>solves everythingwhy havent you read the pali canon and become buddhist yet anon?
I'm busy reading other stuf
Buddhism is for losers who can't handle real life.
>>25204393Buddhism is just one particular expression of the ultimate primordial metaphysical truth among several others.The Pali Canon is pretty dry material and not especially interesting compared to later Buddhist writings.
>>25204421tsmt it's eastern stoicism
>>25204393Raped into irrelevance by Freud. Dont fall for the jeetslop.
>>25204450Stoicism infused with nonsensical bullshit. Just be an Epicurean.
I have, plus the Visuddhimagga and most Mahayana texts. But ch'an is right, you'll never find the truth in any of the canon, it's all just words, Ordinary mind is the way.Enlightenment comes down to us, we can't reach up to enlightenment. We cant become enlightened through works. We can't hold enlightenment in our limited selves that we never were and try to make it our own. It pools, it stagnates. It forms ideas and thoughts and religions and the paths that men follow, before bursting through the seems of limited mind and rhizomatically flowing outwards to new pastures. We can dim and brighten our true nature through our negative/positive actions, words and thoughts. But just doing this isn't enough to become enlightened. A tatahgata doesn't judge or tell people what to do, he simply points in the direction that leads away from suffering and suggests people that they find their reasons to leave that suffering behind. All of it is completed, the work is done. When shakyamuni attained enlightenment we all attained enlightenment at the same instant alongside him. And shakyamuni was always enlightened. Sing, dance, laugh till you die. Hold it dear in your hearts. Flow alongside it in eternal ecstacy. Hold it in place, make God of it and worship it with love. Release it into nothingness and see what new forms spring from the seeds.But most of all love dearly and unendingly every one of those you find in the marketplace.Idk up to you man.
>>25204393I prefer Paoluccian Vedicism
Which school?Whose tradition?
>>25204479Let's go with Evola's Doctrine of Awakening for funsies.
>>25204393Flawed assumption, there is nothing to be solved.
>>25204393I have discovered Daisaku Ikeda and I'm ordering some of his books to my local library, I'm going to start with Human Revolution, but I've also really enjoyed his essays on peace. I also read Thich Nhat Hanh recently. I have hope that we can truly have a peaceful world understood through compassion and through the work of compassion and understanding we can create the transformation necessary for peace.
>>25204393>why haven’t you read the Pali canon and become Buddhist yet?Reading the suttas is not how you become Buddhist: you become Buddhist through Jhana. Like all exercise, it’s a hard habit to begin, a hard habit to maintain and a hard habit to master.
Have you read this shit? Reads like a Dragon Ball episode.
>>25204454The only thing Freud raped were his clients' minds.
>>25204393The consequences of its thought are just basic Monism Ala Parmenides or the Adaita Vedanta but with tons of rituals, chants and allegorical teachings about spirits which are useless. You don’t need to memorize the fifty Dashikis of death from the Book of the Dead to achieve gnosis. Also Buddhism equates eating meat with being a murderer which I disagree with.
>>25204908elaborate
>>25204984what do you believe in then?
>>25204393It's incomplete, but an important precursor of Hyperchristianity to come. Christ is the Light that illuminates the emptiness of all things.
>>25204393The Daodejing is buddhist. Buddha is a Saint.
>>25204984It's actually fascinating how, if the endpoint is not causally or teleologically or related in anyway with whatever exists—all modes of anything, all heavens, all spirits—none of these things have a reason to be as they are nor do we have any reason to know about them. They're not real.Never made any sense why Buddhisms have these elaborate systems about things.
>>25205454And it seems impossible to find answer, as if it never crossed the minds of these ingenious sages, why there are six realms and not 7? Why would they even exist? Why did the come to be? It's just a metaphysics of arbitrariness. "It just is this way, I dunno."There just happens to be a harmony in the universe that there's this exact order and number of heavens. Sheer luck that they don't randomly halve in number every 800 years and 45 seconds. Or just randomly fluctuate.Almost as if there's some absolute universal principle maintaining the logic of reality..
>>25205454one of the main issues with buddhism is trying to hyperrational yet confined to a prexisting irrational dharmic system which creates this elaborate bullshit that doesnt properly explain anything
>>25204393I read the Kangyur.
>>25204393I don't want to solve anything, let alone everything
>>25205373Monism but just without all the chanting and rituals or whatever.
>>25204984>>25205454>>25205470You have no idea what you're talking about and should have just remained silent instead of confusing others with your thoughtless bad-faith drivel. None of your embarrassing fart sniffing has anything to do with the Pali canon and even a cursory read of Wikipedia would answer your silly ignorant questions, let alone actual scholarship on the topics. What is the point of pretending to engage with Buddhist thought when you don't actually care to understand it?Why go through the trouble of making such pointless posts?Why is this board so anti-intellectual?
>>25205574I am only the first guy in those replies. The actual metaphysics of Buddhism like Monism as a concept as well as Nirvana (so sort of Monist-atheism), that is good enough. The utilitarian ethics (literally a parable of good vs bad deeds being weighed like pebbles on a scale), veganism, the reincarnated into hells and animals and demons as well as all the prayers and chants is what loses me. So basically just the core concept of Monism I like.
>>25205574Buddha and Karma Lingpa are metaphysically truth speakers though allegorically false. The hells and chats and demons are as literal as any parable from Christ. It is another religion lost with that stuff.
>>25205574>once again the Buddhist doesn't show how there is logic to the universe, instead reverts to ad hominemsIf I was wrong it'd be easy to show in a paragraph where the order of the heavens derives? Why or how does it seem like anything follow this Ma'at when there's no such first principle?Happenstantial cosmic harmony negates all defense of any system. If it's ad hoc then no one has to justify any system. And everyone's fever dream is as legitimate as anyone else's
>>25204984>Also Buddhism equates eating meat with being a murderer which I disagree with.Why? Humans don't need meat and are therefore murdering for their pleasure or cinvenience when eating meat
>>25205761Plants are just as living as any animal or human are but they aren’t sentient. Hell, some Greeks like Pythagoreans even believed magnets were living because they cause movement. If you are real monist you’d see everything as intertwined in everything else.
>>25205682>actual metaphysics of BuddhismNo such thing. If you'd read anything about Buddhism you'd know that. >>25205684You're equivocating syncretic Tibetan folk tales with the Pali canon which preceded it by millennia. >>25205736You're just revealing your ignorance more by digging your heels in. Buddha was famously silent on those matters when asked by his students. Those questions either cannot be expressed satisfactorily with conventional language (logic, science, etc) at best, and at worst are a strong impediment to reaching nirvana. This is basic Buddhism 101 that it explained in detail in places as mundane as Wikipedia, let alone the extremely rich and free online resources about Buddhist history and thought. You're also apparently too stupid to know what ad hominem means. You're acting like an imbecile so I called you one. It was an insult, not an argument. I won't be replying again.
>>25205804>Buddha was famously silent on those matters when asked by his students.And yet all schools foolishly presumed his silence was an admission of absence.
>>25205804Okay, so imagine I violently murder five people and then become all good and nice like Milarepa and I build six houses for six families to keep them from starving and dying on the street. The Buddhists would say that is worthy of moving up on the reincarnation wheel. So basically a problem with utilitarianism is that it allows a degree of sin so long as you try to do other things to make up for that amount. The Masked drama of rebirth has the allegory of pebbles. The soul’s good and bad deeds are weighed with literal pebbles.
>>25205574No reads anymore.Its so over.
where do you start with buddhist /lit/erature?there's no bible or tao te ching equivalent for buddhism so idk where i'd begin
>>25205869Ken Wheeler (pbuh)
>>25204984Dharanis absolutely clear the mind and remove blockages.Vajrasattva purificaiton doesn't let you percieve anything, but it does allow the mind to be lost in 90% less bullshit that covers up seeing things as they are.
>>25205375Wait till the Catholics revive mystical contemplation (their form of theosis) and promote it in monasteries and nunneries, while also marketing it to the lay public as "western meditation". Catholicism will explode globally and get the majority of the "spiritual but not religious" crowd.
>>25205862Yes, and you will move up on the wheel of samsara...after paying for your bad karma by suffering in Hell for 5 million years, a million years of horrible torture for each life you took.Unless you had a Buddha on hand, but in that case he will judge your mind and will only declare that you are free of karmic suffering after seeing that there's no bad karma in you.
>>25205862This is such a bizarre and incorrect thing to say. There is no 'reincarnation wheel' in Buddhism. Actions produces karmaic seeds which will inevitably ripen unless pulled out at the roots. Good actions produce enjoyment while bad actions produce suffering. If you kill 5 people that action will produce a hellish state unless the seeds themselves are wiped out. You can't just do a good deed and have them be gone, all you're doing is adding positive karma to the mass of karma you already have, not removing negative karma. This is why wisdom is the only true means of purification. If one can transcend the anger, through the realization of emptiness and inter-connectivity, that caused those seeds to be able to rise in the first place, the seeds will simply never grow. Milarepa never just fed some poor peopel are came stopped his karma through that, he transcended the violence inherent in him through wisdom, have you even read the story?You are preaching some weird vedic/new age idea of reincarnation, not buddhism.
>>25206023Have fun with Catholicism turning into western buddhism with christ stapled on i guess.
>>25206029>>25206037https://bardothodol.nextohm.com/BardoThodol15/
>>25206055I'm not reading this but you realize the bardo is a play meant to represent allegorical truth in the dying state. It's well accepted that not everything seen in the bardo state represents absolute truth. go watch some nde experiences on youtube for more examples of this Nothing said here has any bearing on the yogacara philosophy tibettan buddhism is based on.
>>25206064I know that the play isn’t a literal recreation of what they think is the afterlife state but the ethics it propounds which I am sure you would agree is the main idea of the text, are definitely utilitarian. It is literally saying that a poacher of wild animals will suffer more in afterlife than someone who killed people.
>>25205869
>>25206082Definitely killing people is a worse crime than killing animals in all forms of buddhism, this is pretty clear. I'm not sure why this play would say that, perhaps it's using it as a skillful means, i.e. we fell shame when killing a person but not when killing an animal. Remember that Buddha never banned meat eating for his monks, but he did not allow them to kill animals themselves. Vegetarianism is heavily associated with the boddhisattva path.A butcher/poacher is also often also used as a symbolic thing in mahayana texts, describing someone who feels no repentance for his negative actions. Hell plays like this are a common thing in buddhist history, they're designed more to scare the general populaiton with fire and brimstone than act as theological statements.
>>25206093good for igniting the hecklin aryan spirit in you, not very good for learning actual buddhism.This collection of essays is very good for getting you in the correct headspace to understand budda dharma.
>>25206127Back when i was a bad tibetan buddhist practitioner, I got a drink with a tibetan guy I met at a temple who was just some businessman dragged there by his wife. He suddenly broke down and started saying how all these westeners think it's so cool and exotic to come to his religion, but this is his trauma we're larping with. He had to sit through seminars being told he's going to hell or be reincarnated as a cockroach all during childhood, had to sit through long pujas to the boddhisattvas in itchy outfits with his grandma, how all he wanted when he came to the west was to escape religion but people here think that it's so cool.I've heard this same exact storied repeated to me by recent orthodox converts talking to cradles./lit/ Orientalism is such a riot, though I fell hard for it for much of my life.
>>25204455>Just be an Epicurean.Holy fucking r*ddit. Buddha spoke up against retarded annihilationists like you.
>>25204454Freud was a spooked kike who didn't meditate for one second in his entire life.
>>25206140You actually do see this in reverse with Korean and Japanese Christian converts sort of. They end up the most zealous and devout while native born ones are less enthusiastic sometimes because we are used to the shopping mall church culture
>>25206140Amazing post JIDF, truly spectacular.
>>25205486we have a new buddhism now that drops all of that crap. the buddha did not believe it either.
>>25206108there are pasasges where he says that vegans ("people who don't eat fish or meat") go to hell.
>>25205486>>25206422I love when people pretend that rebirth isn't foundational to the philosophy of Buddhism so they can inorganically morph the Buddha's words into atheistic materialist memephysics
"Noble Resignation" doesn't solve anything, per se. Though it may help prevent you from making things worse, you'll likely never make anything better.
>>25204393What is there to solve?
>>25205682>So basically just the core concept of Monism I like.What's it like being a soulless scum-sucking NPC?
>>25206330Wait, what? Explain?
>>25205869Dhammapada
>>25206316Buddha is the annihilationist here, not Epicurus lol
>>25206778>Epicurus isn't an annihilationistIlliterate retard moment.
>>25204446>perennialist garbageCringe
>>25204393the idea that I might've been a jeet in a former life or I might reincarnate into one makes me wanna kill myselfoh and I don't believe in reincarnation. without reincarnation as a buddhist you just wanna kill yourself
>>25206425Tibetan buddhists pretty much all eat meat, it's actually required by their climate.I'm sorry you read one guys from long agos hardcore take, but that isn't the dharma.I mean Devadattas argument with the buddha literally came down to making vegetarianism required or not. East Asian Buddhists would eat meat too if it wasn't for the fact that they don't live on alms like tharavada does.
>>25207044okay, pussy
>>25206910切の現象は大日如来の説法にほかならない
>>25207044>without reincarnation as a buddhist you just wanna kill yourselfyou would be missing the point. buddha did not kill himself and his goal was not a better rebirth.>>25207176the devadatta episode was bigger than just vegetarianism
>>25205454>They're not real.Cope.
>>25204984You are talking about Tibetan Buddhism or Mayahana Buddhism, which are both false belief systems. Theravada is the only thing the Buddha taught. The rest is a kind of fan fiction that can be safely ignored.
>>25207475Hello mentally ill Theravada fag who clings to Buddha.
>>25207477i don't cling to buddha and neither should you
>>25204393I was born into a Buddhist family, but became agnostic as I grew up. >>25207475>which are both false belief systemNot really. There are certain beliefs in those sects that contradict Theravada teachings, but most of the core message is still similar. This doesn't really matter unless you're a monk or a layperson who's completely focused on attaining nirvana. >>25204984>eating meat with being a murdererIt doesn't. There's some amount of sin because the animals are killed because you create the demand, but laypeople are not expected to be vegetarians. Theravada monks are allowed to eat meat provided they didn't see, hear, or suspect that it was prepared specifically for them (but most don't). Monks used to regularly do something called pindapatha, where they would walk outside with an alms bowl, and people would give them a small portion of their food as they walked past their house. I think it was permitted to take meat to sustain themselves as it was not prepared specifically for them.>>25205869I hear "What the buddha taught" is a good introductory text. The monk who wrote that was one of the preeminent Buddhist scholars in Sri Lanka.
>>25204393I'm already taoist.
>>25207985>I hear "What the buddha taught" is a good introductory text. It does the job of the basics but leans into scientism and openly promotes an annihilationist interpretation of Pariniravana.
>>25207999Thanks for letting me know, anon.>openly promotes an annihilationist Do you remember what gave you this impression? I skimmed through Chapter 6, on anatta, and he seems to be making the case for cessation rather than annihilation. Because there's no permanent, unchanging soul, there's nothing to be annihilated after parinirvana.What English introductory book do you think does a fair job of getting the core message across?
>>25205454You're confusing Advaita illusionism with Buddhism. Buddhism definitely says they are real. That they have causal efficacy. Its the advaita that says its all fake and just part of greater Brahman. The dependence origination is the causal efficacy of our existence.
>>25208131> Do you remember what gave you this impression?When he openly states that absolutely nothing remains about oneself or the individual remains existent in Pariniravana, and he also says nor is there any sort of positive plenitude there that one can be identified with even in a qualified sense. This contradicts Buddha’s stated stance in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta where he refuses to endorse any of the 4 alternatives viz. post-death liberation.The idea that “anatta means there is no real annihilation as such even though there is nothing present in Parinirvana and its just the ending of aggregates and nothing more” is an interpretation Buddha himself never actually endorses and some people view it as veering too close to annihilationism. Most of Vajrayana and some Mahayana would view the above take as deeply mistaken and they would say that even though Dharmakaya is not a discrete entity that it is still nonetheless essentially what you are right now and how you abide in or as its luminous presence in Parinirvana.
>>25208147> You're confusing Advaita illusionism with Buddhism. The first part of his description is correct that Buddhism does not generally posit any inherent teleological or casual relation between all that exists and the Buddhist endpoint of (Pari)Nirvana, although there are certain schools which are exceptions to this like Shingon where all of reality is just part of the ongoing teaching of the cosmic Buddha.To equate a lack of teleological orientation with non-existence as he does in the second half is philosophically sloppy and indefensible though.
>>25205869>there's no bible or tao te ching equivalent for buddhismYes, there isOP literally gave it to youIt is the pali canon
>>25208551if you wanted to read the entire pali canon, you would be looking at a 55-volume set of books
>>25205869>>25206093Evola is the go-to recommendation around here for a good reason.
>>25208796That's why you read the Dhammapada instead.
>>25204446>bro it's all like, all one truth being expressed different ways, bro, don't be so picky about one or the other bro
>>25204503Evola was a fraud, from his demented notions of expertise to his fradulent obsession with his non-existent noble heritage.
>>25206093>>25208803Because /lit/ is infected with /pol/tards. Evola is utterly useless to knowing about actual Buddhism.
>>25209598Really? So far myth stuff checks out and he hasn't brought up anything in the books I've read. Certainly buddhism isn't a degenerated warrior religion and I doubt we'll open the next kalpq in hyperborea. What aside has he been wrong about?
>>25209629Start with Adi Shankara - Upadesasahasri.
>>25204984>are just basic MonismBuddhism Is in any way shape or form, monist, some schools aré atomist, other non-dualist, most have a relational ontology, none establish a monist metaphysical systemAlso most buddhist schools see nothing wrong with eating meat, you have your information all mixed up, i think you're confusing buddhadharma with some form of vedanta
>>25204393i saved quite a lot of buddhist websites and literature including pali canon for offline reading right now im reading other stuff like pic related
The meaning of life is avoiding death.
>>25204393Buddhism creates sympathy for jeets. We can't begin to love all living things until jeets are no longer living things.
>>25206140>>25206127I had a similar experience. I met a thangka artist from Nepal and everyone of us westerns were amazed by his technique. Very precise and sophisticated, there is a canon the artist must master, a correct way to hold the brush, a correct placement of objects, each carrying a deeper meaning, a step by step on the anatomy of the characters and so on. The same techniqued honed through the centuries. We felt that was an elevated artform compared to whatever we would ever create in our lifetimes. But then, when we were more relaxed he started talking on how it was amazing that western artists could do whatever they want, pointing to grafitti on the streets, comics, high brow contemporary art, realism, digital... Anything we showed him would blow his mind for the freedom alone. He had a hard time drawing anything other than the canon he was taught.
>>25210764The Dalia Lama has said many times “you are me and I am you. When I do good to you I do good to myself.” That is Monism. Buddhism is Monism within an overall atomist system.
I can accept that reality could be an illusion because everything we see is filtered through our senses which aren't perfect and lie to us. But the idea that there's some higher reality to ascend to seems absurd and that reality could also probably be an illusion.
>>25208147>>25208300Just because no Buddhist ever realized it doesn't make it false. The self evident conclusion of saying that Nirvana is what's true reality/the only real end, that everything else is unreal/worthless/without purpose/evil.If Nirvana did not bring 'this' into being then it does not truly exist.
>>25212095>Monism within an overall atomist systemYou can't have an atomist system in a monist cosmos, atomism Is by deffinition the opposite of monism, Is absolute pluralism, the clósest thing to atomistinism Is Leibniz monads, but that's the opposite of what the dalai lama Is saying, the dalai lama Is talking about non-dual interdependence, each thing Is it's own particular thing but it needs the rest of things to have it's particularity, each particularity allows the particularity of everything else
>>25208257>nothing remains about oneself or the individual remains existent in PariniravanaI agree that this can be problematic if taken as an ontological clam.> Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta>Vacchagotta asks if the Thathagatha is reborn, not reborn, both or neither, and the Buddha states that all four are not applicable.The Theravada stance is that the question is flawed because it tries to describe the Thathagatha in terms of existence and non-existence, which presupposes something like a definable entity. So it's not applicable because according to Anatta, what we call a person is just the five aggregates, not an independent, permanent entity.>veering too close to annihilationism"Nothing more" is poor wording. I think a better way to say that is the aggregates we call the self ceases at parinirvana, so there's no basis for identifying any self or individual after parinirvana.>Mahayana and VajirayanaI don't know much about these two denominations or the theological differences.Dhammakaya might be at odds with the strict interpretation of Anatta in the Theravada tradition where nothing should be taken as "me" or "mine" no matter how refined or subtle it is.
I wonder how many shitskins there are ITT
>>25204393>why havent you read the pali canonIts not translated
>>25211768MN 49>“This one time, mendicants, I was staying near Ukkaṭṭhā, in the Subhaga Forest at the root of a magnificent sal tree. Now at that time Baka the Divinity had the following harmful misconception: ‘This is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal, this is whole, this is not liable to pass away. For this is where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And there’s no other escape beyond this.’ ...>When he had spoken, I said to him, ‘Oh lord, Baka the Divinity is lost in ignorance! Oh lord, Baka the Divinity is lost in ignorance! Because what is actually impermanent, not lasting, transient, incomplete, and liable to pass away, he says is permanent, everlasting, eternal, complete, and not liable to pass away. And where there is being born, growing old, dying, passing away, and being reborn, he says that there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And although there is another escape beyond this, he says that there’s no other escape beyond this.’>Then Māra the Wicked took possession of a member of the retinue of Divinity and said this to me, ‘Mendicant, mendicant! Don’t attack this one! Don’t attack this one! For this is the Divinity, the Great Divinity, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. ...>So, mendicant, I tell you this: please, good fellow, do exactly what the Divinity says. Don’t go beyond the word of the Divinity. If you do, then you’ll end up like a person who, when approached by Lady Luck, would fend her off with a staff; or who, as they are falling over a cliff, would push away the ground with their hands and feet. Please, good fellow, do exactly what the Divinity says. Don’t go beyond the word of the Divinity. Do you not see the assembly of the Divinity gathered here?’>When he had spoken, I said to Māra, ‘I know you, Wicked One. Do not think, “He does not know me.” You are Māra the Wicked. And the Divinity, the Divinity’s assembly, and the retinue of Divinity have all fallen into your hands; they’re under your sway. And you think, “Maybe this one, too, has fallen into my hands; maybe he’s under my sway!” But I haven’t fallen into your hands; I’m not under your sway.’
>>25212662Monism simply means that the world is composed one kind of “substance”, be it physical substance (physicalism) or mental substance (idealism). Atomism on the other hand is about the specifics of how that substance is arranged and composed in its existence. Buddhist atomism and cosmology can be completely recast to have a physicalist picture while retaining its mythos, nirvana, karma and rebirth, but this is not in line with Buddhism as such physicalism would be identification with the body and the sensual world. Even neutral monism, and even treating pure nothingness or void as fundamental “substances” are problematic as these concepts lead to subtle forms of clinging that will eventually hinder one on the path to enlightenment. Therefore, Buddhism rejects these categories and such metaphysical speculation.
>>25207266No I am not missing the point. If you do not believe in reincarnation which is integral to Buddhism then there is no argument against suicide. It makes no sense not to kill yourself if not for the caveat "you're going to be stuck in Samsara as a roach or a woman or a poo for another kalpa"
>>25214741>reincarnation which is integral to Buddhismit is not. >there is no argument against suicide.if you follow the buddha's teachings, there is no desire for suicide. but it doesn't cover every case obviously; sometimes you may be in chronic pain and so on, and suicide is the best option. the buddha had no word of criticism for channa when he committed suicide.>makes no sense not to kill yourself if not for the caveat "you're going to be stuck in Samsara as a roach or a woman or a poo for another kalpa"this is so silly. i don't think you or anybody really believes that. if you do, you have missed the argument of the Five Aggregates completely.
In my time spent on /lit/ I've almost never seen you guys discuss what Buddha said accuratelyHere's an actual English accurate tl;dr of what Buddhism is about>conditioned things = fuel and fuel dependent. Clinging to them is what people think 'desire' and 'attachment' (western topics) mean>most of a humans experiences are fuel based, as is the structure of the world and experience and all problems in it, and ignorance on the topic leads to more fuel dependent behavior>delusion about fuel dependency dissuade people from that which is eternal, transcendental aka Nirvana>fuel dependent things are always unsatisfactory and lead to more dependencies on fuel and more fuel-warranting behavior, as this is also a 'fuel' behavior just on a ontological meta layer>assumptions about structure, category, permanence etc influence fuel-behaviors and delusions, while understanding and wisdom trends towards Nirvana>Nirvana is not stoicism, it transcends fuel universally including the very categories by which it would be viewed with, classified, approached or used>most importantly, there is no suffering in Nirvana, and a state of Nirvana is not just ascetic bliss, Nirvana as a standard applies to everything, from every angle unto every destination, path, mode or setting. If it seems half assed it's not NirvanaIn an attempt to find comparative language between systems, you guys completely failed to realize what Buddhism was about in the first placet. a Buddha
>>25204393The Pleroma is bad actually. I enjoy the material and reincarnation excites me.
>>25204393>>25204446>>25204474>>25204479All schools of buddhism are flawed, but none of them are entirely wrong either. The best form of buddhism would be a synthesis between the Theravada ethos, the Zen praxis, and the Madhyamaka metaphysics.
>>25216387>most of a humans experiences are fuel based, as is the structure of the world and experience and all problems in it, and ignorance on the topic leads to more fuel dependent behaviorOh, almost like people are... desiring machines?>Nirvana as a standard applies to everything, from every angle unto every destination, path, mode or setting.Oh, so enlightenment is when you become something like... a body without organs?Tell me more.
>>25216455Tendai?
>>25216159>it is notanon do you know what Nirvana is about... you know, the ultimate achievement for a Buddhist (and IDGAF that you can renounce Nirvana to become a goodboisattva, it is a deliberate choice to play NG+). Without the threat of being stuck living an infinite loop of this painful existence with even worse karma piling up as you keep being a bad Buddhist, there is absolutely no barrier between you and let's just fucking KMS. It's such a compelling argument that in fact, Buddhist monks from certain sects do in fact kill themselves, through ritual mummification and starvation, bullshitting the rhethoric that it's not true suicide if you do it vegan style. That's just how badly a good Buddhist wants to commit suicide, imagine thinking so hard about that you prep an elaborate talk where you explain the young monks that you're going in a cave to meditate and they'll give you activated almonds for a month until you're ready to be taxidermized into a Buddha statue and it's not like you want to fucking check out of sutta induced depression you b-baka
>>25214741>which is integral to Buddhism then there is no argument against suicideNot really, the main buddhist argument against suicide Is that arise from an unwholesome state, from there you can see how following that "Desiré of non-existence" goes against the buddhadharma
>>25216595only suicide as the result of self-hatred proceeds from an unwholesome state
>>25216589If you are talking about specific sects then Nirvana and samsara is whatever they say it is. That doesn't change the fact that Nirvana meant something entirely different to the historic Gotama Buddha.
>>25216600Suicide Is craving for "non-being"(Vibhava-taṇhā) one of the 3 types of craving
>>25216589>Buddhist monks from certain sects do in fact kill themselves, through ritual mummificationThose were some specific dudes, from specific sect at an specific Time period of the development of japanese buddhism, it's not a "practice" some buddhist do, it was some freak shit that happened un japan one Time, weird shot happens in all religions
Grew up Buddhist. Spend some time around some Theravada monks, and you'll do a total 360 and walk out.Seriously though, Theravada monks are like totally soulless and disconnected from reality, they've essentially shut off their brains in the truest sense of the word. They aren't friendly, they aren't warm, their practice is focused on their own liberation, but are utterly reliant on draining the resources of whatever local community they are in yet they provide nothing in return aside from officiating cultural ceremonies and telling you to return to buddho some more. Go meet some of them, legitimate husks.Mahayana monks are a bit more interesting, but Mahayana is basically an entirely different religion, and in its esoteric sub tradition, Vajrayana, they seem to have a thing for children. The orientalism here is crazy thougheverbeit. I do like Buddhism sometimes, but I go back and forth, its a very antagonistic element in my life.
>>25204478Based and LordKrishnapilled
>>25216601Ah yes, the historic Buddha, the true teachings, whatever. This is an outdated way of seeing religious texts that presupposes some original “scripture x” dating from some period as authentic and true and the scriptures used in modern schools as being tainted by external influences. Outside of the fact that such true teaching/“scripture x” theories are by definition unfalsifiable from a theological standpoint, you can make up whatever you want that seems rational today to fill your desires for a true Buddhist teaching as there is no scripture x, no secret lost teachings of the historic Buddha transcribed immediately after his death, and there likely never will be.
>>25216813>there is no scripture x, no secret lost teachingsit's all in the pali canon. you just have to read with discernment.
>>25216589One who knows things as they are has come into this world; and he is an Arahant, a perfectly Awakened being,Purifying the way leading out of delusion, calming and directing to perfect peace, and leading to enlightenment – this Way he has made known....Form is not-self,Feeling is not-self,Perception is not-self,Mental formations are not-self,Sense-consciousness is not-self;All conditions are transient,There is no self in the created or the uncreated.All of us are bound by birth, ageing, and death,By sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair,Bound by dukkha and obstructed by dukkha.Let us all aspire to complete freedom from suffering.
>>25216466wouldn't it be more like 'people are stuck in machine like behavior (of clinging) until they reach the Nibbana like freedom (which is breath like/meditative, not "fuel")'also Nibbana in that context would literally be freeing everything to a sufferingless, "fuel"less mode universally, and never needing to cling to fuel under the fear that fuel may run out or not be enough. The 'clinging' description implies you don't need to cling due to the natural byproduct of the wisdomthis is literally the 4 Noble Truths btw
>>25216595>"Desiré of non-existence" goes against the buddhadharmayer right, it is one of the problems that Buddhism is supposed to solve along with the the desire for rebirth and the desire for sensual pleasures. the Buddhist path is supposed to lead you to peace and equanimity, not to a desire for death.
>>25216595Isn't the goal of Buddhism is to transcend the 'unsatisfying' the 'clinging' the 'kindling' the 'fire' etcTo achieve Nibbana which transcends all of those, not their destruction? And the reason one stops ending up in mortal realms is the absence of confusion of fuel dependency kicking you around in random directions, because 'Kindling' seeks 'Fire'
>>25216876The problem is the Pali Canon affirms in several suttas the existence of gods, of the six realms, and of kamma and rebirth. Anons in the thread seem to not realize that the majority of both monks and laypeople in Theravada practice it for a better rebirth, not nibbana as that is a more long-term, several-lifetimes goal. The Buddha certainly sought and achieved nibbana for complete cessation, not a better rebirth, but the Canon itself gives examples of monastics and laypeople of virtue being reborn in the heaven realms, and the Buddha cautions against the unpleasant realms of suffering in several passages.
>>25217896>The problemit's not a problem. you are not supposed to take everything at face value. you are supposed to seek and find the truth. the obfuscation is partly deliberate and partly simply the result of the canon being the work of many authors, probably hundreds or even thousands of them, most of whom were not enlightened.
>>25217457I mean, Deleuze and Guatarri also didn't think that desiring is good either. But they recognized that it is desire that makes the world spin around and all of our society organize itself. The critique of capitalism is that they weaponize desire to control people and create fake realities of satisfaction.To free yourself from societal shackles is to deterritorialize yourself and become one with your whole body (becoming a "body without organs") free from all desires, including biological ones, and, finally, becoming one with all reality ("becoming-imperceptible", a concept very similar to nirvana).
>>25218415Buddha did not talk about 'desire' as the west knows it, that's mistranslated - the word for that is accurately 'clinging' or 'grasping' as if needing to 'grasp' something to have it, rather than not having grasping be relevant at all.'Clinging' and 'fuel' in Buddhism are metaphysical dependencies whose solving is objectively goodLike replacing a cars engine with a Perpetuum mobile that cannot be stolen or broken. That's why meditation is so much more core to Buddhism than everyone else, and a hypothetical scope in scale of solving so many 'dependencies' would be what creates the issue of the Samsaric cycle - the worlds themselves are illusory and made up of mostly the same fuel dependencies except on a large scale, ergo their association with being illusory.Some Buddhist schools have notions such as the 'Buddhist Abode' which is like a personal manifestation of Nirvana, and the prospect of potentially infinite sight and knowledge upon achieving NirvanaThe functionality of such behaviors as solved is eternal once Nirvana is reached, and it's methodology is supposed to be recursive. It is by all means an 'objective improvement' and according to the Buddha delusion's perpetuation is the main reason not everyone is enlightened yet.
>>25218463Taṇhā is a Pali word, derived from the Vedic Sanskrit word tṛ́ṣṇā (तृष्णा), which originates from the Proto-Indo-Iranian *tŕ̥šnas, which is related to the root tarś- (thirst, desire, wish), ultimately descending from Proto-Indo-European *ters- (dry).The word has the following Indo-European cognates: Avestan taršna (thirst), Ancient Greek térsomai (to dry), Lithuanian troškimas (thirst, desire), Gothic þaursus (dry), Old High German durst (thirst), English thirst.[1] The word appears numerous times in the Samhita layer of the Rigveda, dated to the 2nd millennium BCE, such as in hymns 1.7.11, 1.16.5, 3.9.3, 6.15.5, 7.3.4 and 10.91.7.[7] It also appears in other Vedas, wherein the meaning of the word is "thirst, thirsting for, longing for, craving for, desiring, eager greediness, and suffering from thirst"
>>25218892I read about this - its associated with thirst/dry for the same reason Buddha uses the term fire - it implies 'kindling' which is important as the metaphor for 'fuel' and 'grasping' is all related to fire - ergo Nibbana is 'to extinguish'Remember that Buddha was from around 500 BC, his usage of the word and vocabulary density brings the idea much closer to the PIE definition.The reason - 'dry' things are used to feed fire. Its a common etymological hiccup of association that existed in ancient I think Germanic, Greek and Iranian.It's why the term 'hunger' isn't used, for example.However, this quirk does not translate into linear modern language as well. Essentially its meant to imply 'turning things towards kindling' or 'making things into kindling' or 'wanting kindling' and such and so. The modern translations are too liberal.This is important as it doesn't translate directly to the 'ascetic' notion of desire, and instead loops back into the metaphysical aspect described elsewhere.Essentially, the implication should NOT converge onto the notion of 'desire' but rather to the notion of 'dryness' whose extended metaphor is related to the notion of desire, but does not translate into it.If it wasn't, you wouldn't see so many metaphors for Fire, Burning, Kindling as the 'problem' in Buddhas sermons.
>>25219763>It's why the term 'hunger' isn't used, for example.thirst is something that is more immediate and you die from thirst long before you ever die from hunger. the translation of taṇhā as "craving" (with meaning of "desire") gets close enough to the intended sentiment, i would think. obviously nobody is going to translate it as "dryness" and the buddha was trying to solve the problem of "dryness" and fires breaking out in ancient India. though of course you are right about the usage of the metaphors.
>>25217896>affirms in several suttas the existence of gods, of the six realms, and of kamma and rebirthyes, along with the stories about the nagas throwing underwater banquets or buddha's previous lives in ancient india where he was a king with 84,000 couches and the wheel-jewel was flying here and there. i mean literally you can fill volumes with the fantasies found in the suttas. but i suppose for true believers whatever is written in the suttas is fact. they are no different than the christian fundamentalists who think the earth was created in six days.
>>25220532No, we do not take a fundamentalist view of the suttas. Our view is informed by the commentary tradition (abhidhamma) and monastic scholarship. This is the authentic Theravada position, not fundamentalism.
>>25218068The problem is that you do not affirm either the enlightened or non-enlightened scholarship on the suttas, but instead affirm your egoistic perceived sense of reason over all else. It would not matter if enlightened scholars wrote commentaries on the suttas, they are all akin to throwing pearls at swine for you.
>>25220523"Dry-thirsting" was equated itself as 'fuel' because dry things are used as fuel (because when you dry something, you remove the wet, destroying it, but making it so if you throw it on the fire it feeds the fire, not extinguish it')Its hard to explain because our language nowadays takes more shortcuts, so if the Buddha was restating it now it would sound different, but the original notion was that 'thirst-dryness' gets people stuck in the dissatisfying loops - extinguishment would imply the absence of the act of being fireBut, throughout the PIE association both in Europe and India, the term 'dryness' was associated with 'getting close to fire' because obviously putting a wet cloth on a fire puts it out.This association with dryness is associated with certain pharmaceutical concepts in the west - I think the term 'drug' also has its origin in the term.That is all to imply, Buddha did not do a 180 from Fire metaphors about the pursuit of 'that which transcends fuel dependencies, leading to CLINGING to things to have them (of the fear that they'd go out etc' to accidentally mention a dry related word - and this is something you can notice with the notions of mistranslated desire in early Buddhism - the notion is that the Buddha counters it with 'extinguishment' which is Nibbana.The original idea = dukkha ('imperfect') from dryness-thirsting, as dukkha is 'fire' dependent on fuel, while Nirvana isn'tThe reason this is important is that the idea of>I desire Nirvanawithout mistranslation, when moved to the west, should NOT have a negative connotation in Buddhism. Because what people are implying is being said, when it isn't, is>I am clinging/dry-thirsting for Nirvanaand the notion that 'desire' as used in modern times and especially as seen thanks to western influence is completely different, and would instead translate to a virtue. But early translation-problems have created a legacy of confusion. Because the nature of the unconditioned was never meant to mean annihilation, which is what some conversations equate the 'wisdom of insight into cognitive faculties' often and thus end up creating subtle misdirection's which pile on and on. Desire is more often used as a 'wholesome' notion instead.That's the issue I'm trying to highlight.All sensations are equated to 'fire'. And sometimes the mind is a 'firestarter'.Almost every word that is a "Buddhism OG concept" relates to a concept involving fire. Even "clinging" is described as a fire "defending something". Its a visual motif for a reason too.
>>25220594'Validity' of certain concepts pre-and-post Buddhas death, including how much intention of this was itself something predicted by Buddha.For example, the notion itself of 'not Grasping' in Buddhism was meant to imply more along the lines of 'never needing to grasp for something' but due to a previously mentioned association has in modern times been reinterpreted as meaning 'avoiding Grasping and slapping yourself every time you do' when the practice of meditating was supposed to avoid aversion - a concept that is often avoided due to the overly stoic ascetic ideation.Do note the 'fire motif' clinging to Samsara as fuel in this picture.
>>25220569>the authentic Theravada positionand what of all those fantasies do they actually reject? when you accept everything at face value it is called fundamentalism whether you are in large company or small.
>>25220594I don't think "desire" has such a limited sense as you are implying. We desire world peace, we desire justice, etc. Nor would somebody translating "desire" to pali automatically reach for taṇhā when there are a dozen options.
>>25220847>bro does not understand fundamentalismIt’s not face value acceptance if you have commentary, scholarly interpretation and monastic thought in conjunction with scripture. Fundamentalism has no such things, only the scripture alone. In this case, it would be a Buddhist sect that only uses some or all of the Pali suttas and nothing else, much like the fundie Christians that go by Bible alone and nothing else. Such Buddhist sects can be found in western breakaway cults, not in Theravada or Mahayana that make great use of scholarly interpretation and commentary on top of scriptures.
>>25205804>No such thing.all beliefs have metaphysics, whether they are expressly stated or not.
>>25221090The Commentaries are where you find wacky stories about Buddha shooting flames out of the top half of his body and water out of the bottom half. The part that isn't outright fan fiction is actually worthless "explanation" of what is already clearly said in the suttas (the Commentaries are typically read for the fan fiction not for the critical analysis). Modern scholars do have more to say, naturally, and more interesting things to say, but they also tend to be Buddhists and approach it with less criticality than they ought to.
>>25220890It's much murkier than it seems - here's a more 'liberal' argument for it.Buddha did not insist on a sort of paralyzed atrophied state of mind that the western notion of 'eliminate all desire' would entail.Here's a reframing of Buddhism, Buddha was pursuing hyperfluid (as in infinitely so) and flexible awareness of all things and their participation in ways that transcended all modes of manifestation, dependency, transition and 'fueling' - to infinite, unbound degrees, as it related to transcending mortality, Samsara and dukkha, in a way that does not permit fallibility. Extinguishment is extinguishing that which is Dukkha, not extinguishing everything, including limited category, and something whose principle is inherently 'invisible' and not found in the external world. "It simply ceases as the conditions are gone" -> Nirvana is implying something not dependent on conditions that you can't 'truly' find in your house.This included layers of complex mental faculty which still displayed 'behavior quirks of fuel and fire' so that the notions of conditioned behavior don't end up seeming like they only apply to basic stuff like hunger. The notion is that Nirvana is not 'the Buddhas standard applied to one thing, but rather as a transcendental one understood in a way not dependent on anything'. The 'lashing' of the word desire is not something Buddha ever recommended, wanted or even implied, and the way people relate to it is through ascetic practices that Buddha denied. Because the goal of eliminating 'tanha' was always eliminating notions of the 'fire system' to achieve 'Nirvana'.Buddha 'desired' wholesome action, to teach Nirvana, enjoy the rain, and good Chinese food (its how he died) - this isn't a paradox, rather the Orthodoxy of Buddhism is being cornered by the obvious fact that most people in history were not Buddhas and could not in fact see the "What" only the "How".To quote someone I know, what most imply by saying 'Buddha was primarily against anything that could be compared to wants or desires' is the idea of the Lobotomized Buddha with no long term thinking, understanding or aspirations to do good. You need healthy faculties and prince-like standards to want to achieve transcendence, ergo why the stereotypes of 'commoners want a better life, but only those born into better conditions are likely to pursue Nibbana'With the influence of comparative Western thinking (western Asceticism and Christianity, Stoicism and Islam) and the nature of competitive proselytizing the notion was lost even further. The words polarized meanings that weren't there.In fact I'm pretty sure Buddhas first description of Tanha may even come from the Fire sermon itself (a sermon where Buddha compares everything with fire).The reason the Buddha did not paralyze himself after reaching enlightenment up to his death, and instead went to get some Indian food was precisely because he aspired and desired, as per the English use of the words.
>>25221795Nta, but I'm rather confused about the nature of misidentification and I ask about the origins or Ignorance. Is it erroneous. Perhaps my questions are not correct. Why do us humans have cravings, thirsts. I do not really understand Ignorance being a causeless cause. Brahman is independent and ignorance does not arise or is caused by Brahman, but then what is Ignorance? If I assume it has a function, it implies Brahman has agency. Forgive my 'beginner' questions. Ignorance just feels... very odd.
>>25204393Buddha's too vague about the metaphysics. I understand that this is supposed to be because people might get distracted by said metaphysics, but when you can't even articulate the end of the process of enlightenment as anything other than "cessation" you gotta wonder what exactly it is you're supposed to be working for. Is the idea that Nirvanna is essentially the same as non-existence, and that this non-existence is the highest level of reality like Brahman is in Advaita Vedanta? If so, how did all of the lesser forms of existence come into being? Withe the latter you could at least say that it was the will of Brahman or something along those lines, but why would nothingness beget anything? Is it even possible for something to come from nothing? Or is this entire tract of thinking wrong and it's actually a higher form of consciousness like those couple of Theravada schizos think? There's only so much someone can take on faith.
>>25222158>but when you can't even articulate the end of the process of enlightenment as anything other than "cessation" you gotta wonder what exactly it is you're supposed to be working for.>what exactly it is you're supposed to be working forcessation. it's that simple. existence is suffering, the goal is its cessation.
>>25222158>Nirvanna is essentially the same as non-existence, and that this non-existence is the highest level of reality like Brahman is in Advaita Vedantabro literally read the threadthe 'inferior' layer of existence is one dependent on fuel and configurations hylics assume more fuel and configurations are the only methods by which to existall categories are imperfect because they tend towards describing things imperfectly. Saying 'Buddhism is about finding an unbreakable rock' is bad PRIMARILY because a rock no one has broken can SEEM unbreakable, and simply assuming so leads to condition based delusion - meant to be solved by Nirvana and wisdom etc.asceticism is le bad tooeverything in the visible world is based on 'fuel' and burning and shitand as everything on earth 'seems' to be made up of conditioned shit (and why nirvana cannot be explained by comparison to anything on earth) including stuff in most peoples heads, its why transcending samsara is so important.Nirvana is extinguishing reliance on fire and fuel in a metaphysical way, and is objectively superior as opposed to subjectively. Why? Because everything that is 'subjectively better' but is still 'conditioned' would still eventually be unsatisfying as it would have its conditions break.The Buddha was not speaking in metaphor when he said Nirvana is 'unconditioned unborn' etc etc he was being as direct as he can be. And he never spoke of anything beyond that as he thought it would be misconstructed, saying even nirvana is beyond description.tl;dr Buddhism is about finding
>>25222168that doesnt make sense because according budhism one can be englightened and thus free of suffering while still existing, so existance itself cant be suffering
>>25222170So it's a way to become your own ontological foundation/unmoved mover rather then being united with a different one?I'm not sure if you're explaining this well.
>>25222195No - you comparing it like that is also something Buddha warns about.All of those are categorically imperfect and from incorrect comparative viewpoints. I could say 'youre correct if you let me twist your words left and right' but thats also something the Buddha warned about. And also you're assuming that all of those would inherently stem from or relate to the topic at hand - also something the Buddha warned aboutHere is the most UNGA BUNGA /lit/ centered version of Buddhism>theres FIRE and NIRVANA>FIRE is an inferior mode of NIRVANA for literally anything and everything, of equal size to your minds scope, below it in scale or above it in scale>most people cannot identify what is in a fire mode, what causes it or how it works through interaction. instead they end up depending on fuel>the FIRE mode could in theory be a setting to ANYTHING you can perceive, think or conclude even if it doesnt seem like it at first - something the Buddha observed after meeting the first sick man.>FIRE mode makes shit confusing and convoluted>everything in the world seems to be in FIRE mode, both in regards to the "world" and also the people in it as per "normative" standards>NIRVANA cannot simply be shown yet it is intrinsic as is its potential - FIRE is a pre-existing corruption of something inherently NIRVANA>meditating, wholesome action, wisdom etc leads to NIRVANA instead of FIRE. >the nature of 'the world' as a mixed ecosystem, nature by which many people interact etc is all confusing and seems to overwhelmingly display everything through FIRE, both seemingly 'emergent' and seemingly 'not'.>NIRVANA is pleasant, and an objectively superior mode to FIRE, and is free from all unsatisfactory things. >there's nothing preventing a really big FIRE machine from being made, and such a machine exists emergently in mass confusion aka Samsara>there is an infinite recursion in exploring things that are NIRVANA as opposed to FIRE and the degrees of complexity are on scales of billionquintillion gajillions of permutations, systems, edge cases etc yet the path towards Buddhahood is always there.That should cover all your basescalling it "enlightenment" is funny because light comes from fire, but nirvana is about extinguishing xddddddddddddddanyway just have good intentions and the Buddha will guide you :^)
>>25222218this just sound like what I was saying
>>25222236Try and explain how and you'll be surprised that it doesn't
>>25221795>good Chinese food (its how he died)now we know that it was hong shao rou. thank you for solving that mystery
>>25222504>NIRVANA is the ultimate reality (though I guess not necessarily non-existence from how you're phrasing this)>NIRVANA is infinite, eternal, and transcendent and can only be described vaguely since it's beyond what language can communicate>FIRE is a corruption of NIRVANA, which is finite, temporary, and empty, and describable by language>NIRVANA has being, while FIRE doesn't>The achievement of enlightenment is to stop seeing FIRE and witness NIRVANAGuessing from what an anon in a different thread was saying about this stuff in a different thread, the FIRE isn't necessarily part of a hierarchy of emanations or whatever, but is some weird other thing that I can't really make heads or tails out of. Other then that, this sounds almost exactly like Advaita Vedanta.
>>25222181>free of sufferingnta, but you have to understand enlightenment in a more limited sense. enlightenment doesn't mean you will no longer get sick, age or die. it doesn't even mean that your bills are going to be magically paid
>>25222623>>NIRVANA has being, while FIRE doesn'tsorry, I should've said that FIRE has lesser being/existence then NIRVANA instead of straight-up not existing.
>>25222158>Buddha's too vague about the metaphysics.because he really had none. he was concerned about the question of suffering in this life on earth, not about metaphysical speculations, which he advised against (the thicket of views and so on).
>>25222623The problem in the comparative aspect is several folds big, but the tl;dr I can give you here isthat this>>25222218is the 'minimalist' reduction one can make in our language without 'changing what was said'Buddha preached this topic his entire life with hundreds of examples for people to still misunderstand it.Nirvana isn't ultimate reality as it's facet is not the only facet in concern of complexity, and the nature of Fire unless understood transcendentally keeps arising in places where people assumed it was gone. It's relationship with the unknown/new is also highly paradoxical which is one of the reasons Buddha avoided speaking about it explicitly.An example - By Buddhas rhetoric, the fact that you don't understand it yet, and are still 'uncertain' 'asking' 'discussing' etc instead of immediately knowing and seeing it implies you do not know Nirvana as transcendentally to that standard - and if you did, the example you gave would be exactly Nirvana as described. If you did, you wouldn't be confused and instead the 'fate' of our dialogue would have taken a completely different turn of escalation instead of us arguing about the color of the back of the Buddhas robe.Nirvana is also not something simply 'seen', instead it covers every faculty of every aspect of every being/becoming/everything that our categories cannot fit, yet our categories make us feel like they coverThe nature of the fueling and conditioned behavior itself is also incredibly varied and unless you have studied Quantum physics, then you've only seen a couple of basic permutations of it in daily life - yet those couple of visible complex behaviors behind them hid millions of others.Nirvanas answer on topics of 'being' is that this is where muddling of 'confusion' of category vs reality and where the 'will' confuses itself with meanings that don't exist. This notion relates back to the idea of 'breath' and in some schools of Buddhism is related to the Buddhas pure land/Buddhist Abode (like a personal breathing-like pocket dimension) and of course meditation itself.Fire itself lasts until you attain Nirvana, its temporal aspect stems from its dependency and confusion - its more correct to say that Fire leads to 'things being finite, temporary, empty' in ways that are emergent, complex and inconsistent.Even the notion itself of 'FIRE' as corruption would be incorrect, as in Buddhism the nature of FIRE to Nirvana stems from emergent 'ignorance' layered upon other cases of ignorance going all the way back to the beggining of the universe as we may assume it.And of course here we are discussing Nirvana with language - the only question is, will it work. Which itself goes back to karma and the nature of 'Fire' in this discussion - unreliability. Fires main 'problem' is that it is mechanically the inherent principle of unreliability relative to transcendenceAnd if you keep asking me more, I can draw more parallels, possibly unto eternity.
bamp
>>25222181Enlightened ones, even the Buddha himself, felt pain, hunger, old age, etc. Sallatha Sutta clarifies this rather well, what the Enlightened one eliminates is the emotional reaction or mental accompaniment of suffering. And the truly enlightened one is the never-retuerner who will escape the cycle of samsara after death, and thus not again be subjected to even physical pain.
>>25204446I idly wonder whether it's the same group of Trads posting here and elsewhere. Is it a small or a large audience? Tshk. Lqh.Anyway what is there that has better doctrinal value than the Dhammapada?
>>25204446>one particular expression of the ultimate primordial metaphysical truth among several others.Things midwit fence-sitters tell themselves so they don't have to choose between contradictory belief systems
>>25224768It is a common theme within each of said traditions, but that if one is a liberal and therefore reads everything as a liberal, then it can only mean religious indifferentism. In the dharmic traditions the idea is this: different (and yes, contradictory) doctrines exist to suit different degrees of spiritual maturity. No matter what teaching you accepted at the outset, with the ripening of the mind the time eventually comes to cast it aside.
>>25224788perennialism is only possible within the framework of theological liberalism as fundamentalism is what forces the belief that such traditions are acutally contradictory. Hippy dippy Christians that don't really believe in the resurrection are the ones who say that Christian theology and Buddhism are compatible, not fundamentalists.
>>25224804It seems that you didn't comprehend the post you replied to. Maybe you didn't read it in the first place. Well, I agree that I said something pretty boring.
>>25211768What manga is that top left
>>25205867Good. Reading is for slow brains.
>>25204393Why does Buddhism of all things cause people to see the? You suggest to them he's how to stop suffering and they get angry, like they want to suffer. I suppose we should be compassionate to these people though, because even with their desire to suffer is a seed for liberation since all beings inherently avoid pain and seek pleasure. Even if they inflict pain in themselves it's because they have a desire which they want to relieve themselves of, they are just ignorant in thinking that bringing themself pain will somehow make them not suffer.
>>25225987Seethe* Here's how*
>>25224754>Anyway what is there that has better doctrinal value than the Dhammapada?It's mogged by Gita
>>25224754>Dhammapadayou only read this because it's easier to pronounce than Dhammacakkappavattanasutta
>>25204393Christianity already solved everything.
>>25226106KAPPA?
>>25224804Fundamentalist rules can be true for one race but false for another, because their differences and likenesses are due to providence.This of course is the chief refutation of reductive perennialism: God/s have made the world diverse because the image of eternity is diversity (opposite of multiculturalism that destroys diversity)—meaning, different lesser gods are the leaders of different peoples. Even if there's a God above all, he's only known through his powers, his intermediaries. And we all have different intermediaries.
>>25225999The great lesson of the 'great' Gita is to lobotomize empathy and become a psychopath because "nothing really matters bro"
>>25226470Both claims are manifestly untrue, the Gita explicitly teaches that one should treat others with friendliness and compassionate and should regard all beings as inhabited by the same Self. The part about Arjuna following his duties has nothing to do with psychopathy but is just making the point that its proper for everything to follow their proper dharma in life, Arjuna was a kshatriya and so it would have been dishonorable and violated his dharma to fight.This kind of empathy is actually more honest and consistent because one isnt trying to balance (as in certain kinds of Buddhism) claims of empathy for others with the simultaneous claim that the other person doesnt actually exist as a real entity and is nothing more than an NPC or P-zombie that is an emergent display of insentient materials.
>>25226513>all beings as inhabited by the same Self.Reductionist non-answer.How and why a subject divided itself into two truly separate subjectivities ignorant of the other's qualia—is the true mystery and theophany.This linear view where every life is just different stages of an undivided stream of Self is meh, near the mark but it missed.The river diverges and my eternal I never was, nor will I ever be, you. We were distinct already in the deepest depths of the spring of the well of the fountain of the sea.
>>25226525> Reductionist non-answer.There was never a question being posed!>How and why a subject divided itself into two truly separate subjectivities ignorant of the other's qualia—is the true mystery and theophany.Buddhists largely deny this takes place at all in the first place and deny there was ever an original stream/subject but as a perennialist I’m personally inclined to agree with this to an extent.>The river diverges and my eternal I never was, nor will I ever be, you. We were distinct already in the deepest depths of the spring of the well of the fountain of the sea.Certain schools of Hinduism would agree with that view, others schools would disagree and argue that everything about our experience that can identified as clearly individual solely pertains to the individual gross and subtle bodies and their finer components, whereas awareness is supraindividual, completely unconditioned and without any clear boundaries or borders that would allowed it to be established as individual or as residing in one body only. To conclude “my awareness is individual because the mind its revealing right now is individual” is already begging the question.
>>25226544Never said Buddhism wasn't equally or more myopic
>>25226544>To conclude “my awareness is individual because the mind its revealing right now is individual” is already begging the question.It's a synthetic a priori presupposition due to the recognition that love is not possible without otherness, and the ever closing in, dancing, but never collapsing into each other is the essence of God.
>>25226544>>25226569Sex and dying.God does not fuck himself.He does not masturbate to beget his own Son who's also himself (Christian theology is indistinguishable in essence from most vedantic ideas).
>>25226569> due to the recognition that love is not possible without otherness,Even if it were true that love requires otherness, it wouldn’t follow that awareness must be ontologically divided into individuals, as opposed to love being based only on apparent duality or conventional (vyavahara) reality, so, strictly speaking your whole point is premised on a non-sequitur.
>>25226582I'm saying otherness and relation are equally autotheogonic. God does not reduce Subject above all, he is not the reduction of Self. He's the truth of the goodness of beautiful relation between absolutely different identities. He's the unity in Symphony not the reductive collapse of identities into one."No being perishes" said the God Plotinus.The only collapse two identities can have is by being the gate through which a third identity may step into time. Who'll both be us and not us. Again, this is the true mystery.
>>25226595I’m not a Plotinian and am unimpressed by his metaphysics, although admittedly he is a step-up from Aristotle. His entire scheme of multiple emanations is unnecessary and introduces more issues than it solves, and is only explained via metaphors that dont actually make it intelligible or resolve the underlying contradiction that violates the Ones simplicity, other doctrines that are more metaphysically-consistent usually give intelligible explanations without relying on metaphors or poetic language doing the heavy lifting at critical junctures. From what I’ve seen, Plotinains on /lit/ essentially respond to this with nothing more than rhetoric that does not actually address the issue and typically amounts to some “the proof is in the pudding” response, which is also claimed by other traditions that are not themselves afflicted with the same metaphysical inconsistencies.I regard Shankara, Abhinvagupta and Longchenpa as all being significantly closer to the truth than Plotinus and as being more consistent metaphysically.Even Ibn Arabi and Sadr al-Qunawi of the Akbari school of Sufi metaphysics are closer to the truth than Plotinus while still retaining a vaguely Neoplatonic structure but they (or more accurately Qunawi’s codification of Ibn Arabi) resolve the issues in Plotinus by defining manifestation as the self-disclosure of an Absolute with relational modalities of its intelligibility or “divine names” that provide principial determinations without entailing real division; switching up the passage from unity to multiplicity from an unexplained, unintelligible derivative emanative step that is ontologically discontinuous to an eternal, non-temporal deployment of intrinsic intelligibilities within the Absolute itself.>He's the unity in Symphony not the reductive collapse of identities into one.The unity of Brahman is not a relational or emergent unity, but an intrinsic, ontologically primitive identity that is never produced and is never a ‘result’ of anything like ‘collapsing two identities’.It is like the expanse of space which permeates everything equally within and without without itself being divided. Two different pots both being permeated by that same undivided space are not ‘collapsing into each other’ when the unity of the space pervading them is realized.
>>25226633To say the Absolute does anything is to horizontalize ontology.Everything is past tense to God.
>>25226637Advaita Vedanta and Akbari Sufism both agree with that and affirm it unequivocally, any language they use which appears to suggest otherwise is merely a provisional or pedagogical concession to language and they explicitly clarify and systematize this and establish boundaries for it so as to avoid possible confusion.>"It is not in respect of the non-duality of His Essence (aḥadīyat dhāti-hi) that God should be conceived of as bringing about the existence of contingent beings. On the contrary, in this regard it is really all the same whether one seeks to ascribe the necessity of existenciation (al-iqtiḍāʾal-ījādī) to [the Essence] or to deny such a relation; for nothing can have any connection (irtibāṭ) with the Essence, in respect of [its absoluteness], nor any compatibility (munāsaba) such that it could act upon them and they could receive its action – all reciprocity and relativity being effaced within this non-duality."- Ṣadr al-Dīn Qūnawī, Sharḥ al-aḥādīth, fol. 62b
>>25226699Then becoming/theosis is God's own Autotheosis. And mere existence is irrelevant, everyone are uncreated, everything exists, as far as they exist, for God is not equivalent to existence but to Goodness. As far as we are not yet perfect God literally does not exist to us, that of us which is God is still rising out of the waters. We do not exist.
>>25226836Yes and No, it entirely depends on how literal and figurative one takes those statements to be. Certainly, taking all those statements as literal truths is not something that would be logically-necessitated by the fact of God being freed from horizontality, and to frame it as such a necessary conclusion is just a non-sequitur which cannot be justified.Both Advaita & Akbarism say that God or the Absolute is a supra-ontological plenitude of which mundane being/existence only manifests as a dependent mode. They would also say that eternality in the proper sense belongs to God alone and its immediate relational/expressive modalities, if any, while contingent things are subject to temporality.> As far as we are not yet perfect God literally does not exist to us, that of us which is God is still rising out of the waters. Advaita and Akbarism both say God is already perfect and complete and present in Its totality absolutely everywhere without division or separation. If you subordinate metaphysical truth to the subjective perception of humans (which has pedagogical value in certain circumstances but is highly flawed and inaccurate as a general method) then yes, it may ‘seem like’ to the ignorant that the Absolute is non-existent or absent.>We do not exist.They would agree that to the extent that the living being is categorizable in terms of various contingent determinations and conditioned things, these have no independent existence apart from the Absolute, yes.
>>25226985I forgot to add: if God or the Absolute is itself free from becoming as both schools insist, then all ‘becoming’ and ‘theosis’ is God’s own obviously only in a figurative sense and not in a literal sense, in a literal sense it applies only to contingent determinations.
>>25225944Aku no Hana
>>25207475>You are talking about Tibetan Buddhism or Mayahana Buddhism, which are both false belief systems.>Theravada is the only thing the Buddha taught.Based truth. Mahayana made it so much easier to criticize Buddhism.
>>25204446>primordial metaphysical truthWake up from your dogmátic dream, metaphysics Is grbage for weak people, embrace phenomenology
>>25227657>Mahayana made it so much easier to criticize Buddhism.how so?
>>25212095No, that's interdependence, a relational, non-subtantialist ontology
>>25212385>Nirvana is what's true reality/the only real end, that everything else is unreal/worthless/without purpose/evil.That's not what nirvana Is, nirvana Is the unconditionated, good and evil aré both conditional forms, reality and falsity also fall into that dichotomy, you need one to establish the other, nirvana Is freedom from that, that's why it's said nirvana Is beyond being and non-being
>>25222158>but when you can't even articulate the end of the process of enlightenment as anything other than "cessation" you gotta wonder what exactly it is you're supposed to be working forHegel's immanent critique is a pretty good conceptualisation on why this Is actually henonly good way to approach this subject
>>25222158>Is the idea that Nirvanna is essentially the same as non-existenceThis is basically what the highest level of reality is in all of metaphysics. People try to obscure this by dressing it up in a "positive" perspective, that it's "infinite", or that it's "full", or that it's "presence", or that it's "true Self", or that it's "ultimate bliss", or that it's "perfect", or that it's "absolute", but all of that is basically synonymous with non-existence. If existence as we conceive of it is finite, then non-existence is infinite, if it's lacking then non-existence is full, if it's transitory then non-existence is eternal, if it isn't you then non-existence is you, if it's unsatisfactory then non-existence is complete fulfillment, if it's relative then non-existence is absolute. For some reason people have an aversion to reality not actually existing but being like a dream so they have to come up with some metaphysical mental gymnastics to convince themselves and others that some ultimate thing actually exists. It's like they think they can semantic voodoo something that isn't real into existence if you just reframe it positively, as if it changed what the words actually referred to. And by positively I don't mean in the sense of a value judgement, although for some reason they think that absence is to be averted or that it's "bad". But what exactly about existence is so amazing that if there was an option off the ride that you shouldn't take it?
>>25227990>But what exactly about existence is so amazing that if there was an option off the ride that you shouldn't take it?I genuinely enjoy my life and don't think there will be another and so buddhism just looks like another death cult with a bit more self awarenss.
>>25227990the trinity solves literally all of this btw
>>25228146How does the trinity solve the logical conclusion of the fact that every desire one has is ultimately by it's nature unfulfilling, that desire implies a lack, a sense of not being fully satisfied. And that what people are really seeking when they have desire for objects is rather the relief attained from that very desire, in other words, the cessation of that desire (temporarily) which comes from when they acquire the object of their longing? And that this very act conditions the desire to arise in the future because it is it's very fuel, like oxygen and wood is for fire? Really think about it, when a desire arises, in that specific context you went from a state of rest, to a state of unrest the moment there's a desire. Then you try to return to the state of rest by acquiring the object of desire, this is what people think is "pleasure". Now extrapolate that to every desire, even the desire to have perception or feeling.>>25228132Well it's ultimately up to you what you want to do, I don't think there's any oughts. I think the facts about suffering and existence are undeniable though.
>>25227990> This is basically what the highest level of reality is in all of metaphysics. People try to obscure this by dressing it up in a "positive" perspective, that it's "infinite", or that it's "full", or that it's "presence", or that it's "true Self", or that it's "ultimate bliss", or that it's "perfect", or that it's "absolute", but all of that is basically synonymous with non-existence. Completely untrue you hylic, those terms all means specific experiential or metaphysical claims which are distinct and all specific meanings, none of which are nonthingness or non-existence, and no school of metaphysics outside of a few garbage schools of Buddhism conceive of the highest Absolute as nothingness/non-existence.>If existence as we conceive of it is finite, then non-existence is infiniteThis is a total non-sequitur in logical terms, as are the similar pseudo-deductions which follow, there is no logical reason whatsoever why no-existence would have to either map up neatly with human conceptions of the conditions associated with existence or be the exact contraries of them. Using sophistry to justify nihilism, typical tricks Shlomo.
>>25228189The claim that desire is fundamentally a disturbance and that pleasure is merely the temporary cessation of that has initial plausibility, but it falters both logically and phenomenologically. Logically, it reduces all intentionality to a negative structure (privation vs its relief), thus failing to account for cases in which desire appears as a positive disclosure rather than a lack, (aesthetic absorption, intellectual curiosity, or contemplative joy) where the movement toward an object does not register as unrest but as an intensification of presence. Moreover, the account equivocates between two moments: the arising of desire and the affective tone accompanying it. While some desires are indeed agitating, others are experienced as already suffused with a kind of anticipatory satisfaction; the desire itself can be luminous rather than privative. If pleasure were strictly identical to the cessation of desire, then all fulfillment would be structurally indistinguishable from mere relief, yet our experience differentiates between relief and positive enjoyment. The view also risks circularity: it claims that desire produces unrest which is relieved by fulfillment, but then explains the value of fulfillment solely in terms of that relief, thereby presupposing what it seeks to explain, namely, why the return to “rest” is experienced as intrinsically good rather than merely neutral.By contrast, the classical Hindu analysis avoids this reduction by locating the source of fulfillment not in the object nor in the mere cessation of desire, but in the nature of consciousness itself. On this view, desire is indeed a movement prompted by an apparent lack, but the satisfaction experienced upon attaining an object is not caused by the object; rather, it is the temporary unveiling of an intrinsic fullness that belongs to the self once the agitating modification of mind subsides. The crucial shift is that what is sought is not the object as such, nor merely the quelling of desire, but the self’s own inherent completeness, mistakenly projected outward. This is articulated with striking clarity in early Upanishadic teaching: “It is not for the sake of the husband that the husband is dear, but for the sake of the Self he is dear… not for the sake of all things are all things dear, but for the sake of the Self they are dear” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5). The phenomenological superiority of this account lies in its ability to explain why fulfillment feels positively luminous rather than merely neutral, and why objects repeatedly fail to provide lasting satisfaction: they are misrecognized loci of a bliss that is in fact non-relational and ever-present. Thus, instead of construing desire as a self-perpetuating cycle of unrest and relief, this framework interprets it as a misdirected search for an already-given plenitude, rendering both the persistence of desire and the character of its fulfillment more intelligible.
>>25227878Then Nirvana is irrelevant and "beyond" being a desirable goal, beyond beyond, beyond freedom from, beyond everything you just said and beyond this and that and and and... infinite regressive omni-negation
>>25228194Can you imagine the absolute, the infinite, ultimate bliss, true Self, perfection, etc., as an object of knowledge? If so, then how does it differ from the collaquial usage of the term non-existence or nothing? Because when people imagine non-existence or nothing they realize anything they try to imagine couldn't be it, that anything which exists or is a thing is necessarily spatial, temporal, limited, and measurable whether that means being able to detect it with some instrument or being able to observe it with the mind. At best they can imagine degrees of absence, but not total absence, which is not actually dissimilar to the apophatic or via negativa methodologies of metaphysical schools which likewise use retroductive reasoning to arrive at the same fact, that you can't imagine the ultimate, that it's not a thing. If none of those things could possibly apply to the ultimate, then how does it differ from non-existence? This is what I mean by trying to use semantic voodoo to obfuscate the true meaning of words. You think by using different words that you can somehow escape their true meaning, a word evokes a concept, and that concept points to reality. Therefore, if I examine these words, and they turn out to be synonymous with non-existence when I really think about it, then it's just semantics. This is what actual sophistry is, the point of this exercise in futility is to convince people that it is not in fact what they think of as nothing or non-existence, because that feels bad, because it's "nihilistic", that instead it's some super-reality of ultimate bliss and you'll rejoin this cosmic oneness with the Godhead if you're enlightened.
>>25226985No. I mean literally.God is Autotheos, which implies an Ineffable becoming out of nothing. All Being is that Autotheosis. The waking from nothing. Being is this 'between nothing and true being'. Theosis is Autotheosis.
>>25228268>what they think of as nothingNo one can think of nothing, the nothing anyone even references is just a void of all other thinkable qualities except this. Even here I'm talking about two different nothings but still not about the nothing that's truly nothing, and I still haven't even referenced it.
>>25228268>Can you imagine the absolute, the infinite, ultimate bliss, true Self, perfection, etc., as an object of knowledge?Yes, I can imagine it as an object of knowledge. Whether that maps1:1 to the Absolute as it exists or does so imperfectly, or that it may express truths about the Absolute without objectifying it completely is a separate question from whether we can simply imagine it as a concept. >If so, then how does it differ from the collaquial usage of the term non-existence or nothing?Because non-existence has a meaning which is separate both (1) from all those terms taken individually & (2) all them taken in combination. This is so because they have accepted definitions in English and in other languages their equivalent terms. All of those terms express a specific idea in connection with the Absolute.>If none of those things could possibly apply to the ultimate, then how does it differ from non-existence? In the vast majority of religious metaphysics, the Absolute’s resistance to conceptual capture is not read as evidence of its collapse into non-existence, but as a sign of its excess over every determinate mode of being.For you to assume that "if no predicates apply, nothing is left but non-existence" is not in any way a neutral or a priori position, but it already reflects your prior unjustified assumptions. From the perspective of classical metaphysics this assumptions is based simply on one confusing indeterminacy-for-us with privation-in-itself. The inability to ascribe determinate concepts to the Absolute reflects a limit of discursive cognition, not a lack of reality in what is known. TLDR: your arbitrary assumptions conceals an unjustified jump from epistemology (How do we know X as Y or Z mode of knowledge) to ontology (therefore, its not different from non-existence). >You think by using different words that you can somehow escape their true meaning, a word evokes a concept, and that concept points to reality. Therefore, if I examine these words, and they turn out to be synonymous with non-existence when I really think about it, then it's just semantics. What you pointed to (inability to describe) is defined as indeterminacy, not non-existence though. So you are not even using the words properly that your argument is based on. To say "I cannot describe this as X or Y" simply means that it occupies an indeterminate status epistemically, that in itself says nothing about ontology since indeterminacy has a completely different meaning than 'non-existence'. You are just sloppily conflating the two at the same time that you are fart-sniffing about "the true meaning" of words lmao.
>>25228249>The claim that desire is fundamentally a disturbance and that pleasure is merely the temporary cessation of that has initial plausibility, but it falters both logically and phenomenologically. Logically, it reduces all intentionality to a negative structure (privation vs its relief), thus failing to account for cases in which desire appears as a positive disclosure rather than a lack, (aesthetic absorption, intellectual curiosity, or contemplative joy) where the movement toward an object does not register as unrest but as an intensification of presence.Because there are degrees to pleasure and pain (these exist on the same spectrum), and some objects are indeed more "pleasurable", but it's because that object is less fabricated. Sensual pleasures for example don't feel as good as an experience where you don't have a sense of a body, like in the arupa jhanas, because embodiment is inherently "lacking". I could take on the sense of boundless space as an object, but that doesn't mean it's a positive disclosure, taking infinite space as an object defabricates the sense of a body, and it's that which actually makes it "pleasurable". And the more of these perceptual fabrications that are removed the more "pleasurable" it is.>If pleasure were strictly identical to the cessation of desire, then all fulfillment would be structurally indistinguishable from mere relief, yet our experience differentiates between relief and positive enjoyment.>The view also risks circularity: it claims that desire produces unrest which is relieved by fulfillment, but then explains the value of fulfillment solely in terms of that relief, thereby presupposing what it seeks to explain, namely, why the return to “rest” is experienced as intrinsically good rather than merely neutral. This sense that it's intrinsically good rather than neutral is becaue good/bad need contrast. The sense of neutrality is the result of being at baseline, being away from baseline in the "positive" or "negative" direction is what gives us a sense of "pleasure" or "pain".>By contrast, the classical Hindu analysis avoids this reduction by locating the source of fulfillment not in the object nor in the mere cessation of desire, but in the nature of consciousness itself. On this view, desire is indeed a movement prompted by an apparent lack, but the satisfaction experienced upon attaining an object is not caused by the object; rather, it is the temporary unveiling of an intrinsic fullness that belongs to the self once the agitating modification of mind subsides.And this fullness, this Self, is it an object, is it a thing? Are we having some kind of glimpse into the intrinsic fullness of reality, or is a part of reality simply being removed? Only "things" can be added or subtracted, because the sense of more or less is relative. And if you remove everything, what is left? Fullness, or emptiness? What is it exactly full of, nothing?
>>25228270You seem to be equating "autotheosis" with "autotheos" and identifying both as a kind of "self-divinization". However, the term "auto-theosis" is not even used in Platonic and Neoplatonic texts, and the entire Neoplatonic doctrine is based on the highest One is free from all relationality, predicates and becoming. Your claim that the One undergoes becoming is fundamentally at odds with the very core metaphysical structure of the Neoplatonic doctrine. I don't know why you would even bother citing Neoplatonists as if to pretend that they agree with you while advocating that view. >God is Autotheos, which implies an Ineffable becoming out of nothing.That which has aseity (God/the Absolute) is by nature free from all becoming. Autotheos is not even an accepted technical term in Neoplatonism but it seems like something you just made up. Theos kath’ heauto (“god in itself”) means something having divinity by its essence (through its very nature) and not by participation. The very term "auto-theos" does not even make sense in a Neoplatonic context as a term as "autos" in normal usage implies a self-relation subject and 'theos' a level of determinacy that would not apply to the highest principle
>>25228394If you could imagine something that would make it relative, because things are only known by distinction. Because something is not another thing, it is itself, that's relative. When there's this "difference" there is existence, because to exist is to stand out. When you return to this absolute cosmic oneness Godhead super-reality which is it not actually empty but infinitely full, what is it going to be like? And if you what you describe is the complete negation of experiential reality, then by what notion could it be existence when this very word along with other words like it (object, thing, presence) is derived from self-evident axioms of experiential reality? That is to say that people have a self-evident experience, and then slap a concept on top of it, and then slap a label on top of that. So then what is meant by existence? This self-evident experience, this world of disctinction and relationness, that is surely not Brahman, no? Brahman is beyond that, which is effectively saying it's the negation of it.
>>25228395>And this fullness, this Self, is it an object, is it a thing?The various schools differ, in but in the Advaitic analysis it is an infinite all-inclusive Reality of which particular 'objects' and 'things' are only its appearance or a derivative mode of disclosure.>Are we having some kind of glimpse into the intrinsic fullness of reality, or is a part of reality simply being removed? The Self-knowing or self-manifestation (self-luminosity) of Consciousness to Itself and mental relational knowing are two different ways of knowing, the latter is always pervaded by and never independent of the former. When the fullness of the Self is revealed via discriminative insight, the mind or intellect senses the pervasion of itself and all experience by a Consciousness that is free from all sorrows etc.>And if you remove everything, what is left? Fullness, or emptiness? What is it exactly full of, nothing?Fullness is left, obviously, although there are various valid pedagogical circumstances that emptiness can be used conditionally. And this 'fullness' consists of the self-disclosing luminous presence of pristine free and unbound Consciousness.Chinul: You should know that what is capable of seeing, hearing, moving, and acting has to be your original mind; it is not your physical body. Furthermore, the four elements which make up the physical body are by nature void; they are like images in a mirror or the moon's reflection in water. How can they be clear and constantly aware, always bright and never obscured and, upon activation, be able to put into operation sublime functions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? For this reason it is said, "Drawing water and carrying firewood are spiritual powers and sublime functions." There are many points at which to enter the noumenon. I will indicate one approach which will allow you to return to the source.Chinul: Do you hear the sounds of that crow cawing and that magpie calling?Student: Yes.Chinul: Trace them back and listen to your hearing-nature. Do you hear any sounds?Student: At that place, sounds and discriminations do not obtain.Chinul: Marvelous! Marvelous! This is Avalokitesvara's method for entering the noumenon. Let me ask you again. You said that sounds and discriminations do not obtain at that place. But since they do not obtain, isn't the hearing-nature just empty space at such a time?Student: Originally it is not empty. It is always bright and never obscured.Chinul: What is this essence which is not empty?Student: As it has no former shape, words cannot describe it
>>25228499>If you could imagine something that would make it relative, because things are only known by distinction. Because something is not another thing, it is itself, that's relative. That's simply referring to the law of identity (A=A) which in standard logic is non-relational.>When there's this "difference" there is existence, because to exist is to stand out. "standing out" is a purely epistemic term connected with something becoming evident (an epistemic distinction) in experience. To equate an epistemic distinction about knowledge in our experience with the definition of existence as part of a chain of argumentation is not only logically fallacious through it constituting question-begging, it's also philosophically-sloppy and indefensible. Shamfur dispray!>When you return to this absolute cosmic oneness Godhead super-reality which is it not actually empty but infinitely full, what is it going to be like? Different schools have different understandings, in Advaita for example the bliss of liberation post-death is the very same bliss already inherent in one's Self right here right now, moksha is just the eternal luminous bliss of infinite self-awareness reposing in eternal freedom and wholeness. "This is the ultimate reality, the changeless eternal, all-pervading like space, free from all causal modification, ever-contented pure bliss, indivisible, self-luminous by nature, untouched by actions in the form of virtue and vice along with their effects, and beyond time in its three tenses of past, present and future; this unembodied reality is called moksha or absolute freedom"- Shankara, Brahma Sutra Bhasya 1.1.4
>>25228499>And if you what you describe is the complete negation of experiential realityIt's not, since your conception of "experiential reality" already presupposes the self-evident presence of luminous consciousness and this is never negated. >then by what notion could it be existence when this very word along with other words like it (object, thing, presence) is derived from self-evident axioms of experiential reality?Well, for starters, Advaita does not use "existence' in a univocal sense and you are already committing a kind of question-begging by insisting that they do so on a basis derived solely from empirical usage, which they reject anyway, but aside from that, they can still validly extend the idea of existence from our experiential reality because they takes the idea of existence one associates with one's owns self-evident conscious presence *in experience*, which is self-evident even at a non-conceptual level, and it extends this to moksha and says that it continues to exist and is in fact eternal by its very nature. That you would even raise that as an argument suggests that you forget the fact that "experiential reality" already is inclusive of the immediate fact of consciousness and is in fact only known or revealed through consciousness.>So then what is meant by existence? This self-evident experience, this world of disctinction and relationness, that is surely not Brahman, no? Brahman is beyond that, which is effectively saying it's the negation of it.Brahman is present throughout all of that experience as the awareness that is continuously present through all of it and by which every mental sensation is revealed. In the Advaitic analysis experience is not something separate from Brahman but is Brahman Itself perceived through or under a dependent epistemic modes-of-appearance. You are simply misconstruing their position as something other than what it actually is by calling it a negation of all the facts of experience when Advaita says experience is Brahman misunderstood/misperceived. This tactic of yours is logically invalid as an argument because its a strawman fallacy.
>>25228461Given the reality of the Good and its coexistence with choice and will—for without these it will not be—and granted that the Good must not be multiple, its will and substantial being [and its willing] must be united, but <if> its willing derives from itself, it is necessary that its being is also from itself, so that | our account had discovered that it has made itself. For if his will is self-derived and as it were his own work, and this will is the same as his reality, then in this way he would be self-constituted, so that he is not what he happened to be, but he is what he himself willed to be....cause of himself, and being himself from and through himself, for he is primarily and transcendently himself. 15. And he himself is loveable and love and self-love insofar as he is beautiful only from and in himself. For even his communion with himself could not be otherwise than if the conjoiner and the conjoined were one and the same. And if conjoiner is one with | the conjoined, and what so to speak desires is one with the desired, and what is desired is in accord with existence and a sort of substrate, it again appears to us that desire and being are the same. But if so, it is again he himself who makes himself and is master of himself and hasn’t come to be as something else willed, | but as he himself wills.
>>25228266>Then Nirvana is irrelevantA non-sequitur, nirvana being the unconditionee doesn't make it irrelevant, since all conditions aré dialectical, they can become into their inversión, this becomes the ley of the paty when you realize that the condition of suffering Is particulary established on this mechanism
>>25228507>FullnessFull of what?
>>25228266>beyond" being a desirable goal,There's no "desirable goals" in buddhism, only worthy goals, a goal beyond desires it's exactly what buddhism wants, we're entities on a trip from the conditioned to the unconditioned, to be free from samsara, worldy desires aré for other people>infinite regressive omni-negationThere's no infinite regress there, freedom from the vicious cycle of Samsara its the opposite of an infinite regresa, it's the only true affirmation
>>25228249>The crucial shift is that what is sought is not the object as such, nor merely the quelling of desire, but the self’s own inherent completeness, mistakenly projected outward. This is articulated with striking clarity in early Upanishadic teaching: “It is not for the sake of the husband that the husband is dear, but for the sake of the Self he is dear… not for the sake of all things are all things dear, but for the sake of the Self they are dear” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.5That's just dogmátic spiritulaity, no phenomenology there, "the self" Is not phenomenologically present since it's a noumenic entity
>>25222158>the idea that Nirvanna is essentially the same as non-existence,Nirvana Is beyond existence and non-existence
>>25228249>thus failing to account for cases in which desire appears as a positive disclosure rather than a lack, (aesthetic absorption, intellectual curiosity, or contemplative joy)All of those things requiere a cesation of desires, specially contemplative hoy>the arising of desire and the affective tone accompanying it.That's not desires in a buddhist sense, it's just a particular pulsión, desire Is presente when advaita and upadana aré present, thus pratikiasamutpada, so desire Is not something that just "arise" spontaneously but a interdependent expresión of our conceptualisatión of the world>the desire itself can be luminous rather than privative.Not the buddhist notion of desires, since it needs an obscuration of our minds(adviya) to exist>then all fulfillment would be structurally indistinguishable from mere relief, yet our experience differentiates between relief and positive enjoyment.Beyond any particular buddhist theory of the mind, this Is in no way self-evident and a kot of schools of psicology disagree with you, to a lot of them pleasure Is always a relief, your notion of fullfilement presupouse a particular worldview, which Is extremely subjective, so you're falling into circular reasoning, you're using your own worldview to justify your worldview >By contrast,The problem here Is that you're using a strawman, this "opposite View" you're contrasting Is not really defended by any philosophy
I'm falling asleep.>best book of PalicanonN word sena
>>25228886But not beyond being beyond existence and nonexistence?Pfff,
>>25205373I believe you won't even read anything that anon could possibly respond to that question and will just call him a faggot and think that means you 'won'.
>>25205761Butchering and murdering are not the same things, mr. zoomer.
>>25204393Because sitting around not giving a fuck about anything doesn't solve any problems, it's the rationalization of avoiding solving any problems.
>>25228822>full of whatIt is already stated in that very same paragraph you are replying to in case you missed it: “And this 'fullness' consists of the self-disclosing luminous presence of pristine free and unbound Consciousness.” It is full of Itself, there is no difference of container/contained left.
>>25228832If a goal is worthy, it is desirable. The most obnoxious thing about Buddhism are these endless silly semantic games.
>>25204421You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
>>25204393Mahayna is the socialist path.
>>25229578>semantic gamesYOU DONTR UNDERSTAND A WORD DO YOUFUCKING RETARD THATS WHAT YOU ARE
>>25222158>what exactly it is you're supposed to be working for.there is no metaphysics involved. nirvana is the fruit of the ascetic path. it's no different than what some schools of Greek philosophy sought as the highest good: internal peace and equanimity
>>25229680not true
>>25204393I like Daoism.
>>25229826You'll like Zen then
>>25229834>zenThat's some japanese nonsense. I do not like it.
>>25229800by tradition, there were nearly 500 arahants by the time the buddha died, so attainment of nirvana is described quite frequently and quite consistently in the suttas. there is no metaphysics involved.
>>25230217>by tradition, there were nearly 500 arahants by the time the buddha diedobviously fake and gay
>>25204393its diluted jainism like stoicism also i can't read and jainism is diluted for pallitable consumption by the commons i've skimmed the wikipedia
>>25204421You have Buddhism confused with Marxism.
>>25204421you have buddhism confused with reading literature
>>25209597>bro it's all like, all one truth being expressed different ways, bro,This but unironically
>>25205893I took a look at this web-archived kathodos LARP homepage from back in the day, such fucking cringe lolWhat's also funny is how he's calling anyone using AI/LLM's to pick apart some of his arguments "demonically possessed" and "unable to think for themselves, yet then he goes and:https://kenwheeler.substack.com/p/fact-based-ai-destroys-so-called... Uses AI himself to "prove himself right". The guy's a well-spoken fool living in a bubble of his own making. His worldview, while broadly correct, is not nearly as airthight as he pretends; It's leaky as shit due to him incessantly tying his own personality to it, he literally can't help it. Tragic figure overall, he coulda been more in the end
>>25204393>why havent you read the pali canonbecause you don't want to go down that never-ending rabbit hole
>>25229623>socialism>public ownership of property>gov ownership of propervy>giving out status and equalizing status >based upon envy of othersIts the near enemy of Mahayana. Mahayana and Buddhism wants people to relinquish envy, be selfless, give up property and not for the sake of giving it to others and certainly not because you want to take property from others who are more well off. Everyone knows the far enemies, they are easy to spot they are direct opposite. Love - Hate, Caring - Cruelty, etc. Most dont know the near enemies. Love (unconditional/selfless) - Love (conditional/selfish). Care (to reduce others suffering) - Compassion (to suffer instead of others/with others)
>>25232220Salsa for web page.
>>25229623Socialist regimes murdered Buddhists because it's an atheist philosophy that worships productivity and material wealth.
>>25232868elaborate
>>25229623>Mahayna is the socialist path.What was the cultural revolution?
>>25234977See China, VIetnam, Mongolia, North Korea, all historically Mahayana Buddhist nations, hell if Tibet got back to being a nation the current Dalai Lama (who admits to being a Marxist socialist himself) would immediately embrace socialism.Now of course, very technically these nations are "on the path to socialism" and thus still state capitalist (except for NK, ofc), but that's beyond the point and isn't worth discussing as it derails thread.
>>25235420I dont think Chinese, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Mongolians, nor Tibet would look at the current western communist trend. We know for certain that Chinese think of western communists as crazy people. China rejected the western marxism. And instead opted for capitalism. Its called "socialism with Chinese characteristics" for a reason. They rejected socialism and instead promotes private entrepreneurship in China.
>>25235420Socialism is an atheist philosophy. The socialists of today were the reddit new age atheists of the 2010s. It's very profligate and fedora core.
>>25235420>very technically these nations are "on the path to socialism"all nations in the world are on the path to socialism. things like public health and public education used to be unheard of, and the role of the government only gets bigger, never smaller. even in the US, MBI is beginning to look like an inevitability
>>25235420>>25236230>>25236238>>25236695The governments of those countries are illegitimate precisely because they no longer recognize any spiritual authority regardless whether they are capitalist or socialist.
>>25236707This, furthermore, there are different expectations of laypeople vs monks. Monks may be the "ideal" but being a monk and giving up your possessions is voluntary. And that's really the key there, it's voluntary, they're not trying to force this lifestyle or engineer society so that everyone lives that way. In the first place, actions are only "good" or "bad" if they're intentional. Voluntarily giving up some of your wealth to help others is "good", but forcing that person to do it doesn't have the same effect, and it's "bad" for the person who tries to force them to give up their wealth.
for me, it's Shri Vidya
>>25236999vidya seems popular with the kids these days
>>25236999holy trips
>>25236707Bold of you to assume any theocracy will take foot anywhere except in the Islamic State, even the hardcore Muslim countries didn't want a Caliph, what makes you think the Cakkavatti will return? No matter how much the Thai monarch larps, his country is hardly a theocracy, and the age of such forms of government is over and given way to separation of Buddhism and state. If anything, both full-blown socialism and socialist tendencies in capitalist countries will lead to stronger separation of religion and state.
>>25236230No they don't, the whole reason for their brand of socialism is because they affirm Lenin's NEP principles, Bukharin's ideas, and more broadly Xi Jinping's guidelines as he outlined them in The Governance of China. Vietnam follows similar ideas even though they'd happily lie that they are different. Mongolia is no longer a socialist uniparty country, but they have elected socialist leaders for a decade now within their liberal democratic system, they are probably the only true "democratic socialist" country in Asia. NK is...well, the NK. And Tibet is not a country.>>25236238The followers of Harris, Dawkins and their ilk have all become alt-right chud incels. Socialists of today arose as a reaction to both the 2008 and 2020 economic upheavals, as well as the continued war and crony capitalism afterwards. The New Atheists were predominantly millenial and had a positive humanist outlook, the socialists are mostly millenial/zoomer and are far more doomer than you think.But enough of discussing socialism. This isn't the place for it.
>>25237453you forgot to mention laos
Namo BuddhayaNamo Dharmaya
>>25229578>, it is desirableNo, worth Is objective, desirability Is subjective, the fact that you can't discern the two doesn't make it a semantic game, people desire unworthy things and evade worthy things all the time
>>25229569>” It is full of Itself, there is no difference of container/contained leftThat's an impossibility, it's like saying fire warms itself or the wind blows itself, a container that doesn't contain anything Is not a container, it just doesn't fulfill the criteria, the word becomes meaningless
>>25226470>>25226513Both are wrong, or at least the response makes appeal to dharma without explaining.The simple reason is that harm will follow if Arjuna doesn't fight, that's it. Is it so hard to conceive of the possibility that doing something like killing could be a necessary good? I ask you why that is. Further, all of your various hangups and apprehensions and collapse of meaning and right and wrong are resolved if you just engage intellectually honestly with the text. Very opposite to psychopathy or even indifference to a meaningless species of psychological state, the teaching is for the most sensible, refined, intelligent, and pure and delicate of heart, it is a veritable demand.Arjuna's apprehension at the start is supposed to be a good thing, a sign verily of virtue of heart, it is not something he is told to become indifferent to, it is raised up rather than shot down.See for more: Prabhupada's original 1972 edition, and (the recently recommended here) J. A. B. van Buitenen's work on the text.
>>25237471I'm using basic English definitions here. Something can be worthy regardless of whether or not you desire it and unworthy regardless of whether or not you desire, objective sure. But if you yourself want to attain, regardless of how worthy or unworthy it is, you desire it. A man dying of dehydration desperately wants and needs water. Water is a worthy thing to have since you need it to survive. This does not change the fact that his need for water is also a desire for water. Quit the semantic games and simply acknowledge the obvious.
>>25212155It's a spatial analogy you precious faggot. The only thing that's asked of you is to fix the epistemic faculty, to step outside the structure of moha. Whatever is follows after that. No one good, including the Buddha, thinks it important to speak about all that shit because how is that important.
>>25237568Speak English not magic juju words like moha, Being rude isn't going to convince anyone of your ideas.
>>25237595I'm not trying to convince anyone of any idea, but in any case, I apologize for the rudeness.Think of how your moods change constantly, your orientation and the way you view the world and yourself change from moment to moment throughout even a single day, as though you are a collection of ego-selves that are always re-arranging with one appearing to be at the wheels at any time. This is indicative of lack of what I'd call epistemic integrity, it is enabled by moha. Closest connection of moha is to smriti-bhrama (smriti: memory, recollection; bhrama: disturbance), a loss of memory of what's been occurring in your mind-intellect stuff and the knowledge you held. You are being constantly subjected to this loss which prevents knowledge (that's otherwise flowing in from the Buddhi) from accumulating; knowledge both of the higher order, the incommunicable (because you are directly fused to it, it's not a mental object), and of the ordinary mental domain, knowledge you'd associate with the discursive and rational which is much more approachable to doing phenomenology.The structure responsible for keeping alive this destroyer of knowledge is targeted, making the structure of knowledge less porous, the direct effects of which are observed intimately and immediately, there is no mistake. I hope you pick up from this that there is no external authority that you have to trust in and convincing is not an appropriate mode at all.This is what I could currently think of.
>>25212155I mean if you think about it for sec, the different realms and there being "higher" aren't literal staircases, but relative position in life, as seen by buddha 2500 years ago. The animal realm isn't literally talking about some extra dimensional realm, its just animals. The heaven and hell realm aren't likely real metaphysical stairways or interdimensional rifts as they had no access to that, but rather an inference from various state that suggest higher level of happiness/emotional stability/awareness and the lower level of happiness/emotional instability/ignorance. The buddhist doctrine is primarily a doctrine of the mind, perception and doesn't concern itself with what is real outside of the mind. The dhammapada opens up with verses about how the mind creates the reality for the person to perceive and life their life. The mind has the primacy. So illusions/delusions are the domain of the mind, not necessarily a physics claim. Its also even more important that Buddhism is primarily interested in the control of perception/consciousness/emotional stability/etc and not about what rocks are made up of, whether earth is spinning or not. The individual mental state is the primary aspect Buddhists target for liberation
>>25237595Depression means going down.Uplifting an expression of your body feeling lighter your mind more fluid and clear, like the upper atmosphere.
>>25237476> That's an impossibility, it's like saying fire warms itself or the wind blows itself,You have not identified any actual impossibility, but simply used two invalid analogies, but of which are premised on something taking an action or function that is directed at itself, but this is fallacious because in the example under discussion it was never described as taking any action or function, whether directed at itself or anything else, so an analogy involving things acting are simply non-applicable and so an argument which relies on them is inherently fallacious.>a container that doesn't contain anything Is not a containerIt’s not container to begin with! There is no difference of container vs container present, nor is it a container without content but is simply one undifferentiated non-dual Reality that is beyond all dualistic distinctions.
>>25237795>have not identified any actual impossibility,Yes i did, if conciousness Is not a function, a relation between subject and object, it lacks any form of meaning, Is empirically not conciousness anymore, it becomes a meter metaphysical speculation, at that point your argument fails by mere lack of a real conection with empirical reality, if conciousness Is "conciouss" then Is not longer conciousness, it becomes a conceptual object of speculation, which Is irónico because it supouse to be the realm beyond conceptualisation>It’s not container to begin withExactly, a container that contains itself Is not a container, a conciousness thats inly conciouss of itself its not conciousness>is simply one undifferentiated non-dual Reality that is beyond all dualistic distinctionsExactly, and that deffinition doesn't make any sense, it's just a metaphysical contradiction, a reality without anything real, without duality the unreal and the real aré the same making it a contradiction in terms, without differentiation you can't really establish a distintion between that reality and maya
>>25237561>Something can be worthy regardless of whether or not you desire it and unworthy regardless of whether or not you desire, objective sure.Exactly, it's not biconditional, like the duty of a spiritual path, Is worthy but not desirable, you don't do it because it gives you a benefit but because its what needs to be done, in the case of buddhism you don't search for nirvana because it's a desirable state since your "desire" Is rooted in adviya, you do it because dukkha informs you it's something that needs to be done, it's a calls to arms not a self-help practice
>>25204421Nobody can handle real life. Everyone is mortal, and for that reason, everyone is a loser in life.
>>25239220>Yes i did, if conciousness Is not a function, a relation between subject and object, it lacks any form of meaningA question-begging fallacy>Is empirically not conciousness anymore, it becomes a meter metaphysical speculation, at that point your argument fails by mere lack of a real conection with empirical reality,All of this is predicated on the above question-begging fallacy and is consequently fallacious.>if conciousness Is "conciouss" then Is not longer conciousness, it becomes a conceptual object of speculationA question-begging fallacy>Exactly, and that deffinition doesn't make any sense, it's just a metaphysical contradiction, a reality without anything realReality Itself is real, contradiction = resolved!>without duality the unreal and the real aré the same making it a contradiction in termsThe unreal is not something separate ontologically but is just a particular epistemic mode under which the sole non-dual Reality appears. Since the epistemic mode has no ontological status as anything other than the undifferentiated non-dual Brahman, there is no question of sameness/difference at the ontological level since there is never at any point a second ontological item to be evaluated.>without differentiation you can't really establish a distintion between that reality and mayaIncorrect, Nirguna Brahman is undifferentiated on the Paramarthika absolute level of the conventional-absolute distinction, while on the conventional vyavaharika level Saguna Brahman appears as the differentiated universe. Saying that Nirguna Brahman is undifferentiated is no obstacle to establishing that It has a different nature than Saguna Brahman on the vyavahara level, as each have different types of natures, roles, properties, relations etc. “Differences” and “Relations” aren”t ultimately real as a metaphysical category since absolute reality is totally non-dual and partless in a numerical sense that is without any plurality, although this doesn’t prevent nominal distinctions from correctly and properly being used on the vyavahara level to designate one conventional phenomena being different from another, or to describe Saguna Brahman functioning in a different manner to the Supreme Nirguna Brahman and the former being an epistemic appearance (like all conditioned phenomena) of the ontological reality of the latter. The mistake only arises from assuming relations and plurality exist on the paramarthika level of absolute reality.When we are “making a distinction” that distinction is rooted in their conventional, behavior or functional properties and traits, not in their ultimate ontological status, so making valid distinctions for the sake of experience and conventional knowledge doesnt require those distinctions be rooted in anything else besides Brahman having ultimate ontological status/reality.
Buddhism is right about a lot of things, but I don't really care for the ethical/lifestyle side of it. I only like the part of it that talks about astral travel and attaining superpowers and shit.
>>25239391>Nirguna Brahman is undifferentiated on the Paramarthika absolute level of the conventional-absolute distinction, while on the conventional vyavaharika level Saguna Brahman appears as the differentiated universeIf there's a distintion between the two, Then there's a distintion, thus it's not an undifferentiated reality, so it's different and undifferentiated at the same time, so a contradiction in terms, which was my point
>>25239391>question-begging fallacyNope, as i Said before i'm appelaaing the the empirical function of conciousness, i'm not creating an abstract term and then defending it with the deffinition of that same term, i'm just pointing out how conciousness exist in experience, the burden of proof Is not on me but on anyone wanting to establish a form of conciousness outside of experience>of this is predicated on the above question-begging fallacy and is consequently fallacious.As said before, not question begging, the fact that you' te answering me proves that you're(subject) conciouss of my post(object) thus my argument Is empirically self evident, so you're the one question begging, using your own terma and theories as proof of your argument>Reality Itself is realOnly because reality has content, that's the point, reality without anything real Is by deffinition "not" real>unreal is not something separate ontologically but is just a particular epistemic mode underExactly, so it has reality but it doesnt at the same time, a contradiction, it's like saying a Mirage Is not real, the content Is not real in the sense that Is not equal to what our mine establish conceptualy, but the mirage itself as a phenomena needs to be real, it's the only waybit can trick usnin the first placer, saying that something Is not real but it's real at the same Time Is lazy philosophy>Nirguna Brahman is undifferentiated on the Paramarthika absolute level of the conventional-absolute distinction, while on the conventional vyavaharika level Saguna Brahman appears as the differentiatedAgain, the same problem, it's real and not real, opposite qualities being the same, trying to put a different names ir levels don't helo your point because you can't explain how those qualities can co-exist if they negate each other>>25239391>Differences” and “Relations” aren”t ultimately real as a metaphysical category since absolute reality is totally non-dual and partless in a numericalAnd as i Said before, lazy philosophy, you have something thatbisoartless butbalso with partsWhich creates the ultimate prolem for vedantins, the multiplicity and becoming aré self-evident un our experience, but this weird contradictory ultimate-partless-reality certainly not, so there's no reason to believe such a thing exist, specially over our experience which show us the exact opposite reality, this ontological status you want to impose in your argument lacks any fundament or logical basis, Is just wishful thinking, so when you present your argument all you're doing in the end is saying:"please believe in whatbi believe"
>>25239456>If there's a distintion between the two, Then there's a distintion, thus it's not an undifferentiated reality,The distinction only appears to be present from the false viewpoint of ignorance or the vyavahara conventional appearance, and not from the perspective of paramarthika, so there is no contradiction between the two vantage points since in reality the paramarthika exists as undifferentiated alone. From the perspective of paramarthika, which is the perspective of absolute true, there is no vyavahara and its manifestations present as such.>so it's different and undifferentiated at the same time, so a contradiction in terms, which was my pointIncorrect, this is false because paramarthika and vyavahara refer to two different levels of absolute-conventional or two-truths analysis, Advaita is not affirming two different contradictory premises as both being true on the same level of analysis, it's just a strawman fallacy for you to argue as if this is their position when it's actually not. When undifferentiated and differentiated are each affirmed as belonging to two different levels of two-truths analysis there is no logical contradiction because 1 is sublated by the other.
>>25239474>Nope, as i Said before i'm appelaaing the the empirical function of conciousness, This is still a strawman fallacy because its just presupposing as correct your own preferred analysis of empirical experience while there are many other schools and philosophers which disagree with your analysis of experience and say its wrong and mistaken and they offer their own different empirical analysis instead and argue its superior and more coherent than yours.>As said before, not question begging, the fact that you' te answering me proves that you're(subject) conciouss of my post(object) thus my argument Is empirically self evident, Wrong, as explained this is textbook petitio principii question-begging fallacy by presupposing your own unproven notion of empirical analysis which others disagree with. This response in particular is additionally question-begging by presupposing the strict identity of consciousness and the cognitive faculty. This question-begging claim of yours that presupposes the strict identify of consciousness and cognitive faculty is rejected by the following philosophers, thinkers and schools East and West:Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Pseudo-Dionysus, Duns Scotus, Eckhart, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Sankhya, Patanjali Yoga, Advaita Vedanta, Trika Shaivism, Vasubandhu, Nyingma & Bonpo Dzogchen, Kagyu Mahamudra, Daoism, Neo-Confucianism (Wang Yangming), Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra. >Only because reality has content, that's the point, reality without anything real Is by deffinition "not" real1) It's a textbook strawman fallacy to claim Advaita teaches a "reality without anything real", they instead say that the reality in question has non-mereological substantial existence which is itself inherently real.2) 'Reality' is not defined as "a mereological whole inclusive of parts", it's a question-begging fallacy for you to use arguments that presuppose otherwise>Exactly, so it has reality but it doesnt at the same time, a contradiction, it's like saying a Mirage Is not realAnother textbook strawman fallacy, they don't say "it has reality but it doesnt at the same time", they instead analytically distinguish epistemic appearance from ontological existence and say "it manifests in epistemic mode while lacking dualistic ontological existence", this is not a contradiction because "ontological existence" is not the opposite or contrary of "epistemic appearance".
>>25239474>n, the same problem, it's real and not real, opposite qualities being the same,As already explained, propositions which are affirmed on the vyavahara level are admitted as ultimately false and sublated by the paramarthika reality, so the false appearance of differentiation on the vyavahara level does not in any contradict non-differentiated Brahman on the paramarthika level or in paramarthika reality. Not a single contradictory thing is being admitted as both true on the same level of analysis but all apparent contradiction is sublated into non-contradiction. >>>25239391>And as i Said before, lazy philosophy, you have something thatbisoartless butbalso with partsparts are only apparent on the vyavahara level which dont contradict the paramarthika into which the vyavahara is sublated.The rope existing without scales and a tongue does not contradict the false apparent perception of it as a snake, even in the same moment something thinks its a snake it remains without scales and a tongue. Developing a way of analysis that allows us to speak of both of these at the same time is not saying anything contradictory in the least.
>>25240231>Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Pseudo-Dionysus, Duns Scotus, Eckhart, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Sankhya, Patanjali Yoga, Advaita Vedanta, Trika Shaivism, Vasubandhu, Nyingma & Bonpo Dzogchen, Kagyu Mahamudra, Daoism, Neo-Confucianism (Wang Yangming), Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra.Forgot to also include David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel and Evan Thompson from the modern day
In search of him, a servant left the palace. He was immediately greeted by a dog who barked "you are not special".
>>25239229https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism)
>>25207475Thervada is probably what the Buddha actually taught.
>>25216757Youve never been to Metta Forrest Monastery. The monks under Thanissaro Bhikku are the real deal and are training for the end of defilements. They're nothing like the office monks that live in the city.
>>25227819>"Go to hell for an aeon for eating meat"
>>25241945nta, but it's funny how close i am to that place. i have read a lot of his translations and commentary, but he is often very wrong in his commentary and his translations are often erroneous. so beware when you read him. make sure you have a copy of the pali text (suttacentral, in other words).
>>25216757it sounds like you need a christian pastor who will slap you on the back and laugh it up with you, or be your life coach. that is not the role of monks in the buddhist tradition.
Will check it out.
>>25239303>Everyone is mortalNot under Jesus Christ.
>>25243006Dalai Lama proves that you can have both.
>>25244019anything is possible under delusion. in buddhism the goal is to clear away the delusion and see things as they really are.
>>25244910Sounds delusional
>>25245030it is absolutely possible to see things as they really are
Starting around the New Year I've been reading a sutta from Bhikku Bohdi's In the Buddha's Words anthology every morning, as well as meditating for at least 20 minutes. I am really enjoying it. What's not to love about this religion with such a sharp focus on trying to end suffering? The algorithm is throwing me a lot of these western monks practicing under the Thai Forest tradition (Theravada) in Canada/US/UK and I'm liking that too, a lot of them - at least the ones I'm watching videos of - tend to be very scholastic, which I appreciate. Thanissaro Bhikku, Bhikku Bodhi, Ajahn Sona, Ajahn Jayasaro, Bhikku Analayo, etc. may you all be well unironically!
>>25216757I heard they are pedos
>>25244910Enjoy oblivion, buddhasissy.
>>25247418in the suttas, you will see the buddha is continuously compared to lions, bulls, conquerors and the such. evola really wasn't going out on a limb when he said it was a warrior religion.
>>25204421But what if real life is for losers that can't handle buddhism?
>>25216757I also know tons of theravara monja, some aré like that, some not some aré someplace in the middle, i respecto the utistbones because that shows that they're really committed to a life of satti, and as long as they do dhammantalks i don't think they're draining resources, also the temples help with tourism
>>25240231>fallacy because its just presupposing as correct your own preferred analysis of empirical experienceThere's no análisis, Is just na observation, an object subject dichotomy Is empirically self-evident, as Said before, the fact that you're respondíng to my arguments Is proving it, there's no logical or metaphysical speculation here, the only other oprinin this case Is that yo really don't exist and your texts aré just part of my illusion in which case your argument Is already fake by virtue of you being a form of falsity
>>25240212>From the perspective of paramarthika>PerspectiveSo conditioned, by deffinition a perspective Is conditioned, so again, a contradiction in terms
>>25240231>ontological existence" is not the opposite or contrary of "epistemic appearance".It Is if the epistemic mode Is a complete negation of the ontologic existence, a mirage show us something that could physically exist,that's why it's a Mirage, you're saying that a mirage could show us "the planck lenght" something that doesn't have a visual representation
>>25240256>Developing a way of analysis that allows us to speak of both of these at the same time is not saying anything contradictory in the least.False quivalency fallacy, a better example would be a snake and gravity, one Is n object the other a relational científic concept, the unión of the two(false ir real) Is never present because they have contradictory qualities
>>25240231>is still a strawman fallacy because its just presupposing as correct your own preferred analysis of empirical experienceThat's not a strawman fallacy
>>25240231>Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Pseudo-Dionysus, Duns Scotus, Eckhart, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Sankhya, Patanjali Yoga, Advaita Vedanta, Trika Shaivism, Vasubandhu, Nyingma & Bonpo Dzogchen, Kagyu Mahamudra, Daoism, Neo-Confucianism (Wang Yangming), Suhrawardi and Mulla Sadra.Talking about fallacies, this is an appeal to authority, a form of fallacy
