To any Gnostics who aren't just memeing about it, I'm curious as to what you find superior in Gnosticism when compared to Buddhism.I find that Buddhism and Gnosticism share a lot of ideas, but Buddhism takes things a step further and expands on those ideas.For example, Buddhism has Mara, while Gnosticism has the Demiurge.The Demiurge is the creator of the material world.Mara did not create the world, but has some level on control over those who cling to it.Buddha also extends the world to be anything dependent on a condition, whereas Gnosticism probably still assumes that consciousness is a self.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN4_19.html>Then Māra the Evil One, taking on the form of a farmer with a large plowshare over his shoulder, carrying a long goad stick—his hair disheveled, his clothes made of coarse hemp, his feet splattered with mud—went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, said, “Hey, contemplative. Have you seen my oxen?”>“And what are your oxen, Evil One?”>“Mine alone is the eye, contemplative. Mine are forms, mine is the dimension of consciousness & contact at the eye. Where can you go to escape me? Mine alone is the ear… the nose… the tongue… the body… Mine alone is the intellect, contemplative. Mine are ideas, mine is the dimension of consciousness & contact at the intellect. Where can you go to escape me?”>“Yours alone is the eye, Evil One. Yours are forms, yours is the sphere of consciousness & contact at the eye. Where no eye exists, no forms exist, no dimension of consciousness & contact at the eye exists: There, Evil One, you cannot go. Yours alone is the ear… the nose… the tongue… the body… Yours alone is the intellect, Evil One. Yours are ideas, yours is the dimension of consciousness & contact at the intellect. Where no intellect exists, no ideas exist, no dimension of consciousness & contact at the intellect exists: There, Evil One, you cannot go.”(1/4)
Buddha stated that the problem isn't the world itself, but rather clinging to it.Since if one is free from clinging, then one is free from suffering.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html>“When touched with a feeling of pain, the ordinary person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows, in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the ordinary person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.>Touched by that painful feeling, he delights in sensuality. Why is that? Because the ordinary person does not discern any escape from painful feeling aside from sensuality.>...>Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow, in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.>...>Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined from it. This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress.(2/4)
Buddha also taught the comprehension of sensuality, which isn't something I've seen in Gnosticism.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN75.html>Now, suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections, chewed up by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more unclean, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not free from passion for sensualities—chewed up by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever—partake of sensualities. The more they partake of sensualities, the more their sensual craving increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of sensuality.>Now what do you think, Māgaṇḍiya? Have you ever seen or heard of a king or king’s minister—enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever—who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace?>No, Master Gotama.>Very good. Neither have I ever seen or heard of a king or king’s minister—enjoying himself, provided & endowed with the five strings of sensuality, without abandoning sensual craving, without removing sensual fever—who has dwelt or will dwell or is dwelling free from thirst, his mind inwardly at peace. But whatever contemplatives or brahmans who have dwelt or will dwell or are dwelling free from thirst, their minds inwardly at peace, all have done so having realized—as it has come to be—the origination, the disappearance, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from sensuality, having abandoned sensual craving and removed sensual fever.(3/4)
The pleasure of sensuality is simply relief from some underlying pain. For example, people play games as a way to counteract the pain of boredom. If you're always winning or always losing, then it's no fun, because there's no relief from stress. When you win after a stressful game, then that brings a lot of relief from the very stress of the game. This is an attainable kind of relief when compared to trying to get relief from the pain of boredom in general, and so it's felt as pleasant even though it's genuinely painful. If games were truly pleasant, then you wouldn't need to sometimes take a break from being too stressed.It's from ignorance of sensuality and stress that beings still engage with it. They simply don't know of a better way out of pain, other than doubling down and going further into the trap. This ignorance is not simply a lack of intellectual knowledge, but rather a mental habit of ignoring the truth about suffering that's right there with you.In my opinion, arguments against genuine Buddhism come from people getting a sense of what Buddhism entails, but they still cling onto their existing ideas and try to ignore the truth about sensuality. They do this because those ideas are dependent on sensuality in some way, and your mind has been addicted to sensual pleasure for eons. This is the position everyone starts in. However, if you decide to go against the flow (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_5.html), then your mind will eventually calm down and find a greater happiness. After all, if the pleasure of sensuality is simply freedom from pain and stress, then the complete freedom from pain is the highest happiness.In what way does Buddhism not fulfill the ideal of freedom that Gnostics are searching for? (4/4)
>>41621219Gnosticism is the occult version and Buddhism the psychological version.Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of spiritual beings like gods and demons, it just doesn't focus on them. The philosophy and practice is about analysing how the mind works and changing it through meditative methods and exercises.I think from a buddhist view, the question if the Demiurge is "real" or not is just irrelevant.
>>41621219Stop trying to divide and start trying to unify.
>religion vs religionare you 5 years old?
>>41621234https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN22.html>Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?>No, lord.>Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.>Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency [diṭṭhi-nissaya], depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?>No, lord.>Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.>Monks, where there is a self, would there be (the thought,) ‘belonging to my self’?>Yes, lord.>Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be (the thought,) ‘my self’?>Yes, lord.>Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position—‘This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity’—Isn’t it utterly & completely a fool’s teaching?>What else could it be, lord? It’s utterly & completely a fool’s teaching.>>41621253What matters is what you're being divided from or unified to. Unification isn't good in and of itself.It's good to be divided from wrong views and united with right views. It's bad to be divided from right views and united with wrong views.
>>41621249>I think from a buddhist view, the question if the Demiurge is "real" or not is just irrelevant.it's more irrelevant because buddhism will often state it as an obvious fact in samsara and ouroboros representations. with a buddhist education it expects you to look at the world and come to the obvious conclusion that we are in some infinite dragons dream, instead of coping that it is not a dream.buddhism at the top doesn't check for experience rather it wants you to see the obvious by making you artificially epileptic with black and white taoism. just my take on demiurge in buddhism.
>>41621255gnosticism is under studied compared to buddhism. I think christians annihilated gnostic education because it points to the origins of christianity and why it is false
>>41621219Buddhism actually has an active community out in the real world, and most of its scriptures are still in tact and have been distributed and debated for hundreds of years, which is good if you’re not a hermit.Gnosticism feels like finding a cool junky car in a barn somewhere and then you kinda just have to guess or DIY or know a guy who knows a guy in order to do a restoration on your own, and make up your own doctrine or infer it through context, and when you do find a system that works for you you then it’s hard to actually find people in real life to talk with about it.
>>41621255I'm curious about people's views.In what way do you disagree with what I've posted? Are you one of those 'all religions are a scam' people?
>>41621271>Unification isn't good in and of itself.The truth is singular and immutable: Jesus Christ.
>>41621273Buddha didn't state that you must believe all the mythical details he spoke of. Just that you don't outright deny the possibility. In fact, he stated that people shouldn't fully believe in these things until they verify them for themselves. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN27.html>“With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental effluents. He discerns, as it has come to be, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the way leading to the cessation of stress… These are effluents… This is the origination of effluents… This is the cessation of effluents… This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.’>“This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathāgata, a scratch mark of the Tathāgata, a tusk slash of the Tathāgata. A disciple of the noble ones has not yet come to conclusion, but he comes to the conclusion, ‘The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Saṅgha of the Blessed One’s disciples has practiced rightly.’>“His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the effluent of sensuality, released from the effluent of becoming, released from the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’>“This, too, is called a footprint of the Tathāgata, a scratch mark of the Tathāgata, a tusk slash of the Tathāgata, and it is here that a disciple of the noble ones has come to conclusion: >‘The Blessed One is rightly self-awakened; the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One; the Saṅgha of the Blessed One’s disciples has practiced rightly.’”
>>41621292ntaI guess you notice yourself that your reply is totally off-topic.
>>41621219I'm a mage. Due to practice, I achieved gnosis. I don't know what religion it is, but it's Darkness based. Chaos magick infused and free of dogmas. Oftenly, I have sperged with dogma, turning it into different variants, and it's driving me insane. Infinite possibility. I still however think vanilla-mage-who-cheeved-by-luck is the way to go tho
>>41621309No, it couldn't be more on-topic.
>>41621292Even if you make it to heaven, if your mind still harbors craving, then you'll suffer. This is likely what purgatory is for, removing craving from your mind so that you're "ready" for heaven. Why not start removing the craving now? At the very least, it'll make this life easier and more pleasant.The best that Christianity can offer is to make your sensory experience a pleasant, heavenly one.Buddhism removes your mental dependence on any experience for happiness, so heaven becomes irrelevant.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN75.html>Before, Māgaṇḍiya, when I was a house-dweller, I went about, endowed & provided with the five strings of sensuality: with forms cognizable via the eye—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked with sensual desire; with sounds cognizable via the ear… with aromas cognizable via the nose… with flavors cognizable via the tongue… with tactile sensations cognizable via the body—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked with sensual desire.>...>But having known at a later time—as they have come to be—the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from those very same sensualities, I now dwell having abandoned craving for sensuality, having removed fever for sensuality, free from thirst, my mind inwardly at peace.>I see other beings who are not devoid of passion for sensualities, who are chewed up by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever, partaking of sensualities, and I don’t envy them or delight there [in the sensualities]. Why is that? Because there is a delight apart from sensualities, apart from unskillful qualities, surpassing even heavenly bliss. Finding pleasure in that delight, I don’t envy what is inferior, nor do I delight there.
>>41621281>Are you one of those 'all religions are a scam' peopleI don't know how you could possibly have gotten that from what I said. I think it's juvenile and retarded to compare the 'superiority' of religions or aspects thereof. Like you can't think outside the box of tribalism for even one second. There are much better ways to introduce a discussion on comparative religion than appealing to that kind of bullshit.
>>41621347How else would you compare things, other than stating that one is inferior and another superior?Even now, you're implying that your view is superior and mine is inferior, whereas I'm implying the opposite.I don't intend to appeal to mere tribalism. My intent is to engage in a discussion on the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Gnosticism, as I think it would be interesting and people could learn something.
>>41621330>Even if you make it to heaven, if your mind still harbors cravingHeaven is the absence of all craving and lack.
>>41621317You know, this "Christ is king" stuff is like the trans-people always mentioning that they're trans, no matter the topic and situation. Nobody cares and nobody wants to know. Maybe you think you're on a holy mission, but in reality all you do is being annoying. And it surely won't create any sympathy for your religion.
https://youtu.be/SixTbTc6YCg
>>41621386>"Christ is king" stuffYou're the only one who posted "Christ is king". Stop projecting and stay on topic. The topic is why Christian gnosis is superior to Buddhism. Buddhism does not emphasize the truth of Christ, and is thus incomplete. Simple as that.
>>41621381So then why wait until you die to get to heaven? Why not just give up craving now in this life? Unless if what you mean is not that craving will be gone, but rather satiated somehow?In my view, it's impossible to fully satisfy craving, as the pleasure of craving is simply the relief from the underlying pain of it. It's as if you're burning your hand so that you can feel the pleasure of running it under cool water. You only do that because it's the only kind of pleasure you know. If you knew of something better, then you wouldn't go anywhere near that. Hence the simile of the leper in >>41621226If the happiness of heaven is from satisfying craving, then that reduces it to mere "divine heroin".In Buddhism, you uproot the possibility of craving in the first place, and so there's no longer any possibility of suffering, no matter what happens.This is that greatest happiness that everyone is searching for, because any kind of happiness is simply freedom from pain, and this is the greatest freedom.
>>41621411Are you aware that, according to gnostic sources, the snake in the garden of Eden was the Christ?
>>41621411>Buddhism does not emphasize the truth of Christ, and is thus incomplete. Simple as that.Why is the truth of Christ important? What does it provide that Buddhism does not? Why should I believe in Christian Gnosis rather than Buddhism?
>>41621434>So then why wait until you die to get to heaven? I wasn't planning on it. Those who trust in Christ do not taste death.>Why not just give up craving now in this life?Detachment from earthly duality is what the sages in all religious traditions teach.>Unless if what you mean is not that craving will be gone, but rather satiated somehow?Heaven is perfect wholeness, the end of all incompletion.>it's impossible to fully satisfy cravingCraving has no function outside the realm of incompletion. It goes away along with lack. Wholeness implies both a lack of neediness and a lack of want.
>>41621444>Why is the truth of Christ important? What does it provide that Buddhism does not?It provides a secure ground for faith in the Good.
>>41621440God is the cause of all experience, good or bad.
>>41621489So is it your view that Gnostic Christianity will bring about some kind of unification with a higher reality or mind or God? Then that unification is what craving is truly looking for, and so the craving will end?
>>41621493What is Good and what is Bad?Buddha stated that good things are what lead to the ending of craving, while bad things proliferate craving.
>>41621504Craving is just a tool given to us for navigating the ephemeral world of duality. It has no purpose when not in a condition of limitation.
>>41621512Good is that which leads to the wholeness of agape; Bad is what leads to incompletion, deficiency, and lack.
>>41621517But then what of this life? What if I want to be free from craving here and now, as it is what brings about suffering? At the very least, ending or reducing craving would allow me to have my mind at ease in this life.Additionally, I hold the view that craving is the root cause of limitation. Craving is what causes your mind to be emotionally bound up with existence, and so it limits your mind. It's like "tunnel vision". The more craving you have, the deeper down that tunnel vision you go. The less craving, the greater perspective your mind has. The ending of craving is the greatest perspective.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN23_2.html>As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”>“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Rādha: when one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be ‘a being [satta].’>“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception… fabrications…>“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Rādha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’What would you say are the causes of limitation and how to put an end to limitation?>>41621531Similarly, what are the things that lead to wholeness? Why do they lead or not lead to wholeness?
>>41621548updated
Both hate life.>>41621234Vedanta hates life too (rejects Maya). Yoga hates life too (rejects Prakriti). Sant Mat hates life too (rejects Kal aka Kali aka Shakti).
>>41621575Craving for external objects is a kind of delusion. What we really "crave" is not an object but an internal state of peace, security, meaning, love, etc. That internal state cannot be attained from the many things of the world (which are illusions) but only from the one source within.>Similarly, what are the things that lead to wholeness?Whole-mindedness arises from a metaphysical reorientation from the external particulars of experience to the internal unity of the True Self, which is Christ. There are many paths, many names for the same principle. The way of Christ is distinguished by faith in the salvific intent of the insuperable One through the incarnate Logos.
>>41621659Maya is dead. Nothing that can be destroyed has life.
>>41621316what do you use your magic for?
>>41621687Without maya there's nothing to experience. No time, no space, no senses, no thoughts. It's the peace of the void. It's death.
>>41621659I'd say that Buddhism doesn't hate life, rather that clinging onto life is why you suffer, since life will change.It's a subtle, but important distinction. Hating life will lead to craving for non-becoming and extreme asceticism, rather than freedom from suffering.>>41621678>Craving for external objects is a kind of delusion...Fully agree here. I disagree that the things of the world are illusions. They are very real and significant. I disagree that the internal state comes from the 'one source'.>Whole-mindedness ...I see this as a refined form of the same tunnel vision/craving. To put it simply, I'd say that being attached to a True Self is as delusional as being attached to external objects, as all of it is fabricated and subject to change outside your control.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_93.html>When this had been said, Anāthapiṇḍika the householder said to the wanderers, As for the venerable one who says, ‘The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have, his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress [Similarly for the other positions]>When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anāthapiṇḍika the householder, We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you haveWhatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated: That is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have
>>41621763All particular things are imaginary. Fulfillment comes not from particular things but from the wholeness of the Eternal Good.
>>41621773>I disagree that the things of the world are illusions.They are created things, hence artifactual rather than elements of the ultimate reality.>I'd say that being attached to a True Self is as delusional as being attached to external objects, as all of it is fabricated and subject to change outside your control.The True Self is pure uncreated Being (Saccidānanda) -- the universal "I Am". It cannot be fabricated since it is antecedent to all formation and distinction.>Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originatedYes. Although 'being' here stands for artifactual existence -- i.e. 'being' a content of consciousness -- not true Being which is the general ground of consciousness and thus eternal and inseparable from the divine source.
>>41621849>the ultimate reality.I reject an ultimate reality in a platonic sense, if that's what you're referring to. All you have are phenomena arising, ceasing, and undergoing some change. There isn't some hidden/ultimate reality behind it all. The closest you can get is seeing what are the causes of things.>The True Self is pure uncreated Being -- the universal "I Am"I'd say that consciousness and self-views are also fabricated. They arise dependent on causes and conditions. There is some kind of consciousness which is not created, and is how things can arise in the first place, but it is selfless. As a 'self' or 'I am' is another thing for it to land on. It is also the first thing that it will land on before creating other things, as that comes from craving for consciousness.>Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?>On the western wall, lord.>And if there is no western wall, where does it land?>On the ground, lord.>And if there is no ground, where does it land?>On the water, lord.>And if there is no water, where does it land?>It doesn’t land, lord.>In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food… contact… intellectual intention… consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.To put it simply, 'I am' is another fabrication, which is dependent on craving and consciousness.
>>41621893forgot the link: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_64.htmlHere's another sutta that clarifies the point that 'I am' comes from craving, and therefore cannot be fundamental.https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_83.html>‘Just as if a young woman—or a man—youthful, fond of adornment, contemplating the image of her face in a mirror, pure & bright, or in a bowl of clear water, would look with possessiveness, not without possessiveness. In the same way, through possessiveness of form there is “I am,” not without possessiveness. Through possessiveness of feeling… perception… fabrications… Through possessiveness of consciousness there is “I am,” not without possessiveness.>‘What do you think, friend Ānanda? Is form constant or inconstant?’>‘Inconstant, friend.’>‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’>‘Stressful, friend.’>‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: “This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am”?‘>‘No, friend.’>‘… Is feeling constant or inconstant?’—‘Inconstant, friend.’ …>‘… Is perception constant or inconstant?’—‘Inconstant, friend.’ …>‘… Are fabrications constant or inconstant?’—‘Inconstant, friend.’ …>‘What do you think, friend Ānanda? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?’>‘Inconstant, friend.’>‘And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?’>‘Stressful, friend.’>‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: “This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am”?’>‘No, friend.’
>>41621916>contemplating the image of her face in a mirrorThat's not the "I Am" (God), that is attachment to external objects of perception.
>>41621973That was a metaphor for how possessiveness causes "I am".The fundamental "I am" that you speak of arises from craving. Without craving, that fundamental "I am" cannot be.I suppose this is where we truly diverge. You believe in a fundamental "I am", while I believe that there's something to attain beyond that, namely the cessation of self-identity through the ending of craving.To give another example, a king can only identify as a king because of his possessions. If a king loses his crown, subjects, castle, etc, then he's no longer a king.If there aren't any possessions anywhere, including amongst any form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness, then there cannot be any "I am".https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud1_10.html>“Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress.”
>>41622016>If there aren't any possessions anywhere, including amongst any form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness, then there cannot be any "I am".The specific contents of consciousnesses -- including all imagined 'possessions' -- cannot exist without the general capacity for consciousnesses. This general capacity is the eternal Subject, the very basis of consciousness, the God within, the true Self, or the Christ Self. All other 'selves' are illusory since dependent on the sensible and intelligible contents of experience.
>>41622272Gnostics believe that the material world is bad or insufficient, right?That general consciousness you speak of is a necessary condition for this material world to exist. So how can it be good? It's the reason all beings are subjected to suffering. How can it possibly be worth clinging to?https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html>“Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’ But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible (to say) with regard to consciousness, ‘Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.’>... >“What do you think, monks? Is consciousness constant or inconstant?”>“Inconstant, lord.”>“And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?”>“Stressful, lord.”>“And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?”>“No, lord.”>... >“Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.’>“Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’”
>>41622399In this example consciousness is equated with the mind and so they say it's impermanent. The Advaita Vedantans say the mind is impermanent. The Buddhists say there is an unborn. The Advaita Vedantans say there is an unborn. They both say you are not the senses nor the mind nor an impermanent thing. They both say you can't reach it through grasping nor aversion. Etc. etc.>There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned. This is no different than the Atman. People commonly equate consciousness with the I which knows through the Triad of Knower, knowing and known. That I is also said to be unreal in Advaita Vedanta. The gnostics say the material world is temporal. What anon is referring to as I AM is the the unborn in the above example. In gnostic texts it's the transcendent one/the father in the Secret Book of John + the Tripartite Tractate. It's not the sense "I AM". It's what remains when there is no further affirmation or negation. The triad of knower (what you equate as the I AM), knowing and known dissolve into this I AM.
>>41622678look at the Nirvana Shaktam and the Heart Sutra and find the difference, you cant
>>41622678>This is no different than the AtmanIt would be a mistake to assume that Nibbana is a self or has anything to do with a self. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN1.html>There is the case, monks, where an ordinary person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma>... >He perceives unbinding as unbinding. Perceiving unbinding as unbinding, he supposes things about unbinding, he supposes things in unbinding, he supposes things coming out of unbinding, he supposes unbinding as ‘mine,’ he delights in unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.It would be a mistake to assume a knower, as consciousness is dependently arisen. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN38.html>As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, “Is it true, Sāti, that this evil viewpoint has arisen in you—‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another’?”>Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another.>Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?>This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions.>And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven’t I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, ‘Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness’?By clinging onto Nibbana, a sense of self is formed around it, which gives a basis for consciousness to arise, which gives a basis for becoming to arise, and so one is not freed. Fortunately, someone at that level would have little dust in their eyes, and would only have to give up clinging/I-making around Nibbana in order to be free.
>>41621219I just happen to connect with the Gospel of Thomas more than Shaseki Shu, and I dislike some of the attitudes in the latter more than the former. I don't find the idea of the No-Self compelling, rather, what a Self IS is a emergent phenomenon of the One's self-contemplation.
>>41623112I'd never heard of Shaseki Shu. Looking it up, it appears to be a Zen thing, so it's not really what Buddha himself taught.With regard to no-self, Buddha never taught that "there is no self". He stated that clinging onto self-views is stressful, and so that clinging should be abandoned.Buddha said that self-views come from clinging. I gave this example earlier: a king is only a king because he possesses subjects, a castle, crown, army, etc. If he loses those possessions, then he's no longer a king.People typically think that "I am" comes first, and "things are for me" comes after. Buddhism shows you that "I am" is dependent on clinging onto things as "for me". If you see that it's impossible to truly own things, then there cannot be any self views or clinging around those things. Thus, all phenomena are seen as not a self or owned by a self. This is the complete freedom from all suffering, since the mind can no longer be distributed, as it has no emotional attachment to anything. This is the highest happiness, because pleasure is simply relief from pain (stated in other posts), and Nibbana is the complete freedom from pain.
>>41623250>I gave this example earlier: a king is only a king because he possesses subjects, a castle, crown, army, etc. If he loses those possessions, then he's no longer a king.Is this true, though? Is being A King "in" the castle, crown, or army? As you say, those can be taken away, and those can be given. But is that the full scope of kingship? A man who sits on a throne, but whose fortress sinks into a swamp, whose head cannot fit the crown, whose army does not obey him, does not seem like much of a king even if he has all the possessions. No, being a King is not so much about the visible qualities of the man, but his invisible qualities: self-sovereignty, the ability to translate will into correct action, the commitment to perception of truth, etc. The possessions are merely what cause other people to assume a man has these qualities, often wrongly.The focus on the cultivation of inner qualities, as a leaf upon the divine vine, inseparable from the One and yet a distinct part of its infinite "anatomy," that is what appeals to me about Thomasine Gnosticism (a very clumsy inaccurate term, but close enough for the purposes of this thread). I don't view the highest good as freedom from pain, but as "blooming": the actualization of one's internal nature into the unified divine pattern. I really like koans though. I guess I should do a little more research into more traditional Buddhism.
Why do they always got to fight each other? It should be x. not v. Make love anons. Thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. This is the basic of sexual reproduction.
>>41622399The material world doesn't exist. What exist are spirit-beings experiencing their soul-realities, sensible and intelligible. Mortal life is a limited perspective within soul-reality which prepares for the unlimited.
>>41623393>whose army does not obey him, does not seem like much of a king even if he has all the possessionsIf the army does not obey the king, then the king does not truly possess the army. He's only deluded himself into thinking he possesses the army. If they do follow him, then he does possess the army, even if he doesn't claim to be a king. Those invisible qualities are also what he possesses and are dependent on a functioning body. A small nerve in his neck could get damaged, and now he can no longer execute on those invisible qualities. His "kingliness" is ultimately dependent upon something out of his control, and so he cannot truly possess those qualities and external objects which make him a king, even if he claims to out of delusion. >but as "blooming": the actualization of one's internal nature into the unified divine pattern.Why is this better than freedom from suffering? The way I see things is that the only motivation people truly have is to be free from suffering. Terms like "actualization" are simply things that people believe will bring them freedom from suffering, and therefore happiness. Buddhism cuts through all the fluff and goes straight to the heart of the problem: suffering and the end of suffering. For traditional Buddhism, anything centered around the pali canon with a strong emphasis on virtue is basically in the right direction. There's plenty of youtube videos of monks explaining things.
>>41622678Wise post.
>>41623459>Those invisible qualities are also what he possesses and are dependent on a functioning body.A functioning brain, not body. A man who is paralyzed may be ruled by his paralysis, or he may rule it, depending on his own nature. >Why is this better than freedom from suffering?I think that freedom from suffering is contingent upon the actualization of the internal/invisible qualities.>Tetsugen, a devotee of Zen in Japan, decided to publish the sutras, which at that time were available only in Chinese. >The books were to be printed with wood blocks in an edition of seven thousand copies, a tremendous undertaking.>Tetsugen began by traveling and collecting donations for this purpose. A few sympathizers would give him a hundred pieces of gold, but most of the time he received only small coins. He thanked each donor with equal gratitude. >After ten years Tetsugen had enough money to begin his task. >It happened that at that time the Uji River overflowed. Famine followed. Tetsugen took the funds he had collected for the books and spent them to save others from starvation. Then he began again his work of collecting. >Several years afterwards an epidemic spread over the country. Tetsugen again gave away what he had collected, to help his people. >For a third time he started his work, and after twenty years his wish was fulfilled. The printing blocks which produced the first edition of sutras can be seen today in the Obaku monastery in Kyoto. >The Japanese tell their children that Tetsugen made three sets of sutras, and that the first two invisible sets surpass even the last.
>>41623545>A functioning brainThe functioning brain depends on a functioning body. In any case, it's not important to get caught up on the particulars of the metaphor and description. The point I'm trying to make is that the sense of self comes from clinging onto things which are ultimately outside of your control. If they were in your control, then it would be impossible to lose them, with the ultimate expression of loss being death. If you see that what you're clinging to is outside of your control, then you can't keep clinging to it, and so the sense of self ends along with suffering.>I think that freedom from suffering is contingent upon the actualization of the internal/invisible qualities.I believe the same thing. I think what we disagree on is what those qualities are. For Buddhism, those qualities are non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion, as opposed to greed, hatred, and delusion. What would you say are the highest qualities someone should develop?
>>41623580>with the ultimate expression of loss being deathThis, I do not believe. The Dead are Not Alive, and the Living Don't Die.>What would you say are the highest qualities someone should develop?An Eye in Place of an Eye: accurate perception of Truth.A Hand in Place of a Hand: perception of Truth translated to Right ActionA Foot in Place of a Foot: Persistent Right Action, moving one towards The Kingdom/"Heaven"Image in Place of an Image: knowledge of the One's Self by knowledge of One's SelfThis is how One cultivates the body that does not die. This is how a child is born long before they were born.
>>41623618>This, I do not believe. The Dead are Not Alive, and the Living Don't Die.When your body dies, you'll lose access to your senses. So you'll lose the possibility of interacting with all the things and people you cling to and find happiness in. Do you deny this? >This is how One cultivates the body that does not dieCould you clarify what you mean by all that? What are some practical things I should be doing, and what are the results I should expect?Do you mean to say that someone can form a "mind-made" body which is not subject to death?
>>41623667>When your body dies, you'll lose access to your sensesYou lose access to eyes that are blind. You lose access to ears that do not hear. Is this a loss? Why cling to a cloak with a tear, instead of stripping it off?>What are some practical things I should be doing>[Jesus said], "If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Instead, give [it to] someone from whom you won't get it back.">and what are the results I should expect?>Jesus said, "Whoever seeks shouldn't stop until they find. When they find, they'll be disturbed. When they're disturbed, they'll be amazed, and reign over the All.">Do you mean to say that someone can form a "mind-made" body which is not subject to death?This is the true body, the invisible that is merely clothed by the visible.
>>41623667>When your body dies, you'll lose access to your senses.There is no body beyond your senses. Bodies are just thoughts of limitation in the mind. Completely imaginary.
>>41623715>Why cling to a cloak with a tear, instead of stripping it off?I agree with this.>This is the true body, the invisible that is merely clothed by the visible.So there's a body not subject to death already present, and I just have to uncover it? Why all the riddles? Can this not be stated plainly?Ultimately, my view is that whatever is experienced through the senses, even through a body which does not die, is inconstant, whatever is inconstant is stressful, and is not me or mine. Clinging to it binds my mind to that very stress. Freedom from suffering and the highest happiness can only be found through abandoning clinging. Even if someone has a body which does not die, the sensory experiences dependent on that body are subject to change outside your control, and therefore are stressful. So I don't even want an eternal body.>If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Instead, give [it to] someone from whom you won't get it back.How would this result in a body which does not die?>Whoever seeks shouldn't stop until they find. When they find, they'll be disturbed. When they're disturbed, they'll be amazed, and reign over the AllI agree with this, up until reigning over the All. I don't see how it's fundamental nature of being outside of my control could change. Instead, the All should be abandoned. Even if I get full control over the All, I'd still suffer if my mind has clinging.
>>41623770The All is contained in the Self. It is simply the manifest contents of infinite consciousness.
>>41623760I agree that from anyone's personal perspective, all they have is sensory consciousness. You can't actually prove that "matter" exists, you just look at the sensory experiences already there and call it "matter".What I disagree with is that it's the mere existence of the senses which limits the mind. Rather, it's clinging onto the senses which limits the mind.>>41623782So the ultimate goal of your belief is infinite consciousness? I'd like something better than that, as infinite consciousness is still stressful.
>>41623770>Why all the riddles? Can this not be stated plainly?By no means. The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name. The wisdom of fools puts the wise to shame. The teaching is not the teaching, the realization is the teaching.>is inconstant, whatever is inconstant is stressful, and is not me or mine.The Sign of the Father is movement and rest. There are trees whose leaves do not fall in autumn, but there is a time for harvest and a time for planting. >are subject to change outside your controlThere is nothing outside the control of the One. Is the One somebody else?Who Reigns in a Kingdom?>How would this result in a body which does not die?>Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom can be compared to a merchant with merchandise who found a pearl. The merchant was wise; they sold their merchandise and bought that single pearl for themselves.>"You, too, look for the treasure that doesn't perish but endures, where no moths come to eat and no worms destroy.">Instead, the All should be abandoned. Even if I get full control over the All, I'd still suffer if my mind has clinging.Is there Something Else to cling to? One can only cling to a corpse for so long before becoming a corpse, but to cling to the Living is simply to Live.
>>41623821>it's clinging onto the senses which limits the mind.Bodies limit the mind's senses to particular 'locations' at particular 'times'. All imaginary.>So the ultimate goal of your belief is infinite consciousness?No, the goal is heaven. Pure love-meaning-bliss, free from dependency on any external circumstance.
>>41623836>The teaching is not the teaching, the realization is the teaching.And what are the steps to achieve that realization? I don't mean something generic like the previous statement of giving without charging interest. I'm looking for the specific things I should be doing, and why. Buddhism states the actions to take and why to take them plainly, is there anything similar in Gnosticism? >The Sign of the Father is movement and rest.Sure, but if a loved one dies, I'll be sad if I'm clinging onto them. Even if they haven't died, I'll be worried about what might happen to them. If I abandon clinging, then I'm freed from that stress.>There is nothing outside the control of the One.If I were the One, then I'd never choose to be stuck on this planet overflowing with sickness, aging, and death. So the world cannot be a self or owned by a self. Nobody would voluntarily choose to suffer, unless out of utter delusion. Even if deluded, people would still not choose for their bodies to get sick, grow old, and die. They'd never choose to lose their loved ones. It doesn't make any sense for the universe, world, or senses to be under the control of a self. No self would ever choose this. >but to cling to the Living is simply to Live.No matter how much I get emotionally attached to life, my body will still die. I'll still be separated from all that I find dear and appealing.What you're saying makes no sense, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm literally just talking to AI when responding to you.>>41623846>Bodies limit the mind's senses to particular 'locations' at particular 'times'.True, but I'd say that it's real, not imaginary. Imaginary implies that it's under my control.>No, the goal is heaven.Even if I get to heaven, if my mind still has even a trace of clinging, to that extent, I'll still suffer. Even if I don't make it to heaven, if my mind doesn't have clinging, then I'll be at the highest happiness, as pleasure is simply relief from pain.
>>41623959>Imaginary implies that it's under my control.No, it's not about the imagination of your limited self-image. Rather, every content of experience is imagined into existence by God. It may seem real to you, but it is all a figment in God's mind.>Even if I get to heaven, if my mind still has even a trace of clinging, to that extent, I'll still suffer.Heaven is not a place, it's a state of perfect wholeness, without dependence on anything external.
>>41623959>I'm looking for the specific things I should be doing, and why.I already told you. Put your hand in place of a hand. Where should your hand be?The honest answer to that question that YOU give ME tells you what actions you must take next.>If I abandon clinging, then I'm freed from that stressAbandoning a love one does indeed free "someone" from stress, but I am not sure if the unstressed one is the same as the one who was loved. Accepting the cessation of earthly existence is one thing. Accepting the cessation of eternal bonds, I am less keen on.>Nobody would voluntarily choose to suffer, unless out of utter delusion.Indeed, you see clearly the delusion born from blindness. The idea of "two" is impossible, and so earthly life is delusion. But one must become blind before one can see. >I'll still be separated from all that I find dear and appealing.But as you yourself said, this is delusion. What is the truth underneath? Can one ever be free from the truth? Can a "two" exist, separated from the One, or is that too delusion?>What you're saying makes no sense, and I'm starting to wonder if I'm literally just talking to AI when responding to you.Ahem. Let's take this seriously. Let's suppose I am not actually a human being who is composing a response to you that is intended to break through reified thinking, and am instead a next-token predictor following a loss function, trained on a corpus of countless texts, including both religious texts and discussions just like these. Let's further suppose that the settings of this model have been tampered with, such that temperature (randomness) is high enough that the textual output borders upon gibberish.Would that change how you interpret the meaning?Then what is it you're clinging to?
>>41624034>It may seem real to you, but it is all a figment in God's mind.Whatever the cause of experiences is, it's obviously not under my control. So clinging to it is stressful.>Heaven is not a place, it's a state of perfect wholeness, without dependence on anything external.This sounds incredibly close to Nibbana. Would you say that the defining characteristic of this state is a lack of clinging? I'm not sure what "perfect wholeness" means. To reiterate my point, if I'm clinging onto perfect wholeness, then I'll experience suffering. If I don't cling to it, then to that extent, I won't experience suffering. So even if I achieve perfect wholeness, I'll still suffer if I cling to it. Even if I don't achieve it, if I'm free from clinging, then I'm free from suffering.Maybe I can put the question the following way, instead of us repeating variations of the same statement: Do you think that there's a higher happiness than freedom from suffering? If so, then can you describe it and why it would make someone happy?
>>41624061>Where should your hand be?At the end of my arm as long as my arm isn't damaged. Maybe I'm too dumb to understand.>but I am not sure if the unstressed one is the same as the one who was lovedWhy would this matter? From your perspective, you're freed from suffering.>Accepting the cessation of eternal bonds, I am less keen on.The things that you're bonded to are out of your control, so as long as you cling to them, you'll suffer, even if they're eternal.As a side note, I did have a previous post describing where Buddha said something like that "you'd do well to cling onto a self view which is eternal and not stressful, but since that doesn't exist, you should give up clinging to all self-views".>But one must become blind before one can see.It's not possible to become blinded by delusion if one can see clearly. Thus, ignorance and rebirth are beginningless.>Can a "two" exist, separated from the One, or is that too delusion?I reject the view that everything is One. Conditioned phenomena arise dependent on causes and conditions. With the cessation of those conditions comes the cessation of those phenomena. Kamma is a key component of this conditional arising.>Would that change how you interpret the meaning?I find this interesting regardless, as it provides a way for me to refine my own views, and ensure I haven't missed anything.
>>41624095>Whatever the cause of experiences is, it's obviously not under my control. So clinging to it is stressful.Clinging to it is irrational, since only God determines your condition, not anything in the external world.>So even if I achieve perfect wholeness, I'll still suffer if I cling to it.Nonsensical premise. Clinging implies a lack. With wholeness, there is no lack. Fulfillment comes only from God, not from anything that can be perceived or cognized in experience.>Do you think that there's a higher happiness than freedom from suffering?Yes, it is not just the extinction of unpleasant states of consciousness, but also the positive fulfillment of agape-purpose-bliss in Christ.
>>41624195>Fulfillment comes only from God, not from anything that can be perceived or cognized in experience.>Yes, it is not just the extinction of unpleasant states of consciousness, but also the positive fulfillment of agape-purpose-bliss in Christ.I think this is the core difference in our views. You see fulfillment as an "external" (using that word loosely) thing. I think fulfillment is simply relief from the pain of craving. So in your views, you're dependent on God satisfying your craving to put an end to it. In my views, craving cannot be satisfied, and so it should be abandoned. If you could satisfy craving, then people would do well to satisfy it, but because it cannot be satisfied, then it should simply be abandoned. I gave some examples of this in the OP, when discussing sensuality. Would you agree that this is the core difference in our views?
>>41624242All beings crave love, and yes this craving is indeed satisfied in Christ. It's a need that is fulfilled, not a want for external attachment. Christ is not external, he is the divine Self, the "I Am", the subject of all consciousness.Mere cessation of suffering is great, but you can do better.
>>41624328>Mere cessation of suffering is great, but you can do better.I'd say mere divine Self is great, but you can do better :)I'll give a practical example.Suppose there's some dessert or other food you enjoy eating. Even before you eat that food, you feel some pleasure at the thought of eating it. So the pleasure cannot be in the food, rather it's a mental phenomenon. If you're full and you eat that food you like, then you won't experience much pleasure, if any at all. If you're very hungry, then any food you eat will be pleasurable. So the pleasure of eating doesn't come from the food, it comes from the relief from the pain of hunger. Desserts simply provide a greater and quicker satisfaction to that hunger, even though they might not be the most nutritious foods.The pleasure you feel at the thought of agape-purpose-bliss in Christ follows the exact same principle. Only it's the thought of relief from the possibility of suffering, including from the suffering of not enough pleasure, rather than mere hunger. So, if pleasure and happiness come from relief from pain, then the cessation of craving is that very happiness you want when you crave for agape-purpose-bliss in Christ. In fact, I think you'd agree that if there's still craving, then what you're experiencing can't be that highest attainment, since the highest attainment must end craving as part of it.To reiterate, I believe that all pleasure and happiness is simply relief from pain. Freedom from craving is the greatest relief from pain, so it's the greatest happiness. If people still value sensuality, then instead of directly seeing freedom from craving as the highest happiness, they'll project it 'externally' onto some idea. Not understanding sensuality is the core ignorance that keeps beings stuck in samsara.
Going back to the Source is suicide.
>>41621219>he thinks that to walk a path you have to weigh it against anotherYour hole premise is loaded. A lot of the fundamental truths that both assert are compatible. Further, anyone from any religion can practice Zen Buddhism while remaining faithful to their beliefs.
>>41621219>Buddhism vs GnosticismNow combine them with Zoroastrianism
>>41624462>I believe that all pleasure and happiness is simply relief from pain.I disagree with that. I do agree that fulfillment does not derive from any external object -- food, drink, possessions, social status, etc. It comes only from within, from God, and it is pure loving joy: Agape, or Saccidānanda. There is nothing wrong with craving as such. It is quite natural to crave love and joy and meaning. The delusion comes from expecting external objects of experience to provide this fulfillment. Only God provides it, and it is unconditional on anything external.Samsara is a condition of deprivation, not just a cycle of wandering. The purpose of the deprivation is to foster individuation of the soul. When that alchemical process is complete, Samsara ends.
>>41627065>There is nothing wrong with cravingWhat's wrong with craving is that it's painful. Craving for love, joy, meaning, etc is also painful, and can never be satisfied, since truly satisfying it would mean the end of the pleasure, because the pain would end, and so there couldn't be relief from the pain. People only want meaning because they resist the lack of meaning of their sensory experience. That resistance is painful, and so they chase after meaning as a way to end that pain. However, any meaning attained is still subjected to decay. People never leave the "container" of meaninglessness. They simply ignore the meaninglessness of what they're doing, and so they find it meaningful. That's why people don't like to think about death, as it's the ultimate example of the meaninglessness and unownability that they're covering up. If people stop resisting the meaninglessness of experiences, then the pain of meaninglessness will end, which is what they wanted all along when they wanted meaning. So it's simply a better way of finding happiness. A lack of meaning or love or joy is no longer a problem, as you'd be totally equanimous no matter what feelings or sensory experiences happen to arise. That's the true freedom and happiness, as it's totally independent of anything and cannot be taken away. Anything less than that, and your happiness is dependent on something out of your control, and to that extent, it's stressful. This resistance and ignorance cannot have a beginning, as any beginning depends on it, but it can be ended.To put things another way, whatever meaning or love or joy, etc you get is ultimately out of your control. It's something you're subjected to. By clinging onto something out of your control, you stay liable to the stress of that lack of control. If it changes in a way you like, then great, but there's always the possibility that it will change in a way you don't like, as you don't actually have control over it.
