>Buddhism: The Ultimate Mindfuck>No self? Then who the fuck is suffering?>Everything's impermanent, except conveniently, nirvana. Sounds like bullshit.>Rebirth without a soul? Yeah, and I've got a bridge to sell you.>Compassion for all beings? In this dogeat-dog world? Grow up.>Detachment is just a fancy word for not giving a shit.>Karma? Great way to blame the victim and justify inequality.>Free will is an illusion, but you're still responsible. Make it make sense.>Desire causes suffering, so desire not to desire. Galaxy brain time.>Everyone has Buddha nature, but you still suck and need to practice. Logic!>Reality is empty, but your Netflix queue is full. Checkmate, Buddha.>Meditation: Sit on your ass and call it enlightenment.>Middle way? More like middle finger to actually solving problems.>Non-violence is great until someone's kicking your ass.>Mindfulness: Pay $500 for a retreat to learn how to breathe. Genius.>Four Noble Truths? More like Four Noble Excuses to opt out of life.>Enlightenment: The ultimate participation trophy. Everyone can get it!>Dependent origination: Everything's connected, man. *Hits blunt*>Buddhism: Making people feel deep while avoiding real-world issues since 5th century BCE.
>No self? Then who the fuck is suffering?Exactly.
>>23615078I can get behind just about any form of monastic asceticism, seems like an ideal life if you can swing it. The issues and contradictions you raise don’t bother me much, similar contradictions or seeming contradictions exist in just about every faith tradition. The problem, of course, is that the Buddhist practitioners I’ve met have universally been self-righteous and arrogant about being Buddhist while being poor practitioners of it. This applies as much to the cradle Buddhists as to “converts.” Honest Christians at least have the failure to be Christlike baked-in to the belief system, and Christian practice is (for most denominations) not sufficient for salvation. I’m sure there are sincere practitioners of Buddhism out there, probably located where monastic institutions still have cultural sway.
Complete Reality Taoism >>> Buddhism
>>23616491Agreed. NPC's need uniforms to wear and mantras to repeat.
>>23615078Based. Christ is Kang!
>>23616674Christ is King. Spell it correctly next time, thank you.
>>23616761>bro he like walked on water!>he was crucified like thousands before him, but his grave was empty so that means he rose from the dead bro! confirmed by hallucinations from his followers! b-based kang!!!>magic is real!
>Everything is nothing there isn't even a thing to be blah blah blahDude, the Greeks literally got over this shit 2000 years ago can we move on
>>23616804>We must contemplate the ideal form of essential chairness of which all chairs partake blah blah blahDude, the Indians literally got over this 2000 years ago can we move on
>>23617027I was referring to Aristotle anon not Plato
>>23615078I'll give you a hint, OP: Enlightenment is when you realize there is no enlightenment. The whole point of Buddhism is that Buddhism is bullshit. Move on with your life instead of seeking the "answers"
>>23615414>no self means no independently arising, simple, substantial selfCan you faggots actually read Nagarjuna
>>23617153"Kill the Buddha" is a reference to the story of Angulimala, he attempted to kill the Buddha, but ended up following him and becoming an Arhats. "Kill your father" is a reference to King Ajatashatru, who overthrew his father and later become a devoted patron of the Buddha out of guilt.
>>23615078>drank the 'anatta means no soul' Kool-Aid
>>23616491No>>23616497Taoism is even more ceremonial at this point
when we have AGI i'm going to follow whatever religion it comes up with
>>23617083Aristotle was the ultra hylic.
>empathy for animals is “misguided”Did a chink make this?
>>23615078Does anyone else see how seemingly opposing metaphysics, contemporary buddhism and advaita vedanta, reach the same conclusion ultimately? This is something I've been thinking about, perhaps True Self and No Self are not so different after all. And the logic to it is quite simple>objects are self-evident, objects as in "thingness", as in existence, as in observed, as in phenomena, as in the experienced>objects do not have a stand-alone existence though, it begs the question, an object of what?>objects are objects of a Subject, ie the Self, there is no perception without a perceiver, observed without an observer, known without a knower>yet, if objectivity is practically synonymous with existence, with "thingness", the Subject, ie the Self, doesn't exist, is not a thing, is not phenomenal, observable, empirical>thus, the logical conclusion is there is a Subject, because objects are objects of a Subject, but this Subject doesn't exist, isn't a thingThis conclusion reminds me of the saying, the dao that can be spoken of is not the dao. I wonder if saying there is no Self is the same as saying there is a True Self which is no-thing, or whether accepting the fact there is a Self, and it doesn't exist, is more reflective of the true nature of reality, even though it's paradoxical.
>>23617741
>>23615078>has a strong but misguided empathy for animalskys humanist cuck.
>>23617745new death grips video lookin good
>>23617741buddhism rejects everything made up by brahmins, including advaita vedanta
>>23615078filtered
>>23618514There is nothing to get filtered by, filtering also requires a self.
>>23618541>accepts that 3d vision is a projection of two 2d eyes, and that a 3d eye doesn't exist>cannot fathom a "self" being an illusion of disparate and synchronous parts
>>23618548>a self does exist but it doesn't existKeep coping retard.
>>23618557filtered
>>23618565Common response when trying to defend incomprehensible garbage, which is why bible believers use this term when they run out of cope.
>>23618143>buddhism rejects everything made up by brahminsWrong!>rebirthfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>karmafirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>liberation from rebirthfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>all conditioned things are unsatisfactoryfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>everything besides the Absolute/Unconditioned is temporaryfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>liberation occurs through correcting or overcoming aviydafirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>part of the spiritual quest is removing the false identification with things that are not one's selffirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>monasticism is important in the quest for liberation (at least on the direct and not indirect path)first in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>Vedic rituals don't produce liberation but only gnosis/spiritual realization doesfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>non-violence, truth-telling, austerityfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Buddha>plurality is illusoryfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Mahayana writings>consciousness is self-luminousfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Mahayana writings>prana, subtle bodies and nadirsfirst in the Upanishads, and then later Hindu tantric writings and then finally Buddhist tantric writings
>>23617153literally the only based response in any philosophical discussion on this entire fucking board
>>23617153>>23619186Not at all true. I won't say any more.
>>23615078Buddhism is literally "you own nothing and you'll be happy" but 5th century BC.
>>23620247>Christ is Kang!!
>>23615078>Mindfulness: Pay $500 for a retreat to learn how to breathe. Genius.Any legitimate Buddhist monastery will happily let you come visit and live with the monks for a week or two. You will be given food and place to sleep and at no point will you be expected nor asked to pay for anything. You may be asked to spend an hour or two a day doing chores but that's about it.
>>23615078? Buddhism is for people who absolutely hate mortal life, who want to escape this universe and never reincarnate again. As a method for that it's actually super practical, but that is literally all it is. There is no deeper meaning.That's my take, anyway
>>23618762>>consciousness is self-luminousfirst in the Upanishads, then later taught by Mahayana writingsThe self-luminous mind started in the abidharma and the Mahāsāṃghika and then Gaudapspa copy their homrwork and the concept arrived in the advaita tradition
>>23617195How do I read him? Keep in mind I'm an uncultured retard.
>>23620285Low quality trash troll posts like this would be deleted if /lit/ mods weren't jewish tranny child rapists.
https://youtu.be/HKuAmp0kbeU?si=wzY5wClNJQC-201g
>>23620875Watch some youtube vids or read https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/madhyamaka/ then read Jay Garfield or Jan Westerhoff
>>23618762Thank you, Ranjeet, for your insightful non self-aggrandizing post.
>>23620952Low quality trash troll threads deserve such posts
>>23615078True old school Vedanta is the more coherent philosophy. It at least posits the persistence of the Atman (the individual perceiving subject "I") which situates the phenomenal world and is its center.
>>23617452>Nooo it's all a metaphor>Soijack face irl>>23617508Truly sad...
>>23620994>Jay GarfieldIs he legit? I heard some dudes saying he was a hack.
>>23621510Nah he was trainned by tibetan madhyamaka masters What makes his books a must read is his knowledge of continental western philosophy,that makes him eally aproachable for a western audience, Westerhof has a background in analitical philosophy, so if you like Wittgenstein he's a great read
>>23615078What's this got to do with literature?
Pretty sure Taoism wrecks buddhism easily.It's just Simple.Life is Simple.Ockham's razor.There's the Tao and that's it.No one to worship.>Nothing which has a name is TaoNo need to over complicate.
>>23621637I tried reading the dao de jing and it read like a bunch of fortune cookies stapled together.
>>23618557Does a shadow exist?Then why can you see it?Literally baseline anon, start with the Greeks you seething midwit. Filtered.
>>23621637toaism is just a mental masturbation
>>23621783It was made by a man who kept getting pestered by suffering chuds and wanted to stop answering dumb questions, so he wrote it not to make a daoist script but to explain his method which would become daoism, in a daoist fashion. It's not meant to be penetrated or picked apart, it's meant to be taken in a daoist fashion.
>>23621797The opposite.
>>23621783That's the full extend of the chink spirituality lol
>>23621800It's the antithesis to confuscianism which is mental masturbation made by aristocrats to present as enlightened and sophisticated. An invented hirrarchy for the hierarchically minded. As inevitable as flies on shit.
This place is so dumb.
>>23621804double filtered. U outta stick to crayons and coloring books mmmkay
>>23621848Don't be so hard on yourself.
>>23621849I never liked crayons...Just don't have the palate for them, I suppose.
>>23621637Taoism and buddhism are extremely similar I'd say meditating upon the tao is how one enters nirvana
>>23615078You may have misunderstood some parts.The experienced "self" is a collection of constantly changing experiences and perceptions, and thus "not real"When we cling to this changing "self", we are dragged into the cycle of death and rebirth. It's not literal reincarnation. Karma plays into this, as the dynamic interplay of causes and conditions, continually shaping and reshaping experience.This means karma isn't about victim-blaming either, but understanding that actions have consequences. It's a way to encourage responsibility and ethical living. Using it to justify suffering is a misuse.Compassion is entirely practical, and fosters more sustainable and harmonious communitiesDetachment isn't about not caring; it's about not clinging. It's the difference between loving someone freely and being obsessed with controlling them.As for the rest of your comments, Buddhism offers tools for understanding and alleviating suffering. It’s not about avoiding life but engaging with it more mindfully and compassionately.
what did (You) mean by this
>>23622428right I get the whole 'self' is just the aggreagtes of consciousness and everything is relative and thus can become really surreal and easily get subvertedbut when one asks 'why is nirvana eternal' as in the state of someone who has left samsara and is now taking refuge in nirvana, the reason its eternal is because 'theres no one to cling to samsara' ie this 'aggregate of consciousness' no longer existsbut why does this aggregate no longer being deluded mean someone will forever metaphysically be in a sort of 'meditative stillness' that he will never break? under what pretense? Buddhism has had this issue a lot over the fact that a Buddha, when born, leaves with paranibbana and can never teach again, unless he 'stays between samsara and nibbana' or something somethingwouldnt an immportal Buddha-Emperor be really good because if he still achieved nibbana he could teach the universe until everyone is enlightened? but somehow he only has about a 60 year ish opportunity to teach and then boom no one can ever contact him again
>>23623276nirvana is when the aggregates don't pop-up again due to lack of cravings for them, thanks to insights into their un-suitability for happiness.it's like a computer going into reboot all the time. Once you plug off the cord, then there's no electricity and no rebooting. Craving is the fuel for births, and when there's no craving anymore, there's no birth.
>>23623276>but why does this aggregate no longer being deluded mean someone will forever metaphysically be in a sort of 'meditative stillness' that he will never break?also the buddha never said nirvana=meditative statethe dogma mediation=nirvana is from the brahmins in their hinduism and mahayana, because brahmins never understand meditation. Brahmins call this ''the luminous mind'' and it's wrong view.
>>23623308right in an alchemical sense this makes sense but what about Soteriological I get that 'overburdening with the topic' is considered a taboo in buddhism, but the implications of Nirvana start to seem like some novel horror if taken at face value, where a person effectively never again does anything ever again nor experiences anything ever again nor can talk to anyone ever again. Like, wouldnt it be easy to just say 'after nirvana when you are no longer constrained by anything your reality becomes hyper transient but without any delusion thus you dont end up trapped in a samsaric world or confusion' rather than separating 'any existence' into 'samsara' thus making nirvana effectively 'negating everything forever'which also leads to a mild oddity in regards to what makes the enlightenment eternal, ie the only reason enlightenment is eternal is because theres 'no karma to make the mistake again and a person in that state will never accept said karma thus never making such a mistake again' but obviously this has logical reductions that make it seem absurd ie what if someone who has reached nirvana decides to mess around for the hell of it (would that be stated as 'not true nirvana'?)
>>23615078Yeah. I realized Buddhism was retarded when I was an undergraduate. It’s basically empiricism for Indians and new agers. > how do you know empiricism is right?> it just is ok
> Buddhist: This lived experience is by nature illusory > non-Buddhist: If it’s by nature illusory, isn’t your realizing that it’s illusory also by nature illusory?> Buddhist: No! Shut up! That’s different because it is!Buddhism is hilarious actually.
>>23623322>horror if taken at face value, where a person effectively never again does anything ever again nor experiences anything ever again nor can talk to anyone ever again.well yeah when the aggregates don't rise then there's no feelings, no sensations, no consciousnessThis mandatory for un-conditonned happiness because the aggregates are inherently faulty.Even a buddha cannot turn the aggregates into something which lasts forever and into something which is 100% under his control to make them fit for happiness for ever.>>23623322>Like, wouldnt it be easy to just say 'after nirvana when you are no longer constrained by anything your reality becomes hyper transient but without any delusion thus you dont end up trapped in a samsaric world or confusion' rather than separating 'any existence' into 'samsara' thus making nirvana effectively 'negating everything forever'that's just eternalism, the dream of literally everybody: going to some eternally peaceful heaven while still living in the universe like nothing happened>>23623322>mistake again' but obviously this has logical reductions that make it seem absurd ie what if someone who has reached nirvana decides to mess around for the hell of it (would that be stated as 'not true nirvana'?)that's impossible because delusion and hatred and envy are removed permanently already at nibanna, no need to wait for parinabnna for this.The mind of an arhat is just being mindfull 24/7 and going into jhanas
>>23623315>also the buddha never said nirvana=meditative stateim not referring to that specifically (as in state) but rather the practice. Im implying that the discourse around what nirvana 'is' makes it seem like just a person who is forever no longer doing anything that can cause karma by the negation of his flaws, rather than an 'attainment' of skill. in other words, nirvana seems like a weird 'dont think about samsara and it cant do anything to you' for all eternity. just as say vipsana meditation is 'trying to let things go and not getting attached' so too would nirvana either be 'that as well' or being in a 'state of negation so intense that such a problem would never arise'both of which are a bit absurd, as the quality of nirvanas blissfulness and liberation is often posited as 'once you reach it you basically wont need anything else' rather than, what would in a more artistic sense be stated as 'absolute creative freedom and infinity' that no longer has delusions over the nature of events and the so-called 'past of the explored infinite', right? like yeah from an 'avoiding suffering' aspect it makes sense as a 'solution' but not from the 'perfect eternal bliss' aspect. theres many other spiritual (often esoteric) systems which effectively describe enlightenment as liberation from circumstantial, assumption and thus freedom from delusion rather than a single 'perfect state' that solves all woes and is thus the goal, which IMO feels like is the byproduct of either poor argumentation, an incomplete picture or just a sort of pedestal that meditation as a concept was placed upon, preventing the religion from having a more satisfying conclusion and explanation (rather than Buddhas 'dont bother' mentality)
>>23623342that is if you because you posit consciousness and karma as the only 'principle' and thus liberation as just 'negate that so you negate all possibilities of karma and consciousness thus no suffering but for some reason also happy but only just well enough'. Effectively polarizing things between 'permanent and impermanent' is missing a field in which these are not distinct. The reason this is important, is because the 'joy of nirvana' in Buddhism is very obviously limited and circumstantial by the nature of 'how blissful it is' ie a hypothetically more 'blissful' bliss is always possible in nirvana, but such a 'desire' is ontologically equated with craving effectively saying 'you want things to be better? too bad thats samsara' with nirvana effectively being 'not recognizing that things could be better or, in other words the assumption that some sort of 'contentment' is enough to metaphysically save you from the vastness of existencetheres plenty of spiritual systems where ones 'evolution' is not a state of consciousness but rather the evolution of ones capacity to 'affect' consciousness that is not just a byproduct of it. In buddhism, if Gautama buddha accidentally slipped on a bannana peel and hit his head after attaining Nirvana and survived but suffered a change of personality, everything he had effectively done since the begging of time could have been reset but preferential treatment is given to that point because the contents of buddhas skill is equated with negation rather than a positive quality. in essence, evolution is denied under the pretenses that everything follows a singular model with principles of basic algebra of addition and subtraction and zerosumming when the invention and acceleration of modern technology has clearly shown that equilibrium as a principle of energy does not necessitate a simplistic organization of the universe as a Buddhist view would implies.
>>23623352>both of which are a bit absurd, as the quality of nirvanas blissfulness and liberation is often posited as 'once you reach it you basically wont need anything elseno need for anything for unconditioned happiness. there's still need for hygiene and food to maintain the body that's literally all, which is why the buddha still begs for food while he decided to maintain the sangha.>>23623352>as 'absolute creative freedom and infinity' that no longer has delusions over the nature of events and the so-called 'past of the explored infinite', rightcreative freedom seems a fantasy of the western women like '' seeing the world thru the eyes of a child again'' they love to put kids on pedestal lol) nirvana is blissful because there's no pick up of any burden and while they are still alive, the rapture of the jhanas are supposed to be reachable way more easily for liberated dudes, so there's no downside.
>>23622428If "the only things that can in any way shape or form be true is hyper impermanence" then no rationale would follows that "freedom from suffering" would be avoiding everything until you are effectively isolated from all currents. For a Buddhist liberation to be possible, there would have to be metaphysical and thus spiritual implications that would allow for something akin to Nirvana to be achieved to be 'done' but that would turn on its head the Buddhist rationale that the only 'thing/nothing/infinity and possibility' is just Karma and more Karma.The oversimplification of everything, including ones own question of "how is it that I do the right thing and why would it even work" into Karma and "it doesnt matter, nothing makes sense so just ignore it" eventually bogs down to the same leap of faith Abrahamists posePlatonist and NeoPlatonist views make much more sense in this regard as they still imply that good allows for knowledge.
>>23623383>>theres plenty of spiritual systems where ones 'evolution' is not a state of consciousness but rather the evolution of ones capacity to 'affect' consciousness that is not just a byproduct of it.doesn't matter, irrespective how their delusions are passed as insights, there reality doesn't change :consciousness is still conditioned, so still not self and this makes it still suffering
>>23615078What about Buddhism terrifies YHWHcucks so much?
>>23623386that still doesnt explain the metaphysical specialness placed upon nirvana and its arbitrary distinction with samsara>creative freedom seems a fantasy of the western women like '' seeing the world thru the eyes of a child again'' they love to put kids on pedestal lol)thats not a buddhist view and is directly contradicted by the monastics.and that still just posits nirvana is inferior but safe, ie that the topic isnt the blissfulness but rather an eternal safety of a tiny fragment of happiness.
>>23623405what's true is the 4 noble truths, that's already a lot.>>23623405>For a Buddhist liberation to be possible, there would have to be metaphysical and thus spiritual implications that would allow for something akin to Nirvana to be achieved to be 'done' but that would turn on its head the Buddhist rationale that the only 'thing/nothing/infinity and possibility' is just Karma and more Karma.>The oversimplification of everything, including ones own question of "how is it that I do the right thing and why would it even work" into Karma and "it doesnt matter, nothing makes sense so just ignore it" eventually bogs down to the same leap of faith Abrahamists pose>Platonist and NeoPlatonist views make much more sense in this regard as they still imply that good allows for knowledge.all that stuff is mental masturbation.What exists is the sequence of births, when this sequence is broken, there's no longer birth. That's the entire story of what happens for enlightened people. There no need to complicate things.When a car runs out of fuel , you say "'the car ran out of fuel and so it no longer goes forward'' , you don't go into theist or atheist metaphysics to explain what happened.
>>23623406>doesn't matter, irrespective how their delusions are passed as insights, there reality doesn't change :consciousness is still conditioned, so still not self and this makes it still sufferingthat doesnt answer everything, the universe keeps on rolling even if youre not conscious of it. Thus why would consciousness be the only system when clearly things happen even without consciousness, and better knowledge allows better understanding even of things one is not conscious of. Also you shouldnt ignore the context of the rest of the paragraph. A principle spiritual evolution system does not have to be reduced to atomization of arbitrarily put between the 'rock and a hard place' of 'its either eternalism or its karma'why should I give Buddhism the leeway of 'everything is karma' over say Hinduisms or Jainisms slightly different but still Karmic views?
>>23623440The jains and hindus never showed the atman they keep talking about. >>23623440>Thus why would consciousness be the only system when clearly things happen even without consciousness,consciousness lies at the sensory experience. For the material stuff, it's composed of the ''5 elements'' and they are still conditioned. the cosmos is just a bunch of realms which get contracted and expanded over and over.
>>23623433>all that stuff is mental masturbation.how can you be so sure when everything is consciousness yet youre not conscious of your own birth?>That's the entire story of what happens for enlightened people. what have they displayed that makes them enlightened besides reframing things? All they did was reframe everything under atomism first and posit that 'this is enough to prove that the only thing that exists is atomism'. >When a car runs out of fuel , you say "'the car ran out of fuel and so it no longer goes forward'' things dont primordially need fuel though. The assumption is that buddha 'ceased and is nirvana' because he isnt here, when your great great grandpa also isnt here to answer you. why give the buddha any weight here? all he did is posit that the entirety of the universes problems are solved by 'not grasping' but never actually showed anything that would affect that. supposedly he was happy but so were other people. supposedly he was never heard from again but neither was shankara. supposedly he can explain it all without symbols but rather literally yet there is nothing that he stated that solves this in general this idea of solving 'rebirths' by solving 'karma' is pretty arbitrary since no one there is actually conscious or aware of what being born is like, so how do they even know what they're stopping? unless you imply some kind of primordial knowledge that everyone possess in which case wouldnt that disprove karma as the sole principle?
>>23623459>things dont primordially need fuel though.births do>>23623459>all he did is posit that the entirety of the universes problems are solved by 'not grasping' but never actually showed anything that would affect that. supposedly he was happy but so were other people. supposedly he was never heard from again but neither was shankara. supposedly he can explain it all without symbols but rather literally yet there is nothing that he stated that solves thisthe buddha doesn't posit, that's the whole point, he just discovered how ''things really are'' like plenty of people before him.>>23623459>there is nothing that he stated that solves thissolve what? he solved suffering and he teaches the solution, that's literally all he does>>23623459>>in general this idea of solving 'rebirths' by solving 'karma'you can't solve karma, that's the point of the buddha. Solving karma would mean finding a way to still have rebirths and aggregates but not subject to decay, ie making the, the atman and fit for happiness and never going to hell ever no matter what is done with those aggregates.>>23623459>so how do they even know what they're stopping?well that's the supramundane knowledge. it's literally the meme ''if you know you know'' lol>My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
>>23623458>The jains and hindus never showed the atman they keep talking about.its the same thing in the practical sense of buddhismatman>become free from samsara but its because it has a 'permanent nature by recognizing how temporary reality is a farce to a single ultimate principle'nirvana>become free from samsara but its because it has a 'nature that recognizes everything is impermanent besides this one principle that everything is impermanent'both suck and are effectively the same thing, there is no 'evolution' in either of them, only a milestone akin to 'heaven' in Abrahamism (except this one is 'earned')all of them contradict the principle of infinity yet they all posit infinity as the basis
>>23623489>principle of infinitywhat's this? seems like a mental constitution of some rationalist who deluded himself his little thoughts are universaland there's no posit of anything in buddhismand why do you want evolution at all price. The buddhist evolution is going through the stage of enlightenment, that's already a lot.
>>23623496>constitutionconstruction
>>23623485>births dobased on what? if fuel can be 'created' why doesnt someone just create an 'infinite fuel station' that creates fuel for a quntillionplex rebirths at once and crash the samsara market? it has requirements? then why is it eternally ambiguous and thus treated as unknowable>the buddha doesn't posit, that's the whole point, he just discovered how ''things really are'' like plenty of people before him.this is because buddhism says 'buddhas are rare which is why Im the first one to say this' but gives no reasoning as to why, if this was true, samsara would not be more 'solvable' compared to having 1 buddha once in 10 billion people. I could say that about anything new I come up with, such as Ozzy Osbourne. Everything he says is a reframing device but doesnt posit how these reframings are 'true' ie how is nirvana the solution to the rebirths and why is all idea of rebirth posited as samsara, its taken 'as is' sort of like the Devil to a Christian.>you can't solve karma, that's the point of the buddha. Solving karma would mean finding a way to still have rebirths and aggregates but not subject to decay, ie making the, the atman and fit for happiness and never going to hell ever no matter what is done with those aggregates.that is what nirvana is positing, dont mince words.>well that's the supramundane knowledge. it's literally the meme ''if you know you know'' lolsame thing with christians. there is no relation between the practice (which was mind you invented by the eternalist hindus, not the buddhists) and the theory (if you meditate you will eventaully reach a state in which you will realize everything is blurry materalism which will free you from all reality and plant you in a secret non-describable state where you will do nothing and you will be happy.
>>23623496>what's this? seems like a mental constitution of some rationalist who deluded himself his little thoughts are universal?????take a breather nigga>and why do you want evolution at all price.evolution being the intrinsic mechanism would explain the relationship between possibility and activity without while also explaining all the facts of liberation from ignorance. Esoteric traditions deal with this topic, Buddhism specifically does not. Buddhism handwaves this by saying 'everything, including all principles is configurations and their illusions except this one secret configuration that is effectively non reactive with anything else like water to oil' and both statements are nonsensical>The buddhist evolution is going through the stage of enlightenment, that's already a lot.enlightenment in buddhism would be realizing that everything is impermanent and somehow making this realization permanent by using it to negate itself. in other words the idea that this is evolution is contradicted by buddhism itself, in this very paragraph.
>>23623517>>based on what?based on reality, cravings is the fuel for the sequence of birthsthe infinite fuel station is already happening, it's desire, ignorance hatred and envy>>23623517>Everything he says is a reframing device but doesnt posit how these reframings are 'true'he reframes wrong views of eternalism and nihilism, just by exposing dependent origination>>23623517>that is what nirvana is positing, dont mince words.nirvana doesn't posit anything, nirvana is the end of rebirths.you really should speak better and be more rigorous>>23623533>>enlightenment in buddhism would be realizing that everything is impermanentwhat is impermanent is all the fabrications. The goal of the buddhists is to find a safe harbor, where whatever happens there won't be suffering, they find it and that's the end of the story.>>23623533>evolutionyou throw the word evolution. Evolution of what? You don't even explain what you want. the proper use of the word is ''something evolves into something''. Just be more rigorous.>>23623533>Esoteric traditions deal with this topic,esoteric traditions don't explain how ignorance shows up form their alleged heaven, or if they do it's a ridiculous story to make their dogma of their heaven and gods compatible with the universal observation by everybody alive that suffering exists.>>23623517>same thing with christians. there is no relation between the practice (which was mind you invented by the eternalist hindus, not the buddhists) and the theory (if you meditate you will eventaully reach a state in which you will realize everything is blurry materalism which will free you from all reality and plant you in a secret non-describable state where you will do nothing and you will be happy.The theory is that craving is the root of suffering, the practice is removing the cravings by seeing how the aggregates really are. It's a perfect match between theory and practice.If you don't believe the aggregates are conditioned, not self and suffering, then try to make them the atman which last forever and which you can control all the time no matter what happens to you, so that you can be happy forever with them.
>>23623559>based on reality, cravings is the fuel for the sequence of birthsno they're not. thats muddying the water of the topics of gnosis with stuff that isnt directly linked in such a manner.>the infinite fuel station is already happeningand its still quantified within the context of worlds under the pretenses that its being run by a shadowy illuminati of idiots who simply need to accept buddha as their lord and savior>he reframes wrong views of eternalism and nihilism, just by exposing dependent originationand i reframe it as the wrong view of atomism and impermanence.>nirvana doesn't posit anything, nirvana is the end of rebirths.describe the experience of a rebirth youve experienced.>what is impermanent is all the fabrications. which in buddhism is everything except nirvana which is the idea that this extends to every principle ergo just 'deny' attachment long enough and you will eventually take harbor in the spiritual equivalent of the heat death of the universe.>The goal of the buddhists is to find a safe harborno the goal is clearly to preach about impermanence and about the relation of it to nirvana, effectively using it as a tool to deny anything under false pretenses while positing 'liberation' that doesnt have any basis in anything besides itself>everything is imperamennt (except nirvana bcuz its not a 'thing' xd) including your thoughts about Buddhism (which is an incorrect doctrine)which is obviously FOMOthis is not what you do in Gnosticism which recontextualizes existence through the relation between curiosity and wisdom without begetting a paranoia, as Gnosticism just says 'the gnostics will figure it out' while the Buddhist way is to provoke a surreal paranoia first. While Platonism has a coherent notion of knowledge and wisdom.>you throw the word evolution. Evolution of what?of possibility. ie greater accomplishments in the past make future possibilities better and more potent after a transformation. In Alchemical works this is compared to the refinement of ones own 'free will' and 'spirit' under Christian symbolism wherein the transformation makes the spirit a better catalyst (yknow like in chemistry). Buddhism would reduce everything to configurations under the pretenses that nothing evolves and everything ultimately oscilates around karma rather than posing evolution as the key faculty of an individuals so called 'soul' (not atman)>esoteric traditions don't explain how ignorance shows up form their alleged heaven, or if they do it's a ridiculous story to make their dogma of their heaven and gods compatible with the universal observation by everybody alive that suffering exists.yes they do, it effectively boils down to>everything is about evolution and everything that is happening to you that is out of your control is simply a much larger standard of evolution that youve yet to reachwhich is in stark contrast to buddhisms idea of 'everything is karma confusing itself'
>>23623559>The theory is that craving is the root of suffering, the practice is removing the cravings by seeing how the aggregates really are. It's a perfect match between theory and practice.this is over generalization, everything that is considered a problem is equated under craving and if you dont crave and still have problems, then its craving you dont see. Monks can set themselves on fire because theyre hyper ascetics who have been practicing their whole lives doing little else with practices that dont even have roots in buddhism, even hindus did stuff like walk on coals. Placing craving as some kind of first cause is thusly absurd and just leads to the notion that 'whomever is truly not craving you wouldn't be able to tell'same with nirvana in the context of the Gods in Buddhism>If you don't believe the aggregates are conditioned, not self and suffering, then try to make them the atman which last forever and which you can control all the time no matter what happens to you, so that you can be happy forever with them.Incorrect. The spiritual evolution is not in a literal physicalist way merely the presence of salt in water. This is an arbitrary dichotomy, either youre Buddha or Atman. For either of those to be true, there would be an intrinsically solvable limited amount of 'things' which would not require the samsaric idea of 'confusion' as all the information would eventually rot and oscilate back to its preceeding requirements. Esoteric Evolution systems dont have this issue as they dont orient everything around the issue of consciousness as a first principle but rather of the relationship between the actual and the potential. In other words, if reality was either Buddha or Atman, then reality would be very easy to solve by any higher power with a couple of centuries to kill. But somehow, the Devas have not solved this even though they live for 99999999999999999999999999999 years in a world that should have much better intellectual and technological capacity than 5th century india.
>>23620994I read the Sideritis translation. Is there something wrong with it?
>>23615078i would love to be in your presence while you complain about everyday mundane inconveniences, op, bc it seems like it would be hilarious
>Karma cannot be the primary principle in the universe because then it would be very easily solved through a scientific systemhuh>but what if the knowledge just gets forgottenwell doesnt buddhism say that clinging is what perpetuates things?why not perpetuate said science? Also why is this system of repetition biased towards the negative or ignorance? And hang on why is Buddhism also exempt from this even though thusly even cosmic Buddhas should also be something that regeneratesHEY WAIT A FUCKING SECOND
>somehow only stupidity repeats but any smartness seems to just lead to buddhisms eternal self isolation from anything that can be called existenceok yeah i just realized buddhism is actually retarded
>>23623674yeah thats literally a fancy way to explain a cosmos in which "Im right everyone is wrong but the nature of my system to isolate which is why its so rare xddd"
>>23615078How the fuck is this still up? Jannies do your job.
>>23623659Not particularly. SIderitis and Jay are both great modern scholars. I think Jay prob has more accessible books/talks/etc as he's still deep into Buddhism
>>23623341Do these wordgame fags like that anon think they crack the code or something?
