You should probably do this if you're poor.Insatiable desire might end up in insanity. For example wanting to live somewhere else, like east asia, student exchange there or something. . .
>>216049151>when the BZC hits the spot
>>216049030Buddhism and other forms of asceticism are gay and retarded for pussies who can't handle reality it's like drugs for white women
Does consooming make you guys happy?
>>216049582buddhism isn't ascetismbuddha actually meditated with some ascetes for a few years, but then left deciding that this wasn't the way to enlightment
>>216049030How are you a human being if you don't have ambitions? If you don't strive to better your lot in life, wishing for things and doing nothing to try to obtain them is the problem.
>>216049030he was correct tho, Greek philosophy essentially came down to the exactly the same thing (eudaimonia) so if all philosophers from all parts of the world independently made the same conclusion, then it must be just the right way
>>216049634It did when they were still making good stuff to consoom
>>216049030Buddhism and other world rejecting religion is god tier cope for losers. It's counterproductive to talented people who can get what they want and has the potential to achieve great things. It's good if you're impoverished, diseased, or mentally ill.
>>216049691>Daoism wins because video games suck nowBasado
>>216049774Buddhism as the west knows it (Zen, Pure Land) are exoteric religions unlike the vast majority of Buddhism. They run on the assumption that bodhisattvas/gurus are the only ones who can instruct in enlightenment, there's a concept called dharma transmission that validates whether or not someone achieves this status and this strain of Buddhism also has a lineage of patriarchs. It's less about rejecting the world and more like if you turned Trotskyism into a religion, basically they see most people as little more than scenery to arrange, the less people involved with planning out the mass enlightenment the better. If this is a world rejecting religion then so is Calvinism.
>>216049654I can't become rich over a night, unless i go wasting my youth in some 9-5
>>216049634Eating? Yeah?
>>216049774>Buddhism and other world rejecting religion is god tier cope for losers.Let's not act like this doesn't include christianity.>It's good if you're impoverished, diseased, or mentally ill.This describes basically all the initial followers of christianity, and all the places of the world where its most fervent believers live today.
>>216049668It's simple logic, human nature always wants more so the only way to have enough is to stop wishing for more
>>216049644For today's standards, Buddhism is in fact asceticism.Just because Buddha spent some time with extreme ascetics that would do things like starving themselves for a month and worse, it doesn't mean that his less extreme approach isn't ascetic too.If you disagree, first look up how Buddhist monks actually live and the hundreds of restrictions they have to live under.
>>216050436>look up how Buddhist monks actually live and the hundreds of restrictions they have to live underbuddhism has different rules for monks and different rules for secular peopleof course monks live a more restrictive life, but being a buddhist does not necessitate ascetism
>>216050282I didn't express myself well enough. When I called Buddhism a cope for losers I meant it as a praise. It's inevitable that there certain people will face extreme suffering and despair in their lives. An optimistic macho sentiment of self-reliance can help some people to improve their lives and lift them out of difficult places but let's not kid ourselves by saying that works for everyone. The people who are suffering and have no means of saving themselves through material means deserve a cope and religions are very good cope for this. Christian idea of forgiveness for example may offend your sensibilities if you're powerful and have the means for vengeance but if you find yourself wronged by a force which you have no chance of winning against, it's a good cope to at least give yourself some comfort and save yourself from despair. You probably think of yourself as powerful and will be offended by my fatalism and if you're indeed powerful then I agree that you have no need of a power-rejecting religion. I am not telling you to follow these religions, I am saying that it is good for certain type of people.
>>216050593I know that the rules for lay people are much more lax, and they're just expected to practice the Five Precepts and support the monks.Why do you think that is? Because to actually practice Buddhism the way Buddha did it is such an extreme form of asceticism that it is a completely dysfunctional way to live.Without a large population of lay people supporting the people who actually practice it, the monks, it would simply have not survived this long.>>216050799It would have never occurred to me that anyone would say something like "cope for losers" as a praise. Thank you for the clarification.I understand the point of these religions and the context in which the advice they give was made. If you are hopelessly weak, it is intelligent to not fight back against abuse, since your only chance of survival is to be as pathetic as possible to make people feel bad about abusing you. Women, widows, beggars, cripples and slaves could benefit from this advice and those were historically the initial followers of Christianity.The problem is that these religions are more often than not used to subdue and enslave people that are very much capable of helping themselves.They keep people trapped in a cycle of hopelessness and are used as an excuse to be cowardly or lazy and avoid taking responsibility for your situation.Christianity is very notorious for it and thus rightly despised by many people.I believe that the amount of people who are entrapped by these religions that could actually help themselves out of a bad situation is far greater than the people whose situation is truly hopeless, and thus I consider them a net negative.
>look i posted your favorite thing as a soyjak lmao
>>216051032Ehh that sounds more like a modern western or abundant country thing. I doubt Christian countries like philippines or nigeria have a lot of patience for entitled poor people. My experience is that people are greedy and even devout people who revolve their lives around religion are eager to modify their beliefs or engage in doublethink to benefit themselves.
>>216051032Christian monks had to be self-sufficient, it's not the same thing as Buddhist mendicancy where they're not allowed to provide food for themselves and are required to beg. Christianity was more technocratic in that they taught people how to farm, but made them reliant on astrologers to predict weather for them. It's part of the reason why Catholicism isn't a revealed religion, if the public ever thought that their astronomy rituals had no use outside of navigation and they could just use moon cycles then the artificial moon that is monetary systems and artificial time cycles would have never came to be. Think about it? Why would any farmer agree to have grain taxed if not for predicting some future disaster.
>>216051187
