Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, you might as well burst out laughing!
>>16858863The dual opposite of the IFLS fag.
bump
given everything is perfect, what response were you expecting?the op kind of nullifies all action, it is too balancedyou need imbalance, karma, craving and aversion to get things going.
>>16858863>western nihilism: nothing matters, you should kill yourself>eastern illusionism: everything is illusion, you should be happy and laugh
Sits around and navel-gazes all day>everything that appears into existence is like an apparition, like think about it like nothing is ever good or bad because it like, appears dude
>>16859565Interesting take. It's not good or bad. It's just perfect in being what it is. :^)
>>16858863Why don't you take a walk into a forest with cougars or wolves or bears and get eaten alive and then burst out laughing while their ripping into your flesh?
>>16859633wait, it's all me experiencing myself?
>>16859633Why should he? Does his philosophy demand that he get eaten? What the quote talks about is more of a general attitude towards life. Getting eaten is a special occasion.
>>16859633>>16859382
>>16858863Does he mean "illusion" or something different by "apparition"? Like "appear", the act of being presented as is?Concept of everything being an illusion is dumb. Like, why you need the concept of illusion in this case at all? Even jeets started to adopt Western concept of "everything that exists is real".
its obv all an illusion tho prove it isnt you cant do it meaning it is
>>16859648>Why should he?Why SHOULDNT he?Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, you might as well get ripped apart by feeding animals.Or do you put laughing as something good rather than bad, as something to accept rather than reject?The quote denies itself by holding onto materialist hierarchies of desire.
>>16860085The first line of your post is a full concession so I'm not reading the rest. Your preprogrammed normie rhetorical ("if X is true, why don't you go do what I say?") pattern makes no sense.
>>16860091You can go be a coward somewhere else.
>>16859660jeets created the "everything that exist is real", so did the notion of everything is apparitions. Buddhist spin is everything that appears is apparitions, a phenomenological argument, not e metaphysics one.
>>16860092See >>16859648>Why should he? Does his philosophy demand that he get eaten?Notice how you can't provide any rational explanation for why radical acceptance should compel someone to comply with your demands. Your post is strictly non-cognitive. It expresses the sentiment that you're so mad about OP you want him to suffer and die. Nothing more.
>>16860094>>Why should he?Why SHOULDNT he?Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, you might as well get ripped apart by feeding animals.Or do you put laughing as something good rather than bad, as something to accept rather than reject?The quote denies itself by holding onto materialist hierarchies of desire.
>>16860095Notice how your narcissistic psychotic illness makes you think your inability to explain why he should do what you want means it's on him to justify not doing what you want.
op here all of this is an apparition too. i have no reason to believe anything at all is "real" even pain and such
>>16860097>why he should do what you wantI have no desire for him to do anything. It is the speaker of the quote saying what you should do (burst out laughing).I am pointing outr that letting animals rip you apart is just as much what you should do, based on the first part of the quote.YOU are the one saying laughing is the preferred reaction, even though that denies the first part of the quote.What other anon was pointing out that the speaker would not be bursting out laughing IF they were being ripped apart by animals. That the sentiment only comes from the comfortable.You have taken both of these and strawmanned them into "you cant tell me what to do!" and that is retarded.
>>16860099>I am pointing outr that letting animals rip you apart is just as much what you should doYou're clearly suffering from a delusional episode since the quote tells nothing about what you "should" do and you repeatedly fail to establish any logical connection between the quote and your psychotic fantasies about people intentionally committing suicide using wild animals.
>>16860103>the quote tells nothing about what you "should" do>you might as well burst out laughingSo you cant read.And you cant even attempt to address anything I or other anon said.But you will continue to prove you dont even understand the quote by not seeing all this as apparition.
>>16860104Even ignoring the way your psychotic illness misinterprets "you can take it easy" as "you shall laugh", you still can't establish any logical connection between that and why OP should conform to your irrational and violent fantasies.
>>16860107>And you cant even attempt to address anything I or other anon said.
>>16860108There's nothing to address about your psychotic illness. There is no possible logical connection between "you can take it easy" and "you should go get eaten by animals". You need to be forcibly medicated.
>>16858863If everything is a ghost, can you send me a ghost that looks like a 25 kilogram bag filled with rubies? I would exchange our flat, or I would buy a neighboring flat and there would be a nursery in our family. As you know, the children's room is important for the upbringing of children. This is important for the child's psyche.
>If everything is a ghost, can you send me a ghost that looks like a 25 kilogram bag filled with rubies?I like how this garbage thread manages to attract the absolute lowest IQ posters the way shit attracts flies.
>>16860093>jeets created the "everything that exist is real"Could you spoonfeed me more on the Asian philosophy? What is exectly mean by "apparitions" here? Maya?>phenomenological argumentPhenomenology is a western thing, no?
>>16861039He can't because he doesn't know what he's talking about. >What is exectly mean by "apparitions" here?Raw, subjective perceptions being just that. It's essentially a denial of naive realism. But this goes along with the metaphysical idea that there is an ultimate truth underneath it all, that is formless and impossible to conceptualize, so you can't really make any absolutely true statements about it. Buddhists call this 'shunyata'. The obvious objection is that they ARE making absolute truth statements about it, if only by claiming it can't be done, but they will simply say it's intended to be taken as a relative rather than an absolute truth.
>>16861039>spoonfed me>1500-800BChindus had idea about realism(naive like most ideas originate as) of gods, soul, cosmic soul, etc (I think therefore I am). competition also arrives in droves>600 BCone such competition (buddhist) says this: so, gods are not real, souls are not real, cosmic souls is fake, its all mental delusions. particularly, they reject the mental subject(soul/self)-object duality as a separate thing that lives inside the body. "mental conceptual framework creates your reality.">~100-200 years latersome hindus says "no way"!! our substance dualism is real, souls are real, humans are real, gods are real, cosmic soul is real, etc (this is the realist school of hindus)>~100-200 years latersome buddhist started thinking, maybe some stuff are real, like super tiny atoms (atomism in india), so some buddhist tried arguing maybe its a non-dual monist realism reality. >~100-200 years laterother buddhist clap back hard at these buddhist and say, nope, that type of atomic realism doesn't work because reality is wholly dependent in nature. both as causal dependent and in whole-parts dynamics. >~200-300 years laterlater buddhist develop ideas that its not just the subject-object duality is false, but also the contents of the objects (qualia as modern western dualist argue about) as well. in fact, we cannot even know about anything beyond the perceptual framework. (so now, buddhist are both radically antirealist metaphysically/phenomenologically)>~200-300 years later hindus adopt the antirealist phenomenological argument and apply it to metaphysics>~1000 years laterdescarte "I think therefore I am", followed by humes, kant, husserl, hegel, etc. we begin the modern western here and then leads to modernists/post-modernist philosophy.
>>16861062>one such competition (buddhist) says this: so, gods are not real, souls are not real, cosmic souls is fake, its all mental delusions. particularly, they reject the mental subject(soul/self)-object duality as a separate thing that lives inside the body. "mental conceptual framework creates your reality."Your description is indistinguishable from modern fedora cringeposting and completely misses the point.
>>16861051Sounds identical to Subjectivism.>>16861062>hindus had idea about realism(naive like most ideas originate as) of gods, soul, cosmic soul, etc >(I think therefore I am)Those are not the same. Cartesian solipsism is an attempt to come to idea of existance of the God without assuming any other existences. "I think therefore I am" is a first step he made.But in pagan tribes gods, demons, souls are often considered real. Like, Greek gods was living on Olympus and it's a real fucking mountain in Greece. Then, when people become more experienced, gods started to live on the clouds and under the earth. This way the concept of "world of ideas" was gradually developed. I thinks so.>some hindus says "no way"!! our substance dualism is real, souls are real, humans are real, gods are real, cosmic soul is real, etc (this is the realist school of hindus)Was it developed somehow or dropped right there?>one such competition (buddhist) says this: so, gods are not real, souls are not real, cosmic souls is fake, its all mental delusions ... "mental conceptual framework creates your reality."How would those buddings answer what is the mentality? Where that framework exists if everything is a product of it?Also, may I politely ask you to stop flexing with your history?
>>16861081>spoonfeed me>NOOOO STOP SPOONFEEDING ME
>>16861086I bet you didn't grasp the difference between subjectivism and materialism. Spoonfeed with me with chatni, not caw dang.
>>16859196And yet there have been monks who talk to the public in exchange for food for over 2000 years. How about we just feed off of the neighbors' karma you nut
>>16860085>why shouldn't heSpread the good news. Help other people gain the rest from the yoke. I didn't figure this out on my own. Also at high levels of skill you'd convince the lion to be vegetarian, since it harms less beings. The glory of the path is that you're bound to bump into people that need the wisdom, either by needing your hunger satisfied, or by evil spirits messing up and trying to teach you with someone who you will ultimately convert.
Have you ever stopped to look at a bug lying on its back? It struggles with its little paws, it could go on for hours or days until it just gets too tired and dies or gets eaten by other bugs. To me, that's absolute hell. Even though I know that the bug is too "stupid" to rationalize what is going on, it's not thinking "oh no, I had so many things to accomplish in life, I can't believe I'm stuck here...", I would still like to believe that it is struggling to survive with all its might, suffering to get out of that situation. Then again, if you flip it you may feel that you're doing good, sparing its suffering, it won't thank you, or perhaps even remember the time it spent upside down, it will just go on about its day, but I would like to believe it is content in doing so, feeling satisfied about moving around. A few minutes later, it may capture a different insect and drain its juices or whatever, creating a new hell, a new source of suffering.An ant does not understand anything about sugar cane culture, about processing it, packaging it, marketing it, shipping it... But somehow, in the last century, an ant colony can bump into a small mountain of sugar. Isn't that heaven? Isn't that a miracle to an ant? It wanders through asphalt and dirt, not minding if it's man made or not.Then I look up and I think there are trillions of trillions of stars, of planets, gigantic billion year old clouds swirling in a proportion I cannot comprehend, but we see it as a tiny speck of dust in our night sky. It is many times bigger than our galaxy, than the Earth, than a forest, than a leaf, many times bigger than a small beetle lying on its back somewhere. How many insects lying on its back are out there? How much suffering, how much joy. I wonder if I ever get to see all of that in some way.
>>16861081>Sounds identical to Subjectivism.To the contrary, it's radically skeptical about subjectivity, especially those parts of it that almost everyone mistakes for objective.
test
>>16861062>anti-realist metaphysicsIf you think about it, its anti-realist with respect to essence/substance based ontology, but it still perfectly keeps the reality intact, so its an alternative realist approach to substance ontology
>>16861140>bug lying on its backGot hit by a train.>an ant colony can bump into a small mountain of sugarGot a job offer in Canada and brought family there.
>>16861380>its anti-realist with respect to essence/substance based ontology>so its an alternative realist approach to substance ontologyHow does that work?
>>16861397>How does that work?>because reality is wholly dependent in nature. both as causal dependent and in whole-parts dynamicsThis keeps reality intact. Sort of like how you can have a functional car, without an ontological basis for "car" essence/substance that is apart form its parts and causal relations through time. A car is sets of wheel on chassis, driven around, etc. But there's no substance or essence of "car" that is independent of its parts. So the reality of car isn't denied, but only the gremlin that people think hides within all of reality is rejected.
>>16861402I see. Anti-realism wrt. substance is actually a realist approach to substance because "it leaves reality intact" by denying its substance and supposing it's hollow and unreal.>the reality of car isn't denied>it's an abstraction in my head with no substance>but it was real in my mind
>>16861406The larger argument is actually that reality is only about causal connections and "whole-parts", any other positing is the real anti-realism. A counter intuitive at first look, but if you think about it, it is logical and consistent. If you deny whole-parts and causal connections, you're denying reality. If you posit "real" substance that is unchanging/uncaused/true essence of "reality", its undermining the reality of change and reality of parts.
>>16861409>The larger argument is actually that reality is only about causal connections and "whole-parts"Whose larger argument? The Buddhists quite specifically demote this kind of "reality" as an illusory product of the mind, an artifact of it dealing with relative instead of absolute truths.
>>16861411>an artifact of it dealing with relative instead of absolute truthsThe official Mahayana stance is absolute = relative, like two sides to a reading from ontological standpoint. This relative world isn't negated, its what keeps the world spinning, causal, gives power to life, death, change, etc. What you're arguing is the reality of perception of car being illusory. There's illusory of reification within the mind that the buddhist argue against and then there's illusory of the act of perception itself as cars having a fixed identity/essence in the mind. In neither case, its denying the existence of the car or the metaphysics of the car, but rather a certain framework of how the car is being perceived.
>>16861426>The official Mahayana stance is absolute = relativeThe official Mahayana stance is that you're a cretin.>What you're arguing is the reality of perception of car being illusoryI'm not arguing anything. I'm simply telling you the network of objects and relationships that makes up your comprehension of reality, is the form of your illusion of reality, as far as Buddhists are concerned. It's not the Truth.
>>16861427There's no "The Truth" other than the relative truth. Those climbing the mountain still sees the mountain after enlightenment. The buddhist texts specifically argue against negating relative reality and specifically argues anyone doing so to chase the Truth (tm) is not practicing Buddhism or has understood Buddhism. This comes up in all their sutras, they unmistakably wrote down "form is empty, empty is form" just so midwit fedoras don't confuse themselves by only seeing "form is empty" they added the extra "empty is form."
>>16861430>There's no "The Truth" other than the relative truth.Tell that to Mr. Siddhartha Gautama. It's really funny to watch pop-buddhist Westrannies trying to elevate their reification fallacy into a spiritual practice by parasitizing on Eastern Philosophy.
>>16861433Chase for nihilism wasn't the project in this religion.
>>16861447>Chase for nihilism wasn't the project in this religion.Indeed. The problem is that you're a biological chatbot, so denying the reality of your abstract model is like denying reality itself from your perspective. Relative is indeed absolute for a biobot.
>>16861426>absolute = relativeImagine doing science with this approach> We all have different results and they are all correct!
>>16861461It seems like this is your entry point, but I'll refer you to read the other post or atleast get a sense of where the discussion is taking place. This isn't about "nothing matters, everything is relative" that you hear from nihilists in the west. If you dont have any interest in understanding the topic at hand, then dont confuse the two, its a waste.
>>16861450Soon as you leave the realm of the "biobot", you're no longer part of the solution.
>>16861461Just like him, you misunderstand what's meant by 'relative' vs. 'absolute'. Relative truths boil down to statements about the interrelations between concepts/forms/objects/things that are only conceivable and perceivable relative to each other. Such truths are only meaningful in the context of that whole network of concepts and relationships. They cannot transcend it. But these are the truths that underlie a normal human's sense of everyday reality and make it feel substantial. The "substance" is only semantic but it's mistakenly reified. Absolute truth is a direct, nonconceptual realization of this, to the degree that basic sense-making stops and yet there's a comprehension that what's left isn't quite nothing.
>>16861469>Soon as you leave the realm of the "biobot", you're no longer part of the solution.I accept your admission that the Westeroon corruption of Eastern Philosophy is just Western nihilism repackaged for a population sick and tired of nihilism. Just another variant of Optimistic Nihilism. "Well, yes, you're just a meatsack and there's nothing to the world except for empty abstractions, but here's why that's a GOOD thing!"Just end yourself.
>>16861470>Just like him, you misunderstand what's meant by 'relative' vs. 'absolute'.Well, I've really have no idea about "official Mahanaya stance", if you bring you obliged to explain it.You guys are so not nice. One is constantly wining about his culture being raped by West, another abusing for no reason. Is it considered powerful in your culture?
>>16861521>I've really have no idea about "official Mahanaya stance", if you bring you obliged to explain it.You're clearly confused about who's who. You and the "official Mahanaya stance" poster both misunderstand idea. I wasn't obliged to explain anything, but I literally just did.>One is constantly wining about his culture being raped by WestIt's not my culture. I'm just sick and tired of watching soulless Westrannies corrupt everything they touch.
