Like most religions, Buddhism comes with major contradiction in it's core beliefs that's just kind of invisible to followers. IE that there is no "self" but something is caught in a cycle of reincarnation. Even ignoring that...what's so bad about being trapped in it and getting to experience every agony and ecstacy, live among the greatest and the smallest, be the most noble and most profane of people for all eternity? Is the idea that you're just so afraid of drudgery and torment that could come in future lives that you're just comitting some kind of meta-suicide because you don't think the good is worth the bad? Seems a lil fatalistic if I'm being honest.
>>18711930The punishment of desire is the agony of unfulfillment
>>18711938to be hungry is better than to be fedthe state of desire is always superior to the state of satiation
>>18711930I agree. I don't think Buddhism succesfully demonstrates why reality is irredeemable and must be escaped.Rather than samsara itself being the issue, it seems to me the issue that we've lost the ability to navigate it. The cosmos is defined by the return to the One. Buddhism assumes the conditions of the Kali Yuga in which we're mired in confusion are permanent.
>>18711947You've clearly never been starving if you think that's true lol
>>18711950do I only ever reincarnate as a person who is born after me in Earth time? or in my next life could I be one of Duryodhana's soldiers and get to witness the Kurukshetra war and die when Gatotkochka turns giant and collapsed onto as many soldiers as possible? Cus TBQH as horrific as that would be I would want to experience that and find those terrors and agonies and wonders far superior to nonexistence.
>>18711930These sorts of questions have been posted a bunch of times here.>IE that there is no "self" but something is caught in a cycle of reincarnation. Yes, there is a thing that reincarnates. That thing is not a self. No contradiction at face value. What is that thing? Buddhist philosophers give slightly different answers, but they all agree that thing is not a self.>what's so bad about being trapped in it and getting to experience every agony and ecstacyAll of the bad stuff is what's bad about it! Statistically, most of your time in this world is spent as a starving insect who gets eaten, or as some other dumb animal living a terrible life of deprivation, or a hungry ghost, or some other unfortunate creature. Every now and then you get lucky enough to be a human, and you live the same life over and over again, seeing your parents die over and over again, making and losing wealth over and over again, falling in love with men and women, and watching them die over and over again. Every now and then you commit some horrible sin and fall into hell for countless trillions of years. Etc., etc., etc. This is your life. This is the kind of thing you should want to get out of if there is some better alternative. And Buddhism in fact says that there is such an alternative. If you have not come to believe this and be disillusioned by all this, then the message of Buddhism isn't going to resonate with you.
>>18711930>there is no "self" but something is caught in a cycle of reincarnation'You' are caught in the cycle. The statement that there is no "self" means there is no isolated cartesian subject and that what they call void is an inherent part of being a conscious agent. Compressing these diverse and often very subtle teachings into a single sentence, they like to say "there is no self" and they trust that whoever finds this too confusing will investigate the teachings past one singular sentence. Their mistake.>what's so bad about being trappedThe pointless suffering. Experiencing everything means you go through all the paths and so you necessarily come back where you began. You will have suffered greatly, all in vain and you will have accomplished amazing things, all rendered null. Note that you were the one using the word "every" agony and ecstacy. >you don't think the good is worth the badIf Samsara really is as cyclical as Buddhists believe, the good is borderline illusory whereas the suffering is as real as it gets. But yes, it is pretty fatalistic.
>>18711981>but they all agree that thing is not a self.yeah and Catholci scholars all agree that three and one can be the same number. Religions cause people to jump through truly astounding rhetorical hoops to reconcile contradictions. >All of the bad stuff is what's bad about it! but from a larger perspective all the bad stuff isnt't that bad. I remmeber all sorts of events from my childhood where I was completely distraught and thought the world was ending and I can smile and laugh about them. >most of your time in this world is spent as a starving insect who gets eatenwhether or not that insect has a capacity to suffer (and I think in a real sense a bug in the most abject state of terror and agony it could experience has less sadness than a child who was refused a second glass of chocolate milk) I'll be back again in some form. >as some other dumb animal living a terrible life of deprivationI've seen some pretty injured and sick animals and even in the worst of straights they still have SOMETHING driving them to keep living. >The statement that there is no "self" means there is no isolated cartesian subject and that what they call void is an inherent part of being a conscious agentI think I agree with that? IDK which of Decartes's writings you are referencing here. >You will have suffered greatly, all in vain and you will have accomplished amazing things, all rendered nullthat sounds kinda romantic to me TBQH > the good is borderline illusory whereas the suffering is as real as it getsthat just doesn't make sense
>>18712023>Catholci scholars all agree that three and one can be the same numberThey don't. If you told them three persons is one person they'd laugh you out of the room just as much as Buddhists would laugh you out for "but isn't it the self that reincarnates, curious!". At some point you'll have to seriously face the idea that it's not everyone else everywhere on the planet that's hopelessly dumb, but you. But not today.
>>18712032>They don't.they do argue that. they dress it up but they do argue this. > If you told them three persons is one person they'd laugh you out of the roomyes, people recognize the absurdity of things they believe when they aren't presented as things they believe.
>>18712044No, Catholicism flat out doesn't work if three and one "can be the same number". Read way more or way less religious texts, Anon.
>>18712052it doesn't work no matter what; there's no making a square out of that circle. but yes, the Catholic position is that 3 and 1 can be the same number. They don't say that (because they know saying as much would expose the absurdity of their beliefs) but yes, that is the formulation they go with.
>>18712064Cite.
>>18712074https://www.etymonline.com/word/trinityhttps://www.etymonline.com/word/monotheism
>>18711930>>18711950It only makes sense in orthodox Buddhism since for comparatively very small sins on Earth you get reborn in a Hell Realm and suffer unimaginable, unending torture for thousands of billions of years
>>18712083>not a single mention of 3 and 1 being the same numberI accept your concession, Anon. Really do get that reality check asap. I don't know if you're going through your teenage atheist phase or what, but you're really out of it even for a redditor.
>>18712086wait Christians stole that from Buddhism? >>18712087Okay so do Catholics not use the word "monotheist" to describe their belief system, or do they refrain from using the word "trinity"? I'm sorry I didn't understand you were coming here with a knowledge base of 0.
>>18712032I'm a Trinitarian Protestant and I thought people were exaggerating but when I heard the Catholic idea of the Trinity he isn't kidding, it really is like this. It doesn't make sense to anybody, even Catholics.
>>18712096Why would they? You just proved these words don't say 3 and 1 are the same number. >>18712083 You conceded.
>>18712101My dear, if three and one are the same number then it's not a trinity lol I don't know what you heard but if it's OP, forget it.
>>18712108A doctrine called Divine Simplicity is Catholic dogma. (Orthodox and Protestants don't have it as a dogma but Catholics do). It means God has absolutely no parts whatsoever, God is the most simple thing there could ever possibly be.They also say each member of the Trinity is God and they are not each other. Do you see the issue? Even Catholics do, they just label it a mystery you can't understand. They do that with all of their incomprehensible
>>18712118I do see the issue. You think persons are parts. They aren't.
>>18712087so you come form the "no, you can't think about the individual things I have told you only I can think about them" crowd? Well, IDK why you'd ever even be discussing anything, then.
>>18712124I think anyone reading will see that a response like that is indeed the illustration of what was said in >>18712023 about "jump through truly astounding rhetorical hoops to reconcile contradictions".
>>18711947cool can I have your stuff
>>18712139I come from the understanding text crowd.>>18712151>>you're mixing up two different concepts>that is a truly astounding rhetorical hoop... filtered
