself from the dead, it's just some random schizobabble about literally being god and going around scolding people for not agreeing, in a world we were meant to escape but now cannot. Sure there's an ethical component about how to live in a moral community, but every community is a moral community, even atheist and Hindu ones.
Even if I had no faith in Buddhism I would have to find it more pragmatic than a faithless Christianity

>>23313169
All the gods in Buddhism are basically demoted pagan gods, they don't get to live eternally, they are said to actually be in a more difficult birth soteriologically because unlike humans they experience so little unease that there is no urgency to their lives, but like humans they are in a cycle of recurring birth and death. Buddhists largely allowed the people they converted to keep their deities but they were repurposed as attendants to the Buddha or protectors, not unlike how in Greek or Indian henotheistic systems the supreme god has intermediaries. But like I said here >>23313214 if we throw out Indo-Tibetan or Sino-Japanese cosmologies and pantheons as being too Catholic for a secular reading of Buddhism, that secularized Buddhism still has something to go by, Christianity does not. Christianity in fact always had this problem, which is why once it grew enough it baptized and retconned neoplatonic theology as compatible with its mythology, because the greek theologians had themselves built a system which only floated on their myths and could indeed divorce from them. Buddhism has had similar mobility to the point where some very diffect sects both claim to be Buddhist, with far more difference between them than say a Pentacostal Christian and a Russian Orthodox Christian.

>>23313214
But something has exist in the first place. How can nothing give rise to something? This is the same problem atheists face and they resort to saying we don't know
The Buddha never stated that the universe is eternal just that god didn't fit in his moral system based on karma

The official buddhist cosmology is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

>>23313320
>something has exist in the first place. How can nothing give rise to something?
That's not really my problem. "If God doesn't exist, then nothing exists/can exist" is the theist's problem because he has defined existence and non-existence in specific ways such that the absence of God is the absence of meaning. We might say a god or brahmā enjoys a conventional existence having arisen in dependence on causal factors, and that god may himself be the support for a whole realm of beings, but this god is not exempt from cause and effect as an absolute—why should he be? If as you suggest, the consequence of being alive without such a god is nihilism, how can your answer to nihilism be to double down on affirming that nothing is something? How does piling on delusions upon delusions get closer to truth?

anyone have the boy buddhism vs girl buddhism meme?

>>23313362
>god is absolute don't ask questions goy
>samsara is absolute don't ask questions goy
See my problem

File: 1695674031688064.jpg (113 KB, 750x868)

113 KB JPG

>>23313377
that one ?

>>23313390
Buddhists don't need to care about the creation of the universe because this knowledge is useless to get englithened.

>>23313390
>birth and death is as incredible a claim as an ancient volcano demon's wife's son promising eternal life to his community in exchange for a new covenant which replaces a previous covenant made earlier with the same community
well, you do you I guess

can someone teach me how to pray? what do i say? do i need my hands together? do you do it in your head or out loud?

i have recently come to the realization that the fake and gay science like evolution, the big bang, the heliocentric model are all gay creations to get us to be godless. i cannot deny we exist under the firmament and that we are gods time piece. we are a little cosmic terrarium. and it's impossible to deny it has an owner.

but what does he want from me? i have nothing worth any value to give. and honestly i don't have much to ask for. i know that i cant just wish for cash and win the lottery. but how do you feel your prayers get "heard"? ive never seen any signs that made me think it was a divine gift, but maybe it's because i am doing something wrong or still have doubts? the only thing i would pray for is the health of my loved ones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_cosmology

The existence of a creator deity is overwhelmingly opposed in the Jain doctrine. Mahāpurāṇa, a Jain text authored by Ācārya Jinasena is famous for this quote:

>Some foolish men declare that a creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

According to Jains, the universe has a firm and an unalterable shape, which is measured in the Jain texts by means of a unit called Rajlok, which is supposed to be very large. This unit of measurement is the distance covered by a god flying at ten million miles per second for six months.[6] The Digambara sect of Jainism postulates that the universe is fourteen Rajloks high and extends seven Rajloks from north to south. Its breadth is seven Rajloks long at the bottom and decreases gradually towards the middle, where it is one Rajlok long. The width then increases gradually until it is five Rajloks long and again decreases until it is one Rajlok long. The apex of the universe is one Rajlok long, one Rajlok wide and eight Rajloks high. The total space of the world is thus 343 cubic Rajloks.

>>23313402
Fair enough but what determines good from evil. The karmic system has no foundation if niggas can't even agree what good and evil even are.

Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.

If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now? How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, for the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.

If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?

If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.

If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?

If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.

If he created because of the karma of embodied beings (acquired in a previous creation), then he is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else.

If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?

If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all.

And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?

Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.
—Mahapurana (Jainism) (The Great legend), Jainasena (India, ninth century)

>>23310976
Buddhism is just a less pure version of the Tao in action. Not knocking it. But to understand Buddhism, one must contemplate the Tao.

>>23313157
Marxism is secular christcukery so his comparison doesn’t exactly add up.

>>23313502
Marxism is a material analysis and Christianity is a spiritual analysis. Secularism isn't what separates them

>>23313397
its similar but with the boy side having a bunch of esoteric stuff and similar in aesthetic to OP's image

>>23310976
>God doesn't exist
>B-but objective morality does because... It just exists okkk!!

File: 1622463276771.png (101 KB, 490x627)

101 KB PNG

>>23313817
>what is karma

>>23314188
Kamma isn't really 1-1 with any kind of moral system that I know of though. Actually, are there any decent suttas on buddhist morality beyond "follow the five precepts"

>>23310976
Since Buddhists believe in no-self, that there is universally no foundation of the consciousness of all sentient beings, then all sentient beings have the potential to recognize this within themselves, their own "buddha-nature" or tathagatagharba, and to become a full Buddha themselves. However becoming a god is different and requires good karma. Gods are within samsara, they may live for a billion years but they are still believed to be able to die and be reborn in a lower realm according to what they did as a god, according to their karma. Original Buddhist did believe that beings like Brahma exist but that they are fallible.

>>23311239
/x/ ironically has better buddhist discussion

>>23311151
>everyone suffers anyways so might as well become a weak willed cattle consoomer

This is the polar opposite of Buddhism. This ignorance is like thinking Christians don't believe in God/Jesus.

>>23312672
Remind me anon, where is christianity making all them rapid gainz kek

>>23312672
Quality over quantity.

>>23310976
life denying poo in the loo bullshit

>>23314734
>I'm affoooooorming life! I'm affoooooooooorming!

>>23312800
>>23313502
what makes this uppity faggot who follows most cucked religion that is buddhism so spiteful?

>>23311271
>Not sought by buddhism.
it is. this type of arguing is why buddhists are more like kikes then kike themselves.

>>23311096
buddhists are incapable of anything that is not huffing their own farts. they follow the most low IQ religion with full contradictions but try to hide it with word salad.

>>23313241
lmao nice gubberish but without reincarnation buddhism is worthless garbage which it is.

>>23313409
>streetshitting pajeet said there is no soul but you still reincarnate.
well you do you I guess

>>23312803
better then streetshitter. yes.

>>23313181
abrahamic religions don't think about buddhism.
that's how you delude yourself in pathetic attempt to make your death cult relevant.
>>23314707
>>23314729
buddhism has quality only for cucks whose wish is to become NPCs

>>23314842
no it's not.

>>23312089
retarded bable. none of the countries where buddhism is majority is known for it's altruism.

>>23314869
thanks for proving my point that buddhists are low iq streetshitters who can't argue

>>23314873
i didn't prove your point i specifically refuted it. you said buddhists avoid suffering. i said they don't. are you retarded?

>>23314873
>trying to goad Buddhists of all people into arguing

Also do you even realize that Buddhism, although it originates in India, is not actually popular in India and basically never was
India is not even in like top 20 most Buddhist nations
Buddhism is literally more common in the United States than it is in India

>>23314895
that's not refutation low IQ streetshitter.
>>23314915
buddhists don't argue. that use word salad or just deny and deflect.
Also it originated there and was going strong untill hindus subsumed it and muslims killed it. Now it gook pajeets who follow it the most.

>>23310976
Generally speaking, most traditions that believe in an all-powerful deity would say that God is outside of the realm of time and therefore permanent and often unchanging. That goes against the core foundations of Buddhism. The Buddha says that the first being that arose, Brahma, creates other beings. These beings, deluded, come to the conclusion that Brahma not only made them, because they are unaware of that which came before them, that Brahma is "permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, the same for ever and ever. But we who were created by that Brahma, we are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, fated to fall away, and we have come to this world." The Buddha says that this wrong view can be achieved by some by progressing to such a point that they remember some of their past lives, but not all of them. But, in fact, Brahma is also arisen and is impermanent. The definition of G/god is different across cultures. Do you count Japanese kami as gods, spirits, both, etc?
I highly recommend reading the Long Discourses of the Buddha. It does a good job of answering this sort of thing. The quote I used is from one of the discourses in that collection.

>>23314947
>doesn't know what "avoid" means
>doesn't know what "refute" means
alexa? play mongoloid by devo

>>23314866
Dont care bud im not worshipping your rabbi

>>23314853
There's tons of western people who take interest in buddhist teachings on psychology, ohilosophy, meditation, etc. and ignore whatever sounds too mythological. Again show me what is left of Christianity if you don't believe in its myths or faith based claims. As others have already noted ITT, you are just left with a proto-marxism or the (wrong) belief that nothing matters because god isn't real.

>>23311392
Not at all, there is no entity that creates any universe. Universes arise out of the collective karma of the sentient beings that will inhabit it.

>>23314869
The goal of buddhism is the complete cessation of suffering

>>23315096
I'm aware. Hence why they don't personally avoid suffering.

>>23314871
Who said anything about altruism? The point of Buddhism is to transcend the ego to be more compassionate.

>>23313320
>How can nothing give rise to something?
Nothing actually arises, so an infinite chain of causation isn't a problem. Read Nagarjuna.

>>23314304
Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa discussas karma in detail

>>23314734
Life is objectively shit, accepting that isn't life denying

>>23314915
Buddhism was actually the main Indian religion from the time of Ashoka up to the fall of the Gupta empire

>>23314707
Lmao in the areas Buddhism has been popular historically. And Africa.
Buddhist temples in south Korea are mostly empty while evangelical churches built by Zionists are filled with followers

>>23314963
but that's retarded. Since samsara is permanent then. Which contradicts the notion that nothing is permanent. So the only eternal thing becomes impermanence itself.
I just don't see why Buddhists refuse to acknowledge panentheism while describing exactly what that lol

First time I can ever say that a thread about a topic when posted on /x/ was far better than on /lit/. The absolute fucking state of this board. good god.

>>23315459
Buddhism rejects any enduring substance, but not beginningless and endless momentary continuums.

>>23315513
That doesn't make any sense

>>23315413
>>23315513
I just realized Buddhism is the biggest pseud shit

>>23315413
But your conscientiousness is something is it not?
I think therefore I am.
I know I exist and I certainly can't come from nothing.
Kinda weak how Buddhism even fails to refute even basic western philosophy

>>23315413
>Nothing actually arises, so an infinite chain of causation isn't a problem. Read Nagarjuna.
And the buddha proved Nagarjuna wrong.

All the various sects of Buddhism are gay and cringe. If you want what the Buddha talked just read the translations from pali on suttacentral.

If you want the gist of actual Buddhism it's that we exist in a fantastical cosmology of 31 realms of existence ranging from visceral torture, ghost, human, demigod realms etc, and we constantly are born love and die in these realms dependent upon the karma we have amassed. There's no substantial soul that goes through these rebirths but rather we exist like a process sustained by various causes, much like a fire is sustained by fuel air and heat. These rebirths are sustained by a sort of cosmic moral force called kamma and by tanha - which is like thirst or craving or desire. The Buddha says this endless rebirths is basically horrible and shit and our highest aim is to achieve nibbana which is to end the sustaining process. This is what nibbana means - to go "out" in the sense that a flame goes out. It's kind of like a cosmic suicide. You end this craving by doing everything mindfully, practicing meditation (which is very complex and involves many "jhanas" which is like levels of contemplative absorption but also has supernatural elements for "arahants" (such as levitating and past life recall, ability to converse with demigods etc), arahants being essentially Buddha's- awakened ones who will not be reborn. You become awakened by having direct insight into the three marks of existence which are annica, annata, dukkha. Essentially that nothing has a self but is dependently originated, everything is transient and in Flux, and everything is "stress" or ultimately unsatisfactory. The bodily death of an arahant signifies parinibbana (or "Final nibbana"), which is basically functionaly identical to what an atheist materialist thinks happens at death. No more rebirth, lights out, nothing but bodily remains is left.

There's also a billion suttas about monk rules and householders should live because made a monastery order to teach his method and recognized not everyone will become a monk. The laypeople and the monks are mutually dependent on each other. Most modern Buddhists just aim for a good rebirth by making Metta (good kamma) through various deeds, donations etc, whereas the full on monks aim for arahantship/nibbana - an end to rebirth entirely.

>>23310976
>Why do Buddhists deny an all powerful deity
They don't. They just don't think that question helps reduce your suffering
>but regularly pray to devas and Buddha's ?
They're not actually following what the buddha taught
>their thinking borders on pantheism
Where tf did you get that from
>Also why is there something rather than nothing?
Buddhists LITERALLY believe there is nothing rather than something

>>23311151
>the only thing I know about buddhism comes from what I overhear secondhand

>>23315837
I don't know I've asked the question on the Buddhist subreddit and they all told me Buddhism denies god

>>23310976
>Also why is there something rather than nothing?
Buddhists believe there is nothing rather than something. There is no self or world, that's an illusion.
>If the universe is eternal what set it in motion?
This is the worst argument for god's existence and it baffles me how thomists still cling to it when an anglican bishop offered a stronger argument than their bastardized pagan philosophy ever could.

>>23315575
>I think therefore I am.
Buddhism disagrees, and there are plenty of refutations of a self

>>23315575
>conscientiousness
ESL moment

>>23315575
I suggest you read more than just descartes. You might actually realize that many western philosophers critiqued him. Western philosophy is not founded on the cartesian cogito. Descartes, after promising to not trust his mental faculties, proced that he indeed exists by using his mental faculties.

>>23311404
You got filtered before you even took your first proofs class huh.

The whole point of proofs is that you can follow along and figure out if and why they are right. If you disagree, and can actually demonstrate why some long held proof is wrong, you're welcome to show everyone and go collect your Fields medal.

But you won't do that, because you don't understand mathematics, and even if you did draw up an argument "disproving" Euler or someshit it would be laughably wrong.

NASA has nothing to do with you being bad at math, and actually very little to do with the world of pure math in general.

>>23315936
Can you actually post examples of these refutations?

>>23310976
>Why do Buddhists deny an all powerful deity but regularly pray to devas and Buddha's?
Normal Buddhism doesn't pray to devas and Buddhas but try to emulate them and use them as benchmarks about how to live their lives.
When a buddhist chant a sutra he isn't praying but meditating on the words and their meanings.
>Also their thinking borders on pantheism but for some reason they still deny the notion of god.
Nope. One of the hells that people can reach is the realm of gods. Budhism doesn't deny gods but consider them still prisoners of the cycle of suffering.
> If the universe is eternal what set it in motion?
It's not important to Buddhism.
>Why are there so many canons?
Multiple people, during millennia interpreting the words of buddha and creating new ones.
> How is it even possible to follow any of that shit?
Do the first step and try it. See what is true or not by living that life. One of the things that people learn in some sects of buddhism is to actually accept what is true or not by living the religion. After a while you will notice that it makes sense.

>>23315979
The basic idea is that you should be able to freely determine what you claim to be yourself. If your body was your self, then it should be accessible to your will - disease would be an impossibility because you could simply will yourself to not be sick, etc.

Your agency and therefore your responsibility to yourself doesn't even extend as far as your body. That's what Buddhism means by non-self.

>>23315950
You absolute retards. If you know anything about Buddhism is that Buddha never states that nothing exists but that experience is dependant on so many conditions that what we perceive to be something is illusory. But it's still something.
Now how can something ( experience ) exist without nothing?
Buddhism is indifferent to the question of the prime mover and some zen Buddhism schools are pantheistic.
Buddhism is absolutely compatible with the notion of monotheism

>>23316041
Yeah. And it's very practical. People lose sight of it arguing all the metaphysical finer points; the real idea behind Buddhism is not to lose perspective. Since nothing can really be known, it doesn't matter. Most argument only exists to create conflict, the disagreement is the point, since nobody really knows. So there's no point in 99% of the bad things people say. The only point is the bad outcome.
It's just reminding you to let go and shut the fuck up so you can be a better presence in people's lives and create less suffering in your own.

>>23314973
you demonstrated both. good job buddy

>>23314984
no problem enjoy your streetshitter
>>23315072
lmao all those western people are indistinguishable from New Age hippies.
There is nothing in buddhism that opposes Marxism retard.
There is the reason so many buddhist nations went Marxist.
Christianity has historical view of time, that contibuted to western faustian spirit and advancement. Buddhism is for stagnation and getting run over by other powers.

>>23315328
you indirectly alluded to it when you mentioned selfishness fool.

>>23316023
>Your agency and therefore your responsibility to yourself doesn't even extend as far as your body.that perfectly fits with cartesian view.
Buddhists are bad at arguments.

>>23315419
if your are weak willed buddhacuck.

>>23315932
> There is no self or world, that's an illusion
retarded delusion.

>>23316070
>it takes a strong will to be a hedonist
Comical

>>23316067
Okay, I get why you thought that. But selfishness in buddhism doesn't mean something like, uncharitable or ungenerous. It means more like, self-centered, thinking a lot about yourself. This doesn't have to be in a miserly way. You could be a people pleaser for example, always trying to do for others and make them happy; but the subconscious expectation would be to receive something from them or from "God" for doing this, it still comes back to yourself. Or, you could be anxious. This doesn't say anything about your altruism, it just means you think a lot about how others view you and it makes you nervous; you're thinking about yourself.
More like that. Being greedy could be a form of it, but not the only one, and a self centered person could still be altruistic.

>>23316086
hedonists mask their impotency by reveling in worldly matters. they don't embrace the world but just engage with surface level basic materialism.

>>23316104
buddhism is self-centered.
Every ascetic has to be one.
But my point is that I don't see characteristic you attributed to buddhism to the peoples that practice it.

>>23316153
>I just got recruited by a start-up! I'm embroooocing the world!!!
how droll

>>23316166
wtf are you even talking about?

>>23310976
Buddhism is filled with contradictions but when you point it out, unlike christians, they simply shrug it off and say it's irrelevant to achieving nirvana

>>23316221
>>Buddhism is filled with contradictions but when you point it out,
There is no contradiction though.

>>23315979
Is your self compounded or uncompounded? If it's compounded, is it the same as or different from its parts? Is it the composite of the parts? Is that composite the same as or different from its parts?
Any two things which exist inherently would have to be completely identical or completely different. Under analysis, you cannot find any self apart from the dependently arisen imputation "self," but this actually has no basis.
https://www.lotsawahouse.org/tibetan-masters/mipham/four-great-logical-arguments

>>23315979
>>Can you actually post examples of these refutations?

>I think therefore I am.

this is false because consciousness is conditioned. No need for a self to have the arising of consciousness and no need for a self to have the cessation of consciousness

>>23316249
There is tho. We pointed it out multiple times in this thread and pajeets in this thread ignore them each time.

>>23316329
Post (1) one contradiction

>>23316065
>Christianity has historical view of time, that contibuted to western faustian spirit and advancement
Yikes... sounds like "right side of history" bullshit, which always comes from "marxists." I am more than happy to let Christianity take credit for seeding that one. China isn't "marxist" because of Buddhism, you will find more marxists in American universities than all of Asia, because it is the natural position to take as an atheist who cannot believe in God but believes in Christian morality.

>>23316343
>yikes
nice troon speek. Another proof that buddhists are plebbitors of religious.
you don't even know what right side of history means.
all buddhists can do is stagnate and let marxists overtake their countries be it china or vietnam.

>>23316330
there is no soul but you reincarnate.

>>23316352
the arising of birth is conditioned, no need for a soul to have a birth

>>23316250
if there is no self there is no reincarnation.
another prove that buddhists are low IQ morons

>>23316358
retarded word salad.
you can't reincarnate if your self is not reproduced.
Your kind also denies self another contradiction.
Buddhism is most self-refuting religion in existence.

>>23316330
Ok, I posted it before but no one responded.
How can there be an objective moral basis for karma if there is no god.

>>23316350
>let marxists overtake their countries
Christianity is dethroned in all non-African societies, not sure what you are trying to prove about Buddhism or Christianity being more resilient to secular Christianity, you are obviously ignoring the context of anti-colonial revolutions that took place in Asia which were seeded by the efforts of western imperial powers which themselves invented marxism after having been Christian... no matter how you look at this Christianity is the midwife

>>23316372
lmao christianity is dethroned by liberalism, which is secular christianity.
Buddhism is dethroned by every passing ideology.
Westerners tried their best to keep asia outside of marxism but their servile nature was fertile ground for commies.

>>23316372
Secular morality that governs the modern world and that was spread by the forces of liberalism are all based on christian ethics you retard. So your argument of christianity dying leads to nihilism is bullshit. Even tranny and social justice bullshit and marxism is derived from christian ethics, namely positive Christianity movements from the 19th century. Transgenderism as a phenomenon can only make sense from a christian lense since they adhere to mind body dualism. In Buddhism tranny shit makes no sense since it rejects dualism. Therefore you cannot feel you are stuck in the wrong body like trannies like to say

>>23316360
The soul doesn't reincarnate, the mindstream does. There's no super duper secret special sauce that gets shuttled from body to body, only a process that emerges again and again.

>>23316365
Kamma is causal.

>>23316379
lmao in buddhism you literally can reincarnate as a woman faggot.
Buddhism is the most queer positive religion. Thailand is hotbed of transgenderism and is buddhist.

>>23316386
it's irrelevant what reincarnates call it soul or midstream. it's semantics that buddhists love to use when they are exposed. they can't demonstrate any distinction becasue at the end of the day reincarnation is based on self-ness which is denied by buddhists moronically.

>>23316379
>Secular morality that governs the modern world and that was spread by the forces of liberalism are all based on christian ethics
Yeah that's what I said, nice friendly fire buddhanon
>>23316376
There is nothing more servile than the western mercantile culture of treating everyone as a possible customer. You can go to Japan or China right now and watch people be mistreated or denied service for all sorts of reasons that are entirely opaque to you, because you come from a culture where people would sell their own mother if they were allowed.

>>23316387
The United States is a hotbed of trangenderism and is half-Christian fundamentalist and half secular (Christian)

>>23316388
if there is a self, it's unchanging, fixed, and then reincarnation is stupid and whatever is reincarnated is meaningless.

>>23316389
mercantile culture was always present in east asian countires retard. Their population has always was servile because they are conformists just like buddhists.
Japan and china long abbandoned any buddhism it had. Only ritaulistic surface level influence of buddhism is left there.
Japan is neoliberal and china communist.

>>23316387
culture war slop

>>23316393
lmao usa is not even close to thailand faggot.
other asian countries that are not SWA shitsholes already follow western ideology.

>>23316388
>reincarnation is based on self-ness
If you had a permanent and unchanging personal self, how would it acquire different bodies?

>>23316398
I was not the one who started it.
>>23316394
>if there is a self, it's unchanging
no that's retarded and just your proposition.

>>23316400
why would there be unchanging personal self. Self can change that's entire point.

>>23316404
okay, then talk about the self that you found and that is not unchanging
and explain how for other people to find their selves

>>23316388
The self as a convention does not exist. It does not follow from the claim that the sexual drive is non-self (it is not determined by me, it arises on its own, it is indifferent to me and my will) that there's no such thing as the mund

>>23316409
if there is no self, there is no reincarnation.

>>23316406
same thing for you >>23316408

and explain why you call it a self, while you're at it.

>>23316408
>>23316413
consciousness is changing self

>>23316395
How are westoids not conformists? Didn't Christianity systemically torch and burn and root out paganism to ensure compliance with one true church for a thousand years? Nowadays we openly debate what this "church" should be but the destruction of comformity in western cultures is very recent. Westphalia is still conformity. Republican government is still conformity. We have our cultural revolution at the same time as China's.

>>23316406
>Self can change that's entire point
alright, so what is your dispute with the Buddhist denial of a permanent self?

>>23316411
>just keeps blathering
There's no self which is the owner and master of phenomena.

>>23316418
you are looking at surface level historicity.
Christianity says that time is linear and leads to kingdom of god.
there is innate strive for betterment of society.
Buddhism believes in cyclical time, everything repeats so there is no reason to fight against currents unless it's to escape it. this philosophy lead stagnation and subjugation.

>>23316422
buddhists call self delusion. Which I disagree with. If there is self-ness reincarnation is pointless because every incarnation is it's own creature unaffected by previous iteration and makes reaching nirvana impossible carrot.

>>23316386
>Kamma is causal.
Then why did the Buddha say that kamma is inherited like debt and is the reason you are reborn in hell or heavenly realms? If the self doesn't exist, kamma has no influence and is just meaningless.

>>23316423
>calls others blatherers
>blathers himself
typical.

>>23314549
>Since Buddhists believe in no-self
Perhaps wrongly:

“This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’

“As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established,
>or the view I have no self
… or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self … or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self … or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. *This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.*
>[truncation]
“He attends appropriately, This is stress … This is the origination of stress … This is the cessation of stress … This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him:
>self-identification view,
doubt, and grasping at habits & practices. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by seeing."

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html

>>23314734
Theravada doesn't deny life...Mahayana on the other hand...

>>23316428
>there is no reason to fight against currents unless it's to escape it
yeah you should not fight unless you have a reasonable shot at winning, it's called common sense
>this philosophy lead stagnation and subjugation.
Aren't those good things from the Christian apologist perspective? Aren't you anti-progressive, anti-marxist, anti-woke, anti-feminist, anti-technology, etc. Christlarping is no bulwark against its own bile. Come home chud man.

>>23316433
Because actions and intentions presuppose certain states of mind and conditions of being. The kamma you inherit for killing has nothing to do with some Abrahamic debt collector, it means that what had to be true for you to commit murder then is still true now.

>>23316444
lmao you don't know if you have any shot if you don' try but resign.
>Aren't those good things from the Christian apologist perspective?
no it's not. Logical conclusion of christian philosophy is that kingdom of god can be created on earth. For that to be possible life needs progress. Wokists are trying to make everything about base level hedonism and sexuality. Which has always been taboo in christianity.

>>23315459
>Which contradicts the notion that nothing is permanent.
The view "Nothing is permanent" isn't something that I think can be found in an actual sutta. Not the theravada suttas anyway. As for the mahayana ones, I don't think it's found there either.

I think that view is one of those things that people read a view pillars/stances of buddhism and then unskillfully (and wrong) interpolate a conclusion/view. Half-listening and half-reading will always leave you looking like an idiot eventually (at least if you speak authoritatively afterward)

>>23316432
>If there is self-ness reincarnation is pointless
If there is permanent self-ness there is no experiencing of change, no cause and effect, no birth and death, because a permanent thing would not change. However phenomena like the experience of a personal self are not permanent and are therefore subject to cause and effect, to change, etc.
>because every incarnation is it's own creature unaffected by previous iteration
In the absence of permanent selves or entities each "incarnation" arises in dependence on prior actions and events whose retributions must inevitably ripen, like the pull of gravity on a thrown object. If the object were permanent it would be an eternal instance of itself, it could not be thrown or pulled or moved in any way.

>>23316454
So then Buddhism admits that a prime mover is a possibility...

>>23316456
there is no permanent self-ness. Self-ness can change.
> permanent thing would not change
why would it not.
experice of self-ness is permanent. otherwise again, your reincarnation is worthless.
> arises in dependence on prior actions
that's impossible if there is no self.

>>23315960
Joke went over your head buddy.

>>23316453
Woke has its heart in the right place. Christianity was too bigoted to achieve its utopia. Instead of just opposing Roman masters, temple priests, and explicit infidels, you have to oppose your parents and grandparents, your future children and grandchildren, anyone who would or could place a duty on you other than equality must be censured. What you call hedonism and sexuality the secular Christian calls human rights, the right to be the human, the completely leveled person. The churches are left in the silly position of arguing for egalitarianism with arbitrary exclusions

>>23316462
>experice of self-ness is permanent
I guess you've never had good sex, experienced ageing, had a change of heart, daydreamed.... do you remember the womb since you are so eternal?

>>23316470
church's stance on egalitarianism is not human centric. Woke has flipped it around and egalitarianism became human centric and actually not quite egalitarian.

>>23316221
Because Buddhism is filled with definitive statements which can be counted as moral and pro-social and is (generally) devoid of a central position which inspired impassioned defending.

It's like if an active serial killer became a proponent of something pro-social and objectively good. One might say "This person is a bad person. What they do is evil." but, by separating their actions from their worlds one would be able to see what isn't purely evil by regarding them in line with reality.

>>23316477
those are attributes to experience of self-ness.
The holistic personal experience of self-ness is unchanging unless you get ego-death.

>>23316478
>actually i am the real egalitarian
Do you not see how this movement is your child? Why do you deny paternity? Asian "conformity" could be at blame for the exoteric adoption of marxist forms and politburos instead of an imperial court serviced by mandarins, but Christianity has allowed an esoteric marxism for all of its existence

>>23316250
>Any two things which exist inherently would have to be completely identical or completely different.
That's wrong. The kind of wrong it is is this: a false dichotomy. Literally, just consider identical twins or even two person who are both able bodied and have the same number of named body parts. These are identical/similar and different at the same time.

The only way you can gainsay this is to say that people don't actually exist. That's foolish.

>>23316462
>>experice of self-ness is permanent.
again, tell people the procedure to experience self-ness and explain why you call it self-ness

>>23316461
What is a prime mover?

>>23316483
>The holistic personal experience of self-ness is unchanging
It's not. You have an idea you've constructed out of senses and memories that this was me, this is me, this will be me, but that's all it is, an evolving idea alongside all the others. If it is so permanent, where was it 20 years ago?

>>23316490
saying something is something child is retarded argumentation. Because by that logic every movement is christianity secularized, including fascism.
You can't abolish something as vital as sexuality in christianity and still call it it's spawn.

>>23316497
God with a capital g nigga

>>23316494
there is no procedure. they always experience it while they are awake.

>>23316498
> an evolving idea alongside all the others
no it's not an evolving idea.
This is me sensation always remains the same.
What constitutes me is changing but me remains.

>>23316507
when ppl are awake they experience various stuff like cold, headaches, hunger, various sensations which are pleasing, displeasing or neutral.
none of those are tied to a self-ness

>>23316511
those sensations affect you sense of me but they are just attributes they don't change your self-ness.

>>23316515
so nothing changes self-ness

also if there's no procedure to prove there's self-ness, then it's kind of bogus

>>23316534
yes nothing changes feeling of self-ness, but attributes of self can be influnced and morphed.

>>23316504
Very well, then we cannot blame Buddhism and/or Asian "conformity" for "marxism" either

>>23316510
>This is me sensation always remains the same
And the eyes always see, and the ears always hear, so what? Does that mean everything seen and heard is permanent? Are seeing and hearing permanent? Why should a self-sense be privileged as eternally unchanging?

>>23316546
>And the eyes always see, and the ears always hear
you actually prove my point.
Eyes and ears always see but what they see and in what quality changes, but they are still my eyes and ears at the end.

>>23316543
I am not blaming buddhism for marxism, that's retarded. I am blaming them for not opposing them better.

I never understood the bodhicitta/karma aspect of buddhism. The four noble truths can be understood intellectually but karma just feels like one big "trust me bro" thing

>>23316552
>Eyes and ears always see
As long as your very mutable and impermanent body is functioning... i sure hope you've got something to go by here to show us how the "self" is going to transcend this limitation

>>23316554
How should it oppose something it had no natural immunity to? The Christian and ex-Christian countries were able to contain marxism by making it a long-term project of liberalism, feudal states in Asia had little hope of adjusting to this as easily

>>23316566
but that was your own example. It does not conform my notion literally but gist is the same.
Don't act dishonest now.

>>23316560
karma is jsut moving up or down on a building. each floor is a life realm

>>23316570
but it could not even oppose to hinduism that it had great access to.

>>23316505
I think that one appropriately regard Buddhism when they say that the Buddha didn't say "There is no God" and that he acknowledged at least one modality by which one might come to believe themselves or someone else (wrongly) to be God.

I think people often read about how one might be mistake and make the logical leap that all such notions are mistaken.

I feel like the Buddha would say something like "Nigga, did I say that?" to those people.

>>23316515
>those sensations affect you sense of me
That shouldn't though.

>"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.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html

>>23316616
why should not they?

>>23316595
>Don't act dishonest now.
Your source for an eternal self is the Vedas. Drop the mask already, there's nothing else to go by
>>23316603
Buddhism was around in India from like 400BC to 1400, not only did it give Hinduism a run for its money but the two fundamentally influenced one another in lasting ways. You are way out of your depth here

>>23316619
They shouldn't because that's unskillful regard for sensations and unskillful conduct with reference to sensations.

See the sutta linked in the comment you replied to for more explicit/granular information.

See this one as well: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.html

Shit, go ahead and read this one too if you've read the first two: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html

I follow the advice in all three suttas very well and I am well-pleased with the result.

>>23316560
How so? Are you talking about the afterlife aspect of it, or the actual definition of karma a intent which can be kinda confusing?

>>23316620
not really. I have never read vedas.
>Buddhism was around in India from like 400BC to 1400
buddhism only became relevant in india when Ashoka ruled. After that they had slow decline and barely existed when muslims arrived and put final nail in their coffin.

>>23316626
I am not reading all that shit.
Provide your own concise argumentation.
whether one wants or not their self will be affected.

>>23316560
>karma just feels like one big "trust me bro" thing
Every communication that is out of line with what you directly experience or CAN directly experience is a "trust me bro" thing. If you had eyes to see spirits, someone could say "look there" and you could describe what they see and they could describe what you see. But if you lack that then you, lack a blind person having a seeing eye dog, would merely have to trust them to guide you rightly.

On the level, in a sea of people saying "I see. It's like this." who do you find the most credible?

>>23316632
>I am not reading all that shit.
Then suffer.
>Provide your own concise argumentation.
I am going to politely decline: No.
>whether one wants or not their self will be affected.
Incorrect.

>>23316643
ok bro nice non-comment

>>23316644
You asked a question and I answered it exhaustively. It's no skin off my nose if you don't like the way it came. I am already a happy person. You're the dirty bum who doesn't even know his ass from his nose.

>>23316646
but you linked some texts, that's outsourcing you arguments.

>>23316649
He explained his position before linking the texts.

>>23316656
I and responded to that position, which he simply dismissed.

>>23316432
There is as much continuity between lives as there is between childhood and old age

>>23316660
Consider that you didn't. The whole point of following the dhamma is to not be moved by what moves others

File: think.gif (375 KB, 480x480)

375 KB GIF

>>23316627
I was reading the article on Hakuin and this came up
>“Of all the sages and holy monks since the time of the Buddha Krakucchanda, those lacking bodhicitta have all fallen into the realm of the demons.”

Why? When this stuff comes up in christianity it feels normal because it's built from the ground up on morals. When ethics is stressed in buddhism it feels off. Karma is basically a metaphysical principle but it's also a "really deep" one, meaning (I guess) even if you have an awakening & experience no-thought or no-self, you won't really understand karma because it's on an extremely deep level of insight similar to the whole rebirth process, like in the Tibetan book of the dead where you see the souls lining up for reincarnation. And it feels dubious for someone to say this stuff because how would you know about the demons?

I don't want to believe anything unless I can see it for myself, or deduce it on my own. Maybe the truth is Buddhism just requires you to accept a lot of unprovable stuff. Still, if that's so, I wish people wouldn't pitch it as a "scientific" or experiential religion. If karma is just something we have to accept on faith then say so from the start

>>23316669
but you will be moved whether you like it or not.
From you childhood you are already fertile ground for different interpretations.

>>23316668
and self-ness remains the same in the latter and should remain the same in the former.

>>23316674
Not unless you are able to discern for yourself a path towards equanimity and away from reactivity

File: 1708072152101500.jpg (35 KB, 653x490)

35 KB JPG

What do I read and what do I do if I actually want to kill my ego? I don't want to kill myself, but I want to kill my self. Become one with the wind and the earth if only for a moment. Burn the forest down so that new life may arise.

>>23316684
yes that is utopianism talking. the moment you learn the language of your people you have already been infiltrated.

>>23316649
You're implying that if I don't do the legwork in my own comment then it's somehow worthless. Get fucked. I'm not your bondservant. You asked for information and I provided it.

>>23316689
Nyanamoli

>>23316694
nigga you can't just dump encyclopedia and tell me to read them. We are on a forum not defending thesis in academia.

>>23316668
I'm confident that this is mostly correct.

>>23316693
>dude how can conditions lead to the unconditioned?
Because there are conditions which, if cultivated, will prevent further conditions from arising. Or desires which act to deprive desire of its fuel(s). Again you're getting caught on the same sophomoric snags lower case fags like you always do, but your posturing like a cool pragmatic sexhaver makes it really cringe to witness

>>23316673
Arhants can have the knowledge of where people go after death, according to their action

And ''Tibetan book of the dead'' is not part of buddhism


>>23316673
>aybe the truth is Buddhism just requires you to accept a lot of unprovable stuff.
Buddhism requires work. Buddhism is not intellectual like going to university. Buddhism requires to memorize the components of the paths in order to know where you're going and why you're doing them, and then it's 100% practice, and that's very hard.

>>23316699
>Asks a question on a message board
>doesn't want to read

>>23316710
We don't really have reason to believe we know what happens after death.

>>23316708
>Because there are conditions which, if cultivated, will prevent further conditions from arising.
no there are not. Human animal is co-dependent on others and this leads automatic co-influence.
You can't even list those conditions.
Last sentence is some projection disguised as seethe.

>>23316674
>but you will be moved whether you like it or not
Arguing with you is pointless if you remain closed off to earnestly considering any point of view that you do not already hold.

>>23316714
good that was not what I said dishonest brahmin

>>23316689
The suttas linked in these two posts:
>>23316616
>>23316626

>>23316711
or you can formulate your own points
nigger.

>>23316721
that's true for everyone here

>>23316719
I can. Mindfulness. Awareness. Self-remembrance. As you become aware of the nature of phenomena, you stop appropriating them so addictively. It is a paradox: knowledge of the field from which there is no escape qualifies as that escape.

>>23316733
>As you become aware of the nature of phenomena
but that understanding is distilled and filtered through your preconception.

>>23316730
?

>>23316728
The notion that something isn't valuable unless fabricated from scratch at every given moment is just short of insane. Wander on like the retard you are until you stop doing that.

>>23316744
that was not my point dipshit.
Since you have read those sources you could formulate your own point based on them

>>23316673
>When ethics is stressed in buddhism it feels off.
You've got me at a loss here. The eight fold path is almost entirely concerned with ethical action and thought.
>even if you have an awakening & experience no-thought or no-self, you won't really understand karma
No-thought would mean that to act rightly, one wouldn't have to think about it. No thought required. They'd simply act right. The ideal of bodhicitta is for it to be autonomic, not contrived from doctrine one must think about.

>I don't want to believe anything unless I can see it for myself, or deduce it on my own. Maybe the truth is Buddhism just requires you to accept a lot of unprovable stuff.
mf that's almost everything. most shit at some level is unprovable. especially anything that offers any explanation as to why we're here and where we're going.

>If karma is just something we have to accept on faith then say so from the start
It's something you have to accept on faith. I'm not sure I see the issue here.

>>23316736
I am observing the phenomenon, I'm not squeezing it into a system. I can't access it. It's the phenomenon which is a black box. I am bound by phenomena at all sides, thrown into a condition that was decided for me, into a body that was decided by my ancestors and the collective root of humanity, a body rolled down like a snowball through the eons coarsening and coarsening into a sex-obsessed, death-fearing animal who is condemned to take everything he experiences at face value

(You): I am hungry
Me (gigachad): There is hunger in me

Know the difference.

>>23316733
>Self-remembrance
I want to challenge you on the premise that this term is worse (ie conducive to poorer outcomes than) than the term and practice of mindfulness.

Words:

>“Monks, there are these four establishings of mindfulness. Which four?

>“There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. For him, remaining focused on the body in & of itself, the body is comprehended. From the comprehension of the body, the deathless is realized.

>“He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. For him, remaining focused on feelings in & of themselves, feelings are comprehended. From the comprehension of feelings, the deathless is realized.

>“He remains focused on the mind in & of itself—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. For him, remaining focused on the mind in & of itself, the mind is comprehended. From the comprehension of the mind, the deathless is realized.

>“He remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves—ardent, alert, & mindful—subduing greed & distress with reference to the world. For him, remaining focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, mental qualities are comprehended. From the comprehension of mental qualities, the deathless is realized.”

Source: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN47_38.html
A similar sutta but with more descriptions of the practice here: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN10.html

>>23316747
>Since you have read those sources you could formulate your own point based on them
Except I clearly don't want to, retard. More than that, I don't HAVE to. Even more than that, it would serve no purpose because what I linked is already a bear bones description of the facts.

You're basically asking me to rewrite what is already perfect simply because you want me too. Fuck off. I won't do it.

>>23316749
Accepting your world view on faith is irrational. At that point you're no better than any of the other thousands of religions

>>23316752
> thrown into a condition that was decided for me, into a body that was decided by my ancestors and the collective root of humanity
that illustrates my point.
>Me (gigachad): There is hunger in me
hunger is very basic sense there is barely any difference in it's interpretation between men and animals even.

>>23316715
Then be agnostic. Or consider most explanations of the afterlife as symbolic and not literal. Or take them literally and choose the one that seems to make the most sense. Or choose one that makes you feel better.

Shit or get off the pot, my man. It's a hard journey in life if you ain't got a clue where you're goin.

>>23316758
>Except I clearly don't want to, retard. More than that, I don't HAVE to
yeah fuck off then retard.

>>23316765
This isn't your territory. You asked a question and I answered it in a way that you could, if you wanted to, read and come to understand. I'm not a dolphin to jump through your hoops exactly as you bid me.

You're dumb and you're life probably sucks because of it. You ask questions and then you don't listen to the answers so your life probably won't change any time soon as well.

I'll keep earnestly answering questions I'm asked and commenting where appropriate. I'll expect that you will continue being retarded and, for that sole reason, experiencing what you find unlikeable, disagreeable, unpleasant and undesirable.

>>23316772
nice seethe from someone who bids you to read entire texts of bibliography to mask his own ignorance.

>>23316754
Maybe, but for me it has the connotation of vigilance. Guarding the sense gates vs. breath exercises after brunch with Sarah

>>23316761
>that illustrates my point.
My point is it is possible to cross this condition and come out clean on the other side.

File: 1561611927216.jpg (165 KB, 999x769)

165 KB JPG

>>23316763
I am agnostic.

Buddhism falls prey to the same trap as every other religion in the end. Even if it began with a very true and concrete idea (like christianity), the message was distorted by people with low epistemic standards into a thing of just "be nice and good thing happen". In most ways, it's a direct downgrade from the Hindu ascetic experiments with prana and yoga which produced real, undeniable results. Buddhism works like any other ideology where it only feels real because other people believe in it. Soon as a religion loses popularity, the whole thing starts to feel like B.S. which is why it's so hard to be christian now. I don't blame you for wanting this stuff to be true but if you care about the truth, there's other avenues that may actually be fruitful beyond the hard sciences.

>>23316782
>for me it has the connotation of vigilance
That's valid. But, on the other side of the coin, I think I the term self-remembrance has connotations of gaps in attention. I think the goal is to have attention without what can be rightly called gaps.

>>23316801
That's a good point. It also implies active effort and foregrounding which is not the path.

>>23316759
It is a Way Of Seeing The World. There is a level of faith and intuition behind any world view. As far as I know, I don't think anybody has found the objective and absolute truth of our existence yet.

To my mind, the concept of karma seems pretty close to what I've experienced. Good seeds bear good fruit. When I perform actions with the intention of certain outcomes, those outcomes often transpire. Believing this is a general guiding concept of how to universe functions is a leap of faith regardless of how many times I anecdotally observe it.

If I believe that, like my body, my self will be returned to the cosmic slop before washing ashore in an unrecognizable recombination, then it would stand to reason that my actions now would have some effect on the trajectory of said slop.

>>23316812
Did Yantou Quanhuo deserve to die?

>>23310976
the anti-life spirit of Buddhism has always bothered me.

>>23316787
I don't think so. It has not been demonstrated yet.

>>23316815
Didn't know the guy, but I'd say nobody deserves to be murdered.

>>23316620
> not only did it give Hinduism a run for its money
Not really, Buddhism was never followed by the majority of the population even during the height of its popularity, it was only really followed by monks and some city-dwellers. The vast rural populace remained largely Hindu.

>>23316820
Sick of this meme. It's anti-greed, aversion, and delusion.

>>23316826
What is this magical device you have that measures arahantship?

>>23316833
eyes and ears.

>>23316796
>there's other avenues that may actually be fruitful beyond the hard sciences.
You have my attention. Preach, brother.

>>23316796
>In most ways, it's a direct downgrade from the Hindu ascetic experiments with prana and yoga which produced real, undeniable results. Buddhism works like any other ideology where it only feels real because other people believe in it.
Okay that's the usual deceitful behavior by hindus who try to turn the tables.

It turns out buddhism can't be a downgrade from hinduism since hinduism didn't have a precise meditative system even at the time of the buddha it took centuries for the brahmins to create their own and unfortunately flawed understanding of meditation. Also they copied it from buddhism and jainism.
The hindu meditation is flawed since meditation is incompatible with the Hindu dogmas from the earliest vedic texts. It's incompatible because meditation is foreign to Vedism. Meditation can only tacked onto it and it's unorganic to the Vedic tenets.

>>23316833
i thought its aim was annihilation of all life

>>23316829
>Not really
weird how it lives rent-free in all hindu theologians' writings ever since, must have scared them mighty fierce
and lets not forget all the hagiographies, both Buddhist and Hindu, recording that scholars of each side would debate one in matches sponsored by the local nobility
must all be made up

>>23316070
There is infinitely more suffering than joy in the world, and all joy eventually gives way to suffering. No matter how strong willed and life affirming you are, you will get old and die.

>>23316867
> It turns out buddhism can't be a downgrade from hinduism since hinduism didn't have a precise meditative system even at the time of the buddha it took centuries for the brahmins to create their own
A precise meditation system *is* a downgrade from liberation through direct insight/gnosis, since it signals a loss of the ability to be liberated through knowledge. If you can be directly liberated through realization as the Upanishads and some Vajrayana teach then you don’t need to rely on meditation. It’s also more philosophically defensible since there are contradictions in the notion of attaining the Unconditioned through conditioned actions.
>Also they copied it from buddhism and jainism.
False, meditation predates both religions and is found in the early Upanishads
>The hindu meditation is flawed since meditation is incompatible with the Hindu dogmas from the earliest vedic texts.
No, it’s not lol
>It's incompatible because meditation is foreign to Vedism.
This is disproven by the fact that the Vedic Upanishads talk about meditation before Buddha was even born.

>>23316992
> weird how it lives rent-free in all hindu theologians' writings ever since,
You can say the exact same thing about Buddhism since there are a bunch of Buddhists texts that are seething about Hindus and Atmans and consist of Buddhist writing commentaries on commentaries on commentaries on root verses that are seething about Hindu ideas. In fact, this is even more true of Buddhist literature than Hindu literature, so what you said is more like projection desu.

>lets not forget all the hagiographies, both Buddhist and Hindu, recording that scholars of each side would debate one in matches sponsored by the local nobility
Debating someone doesn’t automatically entail “being given a run for your money”

>>23317086
source?
asymmetry fallacy of antinatalist fags.

>>23316942
It's aim is not annihilation of all life.

>>23317248
>seething about Hindu ideas
there's still no atman, no poo ever proved it, they just keep coming out with new definitions of it, and all the literature speaks to there having been intense religious competition in India, with the winners eventually being Islam (just genocide your opponents) and Hinduism (be more politically useful and eloquent than the alternatives)

>>23317296
> there's still no atman, no poo ever proved it
You can say the same about everything in Buddhism like anatta and sunyata etc

>>23317310
>make something up and claim it's not made up
>someone else says you made it up
yeah it's totally an equivalent dogmatic position

>>23317361
Again, one can say anatta, sunyata etc and everything else in Buddhism is a made-up dogma, and there is nothing which any Buddhist can say or do that would show otherwise.

>>23317384
there's no dogma in buddhism because all the supramundane knowledge about suffering can be found by any disciple

>>23317533
>because all the supramundane knowledge about suffering can be found by any disciple
This is itself an unproven religious dogma which has never been demonstrated to be true, and which Buddhists are asked to have religious faith or belief in in a manner that is no different from Christians believing in heaven. It's pure dogma being offered up to backstop other dogmas.

If you genuinely think that accepting that belief (a dogma) means that the other teachings of Buddhism are no longer dogmas, then I have a bridge to sell you.

>>23317572
You're the retard who claims it's unlike the poos and their grotesque rituals and mantras and atman and brahman whose knowledge is only for brahmins kek

>>23316796
>ascetic experiments with prana and yoga
Tibetan Buddhism has all of those

>>23316759
Because the Buddha accurately teaches ultimate reality you can trust his explanation of conventional reality

>>23316689
How do you kill something that never existed?

>>23317586
>whose knowledge is only for brahmins kek
All twice-born (including Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) are traditionally allowed to study the Sruti and not just Brahmins. Brahmins just have a better aptitude for spiritual and intellectual matters.

>>23317384
>anatta
This is just a rejection of atman, itself a dogmatic assertion of the non-Buddhist opponent who offers no proof for it. If it is dogmatic to reject baseless claims presented as truth, then how are you defining dogmatism? Is it just dogmatic to disagree with whoever spoke first?

>>23317704
>This is just a rejection of atman
Buddha himself just rejected Atman theories. But to say that "Atmans don't exist" and "everything doesn't have an Atman" is making a positive statement of dogma.

And 95-99% of Buddhists including traditional Buddhist schools interpret Buddha in the latter sense as positively affirming the made-up dogma that there is no existing Atman.

>>23317086
Lmao no there isn't. Ask any normies he'll tell you he's pretty happy in life. Plus suffering is what gives life meaning. If there was no suffering, you wouldn't be able to discern happiness

>>23317742
"Positively affirming" that "atmans don't exist" IS a rejection of atman, there's no difference. This is lousy pilpul.

>>23317805
>"Positively affirming" that "atmans don't exist" IS a rejection of atman, there's no difference. This is lousy pilpul.
False, there is a difference. Rejecting various Atman theories that people present to you does not amount to an affirmation that Atmans don't exist, it only means that you disagree with the specific instantiations of the idea which you have encountered so far.

Saying "Atman's don't exist" is making a metaphysical claim about reality, whereas saying "I don't agree with that idea" and "I don't agree with that idea either" is not making any metaphysical claim yourself about how reality really is.

The former is not a statement of dogma while the latter is. Of course, we don't have to cite the example of anatta but there are plenty of other unproven dogmas taught by Buddha like his theories about what happens after death, the manner in which post-death rebirth takes place, what sort of factors influence it and so on. And if you interpret his view on Atmans as positively affirming that they are not real then this is of course another made-up dogma.

>>23317828
The rejection of an Atman is a non-affirming negation. It's not "I don't agree," it's "such a thing is impossible"

>>23317844
>it's "such a thing is impossible"
So, Buddha never actually says that. But if he did say that, or if it was what he meant to be implicit, then it's just a made-up dogma.

>>23317828
>>23317864
christ all this effort to obfuscate that you have nothing to prove your claim
it's not a real thing that you have demonstrated, i am allowed to say it isn't so, pedantic vedantist

>>23317885
>christ all this effort to obfuscate that you have nothing to prove your claim
Right back at you! The Buddhist has nothing to prove his claims of anatta, sunyata etc

>>23317897
armchair theologians have really fallen on hard times