Is Buddhism just nihilism?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Nāgārjuna argues, however, that there is no such end-point and denies the existence of an ontological foundation (see Westerhoff 2017. For the relation of this idea to the debate about the well-foundedness of grounding in contemporary metaphysics see chapter 3 of Westerhoff 2020). This fact is sometimes used as support of the accusation that Madhyamaka is really a nihilistic doctrine, a doctrine that nothing exists. For if the secondary existent is reduced to the primary, and if there is no primary, what is there left? This interpretation has a relatively long history, beginning in ancient India and continuing to find supporters nowadays (see Spackman 2014, Westerhoff 2016). Nevertheless, there are powerful systematic and historical reasons against it. First of all, it is not clear that this kind of ontological nihilism is in fact a consistent position (if there is nothing, is there not at least the fact that there is nothing, i.e. something? See, however, Westerhoff 2021). Secondly, the Mādhyamikas themselves are very clear that their position avoids both of the extreme views, the view that believes in the existence of svabhāva as well as its nihilistic opposite.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      None of this is about buddhism.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >implying that Nāgārjuna isn't Buddhist
        >implying that Vasubandhu isn't Buddhist

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        moron

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Madhyamikas say they aren't nihilist but then don't offer anything that shows they aren't nihilist. The two truths doctrine does not escape nihilism, it says that ultimately there is no ground for anything even though conventionally people act like there is.

      Nagarjuna is a nihilist as are all his intellectual descandants. The fact that nihilism doesn't make sense is not an argument against this historical fact, it's just an argument that Nagarjuna was a shitty philosopher.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Vases, canvas, bucklers, armies, forests, garlands, trees houses, chariots, hostelries, and all such things that common people designate dependent on their parts, accept as such. For Buddha did not quarrel with the world!
        The ground of conventional truth is its conventionality. Under no analysis, madhyamikas accept the functional, conventional reality that people generally agree upon, and act in accordance with the ethical teachings of the Buddha because karma functions. Read Tsongkhapa.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Conventionality cannot act as a metaphysical ground. If it could then that would contradict the ultimate truth. It also wouldn't make any fricking sense in a dozen other ways.
          Buddhists just say insane shit that doesn't hold up to intellectual rigour and call it enlightenment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why does functional conventionality need a metaphysical basis?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Metaphysics is what we're talking about. Conventional truth doesn't save madhyamaka buddhism from metaphysical nihilism, which is what it teaches.
            That said, everything ultimately needs a metaphysical basis otherwise it's literally not real.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Conventionality cannot act as a metaphysical ground
            Irrelevant, the Madhyamaka refutes the ontological or theoretical need of a metaphysical ground, so your argument is just mere question begging

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Madhyamaka refutes the ontological or theoretical need of a metaphysical ground,
            How so? What is their arguement?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What's the argument for a metaphysical ground?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >goal post shifting fallacy
            Don't make the claim if you are unwilling to back it up

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not the one who claimed that a metaphysical ground is necessary i just pointed out that since you didn't back it up, your whole argument is a petitio principii fallacy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > I'm not the one who claimed that a metaphysical ground is necessary
            Neither did I, I simply asked the Buddhist poster to back up their claim that Madhyamaka refutes the idea of such a ground, or that it refutes the logical arguments for why it’s necessary. The poster was unable to substantiate their claim and responded by moving the goalposts. Again, if you cant back up the claim then don’t make it.

            >your whole argument is a petitio principii fallacy
            I didnt make any argument

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I didnt make any argument
            Doesn't really matter, the argument that Nagarjuna is wrong because reality needs a metaphysical ground still is a petitio principii fallacy

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If things are without ground then mutually exclusive truths become simultaneously true and false, which is pure unintelligible incoherence, speech ceases to mean anything yet evidently we are speaking.
            >Plato's Parmenides 135b

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's only if you think reality works as a sustantialist ontology, so you're still question begging, "ground must exist because if not my ground-based paradigm for understanding truth doesn't make any sense",a relation-based ontology has other ways to explain the mechanics of truth and value, so this is really a non-issue

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Already refuted by the argument of the "third men"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ok genius lmao

            That's only if you think reality works as a sustantialist ontology, so you're still question begging, "ground must exist because if not my ground-based paradigm for understanding truth doesn't make any sense",a relation-based ontology has other ways to explain the mechanics of truth and value, so this is really a non-issue

            Platonism is linguistically undisprovable. Of it was false then all truths and all sameness would be homonymy but lack all synonymy of meaning, this makes speech and knowledge impossible and no one who understands the argument can't refute it.
            It is is THE original transcendental argument and the most fundamental law assumed (whether intentionally or unintentionally) by anyone who ever makes an argument about the 'nature' of anything. Any and all truths, in every philosophy, are platonic forms by necessary definition. You only disagree on what the forms actually are.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Read aristotle, his argument for tb
            He third men destroy this hypotesid

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really, since that would imply that the words we use are essentially conected with the objects of reality, which is just not true, the words we use are made by mere convention, proof of that is that different languages have completly different words for the same objects, and some languages have words that simply don't exist in other languages, also language is mediated by negation, there's nothing in the word chair that posses the "essence" of a chair and it's meaning arise from the chair not being any other object in the world, since any attempt to fi d a conceptual quality in the chair will fail, since i can find any quality of the chair in other objects, the concept of a chair has it's being relationally, by not being any other concept, and any particular chair (which by definition can't have a name or concept) has it's being by not being any other chair
            Also even if we accept your lingustic logic your argument is a non-sequitur since a "metaphysical ground" doesn't necessarily follows from a "linguistic ground"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't refute a fricking thing. It just endlessly pretends the issue isn't there. It's bad philosophy, plain and simple.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I'm somewhat reminded of Quine's ontological relativism. He gives the example of someone confessing to being a Heraclitian who does not believe in the substantiality of physical objects, he's just been pretending to (by using conventional speech) in order to get by. That would be a weird confession to most, but it wouldn't matter, because all conventional speech has to do is accomplish worldly communication. I think the Two Truths in Buddhism makes a similar point.
          That being said, Madhyamika is only one school of Buddhism. The rest, built on the abhidharma tradition, generally agree that things *are* real, and to say they aren't is Wrong View (DN 1). The doctrines of impermanence and emptiness do not impinge on this. So everyone pointing to Madhyamika to say all Buddhism is nihilistic can stfu

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But Madhyamaka philosophers deny that they are nihilists. I could see how one might argue that mereological nihilism is true but that speaking of objects as if they are real is more practical in daily life, but Madhyamaka doctrine seemingly wants to have its cake and eat it too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Madhyamaka is not a 100% complete description of reality in human language and is not an attempt at being one. It's an epistemological packet to engage in soteriology. Nagarjuna doesn't have to present a universally true natural language statement of reality because that's not the point, he's not trying to do that. He's a man that desires silence saying "shhhh". The point is to stop trying to create 100% complete natural language descriptions of reality and act, which in this case is to sit down, shut up, and meditate.
            >but isn't that nihilism
            No, because it's not the belief that nothing is real or that nothing matters, it's the belief that you cannot describe the entirety of reality via natural language without, in some way, being wrong. It's basically Godel's bit about no system being 100% self descriptive and always being reliant upon another system's axioms. Language is only useful for provisional, conventional, truths, universal truths have to be conveyed via alternative means (Zen Koans are an example). If anything it's more of a criticism of the project of Socraticism than of any kind of ontological or epistemological belief.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If that were the case he wouldn't straight up say he's talking about ultimate truth as distinct from conventional truth

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Such a direct statement is not helpful, since none of what you're discussing can truly be captured by language alone.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    start with the vedics

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nihilism is for people who cannot accept insignificance. Weaklings really. The opposite of Buddhism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nihilism is assenting to the idea that life has no objective meaning or value

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        blatantly, unbelievably wrong. netty is very clear on this, nihilism is the cognitive dissonance that occurs when you understand that life has no objective meaning, but lack the character to be the meaning.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not sure what you are trying to say. Assenting to the idea that there is no objective meaning is nihilism, according to any serious philosopher. You cannot "be the meaning" according to nihilists because that meaning doesn't have any grounding. I also used to be a "just create your own meaning bro!" hippy.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not sure what you are trying to say. Assenting to the idea that there is no objective meaning is nihilism, according to any serious philosopher. You cannot "be the meaning" according to nihilists because that meaning doesn't have any grounding. I also used to be a "just create your own meaning bro!" hippy.

        One of the only people on IQfy who actually understands what nihilism means.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      obliterated

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But buddhism is the suppressing of pleasure because of the eternal cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) which is, to put it simply is crying about how all good things are destined to end and humans are forced to move on to something else, forever bound in a loop of desire. It is the ultimate loser escapism religion.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >it's bad to stop craving for things which are inherently decaying and inherently unfulfilling

        huh okayyyy

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Denying the inherent human pleasures isn't an answer, you're only torturing yourself. And bear in mind the original founder of Buddhism was an extreme richgay who had everything he ever asked for then got bored of that and decided to start a schizo cult about "killing" your desires after he's fulfilled all of his, buddhism is a meme.

          It’s the opposite of escapism. It’s about relinquishing the transient pleasures of the world.

          What is not a transient pleasure? The human brain is fundamentally wired to absorb and store the new information and reject the duplicates, this applies to any sensory object you can think of, including religion, faith, patriotism, lust etc
          I fail to think of a single sensory object of pleasure that isn't ultimately transient to our senses.

          [...]
          [...]
          [...]
          You four are all morons for even entertaining the thought that this is about escapism.

          It is literally "escaping the cycle", it's an attempt to transcend the human spirit into a higher plane but it only comes off as self-torture/nihilism

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Concession accepted

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The goal of Buddhism is to meditate until you die in the spot.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So basically bore yourself out every single day until you're dead? This is just self-torture.
            If you're looking to cope with life's cycle don't, rather embrace it, be ready to dismiss the old and embrace the new, our desire will always be there and the only thing that's changing is our interests which have the potential to be infinite in an infinite world. You're not really meant to die of hunger when there's so much to feast on, it's dumb.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >just order a pizza bro
            cringe. twaddle. tripe. slop. anime-tier garbage.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's not really my point but unironically yes. This isn't about deciding whether life is worth it or not but coping with how shit it is, because if it's the latter you can just have a nice day if you hate it so much.
            Idk bro, grabbing a pizza and banging some b***hes with bros sounds a lot better than """meditating""" (translation: boring) until life eventually takes you away, that's lame as frick.

            the duality between meaningfulness and nihilism is itself illusory

            >you dont get it bro its this thing and no one really knows what it is and and

            >our desire will always be there
            only as long as remains ignorance about reality

            >changing is our interests which have the potential to be infinite in an infinite world.
            potential is for impotent idiots who love power fantasies

            >only as long as remains ignorance about reality
            I used to think this too until one day... I just don't anymore, the curse of knowledge is but a scar which will heal one day.
            You probably think you're a harbinger of truth, a pillar of justice, a voice of reason but sorry to tell you you're not. Your rational thoughts are but a reflection of your psychological state. Autists tend to isolate themselves which leads them to more nihilistic beliefs (nothing matters, we're just animals etc etc) because that is the boundary of their brains, they cannot see further than that. Au contraire religious founders tend to believe in more spiritual stuff usually because they suffer some sort of mental condition. Everyone thinks he's right, but no one is. "Truth" is beyond the human species, reason is but a delusion, just a more sophisticated one. Stop thinking you're any special and enjoy life..... or not, you can just die if you want to, life is pretty shit after all.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The third noble truth is that there is an end to this cycle of suffering, you don't have to just cope

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How? And what if you're just so used to the pain you don't give a frick anymore?

            >This is just self-torture.
            holy dopamine junkie. I've never seen such a big tell lmao imagine not being able to sit in silence without your brain itching for consumer slop

            Have you meditated before? No? Thought so

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Have you meditated before? No? Thought so
            It's not some Herculean feat to focus on your breath for ten minutes

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Soooo why aren't you meditating then???

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Have you meditated before? No? Thought so
            Of course I have, you dummy. Is it really that inconceivable to you that you can sit in silence and just focus on your breath?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don't get it brah, it's fine.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >our desire will always be there
            only as long as remains ignorance about reality

            >changing is our interests which have the potential to be infinite in an infinite world.
            potential is for impotent idiots who love power fantasies

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Meditation itself is pleasurable, Buddhism isn't Hindu tapas

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is just self-torture.
            holy dopamine junkie. I've never seen such a big tell lmao imagine not being able to sit in silence without your brain itching for consumer slop

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the original founder of Buddhism was an extreme richgay who had everything he ever asked for then got bored of that
            That's the legendary account. The actual historical Buddha almost certainly did not live in such preposterously fabricated luxury. In his discourses he makes analogies based on coarser aspects of real life: training elephants, fighting in war, ruling a country, cultivating farmland, treating diseases, etc. all stuff that a coddled snob wouldn't know about. As well the descriptions of the Sakyans as brutish warriors makes it hard to believe that their chieftain would want to raise a spoiled pussy as his heir. The biggest indicator is that this alleged biography is very similar to that of Mahavira, founder of Jainism.
            I suspect that it is only a fable meant to illustrate a lesson, that being that we are all prone to losing ourselves in fabricated fantasy lands of pleasure, we are all our own King Suddhodhana hiding all the unpleasant facts of life from ourselves as desperately as we can, until the illusion collapses. The lesson is to let the illusion collapse once and for all, and to take life seriously from then on.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s the opposite of escapism. It’s about relinquishing the transient pleasures of the world.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's morons like you who are addicted to sensuality who are the escapists.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It’s the opposite of escapism. It’s about relinquishing the transient pleasures of the world.

          >it's bad to stop craving for things which are inherently decaying and inherently unfulfilling

          huh okayyyy

          But buddhism is the suppressing of pleasure because of the eternal cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) which is, to put it simply is crying about how all good things are destined to end and humans are forced to move on to something else, forever bound in a loop of desire. It is the ultimate loser escapism religion.

          You four are all morons for even entertaining the thought that this is about escapism.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that it was the central unifying religion of East Asian civilization for so long discounts this. You couldn't organize whole empires, priesthoods, laws, ethics, art, architecture, etc. around nihilism.
    I'm convinced the only reason so many Westerners consider it "nihilistic" is that it contradicts the West's biggest philosophies: Christianity and existentialism. There is no argument for it, just Christians and Nietzscheans plugging their ears going "LALALALALA"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it contradicts the West's biggest philosophies: Christianity and existentialism
      How on earth does buddhism contradict existentialism? Do you know what existentialism is?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's the philosophy of "finding yourself" and muh affirmation. Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Hesse have all critiqued Buddhism directly, and Camus' philosophy indirectly rejects Buddhism. They always boil down to muh life-denying, but basically since the aim of Buddhism goes beyond the plane of sense-desire altogether, it's outside the existentialist playing field and thus rejected out of hand.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >life-denying
          >Camus, Nietzsche
          well clearly you didnt read them or are just a massive moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Camus as I said is an indirect rejection of Buddhism; "we must imagine Sisyphus happy" is clearly at odds with the idea of nirvana. As for Nietzsche, he directly calls Buddhism (and similar philosophies like Stoicism) life-denying. It is you who is the massive moron.

            >The fact that it was the central unifying religion of East Asian civilization for so long discounts this. You couldn't organize whole empires, priesthoods, laws, ethics, art, architecture, etc. around nihilism.
            That's the thing. It never was. Folk religion has always been the predominant form of faith in Asia, and when Buddhism was popular with the peasantry it was materialist Pure Land Buddhism.

            That's just the peasantry, and a narrow view of it anyway; many of them followed other sects of Buddhism and syncretized it to their native pantheons. But the monarchies, aristocracies, and priesthoods of China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, Burma, Thailand, and Japan were all solidly Buddhist. You have the Lamaist khans; the various samurai adhering to Zen, Pure Land, or Nichiren; the imperial Tendai and Shingon cults; the cakkavatti ideals of the Burmese and Siamese kings; etc. It would be absolutely ridiculous to look at the histories of these countries and conclude that they were centered around nihilism.
            Also
            >Pure Land
            >materialist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Happy Sisyphus is literally what Nirvana is, moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nirvana is the end of births

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's clearly a metaphor. (You) isn't a thing, so there's no (You) to be reborn again anyway. Wake up. Are you brown?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't understand this. If Nirvana is a state of happy existence ala Sisyphus how do you maintain this between iterations?
            >born
            >conscious experience begins at age 5-6
            >Realize, ah muh ego and such
            >die
            >memory wipe (because there is no (You) and the only thing that makes (You) (You) is continuous stream of memory)
            >born
            >conscious experience begins at age 5-6
            >Realize, ah muh ego and such
            >die
            Where is the off ramp?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just suddenly snap out of it, at which point you stop generating karma.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            hopefully you're born into a body destined to be a monk and just live off donations and never have to deal with realistic problems or maintain relationships/have kids. that seems like the only way to do it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't understand this. If Nirvana is a state of happy existence ala Sisyphus how do you maintain this between iterations?
            >born
            >conscious experience begins at age 5-6
            >Realize, ah muh ego and such
            >die
            >memory wipe (because there is no (You) and the only thing that makes (You) (You) is continuous stream of memory)
            >born
            >conscious experience begins at age 5-6
            >Realize, ah muh ego and such
            >die
            Where is the off ramp?

            >That's clearly a metaphor. (You) isn't a thing, so there's no (You) to be reborn again anyway. Wake up. Are you brown?
            there's no need for a you for the arising of birth
            the way to end the sequence of births is to trigger the condition for the cessation of births and this has nothing to do with a you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >is to trigger the condition
            Sounds like an intent thing unless you mean bumble around until rng picks it out for you then karma doesn't make sense.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A metaphor for what? If there's no rebirth, is there no karma? What even is buddhism, in that case?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Happy Sisyphus is "life is suffering, but that's all there is so you have to be happy with it"
            Buddhism is "life is suffering, and there is a path to reach the end of suffering"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Happy Sisyphus is "life is suffering, but that's all there is so you have to be happy with it"
            No? It's "you can be happy with it if you want to be happy"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Either way, Buddhism isn't just "being happy with it"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            true, i just wanted to correct your misinterpretation of cammel

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, It's more that you should be happy with it. Camus is very clear that the goal of the absurd hero is to stay in the absurdity. Not subscribing to any doctrine while still not letting the meaninglessness of life "win", to go on searching either way, like a pyrrhonian

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nirvana is the end of suffering not being ok with suffering

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ok wordcel

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >"we must imagine Sisyphus happy"
            You thought this was a sincere prescriptive statement lmfao?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The fact that it was the central unifying religion of East Asian civilization for so long discounts this. You couldn't organize whole empires, priesthoods, laws, ethics, art, architecture, etc. around nihilism.
      That's the thing. It never was. Folk religion has always been the predominant form of faith in Asia, and when Buddhism was popular with the peasantry it was materialist Pure Land Buddhism.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It wasn't. Buddhism was almost entirely monastic for most of history, the majority of the public engaged in folk traditions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah that's beside the point, the point is the ruling classes did practice buddhism and made it a part of the civilization. Even so the peasants did practice some form of buddhism even as far back as late antiquity, usually syncretized with the indigenous pagan beliefs but it's not as if the peasants all did one thing and the aristocrats another. But apart from maybe the first few years of the Buddha's ministry, it was never exclusively monastic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The ruling classes practiced folk traditions too. It wasn't exclusively monastic, but everyone seriously into it went to a monastery. It was not akin to christianity in Europe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah that's beside the point, the point is the ruling classes did practice buddhism and made it a part of the civilization.
          Common Buddhism bears about as much relation to Buddhism as Common Christianity bears relation to Christianity. People label themselves these things based on some rudimentary layman idea and embody none of the ideals. No part of buddhism would endorse success through biological warfare, no part of christianity would endorse success through industrialization. These success stories are independent of actual spirituality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      As a dabbler that's interested, I think the nihilistic themes are pretty obvious and off putting. Buddha himself is famous for inventing super-suicide.

      I've heard people argue that Nirvana is not just yeeting off cyclical existence permanently, which would make it a less disturbing goal, but yea, the themes are there. See also: actually YOU ARE NOTHING

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Westerners don’t consider it nihilistic, we just don’t consider it at all.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Then why is every Nāgārjuna thread full of ignorant Westerners offering their uninformed opinions?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >we just don’t consider it at all
        This is an absolute bullshit claim if we are talking Germanics

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Every 20 year old white girl thinks she buddhist

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One rejects existence the other accepts existence. If anything they're diametrically opposed. From my experience when I went through a nihilism stage I was still left with despair and existential dread to deal with. Radical acceptance yielded a far better experience for me where I am also not suffering as I exist which far more based.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if you're not suffering you're by definition rejecting existence, pseudo. and people do indeed choose nihilism because it is "preferable" to e.g., caring, which makes you suffer when the things you care about don't go as you want them to. that's the whole point of it. you're just a nihilist in denial, which is exactly how you'd expect an ad hoc nihilist to present.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >if you're not suffering you're by definition rejecting existence
        Which is the definition of nihilism, a state that is different from what I am experiencing now. You're so quick to concoct a larp in your mind that validates your ego's desperate thirst for being perceived as intelligent you're not even processing the information in front of you. Suffering is optional, and you simply can't imagine a world where you choose to not suffer.
        >pseudo.
        I love irony. Thank you for this.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Suffering in a Buddhist context is not the inevitable "pain in life" but a form of stress that arise when that pain is not accepted thanks to our wrong believe that things can last forever and pain is contingent, so the only way to overcome suffering is by accepting pain

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You don't accept pain, you accept impermanence

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >the only way to overcome suffering is by accepting pain

          You don't accept pain, you accept impermanence

          >You don't accept pain, you accept impermanence
          these are the same idea, we experience pain because we cling to phenomena characterized by impermanence, read more

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is Sekiro life denying or affirming?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Definitely life denying. The whole game is about putting an end to immortality

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Is Hagakure life-denying? Considering it's about preparing for death and that death is a goal? Were the Norse life-denying? Considering their glorification of violent death?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >devoting your whole life for a rat race to become immortal instead of living life is life affirming
        moron.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't say it was life affirming you moron. Sekiro is one of the most life denying games out there.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What does life denying even mean? Is this guy affirming life?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes he literally chased immortality which is the most pro-life thing ever

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Death is life affirming, without death life would hardly have any value. The immortal people in the game were like draining the life force of others and was seen as a bad thing. Maybe the ending where he became the God of death or whatever was life denying but it was mostly life affirming I thought.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      life denying rhythm game

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Similar realisations, different conclusions.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just shut up and meditate.
    You will understand when you achieve direct experiential awareness of the zero.
    The literature around this practice is just another filter or bonus. It's like a bunch of musicians jerking each other off over music theory in the backstage. The actual point is to perform the goddamn music.
    Stop running from it and meditate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Meditation doesn't automatically lead to insight, on its own it's likely to just confirm your preconceived notions of reality.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You’re moronic and clearly have no experience in meditation

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Is Buddhism just nihilism?
    It is nihilism with a non-dualist turbo and the absence of self subwoofers.

    Watch no-me not-doing fully-unsick-non-burnouts.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Ideally it is Nihilistic, but Buddha and Buddhism has always presupposed a Hindu cosmology of one kind or another and an afterlife/rebirth. This is fundamentally incompatible with Western notions of "Nihilism."

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'd say not at all really. Of course Buddhism does not reject generally accepted aspects of human existence. In other words it isn't disbelief. It in itself is a legitimate religion so I don't see how it is nihilism. They believe in a deity they practice rituals and live by traditional standards. So no. It isn't nihilism at all really. Furthermore I think Karma is the natural forces of Earthly environments moved by the Sun. For instance the wind waves geysers volcanoes light of the planet—basically all that stuff that produces green energy.

    So that empty waterbottle you throw out on the street can be the very reason why you got bit by that mosquito moments later.

    Fact: Being eco-friendly provides good Karma

    "The instant something bad happens to you is the moment something good echoes your way." - ???

    I bought reusable straws at the local grocery store right. I figure it's like having all the straws in the world in one reusable straw. Shortly after my douche roommate moved out. LOL

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    still better than stoicism lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The two are practically identical

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        not really

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe im a midwit but I struggle to even understand the central message of most eastern religions. It seems like so much of it is obscured by vague mysticism thats impossible to distill down to explain to someone. vedics, upanishads, gita, buddhism etc is just really vague to me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'd recommend the introductory books by Sri Dharma Acharya on Sanatana Dharma. Big picture, but boiled down to the basics so that even an average 15 year old in the West can get it. There's a study guide he published as well in case you want to dig into primary sources/shastra (scriptures).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhism isnt hard to understand at all. If anything it's boring in its simplicity
      >Life is suffering. Life is the constant pain of the motion of desire v.s pain
      >There is a cure to that pain
      >The cure is the cessation of desire, tranquility
      That's it plus centuries of chinks adding on their own dogmas, further complicating the religion, and semi deifying buddha

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Part of what makes Buddhism hard to understand imo is the lack of clarity on specifics, and how buddhists embrace this ambiguity and contradictions.
        By contrast Christianity was autistically obsessed with specifics of dogma.
        Like is Nirvana a place, a real metaphysical thing, a state of mind, a metaphor, or what exactly? All of the above?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The problem is there's not much to specify about nirvana. It's not part of the infinitely differentiated web of samsara. We know that it's a phenomenon (dhamma), and that it's the lone unconditioned phenomenon (asankhata dhamma), so you can think of it is that which is purely real, with no other adjectives. That's the reason why Buddhists strive for it, and that's the reason why there's not much to be said about it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but all of that is very foreign sounding to someone from a Christian background. It sounds like God, but it's not. And it seems even stranger how little energy is devoted to defining it
            Whereas Christians by contrast waged wars over minor differences in belief about the nature of God and Christ

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Whereas Christians by contrast waged wars over minor differences in belief about the nature of God and Christ
            well to be fair, muslims were massacring regions and castrating and enslaving christians.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I meant Christians waged war against each other. Didn't mean it as a criticism

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nirvana is cessation. There are three uncompounded dharmas in abhidharma, analytical cessation, non-analytical cessation, and space. Nirvana is an analytical cessation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Asking buddhists what Nirvana is, is like asking christians what the Trinity is. You'll get vague and contradicting answers because of dogmatic schisms.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >existential verbs regarding Nirvana
            Guan Yin ain't gonna suck your wiener mate.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Part of what makes Buddhism hard to understand imo is the lack of clarity on specifics, and how buddhists embrace this ambiguity and contradictions.
            By contrast Christianity was autistically obsessed with specifics of dogma.
            Like is Nirvana a place, a real metaphysical thing, a state of mind, a metaphor, or what exactly? All of the above?

            huh no, the buddha has always been clear on what nirvana is

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then what is it then?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The cessation of suffering

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So if someone is on methadone has he attained nirvana?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            permanent cessation. nice gotcha though moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What If someone takes methadone everyday?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You might as well ask for permanent heaven while you're at it

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's not clear at all. It's incredibly vague. Just look at that one thereveda text where a guy asks a buddhist to clearly define it, and all the guy can say is that it's what is "not compounded, not made, not born, not subject to becoming" (im paraphrasing)
            Incredibly vague

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If there are Christians that don't believe in the Nicene Creed, then they aren't Christian.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the nicine creed isn't what defines christianity
            christianity is define, in academical terms, as the belief that jesus is a divine being
            nothing more, nothing less

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bad analogy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Could you distill Buddhism to a self help book, if you wanted?
        In fact, it seems that if Buddhism is at its core the 4 noble truths, it's just a lifestyle teaching and everything else is just offuscation.

        You aren't your consciousness

        Then what is he, exactly?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Then what is he, exactly?
          a signless light beam.

          it might be more appropriate to say, you aren't your intentional consciousness. you are the non-intentional stanchion of consciousness = Mind

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > you are the non-intentional stanchion of consciousness
            Does this Stanchion go to something else when a person dies? Wouldn't that contradict Anatta?
            And more impostantly, what exactly about that Stanchion is "him" or "me" or a third party if it shares no characteristics with "him" or "me", or a third party? No memories, no body, no values.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it doesn't contradict anatta because it's not any specific content of the mind. it is that which discerns, if not its independence from the aggregates, at least its dependence on them. there is your "middle way" - we are neither talking about some independent substance or just another conditioned aggregate among aggregates.

            buddhists kind of waffle around about the ultimate state. is it some kind of signless luminosity or total extinction once the aggregates on which the mind depends no longer have any power to rebuild themselves after death? it's pointless to speculate as a layman.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it is that which discerns
            That's the samjña skandha, which is not self

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that's the faculty of perception, not discernment/wisdom. but I'm glad you brought this up because I was reminded of this skandha recently and was wondering if it is not also the organ which totalizes the world as something to reject in gnosticism.

            and if I'm completely wrong on this and one of the five skandhas is indeed the principle that apprehends netti netti then the whole signless luminosity stuff goes out the window and I'll have to accept that complete extinction is the soteriological goal

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >not discernment/wisdom
            That's Vijnana, another skhanda

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, the vijñana skandha is basically the neutral container of sense perception and mental factors. Positive mental factors like wisdom belong to the samskara skandha.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > it's not any specific content of the mind.
            Then what makes that me?
            If it's not my body, nor anything in my mind, what makes it me, specifically?
            >if not its independence from the aggregates, at least its dependence on them. there is your "middle way" - we are neither talking about some independent substance or just another conditioned aggregate among aggregates.
            So, how is this thing a self, how is it different from someone else's self?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Then what makes that me?
            it's not your body and it isn't anything in your mind because it's the form of the mind, the background of every conceivable foreground. it's actually because this is the only thing that can rightfully be called deathless and unchanging (beyond becoming) that there is death and suffering and buddhism in the first place. death is terrifying because it strips you of everything that is not this field.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh the crypto-advaitas are here

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That creates a second order ontology, which then creates all sort of problems and contradictions, since the two aspects contradict each other, i can't never reach the unchanging state, since anything i do to "go there" would imply a change from my current position (which is already changing and made of parts) so i'll end up still changing, thus still in the aspect of change, so a soteriological unresolvable problem arise, also since both aspects contradict each other that would then imply a third aspect that has to work as a ground for both of them, making the unchanging aspect not longer the "background"
            Buddhism resolve this via dialectics, the unchanging deathless is not a background to becoming but its dialectical result, not something that existed before, but more of an alchemical result, if you "change" the right way(following the eightfold path), if your actions lead to a cesation of suffering and karma you can create the deathless, the deathless exist in phenomena as a possibility, as potentiality not as a background

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            buddhism doesn't think that using change to reach the changeless is necessarily contradictory, just paradoxical. and even the hegelian dialectic is about developing what is implicit in the nature of the process itself. but they're fair points regardless.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The changless as a background for change is what's contradictory since you have two opposite qualities existing at the same time, and to Hegel the absolute is not something that exist outside or as a background to phenomena, Hegel wasn't a substantialist but a relation-based ontologist, read Force and understanding from the Phenomenology,when the spirit tries to find a unchanging substance it only finds the motions of his own search

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >>Life is suffering.
        buddhism don't affirms that life is suffering, if affirms that dukkha is part of sansara , and while it's often translated as "suffering" due the early, imprecise, translations it meaning is much more in line with the concepts of "uneasiness" or "unsatisfaction"

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Truly the ideology of sensitive decadents.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It affirms that the 18 dhatus, which compose all experience, are suffering

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it doesn't

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.028.than.html

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that doesn't contradict one word of what I said

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Question & Answer #92: from Schopenhauer vs. Nietzsche to the Left-Hand Path

    Questions include: my preference of Schopenhauer or Nietzsche; the kingdom of Kosala; mythological Buddhas; translating the Tipitaka into Latin or Greek; self-immolation as a new western fad; regret as an unskillful mental state; the significance of the number 84000 in Indian Buddhism; Christian Platonism; Marvel superheroes as pagan gods; daydreaming; the religion of Malcolm X; possible contradictions of the “five element model of Buddhism”; whether becoming a secular king is allowed by Buddhist monastic discipline; translations of the word “dukkha”; fapping novices; Buddhist logic in the Atthakavagga; memory as viewing the past; samsaric context; my favorite wisdom literature; advice for a meditation retreat; changes in my physiology since leaving the monkhood; understanding Mara, the Buddhist devil; killing bugs; are insects conscious; vipassana and/or jhana; my favorite Buddhist literature; and the validity of the left-hand path.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting fellow

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nihilism would be a lack of value judgements. Buddhism states life to be suffering, which I agree with. I'm a Buddhist because reincarnation and eventual Nirvana are the best and most plausible afterlife I can imagine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How can reincarnation be any concern to me as an individual if there is no self?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's still your karma that'll influence how your impermanent and ever-changing self is expressed in your next incarnation.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Wouldn't that be the problem of that future consciousness? My consciousness will simply be dead and ignorant of whatever happens in that subsequent life. There isn't even some nebulous concept of a soul that is shared between us.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You will still be that future consciousness, despite it being completely different. If you want to do something dumb and leave it to future you to figure out go ahead, but you will eventually become them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But what does "me" even mean at this point? A completely different entity with whom I share no memories or sensations seems to be "me" only by some technicality. It does indeed seem that I could just pass the buck of my karmic balance to this future consciousness and then just die peacefully while the future one bears all consequences. Perhaps I "become" that future one in some way, but that seems to have about as much relevance to my current consciousness as the notion that I will become nutrients for worms after my death.
            I feel I should emphasize that I intend these to be good faith questions because I simply do not understand what Buddhism teaches here. Perhaps there is some good secondary literature on the topic of no-self and reincarnation you could recommend to someone mostly ignorant of Buddhism such as I.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Even if you don't care about the immediate karmic consequences, you'll still be worse off in the long run, because with bad karma you'll probably incarnate who knows how many times as something incapable of enlightenment and reaching Nirvana. You're only hurting yourself.

            https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/Thich%20Nhat%20Hanh%20-%20The%20Heart%20of%20Understanding.pdf
            This is pretty poetic but still good.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You didnt answer his question.

            But what does "me" even mean at this point? A completely different entity with whom I share no memories or sensations seems to be "me" only by some technicality. It does indeed seem that I could just pass the buck of my karmic balance to this future consciousness and then just die peacefully while the future one bears all consequences. Perhaps I "become" that future one in some way, but that seems to have about as much relevance to my current consciousness as the notion that I will become nutrients for worms after my death.
            I feel I should emphasize that I intend these to be good faith questions because I simply do not understand what Buddhism teaches here. Perhaps there is some good secondary literature on the topic of no-self and reincarnation you could recommend to someone mostly ignorant of Buddhism such as I.

            >But what does "me" even mean at this point?
            As far as Im aware, no Buddhist primary source addresses and provides a coherent answer to the contradiction that you point to, namely that an absence of self and an absence of continuity of one's consciousness from life to life means that 1) complete hedonism and 2) following Buddhism both result in the exact same post-death state for the current consciousness of this body i.e. in both cases the current consciousness forever ends and a new one arises that is not identical with it.

            This notion completely contradicts and overturns the view that you should follow the Buddhist path and end rebirth or you'll continue suffering in future lives. In fact, under this view Buddhism effectively loses all value whatsoever beyond the mental benefits like calmness that the current iteration of consciousness can attain in the current life through Buddhist practices, but someone may well just as find other religions or even non-religious practices or even drugs to be just as or even more effective at this.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This notion completely contradicts and overturns the view that you should follow the Buddhist path and end rebirth or you'll continue suffering in future lives.
            No it doesn't. You will still be the future selves.
            Have fun being an insect for eons to come, I suppose.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No it doesn't. You will still be the future selves.
            The other anon already asked the Buddhists here to explain how he will be those future selves when they are a different consciousness than the current one he has, and none of the Buddhists here were able to answer his question. You didn't answer this question or explain how it's not a contradiction but you simply reasserted the original faulty position that has already been pointed out to be contradictory. Would you like to try again and actually answer the question?

            >Have fun being an insect for eons to come, I suppose.
            Not very Buddhist of you to say

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >how he will be those future selves when they are a different consciousness than the current one he has
            In the exact same sense as he is his current self.
            >Not very Buddhist of you to say
            Not Buddhist to point out the results of negative karma?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            meant to cite here

            >There is as much continuity between lives as there is between childhood and old age
            This is compounding the contradictions further, because in such a situation one could never reap the benefits of any spiritual or meditative practice if a different entity or consciousness does the work and another reaps the fruit, there would be no reason to do anything in fact.

            >In the exact same sense as he is his current self.
            Since there is ostensibly no self (sic), by self you mean the experiencing consciousness right? What you said doesn't make sense because he is present right now as his current self, those future ones are *not* present right now. So how can you say that he is also those selves when his current experiencing-consciousness WILL NOT be present as those future selves since they are a different consciousness?

            >Not Buddhist to point out the results of negative karma?
            In case you forgot Buddhists are supposed to have compassion for others, telling someone to enjoy hell because they are questioning your dogmas isn't compassionate. Scratch a western Buddhist and you'll often find someone with the mindset of an evangelical Christian.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an absence of continuity of one's consciousness
            There is as much continuity between lives as there is between childhood and old age

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There is as much continuity between lives as there is between childhood and old age
            This is compounding the contradictions further, because in such a situation one could never reap the benefits of any spiritual or meditative practice if a different entity or consciousness does the work and another reaps the fruit, there would be no reason to do anything in fact.

            >In the exact same sense as he is his current self.
            Since there is ostensibly no self (sic), by self you mean the experiencing consciousness right? What you said doesn't make sense because he is present right now as his current self, those future ones are *not* present right now. So how can you say that he is also those selves when his current experiencing-consciousness WILL NOT be present as those future selves since they are a different consciousness?

            >Not Buddhist to point out the results of negative karma?
            In case you forgot Buddhists are supposed to have compassion for others, telling someone to enjoy hell because they are questioning your dogmas isn't compassionate. Scratch a western Buddhist and you'll often find someone with the mindset of an evangelical Christian.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is compounding the contradictions further, because in such a situation one could never reap the benefits of any spiritual or meditative practice if a different entity or consciousness does the work and another reaps the fruit, there would be no reason to do anything in fact.
            If you don't consider better karma or better rebirths to be reason enough, go ahead and do whatever you want.
            >What you said doesn't make sense because he is present right now as his current self, those future ones are *not* present right now. So how can you say that he is also those selves when his current experiencing-consciousness WILL NOT be present as those future selves since they are a different consciousness?
            The other anon put it well: the difference between the current self and future selves is time and change over time, with that change being influenced by karma between lives.
            >In case you forgot Buddhists are supposed to have compassion for others, telling someone to enjoy hell because they are questioning your dogmas isn't compassionate. Scratch a western Buddhist and you'll often find someone with the mindset of an evangelical Christian.
            It would be less compassionate to not remind someone of the consequences of bad karma.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If you don't consider better karma or better rebirths to be reason enough
            What is the point of caring about them when it's a different consciousness that experiences them? You might as well ask why shouldn't I care about what Bill Clinton had for breakfast today.

            >The other anon put it well
            Not really, the question still hasn't been answered viz. how can those future selves be considered me and how is anything that happens to them remotely relevant for me.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            you're right, stop wasting your time, I genuinely love Buddhism but there isn't a satisfactory (non-schizo) answer.

            here's the answer

            the goal of buddhism is to reduce the "pain debt" you've narcissistically accumulated all your life. basically: beating death to the punch, and beating it so well you're not shat into a body again. if there is another life on the other side, then so be it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What is the point of caring about them when it's a different consciousness that experiences them? You might as well ask why shouldn't I care about what Bill Clinton had for breakfast today.
            Because you will be that consciousness? Are you saying you will be Bill Clinton, eventually?
            >Not really, the question still hasn't been answered viz. how can those future selves be considered me and how is anything that happens to them remotely relevant for me.
            They aren't someone else, they are you later on. You might as well ask "how can me tomorrow be considered me and how is anything that happens to them remotely relevant to me?"

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because you will be that consciousness?
            How will I be that consciousness? Don't Buddhists maintain that it is a different consciousness that arises instead of the same identical consciousness passing from body to body?

            >Are you saying you will be Bill Clinton, eventually?
            The point is that (1) another existing human being's consciousness and (2) another future and different consciousness which arises in response to the ending of the former life's consciousness are both equally removed from me and are both equally not me, so why should I care about one more than the other?

            >There is mental continuity between lives, rejecting that is considered to be a nihilistic extreme in buddhism. The being who experiences the results of karma is not the same as the being who planted the seeds, but they are not completely different because there is a continuity.
            That leaves the original problem already pointed out still unresolved, i.e. even if one can talk about vague 'continuities', if it's a different consciousness then it's not me and there is no reason why I should care about what happens to it or ending its rebirth.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How will I be that consciousness? Don't Buddhists maintain that it is a different consciousness that arises instead of the same identical consciousness passing from body to body?
            You will be that consciousness in the same sense as you are your current consciousness.
            It's different but it's you.
            >The point is that (1) another existing human being's consciousness and (2) another future and different consciousness which arises in response to the ending of the former life's consciousness are both equally removed from me and are both equally not me, so why should I care about one more than the other?
            They are not both equally not you. You will be the future and different consciousness.
            >That leaves the original problem already pointed out still unresolved, i.e. even if one can talk about vague 'continuities', if it's a different consciousness then it's not me and there is no reason why I should care about what happens to it or ending its rebirth.
            You will be the different consciousness, you're only hindering yourself by not caring about it.

            Why did you ignore my second response, by the way?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You will be that consciousness in the same sense as you are your current consciousness.
            >It's different but it's you.
            In what way is it me if it's different? This is the million dollar question which this whole problem revolves around and which you still have not answered and which everyone seems to be running away from.

            And it's another contradiction to say that the future consciousness is me in the same way that the current one is since the current one is not "different, but me" but the current one is just me.

            >You will be the future and different consciousness.
            How? In what way is that not a total and blatant contradiction of it being a different consciousness?

            >Why did you ignore my second response, by the way?
            Because it didn't seem to be making any new point that you weren't trying to make elsewhere

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In what way is it me if it's different?
            >How? In what way is that not a total and blatant contradiction of it being a different consciousness?
            How are you you right now?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How are you you right now?
            I'm me because I'm actually present here and now as consciousness or as a conscious being, hypothesized future selves that are different from my current consciousness are *not* present here and now, in contrast to my present consciousness. I have immediate awareness of myself as conscious while I have no awareness any future self.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think you tomorrow is a hypothesized future self different from your current consciousness?
            Hypothesized because you could hypothetically die today from some freak accident of nature, and different because you will change inevitably even if only very slightly before tomorrow.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you think you tomorrow is a hypothesized future self different from your current consciousness?
            No, I think the same consciousness is continually present both today and tomorrow. Even so, this is an inappropriate analogy for the explanation of Buddhist rebirth which explicitly says that another consciousness arises instead of the former one continuing on, a new and different consciousness is not simply the former one with minor changes.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body?
            "When this physical body is no more capable of functioning, energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life. ... Physical and mental energies which constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, and grow gradually and gather force to the full."

            >"... the Buddha’s experience was that when you go beyond the skandhas, beyond the aggregates, what remains is nothing. The self is an idea, a mental construct. That is not only the Buddha’s experience, but the experience of each realized Buddhist man and woman from 2,500 years ago to the present day. That being the case, what is it that dies? There is no question that when this physical body is no longer capable of functioning, the energies within it, the atoms and molecules it is made up of, don’t die with it. They take on another form, another shape. You can call that another life, but as there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. Quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next. Being born and dying continues unbroken but changes every moment."

            >"It is said that the Buddha left 84,000 teachings; the symbolic figure represents the diverse backgrounds characteristics, tastes, etc. of the people. The Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual. For the simple village folks living during the time of the Buddha, the doctrine of reincarnation was a powerful moral lesson. Fear of birth into the animal world must have frightened many people from acting like animals in this life. If we take this teaching literally today we are confused because we cannot understand it rationally. "...A parable, when taken literally, does not make sense to the modern mind. Therefore we must learn to differentiate the parables and myths from actuality."

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The moments of consciousness in the mental continuum are neither the same nor different from the other moments in the continuum

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >are neither the same nor different
            this is an obvious logical contradiction

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Only for things which exist inherently

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.lionsroar.com/buddhist-teachings-rebirth/

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You aren't your consciousness

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So I am not conscious then? Do Buddhists believe that they are NPCs?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The Buddhist position on rebirth, on the contrary, is based on the so-called middle view, which avoids these two extremes, namely, the denial of the continuation of consciousness or mind altogether, and the positing of an immutable psychic principle (atman or soul, or some other descriptor of a greater self). According to the Buddha, both body and mind are subject to continual change, and so even at death what is transferred from one life to the next is not an unchanging psychic principle, but different psychic elements all hanging together, samskaras—memories, various impressions, and so on, none of which is unchanging in itself.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are conscious but you're not your consciouness, consciousness is contingent, just like in order to walk you need something to walk on, you need an object of awareness in order to be consciouss, awareness is an action not a thing, and actions don't exist by themselves

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think buddhism can't account for aging? Why speak of the contradictions of no self and rebirth when the same would apply to no self and aging?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is mental continuity between lives, rejecting that is considered to be a nihilistic extreme in buddhism. The being who experiences the results of karma is not the same as the being who planted the seeds, but they are not completely different because there is a continuity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >one could never reap the benefits of any spiritual or meditative practice
            There's nothing to reap, buddhist don't accumulate anythig but strive to change, to make strides in the path, is not about gaining something but "becoming" something different, something closer and closer to nibbana, is all about going to the other shore, nothing can remain, nothing can be reap or accumulated, is taking steps not spiritual points, you're nlt a self that get more and more spiritual mana but a flux that can keep flowing to the other side or get stuck spinning in circles and going nowhere, that's what samsara means, "to wander endlessly"
            >So how can you say that he is also those selves when his current experiencing-consciousness WILL NOT be present as those future selves since they are a different consciousness?
            NTA but he's saying that there's no difference in how the past action in your life affected you and how this lufe will affect future lives, is all just a flux of becoming, there's never a point in which you substantially turn into something else, because there's no substantial you, the self is always relative
            As to why you should care, you shouldn't even if it is you, buddhism is not about saving someone from damnation or becoming one with god, buddhism is about realising those ideas are creating neurotic patterns in your mind that enslave you to the vicious circle that is samsara, it's like tbe peopke who think that without god tbere's no morality, those are weak individuals that need a god because they can't hadle the weight of being masters of their morality, this is the same, if your reason to follow the path is for the benefit of a future life or the salvation of your "soul" that just mean you're a spiritually weak person, the path must be followed because you heard the call to it, because you see that the dinamics of your mind enslave you but between the cracks of that there's freedom, not because there's a metsphysical promise of something better
            The answers here by nature of the matter at hand are experiential and not intelectual,that's why at the end of the day your question makes no sense because is like asking:why i should be free? If you need an answer you'll never be free, because you'll always be intelectually a slave of the criteria you used to decide why you should be free

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > A completely different entity
            This concept is antagonistic with the buddhist paradigm, a completly different entity entails that you "as an entity" were at some point "complete" and that a new "complete" entity take your place, this goes against the notion of anatta (that there's nothing that can guarantee a complete entity inside of you) your "future life" is part of you in the sense that is the result of your actions in the same way you're the result of your past lives actions, and you're what you are today thanks of the things that you did in your past and what you are now will help shape what you will be in the future, buddhism don't separate between your previous lives and the previous moments of this particular life, it's all the same mode of becoming, the separation is just artificial, you should stop suffering because is a unwholesome feeling that leads to unskillful actions, past and future lives are irrelevant

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but it seems so much of me can be attributed to my parents. my specific body entails a specific mind, and it seems like my parents did more to contribute to my body than my kamma. where exactly is my kammic legacy actually operative?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most buddhist would say that your parents are part of your karma

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You were attracted to your parents while in the intermediate state due to karmic connections

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            what are you trying to say? that because I was attracted to my parents in the intermediate state (I don't contest this, I'm familiar with the idea), my body in this life also happens to coincide with my kammic legacy in all the right ways? I can see that. good answer. I hadn't put the two together.

            >not discernment/wisdom
            That's Vijnana, another skhanda

            certainly there's a difference between bare recognition of an apple on the table and the processes at work when mind contemplates the nature of phenomena. but I'm not really committed to smuggling in some crypto-atman here. I'm okay with parinibbana being total extinction

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Do you not care what happens to your future self in this life?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It isn't, buddha himself said you should focus your mind on that but on liberation

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    being interested in buddhism as a westerner is like speaking perfectly fluent english as a foreigner.

    disgusting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're right, I should just stop being a Buddhist and convert to some other universal (meant for all mankind) religion that came to Europe from Asia.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You should be a Christian like your supposed to

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Seethe christcuck, Buddhism is superior
          Nirvana > heaven where you spend an eternity surrounded by nothing but Christians

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes convert to Christianity you fricking loser. I don’t even think a non Asian can understand Buddhism totally

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Buddhism is an indoeuropean religion, much closer culturally to the classical european culture than christianity a eastern religion that comes from the non-indoeuropean,african/egyptian influenced israeli tradition

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism spread everywhere from India to Tajikistan to Korea; at one point there were even Greek speaking Buddhists in Afghanistan. It is one of the most cross-cultural religions that has ever existed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            True ancestral Indo-Europeans were nomadic totem worshippers with more primitive rites. Polytheistic religion from the Mediterranean to southern Asia can be conceived as sedentary agrarian temple-building cultures with the language of the nomadic invaders overlaying and codifying it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Bad bait. Christianity was heavily influenced by Greek thought

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I don’t even think a non Asian can understand Buddhism totally
          Thats such a dumb misconception people have, westerners can "understand" it just as much as some dude in Nepal

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >speaking perfectly fluent english as a foreigner.
      >disgusting.
      Explain what's disgusting about that? Very strange analogy

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Doctrine of the Buddha, George Grimm

    Schismatic buddha-tarianisms have vanishingly little to do with what's attested in the Pali Canon. The LOL LMAO NO SOUL ANATMAN/ANATTA is the product of first contact and study with Theravadans, and more recently actual nihilist Westerner apostates from their own traditions. Read the above and you'll find Gotama has much more in common with Avesta & the ancient Greeks (even Advaita Vedanta within reason) than any of the aforementioned.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I see you Wheeler

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    read pic related

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For some reason Buddhism is the #2 religion after Christianity that total illiterates on this site love to just make stuff up about.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is Stockholm syndrome with regards to death. It doesn't simply recognizes that death is inevitable. It praise is it as the thing that gives life meaning.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        cope.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    mind and body die, locus/center of experience continues.

    nirvana is cessation of suffering is cessation of craving is cessation of dystonia - taken far enough, the body-mind complex is 'citta dystonic'

    basically buddhism is a radicalized OCD cure. the body itself, the empirical ego, is an "intrusive thought" in the ether

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's ontological nihilism, but not necessarily another variety of nihilism.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Was Pyhrro a Buddhist?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that buddhism was originally a liberation ontology which turned into a religion. It had nothing to do with moralism, nothing to do with monasticism (you don't have to be a monk to become liberated), nothing to do with humanism, you can be liberated yet still the scum of the earth, living a completely lay life in the city. Actions are only that which are conducive to the main goal, they aren't set in stone laws nor the main goal. Buddhism didn't teach no-self either, it taught not-self, a deduction technique to chip away everything you are not to find what what you really are. This is the original meaning of concentration (concentrating the subject like concentrating gold), and jhana (to burn away everything you are not like burning a hay stack to leave a needle). The simple premise is that everything that is phenomenal, objective, that is an object of awareness, is not you, the subject, that which transcends phenomena. Objects have a beginning in time, an end in time, constantly change, and if attached to cause suffering and a never ending seeking which can't be fulfilled. If there's a sense of a subject which you are aware of it's an illusion, the subject can't be sensed, it's completely embodied, like an eye which can't see itself. This illusion creates an experience of suffering, although the experience is real it is ultimately an illusion, similar to any other illusion where, for example, you see a crooked line when the lines are actually straight. The goal is to see through this illusion through wisdom and insight, wisdom is understanding not-self, impermanence, and suffering, and insight is a direct experience of this.

    tl;dr EVERYTHING WHICH IS OBJECTIVE (phenomenal, observable) IS NOT-SELF, IMPERMANENT, AND SUFFERING

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      precisely, as i was saying: it's a radicalized OCD treatment, or I should say, OCD treatment is a diminished buddhism. the phenomenal itself is an "intrusive thought"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, modern treatment/psychotherapy is just managing a festering wound, in other words, how to manage your delusions so that it doesn't effect you too much. It sounds dramatic but this is how buddhism describes it, as an ill, a plague, a delusion that you need to get rid of completely to actually be free.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think we're both talking Nyanamoli here, since he helped me consolidate the OCD intuition. the intuition that intrusive thoughts for OCD sufferers have basically the same status that the phenomenal itself does for a buddhist.

          for the psychologist treating an OCD sufferer, the intrusive complex is ego dystonic, the rest is syntonic (you're helping your patient manage their pathology so they can live a healthy life as a healthy mind-body complex)

          for the buddhist, there is nothing that is not citta dystonic, taken far enough. and I say citta instead of ego for obvious reasons.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's an interesting comparison, I can relate since I've had OCD, there's different types but in my experience I ruminated over thoughts until they became "real" to me. Basically like the video related

            except to a lesser degree. I came across someone named Michael Greenberg who basically teaches how to cure OCD but refusing to engage with the thoughts, thus in effect, allowing them to die, like refusing to feed a flame giving it it's fuel (wood). This is what got me interested in the first place with the idea that what if this is the cause and cure of every single mental illness? Eventually leading me to what if this is the cause and cure of mental agitation, suffering, itself? At the time I thought of the idea of meditation/jhanas already, though I didn't know what it was exactly. Basically the idea that if you take this practice of refusing to engage with thoughts to the endpoint, there is a cessation, or what you call the 9th jhana, basically zero perception. Because the phenomonal world only because it is reified by you. Later on I learned about neti neti, and realized that logically whatever sense of self I feel has to been an illusion, because a "sense" presupposes phenomonality, objectivity, which contradicts the feeling of subjectivity, me-ness, selfhood, and that whatever is actually the subject can never be objectified, never observed, ever (like an eye which can't see itself). Ultimately this is what the true cause of suffering is, you don't need to escape the phenomenal world through meditation, although it is a helpful tool for liberation, it's about living in the world, not being of it. An analogy I like to think of is it's like becoming the eye of the storm, out there everything is changing, perturbed, restless, but in the eye of the storm is where there's complete rest, even in all the midst of chaos.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Should have proofread..
            *by refusing to engage
            *like letting a flame die by not giving it it's fuel (wood)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            precisely. I think anyone who has struggled with these ruminations eventually intuits how the rumination not only feeds the disturbing thought but is sort of enacting or producing it in the first place. and if you dwell on that long enough you ask yourself the same question: what if the rest of my mental suffering is based on the same principles? what else am I feeding, compulsively taking for granted as constituting me and mine? and eventually it gets to a point where I realize that I am sustaining a sense of self in much the same way I perform an OCD ritual to calm my mind. my "self" is a cognitive ritual I perform to calm my fear of being nothing, sinking into the zero of neutral feeling - which is the principle of wisdom

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The practices resemble CBT for ocd as well. As I understand it, CBT for ocd is essentially refusing to engage with the thoughts (allowing them to dissipate), as well as exposure to the trigger. You allow yourself to experience the trigger so that whatever arises, you stay equanimous, and not engage with it. I see neti neti similarily, you understand logically anything which is objective cannot be the subject, so you confront this fact (that this is not me, that is not me), allow yourself to get triggered so to speak, so that whatever arises, your beliefs about "me", "I", "I am", "this is me", you refuse to engage, allowing them to dissipate.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nyanamoli
            What resources should I consume from this man to help me with OCD?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            all of it. sort by oldest on hillside hermitage

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, modern treatment/psychotherapy is just managing a festering wound, in other words, how to manage your delusions so that it doesn't effect you too much. It sounds dramatic but this is how buddhism describes it, as an ill, a plague, a delusion that you need to get rid of completely to actually be free.

        I think we're both talking Nyanamoli here, since he helped me consolidate the OCD intuition. the intuition that intrusive thoughts for OCD sufferers have basically the same status that the phenomenal itself does for a buddhist.

        for the psychologist treating an OCD sufferer, the intrusive complex is ego dystonic, the rest is syntonic (you're helping your patient manage their pathology so they can live a healthy life as a healthy mind-body complex)

        for the buddhist, there is nothing that is not citta dystonic, taken far enough. and I say citta instead of ego for obvious reasons.

        It's an interesting comparison, I can relate since I've had OCD, there's different types but in my experience I ruminated over thoughts until they became "real" to me. Basically like the video related

        except to a lesser degree. I came across someone named Michael Greenberg who basically teaches how to cure OCD but refusing to engage with the thoughts, thus in effect, allowing them to die, like refusing to feed a flame giving it it's fuel (wood). This is what got me interested in the first place with the idea that what if this is the cause and cure of every single mental illness? Eventually leading me to what if this is the cause and cure of mental agitation, suffering, itself? At the time I thought of the idea of meditation/jhanas already, though I didn't know what it was exactly. Basically the idea that if you take this practice of refusing to engage with thoughts to the endpoint, there is a cessation, or what you call the 9th jhana, basically zero perception. Because the phenomonal world only because it is reified by you. Later on I learned about neti neti, and realized that logically whatever sense of self I feel has to been an illusion, because a "sense" presupposes phenomonality, objectivity, which contradicts the feeling of subjectivity, me-ness, selfhood, and that whatever is actually the subject can never be objectified, never observed, ever (like an eye which can't see itself). Ultimately this is what the true cause of suffering is, you don't need to escape the phenomenal world through meditation, although it is a helpful tool for liberation, it's about living in the world, not being of it. An analogy I like to think of is it's like becoming the eye of the storm, out there everything is changing, perturbed, restless, but in the eye of the storm is where there's complete rest, even in all the midst of chaos.

        ocd isnt real

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >nothing to do with moralism
      >nothing to do with monasticism
      >didn't teach no-self
      The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    From the Lankavatara Sutra
    >“Mahamati, I teach existence to refute the nihilistic view that nothing exists and so that my disciples will accept samsara, so that they will accept that where they are reborn involves differences in karma. Thus, I teach existence so that they will accept samsara.
    >“Mahamati, I teach the illusoriness of self-existence so that they will get free of self-existence. But due to erroneous views and hopes, foolish people are unaware that these are nothing but the perceptions of their own minds. To refute arising from causes and attachment to the self-existence of conditions and to prevent foolish people from clinging to erroneous views and hopes regarding what belongs to themselves and others and from creating mistaken doctrines about how to see things as they really are, I teach that the self-existence of everything is an illusion and a dream. Mahamati, to see things as they really are means to transcend what are nothing but perceptions of your own mind.”

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you don't get eternal torture for jerking off? that's nihilism

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only thing Buddha taught and was concerned with was mastering the mind. You can even see yourself in the sutras when people ask him about this or that not related to the mind and he always says whatever they asked is a huge waste of time and they need to get back to figuring out how to master the mind. Until this is done everything is samsara.

    They ask about God he tells them to stop wasting time. they ask about the cosmos, stop wasting time. they ask about how this such and such came to be, yep stop wasting time.

    Buddhism is and always was nothing more than a technical system to gain mastery over the mind. Everything else is added on by later additions by people who wanted to turn it into a full fledge religion. Even then all that is also just symbolism for mental processes and techniques if you dig deeper.

    Stop debating over absolute nonsense. You guys are arguing over whether or not it is classified as this or that, why? Who cares? Is Buddhism nihilist or life affirming,? who gives a frick about your made up nonsense. Go meditate.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/yYnTtu9.jpeg

      Reminder that buddhism was originally a liberation ontology which turned into a religion. It had nothing to do with moralism, nothing to do with monasticism (you don't have to be a monk to become liberated), nothing to do with humanism, you can be liberated yet still the scum of the earth, living a completely lay life in the city. Actions are only that which are conducive to the main goal, they aren't set in stone laws nor the main goal. Buddhism didn't teach no-self either, it taught not-self, a deduction technique to chip away everything you are not to find what what you really are. This is the original meaning of concentration (concentrating the subject like concentrating gold), and jhana (to burn away everything you are not like burning a hay stack to leave a needle). The simple premise is that everything that is phenomenal, objective, that is an object of awareness, is not you, the subject, that which transcends phenomena. Objects have a beginning in time, an end in time, constantly change, and if attached to cause suffering and a never ending seeking which can't be fulfilled. If there's a sense of a subject which you are aware of it's an illusion, the subject can't be sensed, it's completely embodied, like an eye which can't see itself. This illusion creates an experience of suffering, although the experience is real it is ultimately an illusion, similar to any other illusion where, for example, you see a crooked line when the lines are actually straight. The goal is to see through this illusion through wisdom and insight, wisdom is understanding not-self, impermanence, and suffering, and insight is a direct experience of this.

      tl;dr EVERYTHING WHICH IS OBJECTIVE (phenomenal, observable) IS NOT-SELF, IMPERMANENT, AND SUFFERING

      The Buddha's point of view, which is neither eternalist, nor nihilist, nor fatalist, nor agnostic, nor theist, is opposed in this sutta to that of the rival philosophical "great masters" of the time, whom another sutta, the Samaññaphala Sutta ("The Fruits of the Contemplative Life"), lists, and against whom the Brahmajālasutta is directed:

      >Purana Kassapa: theory of contingency that denies retribution for acts, everything happening accidentally (adhiccasamuppana-vāda)
      >Makkhali Gosala: fatalism, the morality of acts is irrelevant, beings improve automatically until they are liberated (niyati-vāda)
      >Ajita Kesakambalin: nihilism (or materialism), the value of acts is denied, the individual's existence ends with his death (ucceda-vāda)
      >Pakudha Kaccayana: eternalism, the human being is composed of seven elements that exist eternally (sassata-vāda)
      >Sañjaya Belatthaputta: agnosticism, ultimate questions have no definitive explanation (ajñeya-vāda)
      >Nigantha Nataputta (which is the Mahāvīra of Jainism): theory of an eternal vital principle, jîva.

      Theism (issara-nimmana-vada), according to which the world is the creation of a supreme being, was also professed by several Brahmin masters (Pokkarasati, Tarukkha), who taught union with Brahma. The Tevijja Sutta refutes this view, describing these masters as blind leading the blind, "capable of showing the way to union with someone they know nothing about and have not seen". The Tittha Sutta similarly asserts that "believing in the creation of the world by a supreme being" leads to a lack of effort in practice and inaction.

      Only good posts in this thread. Buddhism is practice-oriented as it leads to direct unshakeable knowledge, not speculatory metaphysical quibbling.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They ask about God he tells them to stop wasting time

      in other words buddha didnt know jack shit he just came up with bs a philosophy and ignored everything else as if he was somehow above it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >t. midwit

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    low IQ answer - yes
    midwit answer - no
    high IQ answer - yes

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is literally just several layers of "intellectual" fart-sniffing sour grapes.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yep

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Buddha's point of view, which is neither eternalist, nor nihilist, nor fatalist, nor agnostic, nor theist, is opposed in this sutta to that of the rival philosophical "great masters" of the time, whom another sutta, the Samaññaphala Sutta ("The Fruits of the Contemplative Life"), lists, and against whom the Brahmajālasutta is directed:

    >Purana Kassapa: theory of contingency that denies retribution for acts, everything happening accidentally (adhiccasamuppana-vāda)
    >Makkhali Gosala: fatalism, the morality of acts is irrelevant, beings improve automatically until they are liberated (niyati-vāda)
    >Ajita Kesakambalin: nihilism (or materialism), the value of acts is denied, the individual's existence ends with his death (ucceda-vāda)
    >Pakudha Kaccayana: eternalism, the human being is composed of seven elements that exist eternally (sassata-vāda)
    >Sañjaya Belatthaputta: agnosticism, ultimate questions have no definitive explanation (ajñeya-vāda)
    >Nigantha Nataputta (which is the Mahāvīra of Jainism): theory of an eternal vital principle, jîva.

    Theism (issara-nimmana-vada), according to which the world is the creation of a supreme being, was also professed by several Brahmin masters (Pokkarasati, Tarukkha), who taught union with Brahma. The Tevijja Sutta refutes this view, describing these masters as blind leading the blind, "capable of showing the way to union with someone they know nothing about and have not seen". The Tittha Sutta similarly asserts that "believing in the creation of the world by a supreme being" leads to a lack of effort in practice and inaction.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >In Plato
    Plato defended the notion in several of his dialogues: the Phaedo (81 b); the Menexenus (81 a); the Republic (614 ff.); the Phaedrus (248 d); the Gorgias (525 c) and the Timaeus (42 b-d and 91 d-92 c). The three types of metempsychosis envisaged
    correspond to the three parts that Plato distinguishes in the soul: when
    appetite (epithumia) dominates, there is reincarnation in licentious animals, when it's aggressiveness (thumos) in beasts of prey, when it's the reasonable part (logistikon) in gregarious animals7,8.

    >In Aristotle
    Aristotle rejects the theory of metempsychosis. He considers body and mind to be one, as form and matter cannot exist without each other. Aristotle rejects the "Pythagorean myths" according to which "any soul enters any body "9.

    >In Virgil
    The poet Virgil alludes to metempsychosis, according to which the soul often changes sex, in the Aeneid. In the course of the epic, Anchises explains to Aeneas the principle of reincarnation of souls in the underworld10.

    >In Plotinus
    The Neoplatonist Plotinus makes relatively rare allusions to metempsychosis. He writes: "It is a universally accepted belief that the soul commits faults,
    atones for them, undergoes punishments in the underworld and passes
    into new bodies "11. This metempsychosis responds to a principle of justice. Indeed, "the gods give each person the fate that suits him and that is in harmony with his antecedents in his successive existences "12.

    >In Judaism
    Kabbalah admits metempsychosis, which it calls gilgoul. "The Kabbalah, in the Sefer ha-Bahir (late 12th century), its oldest text, already takes transmigration for granted... In the 13th century, transmigration was considered an esoteric doctrine... The generalization of the concept of transmigration, initially limited to the punishment of particular sins, contributed to the emergence of the belief in transmigration in animals, and even in plants and inorganic matter. This view, contested by many kabbalists, only became widespread after 1400. Transmigration in animal bodies is first mentioned in the Sefer ha-Temurah, which originated with a group close to the Girona kabbalists "13. "Isaac Luria, the great 16th-century Kabbalist master of Safed, once recognized (according to his two main disciples, Hayyim Vital and his son) the soul of an incestuous father in the body of a large black dog... Nahman of Bratslav [died 1811] boasts of being the most recent link in a chain of reincarnations of a soul that first appeared in the body of Simon bar Yohaï, then passed through Isaac Luria and on to the Messiah14 ".
    Druze Islam and Yezidism also incorporate metempsychosis. On the other hand, metempsychosis is totally absent from Christianity, with the exception of a few branches considered "heretical", such as Catharism, or based on the thought of the theologian Origen.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Among the pre-Socratics

      Opinions are divided as to whether Orphism believes in metempsychosis3. Orphism rather expounds palingenesis.

      Metempsychosis was also central to the teachings of Pythagoras: "One day, passing by someone who was mistreating his dog, it is said that he [Pythagoras] was taken with compassion and addressed the individual with these words: 'Stop and strike no more, for it is the soul of a man who was my friend, and I recognized him by hearing the sound of his voice'4. Among Pythagoras's earlier incarnations, Ennius seems to list that of a peawiener, then Euphorbia.

      Pindar mentions it in the Olympics5.

      The word appears in Diodorus of Sicily6.

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Zohar also attaches great importance to the transmigration of souls, a doctrine of Platonic and non-biblical origin, but which the Zohar develops in its own unique way. Souls pass from one stage to another in the "kingdom of the sephirot". Each stage corresponds to a new life, better or worse than the previous one, depending on the direction souls take. They live, they die, they live again.

    But souls also undergo sex changes. This is one of the original features of the Zohar: souls are sexed. They are more or less masculine and more or less feminine, so marriage between souls requires special study.

    Fertility is fundamental to the Zohar. If a soul remains sterile, if it does not marry another soul to produce offspring, then the soul will regress to a lower level.

    For the Zohar, one of the main causes of infertility is "the fact that a woman [sometimes] has a man's soul inside her.This masculine woman must call upon a wandering feminine soul to inhabit her temporarily, so as to provide her with the feminine sparks she lacks to enable her to become pregnant. This is the Ibour phenomenon.If she cannot obtain this temporary female soul, her husband can do it for her: he will be the receptacle of the female soul, obtain from it the sparks of femininity that his wife lacks, and assume the masculine and feminine roles within the sexual relationship", notes Mopsik13.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't mess with the Zohar

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the duality between meaningfulness and nihilism is itself illusory

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Buddhist sorcery is a thing and they skinned babies alive to appease their most sacred Llama.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Damn, now imagine what they'd do to appease an alpaca

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Source?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Such a thing is probably more the provenance of the regional folk religions.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Reminder that Buddhist sorcery is a thing and they skinned babies alive to appease their most sacred Llama.
      there is no sorcery in buddhism and there is no llama in buddhism

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not really. Buddhism asserts that compassion is the "best" response to suffering. Nihilism doesn't assert anything that way.

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is full of principles that they follow so not at all

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Temple of the Golden Pavilion is a good book if you like edgy buddhism. Its about that schizo buddhist acolyte who burnt down that temple
    >If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him
      That's just a reference to Angulimala

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really get nihilism, like believing there is no objective "meaning" is one thing but no one actually lives like that, they make their own meaning

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/affirming.html

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Gravity's Rainbow does Buddhism better than any of those old ass texts.

  44. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I used to fall for the second hand Nietzsche interpretation about how Buddhism was about removing desire, and those pictures of monks staring at a wall and thus being life denying but then I actually looked into it and realized that was not accurate at all.

  45. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What song are they referring to?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *