>The desire to cease desires is, itself, a desire
What's the Buddhist response to this?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>The desire to cease desires is, itself, a desire
>The desire to cease desires is, itself, a desire
What's the Buddhist response to this?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Correct, and once you reach this goal to its conclusion that desire too is gone like all others.
So you're encouraged to base your life around this one desire, with release only occurring, if at all, after years and years of desire?
The desire to cease desire results in less desire overall, especially in the case of monks, so desire is progressively subdued throughout a lifetime even if the goal isn't achieved in this life.
>endgoal is to become a stillborn baby
Based moron death cult
That sounds kind of moronic. Shouldn't the goal be to transcend desire not out of avoidance of suffering but to master our humanity for the prosperity of good? We're human, we should be able to reach enlightenment as humans are. Building a family, fostering community, doing good acts. This form of buddhism to me where you're supposed to resign yourself from all desire does indeed sounds like a cope. Life is suffering and desire, embrace that instead of growing this not-apathy.
>but to master our humanity for the prosperity of good
Why aren't Buddhists enlightened utilitarians? Because that's an oxymoron lmao.
Because utilitarian framework is devoid of human mental process. If Hitler killing all the israelites would reduce more israeli practice, utilitarians would praise that. The whole utilitarian argument takes into account only of the outcome, rather than suffering being created or created for a person that is living in this world.
Fundamentally, utilitarians don't see people, people aren't living outside of their body, they see robots. Buddhists see people, not robots.
The holocaust didn't happen.
Utilitarianism is a synonym for ethics.
It's good = It works
It's bad = It doesn't work
It's major cope. Ethics don't exist, im just gonna do what "works". You can say that planting a tree results in a tree. You can't say, "we should plant trees", You can't turn this into a goal we should aspire to achieve. It does not follow.
yes non-enlightened people love the idea to provide for the ruling class. The goal of buddhism is to end suffering. it turns out that the destruction of cravings is what is required, so they buddhists do just that. Then the normies stat seething because they hate the very few hermits who dont give a frick about providing for women, their kids and whoever is the current ruling class.
There's a difference building a family, a home and being a wagie. I'm nit saying guve into cravings but desiting good and healthy things is good.
The question is: "why desire?" Not "how to not desire?". If you dont want to eat you say "why eat?", not "how to not eat?"
you want to end suffering. buddha says you do XYZ in order to end suffering, you do XYZ and suffering ends. It's not that hard, is it.
The goal is to kill desire. Embarking on a journey to end it is an inevitavle part of it similar to how genuine Christians endeavor to live pious lives for the health of their own Soul and Morality. Siddhartha left his opulent and indulgent life as a princeling, ultimately resulting in him having far less tethers as a monk in the jungles than as a King surrounded by wealth, servants, family and carnal pleasures, minimizing that desire for earthly delights.
>the *desire* is to kill desire.
ftfy
/thread already from fpbp. This simple line of thinking escapes the greatest "minds" of Protestantism
https://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html
> 1. Logical consistency—the claims of a belief system must logically cohere to each other and not contradict in any way. As an example, the end goal of Buddhism is to rid oneself of all desires. Yet, one must have a desire to rid oneself of all desires, which is a contradictory and illogical principle.
>one must have blind faith in god to transcend belief into faith
>also here's a rational way to believe in god
are they saying faith is impossible unless you're dumb enough and giving the rest belief is a good enough cope to get to heaven?
Yikes
do you have faith in god with all your heart and soul, do you have complete trust in them?
you are faithless and your lack of humility in the face of the life of faithful makes you recoil from the path, enjoy wasting your time going through the motions pharisee
tell that to abraham
You don't know anything about Christianity
you know much about christianity, and nothing about faith in god
You know nothing about either, you're just a self-important nihilist
i know what faith is, doesn't mean i have it, you neither know what it is or have it
You can't conclude that no desire is good if the steps you take to that conclusion refute themselves.
P1: all desires are wrong or bad or illusions or whatever
P2: The ultimate desire is to have no desires
C: Absurdity
The conclusion is that you are wrong, not that by following P2 you will achieve P1. The conclusion is that either P1 is wrong or P2 is wrong. Whichever one is wrong, your argument falls apart. You con't convince yourself or anyone of it. You are just doing this, for no good reason.
That's analogy is not being understood correctly If you say, rafts can't cross the ocean. But then claim to be using a raft to cross the ocean. And once you get there, you won't need a raft anymore. You are being absurd/contradictory.
shut the frick up nerd
SHUT UP
Just rank the desires, what an unimaginative use of logic.
>the desire to have no desires is a desire superior to the rest because it leads to freedom
Desired are bad. Using desires to rid yourself of desires is just a means to the end. In the end, you will also be free of the desire to not desire.
For a babby analogy, a druggie may continue using drugs in the process of quitting drugs. There's nothing absurd about that.
It's like someone failing attempts/making mistakes in aspiration to master a skill.
>You lose some soccer games in your goal to win more, checkmate footballists!
Is OP's exact line of reasoning.
so then its okay to desire a large boat as long as you end up getting a large boat?
are you moronic?
no, b***h. you are
>want two things: to rid myself of desire and to have a big ass fricking boat
>get the boat first
>rid myself of desire second
>result is the same as if i had just rid myself of desire except now i have a big ass fricking boat
i win
if you weren't moronic, you'd realize those two outcomes are the same after being rid of desire.
if you weren't moronic you'd see that one of them involves a big fricking boat
>Most moronic bit of whataboutism so far
Getting that Boat only solves 1 (one) yearning and ends up leaving room for more. In the same way people spend their time obsessing over their dream car even after acquiring it, they might have been satisfied for a time but that car now needs maintenance and perhaps the owner will feel like upgrading or decorating it.
Meanwhile attacking desire itself leaves no room for any more at the journeys end - its over.
this is why tantra-vajrayana is the only correct path; you satisfy your desires to the max until there's none. boldly and quickly reach enlightement like a lightning.
too bad the buddha shitted on this method before npcs even created it
It's not circular because the desire ends when desire ceases.
people aren't born enlightened.
There is no enlightenment. No desire- desire and world = illusion, experience/thought = illusion so no enlightenment.
that's hinduism
>You see, enlightenment is about accepting that [insert blatant contradiction here]. If you don't understand them, and accept them, you're simply a buddhlet.
Many such cases in dharmic thinking
I've seen a few metaphors for this. The desire to cease desiring is like a raft a man uses to cross a river. Once the other side is reached the man abandons the raft. Or backing up a few steps before running forwards to take a leap. To the ignorant it seems they are moving in the wrong direction at first.
yes i think buddhist criticism of desire as central suffering is generally fruitful but taking this as a prescriptive dogma for enlightenment seems genuinely impossible to actually achieve, although certainly it could be approached by gradations
"you are gay for collecting funko pops"
Truly enlightened
Zen approach, straight to the point
The Buddhist response is: you didn't read Buddhism because it's addressing cyclical desires that cannot be satiated, not desire entirely.
Problem: My wife keeps cheating on me with BBC
Buddhist solution: Stop desiring that your wife stop taking loads of BBC
They were the first cucks basically.
Mutts law.
you have no arguments
the argument is that buddhism would be for the cessation of wanting a wife, or even any bond with another person whatsoever, you dumb american.
go back to /gif/ now
No, it'd be to stop desiring a wife you obviously can't satisfy. moronic mutt rat
>let yourself get cucked
>"w-well I didn't desire you anyway!"
Cope. Buddhists finally outed themselves as unironic cucks.
>leaving an unfaithful woman means you're a cuck
wew lad.
>demented, pornographically-charged hypothetical
christianity would tell you that you have to suck that wiener too, and vedanta that both wieners are brahma's wiener
how often do you think about black men fricking your wife?
Buddha left his wife and child, and she wasn't even cheating on him. He just wanted to reach enlightenment and cease reincarnating.
Not sure why you'd think Buddhism would even teach to get married in the first place.
I hate am*rica so fricking much. Go back to /gif/ you fricking mutt cuck.
Lol at the incoherent seethe this post uncover
It's just so tiresome
Notice how none of them actually refuted it? Just called him a mutt.
Wouldn't this just be "stop desiring your wife or other women" and everything else in general
Indeed
Are you kidding me? If you had actually read any book on Buddhism you’d know that this is a feature of buddhist thought
Go read Foundations of Buddhism by Rubert Gethin you moron
>he thinks Buddhists are against desire
They forget Buddha said frick Nirvana I just want that soup.
Yes.
Always cool to see a Buddhist thread full of people who have no knowledge of Buddhism.
INB4 moron who read siddhartha and thought it was a buddhist book replies.
Should be a great company for you then, teacher.
Why are buddhists always such hypocritical passive aggressive little shits?
>What's the Buddhist response to this?
Yes.
It's just a self-observant fact. There is no ambition among Buddhists in general to create a perfect fail-safe philosophical system. Only among intellectuals.
it's a translation problem, what buddhism wants to overcome is not desire, but craving(tanha) craving is when you desire that a particular thing exist forever,m or even longer that is designed too
desire on itself (chanda/intent) has no karmic value, is just a manifetsation of will
so when you say "the desire to cease desire is, in itself desire" you should use the proper words, so "craving to end craving is, itself craving" is correct and is contemplated in the practice, you shoulnd't do it, that's unskilfull and will lead you to suffering
but "the intent to end sufferinf is, itself suffering" is incorrect, when you achieve a true intent to end suffering you're actually developing the positive traits of wisdom, you're realising your condition as a human being
this is interesting but ultimately wrong since it thinks the two forms of desire as that which we undergo in isolated bursts. unenlightened worldling does not sometimes act out of chanda and sometimes out of craving, rather EVERYTHING the unenligthened worldling does is based on already being within the DOMAIN of craving and clinging in regards to the five aggregates. so the unenlightened worldling really does CRAVE to end suffering
one should instead look to the diversity of CRAVING rather than of desire itself. there is a massive difference between craving for sex and craving for enlightenment. the former can never be a vehicle for liberation since it is always underlied by more craving. the latter however can turn you towards actually understanding the way out of craving, and then one abandons the underlying tendency to crave, THROUGH that very craving.
here is a sutta excerpt on this topic (from AN 4.159) -
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'I hope that I, too, will — through the ending of the fermentations — enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.' Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving. 'This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said."
nice! thanks for the sutta, i'm gonna read the whole thing now
https://suttacentral.net/an4.159/en/thanissaro?reference=none&highlight=false
>it's a translation problem
I feel like 99% of discussions of Buddhism just come down to this.
You can get by with many English translations but it is important to learn perhaps 50-100 words of vocabulary and understand which terms are being translated as what. Some of these are more complex than others and highly debated. Others are actually quite simple but still represent a loss of context in translation. For instance, tirthika is sometimes translated as "forder" or "heretic" or "pagan;" this actually refers to a kind of Indian priest who would wade into rivers. So he is literally someone who fords rivers, doesn't follow Buddhist doctrines, and worships gods, but if you didn't know how to recognize "tirthika" in translation that is lost to you. "Forder" might be the least helpful English rendering even though it is literal, but the context of the rest of the sutra or text should at least imply a "forder" is someone who is being criticized.
Oh no, I get it, trust me man, but
>learn perhaps 50-100 words
no one who saved OP's image is ever going to bother doing that.
>who would wade into rivers.
might be a stretch, but does he participate in stream-entry as well? or is stream-entry an English metaphor that solely exists out of translation? or is it just a coincidence?
this is the exact sort of thing I'm talking about... if you were reading an English translation that happened to mention both "Forders" and "Stream Winners" you might confuse them if you don't know how to recognize tirthika and sotapanna in translation and/or are just reading quickly. Or maybe after reading you confuse them when you try to remember what was being discoursed on. With sotapanna the image is supposed to be of a stream leading to the ocean, which is a popular metaphor for the buddhadharma in the canon and even in later Mahayana; but with tirthika that's a guy who stands in the water and does rituals. He's not a "stream entrant" in a buddhistic sense, only in a literal one
Omg, I have lost faith in the tathagata
There was a sutta for that.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html
I like yours better
well done
You know in your heart of hearts that Buddhism means chill out. Just chill out.
Buddhism distinguishes between "tanha" which are unwholesome desires born out of our attachments to greed, anger, and delusion, and wholesome desires born out of our buddha nature like the desire to practice for the benefit of all sentient beings.
For anyone interested I recommend to start by listening to one of my favorite theravada buddhist teachers, Ayya Khema:
https://dharmaseed.org/talks/7685/
She is long dead, but dharmaseed maintains hundreds of her talks on the jhanas, hinderances, characteristics of existence, etc and the one I linked is a particularly helpful one on contemplating the three characteristics of existence: impermanence, not-self, and stress/ lack of satisfaction which is excellent introduction to Buddhism.
*laugh*
The response is "So?"
Everything's interconnected and blah blah blah, but the core of Buddhism is meditation, breaking out of your mental noise. Go try zazen.
>What's the Buddhist response to this?
Yes. (unironically)
Well, buddhist doctrine separates urges from aspirations. The urges and aspirations brought about by urges are what need to be kept in check, broadly. Additionally, like most other axial and pre-axial thinkers, siddartha also advocated a focus on thr process rather than any goal.
In other words: The skill to urge surf and make conscious decisions rather than acting on urges or whims is key to a Buddhist ethic.
To answer your question: a well-thought out decision to consciously consider urges and aspirations before deciding to act on them is not the same as simple "desire."
Yes.
Throwing Rohingya inta fire
it's the junta's doing tho... but some theravada monks are just jerks. Anyway, all religions are just shit. Gods and supreme beings having superiority complex lmao
Buddhists are essentially hedonists and utiliarians, not worth your time.
>be a religion centered on spiritual and material asceticism
>practitioners still flex on each other with gigantic golden statues
Devotion to Buddhas is a thing
Ok how would Buddhists/Gnostics/etc, refute this, why should I try to transcend "reality" when I like it and I am not in a constant state of unfulfillment which is one of their axioms?
Yeah, organised religion is gay like that, most practitioners are happy with wooden idols and a personal faith. It's when an ecchlesiarchy is established that the preists have to justify their existence and positions through moronic, often heretical, displays of piety and unscriptural ceremony. Funnily enough, Buddha said don't make this shit a religion and don't become a weird acetic these will only remove you from the way enlightenment.
The Buddha established the Sangha and gave them reasons for their existence
What have you actually read about Buddhism?
There is nothing to refute. You're just a hylic happily stuck in samsara. You ask whether you should try, but you shouldn't, as you cannot succeed. The religion is for the sangha/pneumatics.
>why should I try to transcend "reality" when I like it and I am not in a constant state of unfulfillment which is one of their axioms?
You shouldn't. You aren't though. But that's okay, if you don't want to, you will eventually in another rebirth.
Why would anyone want that? You'd just be reborn.
the final buddhist redpill is that you are always enlightened, do what thou wilt
that's hinduism though
desire to teach others is a desire
desire to help others is a desire
desire to one up morons online is a desire
desire to be better than others is a desire
desire for liberation is a desire
literally just stfu and sit the frick down until you stop wanting
your ego is the greatest trickster to ever exist, it will ride on your shoulders and compliment you for being clever enough to be rid of it
just sit down and shut up, be aware when they poke out the carrot on a stick to get you to move
if you think liberation needs to be earned you're a moron
if you think others are worth saving you're a moron
so just sit in silence until you're done with wanting to be better than others
best post
see, that's why desire is crap
you gained literally nothing but clarity
and that clarity tells you you've wasted your time
congratulations, now you can either go back to larping you're better than others for knowing that or you can go live what's left of your short life
you're welcome morons
if unquestioning faith is all you need to get into heaven isn't rationalizing belief counter productive, you literally just have to be abraham and be ready to kill your own son without a thought or doubt for your god to have faith, if you try to rationalize his action you're already failing in your faith
>if unquestioning faith is all you need to get into heaven
It's not
faith is not rational, otherwise it would be mere belief, no matter what happens (remember job), no matter what is asked by god (remember abraham) you will have to have faith in god, if at any moment you allow doubt to enter into your life you are faithless, you must cling to your faith like a drowning man to a plank of wood all the time
how little further you would have to walk to have faith when you already go through the motions and studied so much, it is hard to have faith isn't it, there is a reason god loved abraham so, faith is so simple to have yet at the same time how can one have it fully, enjoy your dilemma of faith with your learned mind
My brother is into this eastern religion bullshit and he's a fricking bum who sits around playing Civ 6 and other map games. It's stupid cope. Desire is a natural state, and so is suffering. If you can cut out desire then you should be able to cut our suffering. Not having any wants leads to a stagnant and boring life where you will most likely end up as a net negative to everyone you interact with.
>muh i need entertainment and cooms otherwise i coomit suicide
Do you not desire to have a wife and a big healthy family? Do you not desire to make things other people enjoy? Do you not desire to see the world? Do you not desire to know about what had happened throughout time? Do you not desire to see what extents humanity will explore the galaxy in your lifetime? Do you not desire to see how far you can push your body to it's peak performance?
It's not just entertainment. Maybe the reason why losers fall to Buddhist crap is because the only thing they care about in life is pop culture and glorified toys and that has gone to shit.
I don't care to learn more about stupid religious coping mechanisms. Everyone who falls to religion in any capacity during hard times have already given up. Either fix the problem directly or deal with the consequences. Going "um actually I don't care" is gay and childish.
Then unironically why don't you just have a nice day and snuff all desire and suffering in one fell swoop? Oh wait the desire to have a nice day will cause suffering abloo bloo
>why don't you just have a nice day
I was born specifically to irritate people such as yourself, who seethe at the notion that someone could be less miserable than they are.
More Buddhist cope assuming everyone but them is miserable because they didn't read the Tao or some shit.
Also that sounds a lot like desire Buddy, you sound like you're suffering.
I don't go around encouraging suicides so I'd say I'm in a better state. Don't really care how you've derived your own sense of smug self-worth with reference to thinking your brother is lame or that everyone who valures something intangible is coping, since it seems to be unworthy of emulation if it produces a leering goblin
Intangible things ARE worth nothing. Philosophy, religion, whatever shouldn't be inherently valued because at the end of the day it is made up bullshit that is filled with contradictions because humans are imperfect.
Also I'm not encouraging suicide I'm genuinely asking a question. Why don't Buddhists kill themselves if the act of not wanting to die causes suffering?
>not wanting to die causes suffering
Ignorance, or more properly the reification of delusion, causes suffering. Wanting to be alive for the sole purpose of consuming would be a greater source of suffering than merely being alive. Being alive is a momentary thing, you can do whatever you want with the moments—you make yourself suffer more or suffer less. If Buddhists didn't want to live then they'd be a suicide cult but this is clearly not the case otherwise the religion would have died out. If you care—although you've already said you don't—you should read actual texts from the Buddhist traditions instead of forming an opinion based on skimming wikipedia/remembering a meme/"knowing" a powerpoint slide worth of trivia about a topic, because these are invariably wrong when it comes to any philosophical system
Blah blah blah blah
Your desire to write all this is causing you suffering, right?
no, i'm not craving to write this, this is just something i can do in my free time XD
Hmm sounds like suffering to me.
You’re posting on IQfy dude, you’re a failure as a Buddhist
>you’re a failure
nice projection there bud
>no i don't care what the technical or contextual meanings of these terms are in relation to Buddhism, "suffering" and "desire" mean what I say they mean and therefore Buddhism is silly
If you're not going to bother trying to learn anything why bother with this thread? It's clearly not for you. If your whole ego rests on insulting other people then you are hardly worth paying further attention to, let along respecting as a critic of other value systems
So desire and suffering is only what some moron a million years ago thinks it is? My whole ego depends on much more than this thread because I desire more than this tiny bullshit. Maybe since you cut all desire out of your life and are currently filling it with this crap you project your mental shortcomings. All you have is a desire to confirm your own learned biases because otherwise you are a fricking shell. And I bet that causes much suffering when people don't immediately fall for your Chinese tricks. You only care about Buddhism because it is something different. Your desire to be different causes you suffering.
you think like a woman
You desired to post this. You are suffering amigo.
My shell is filled brotherman. You couldn't fill your shell with being a normal person so you had to search the world for some Chinese crap to help out.
>just be a normal person
>uhhh by normal I mean the things I like, the things you like are bad
very based, you must be so accomplished in your offline life to feel the need to express this to strangers on a literature forum
As do you, man.
>desire to confirm your own learned biases because otherwise you are a fricking shell
Ahh... could it be? Am I getting through to you? Is that not what you are doing, filling up YOUR shell with what you've habitually gravitated toward because you want to develop these tendencies further? Tendencies like insulting your brother, the Chinese, anonymous IQfy posters in a thread about Buddhism, because that's what you value? And it is your desire to differentiate yourself from these "bad" people that causes you to seethe at them for appearing to be less miserable than you?
>buddha was wrong about desire!
>that's not what buddha's notion of desire is
>ha! you desired to write that! checkmate atheist!
kek this dude keeps arguing against a strawman he himself created
>Your desire to be different causes you suffering.
>you think like a woman
i am no buddhist but that anon is 100% correct. to be a man means to have doubt and question everything, women go along with the status quo. the enlightenment gays actually won this thread
Women are the one going with the flow on this shit. Actually saying "Hey, maybe we shouldn't get just rid of desire out of the desire to be "free" of suffering" isn't the same as going "Yeah we should just want to coom and consume!"
Just because Buddhism is this new agey perspective changing thing here in the modern west doesn't mean it can't have flaws or be critiqued. I followed this philosophy for a year and when I stopped escaping desire and just changed/replaced those "desires" with stuff more like aspirations over objectives, things you couldn't just "accomplish" and be done with and were purer in morals, they tended to be more motivating and made me pursue a fuller life more effectively. You can't just shortcut your life by getting rid of desire and thus not being able to fail to achieve things or be able to lose things. Thatcs literally a cop out "I no longer care about the cheese so I've basically become better than the maze." However, the techniques and teachings are good for taking better control of your mortal life with desires and suffering. Buddhism is giving up in desire for an easier life without suffering. Living is working through suffering and desire. Instead of abandoning meaning, you are given true meaning. It's comparing the long, hard but right path to not even wanting to go anywhere. Buddhists are afraid to live a moral life so they choose not to live at all.
You are in the maze. You are a mouse. You're supposed to be getting cheese. HOW you get the cheese and WHAT you do with it defines you. It's childish to denie your reality.
>Buddhists are afraid to live a moral life so they choose not to live at all.
this board gets dumber by the micro-second.
Correct me if I'm so dumb. I'm genuinely interested in how I'm wrong/misguided because if I am, I want to correct that and improve. I'm not trying to sound smug as I'm typing this and I hope that comes through.4ytrp
If buddhists aren't afraid to live a life how come in every sect you can only achieve the highest form of enlightenment by not marrying and having children?
If they aren't afraid, why be a monk? Ladt I checked people were meant to be people and aim to be the best kind.
>just conform to the cosmic mean bro
>gotta grease the wheel with your suffering bro uuuh i mean the nobility of struggle haha
shit-eating worldling rat c**t.
Have fun rejecting responsibility and escapism.
They cop out by saying you can be enlightened as a layman but then say you can reach higher levels. It's an obvious cope. Buddha left his material life because it was one of royalty overabundant. If he pursued a humble life as a serf with his experience, maybe he'd reach the same conclusions.
Because the goal of Buddhism isn't to be afraid of life. Buddhist axiom is such that humans naturally want to avoid suffering, but fail to do so because we don't understand the root causes. The failure in analysis/corrective mechanism. The analysis follows such that, our very own ignorance of the the problem at heart is causing a loop/cycle of suffering.
So to fix the problem, the Buddha laid down the 4 noble truths. state of suffering, suffering bourne by our grasping (of a permanance), the possibility of ending this cycle, and finally the mechanism to end this cycle.
Not marrying/children is merely one addition in which monks do when they cut off ties to the world so their minds stop grasping for the daily reminders of attachments in our life.
>Not marrying/children is merely one addition in which monks do when they cut off ties to the world so their minds stop grasping for the daily reminders of attachments in our life.
So it is not necessary to do if you can steel yourself from reminders of attachment?
Yes, in theory, no in reality. If such were that easy, everyone would be enlightened already. The pull of daily life's attachments lulls your mind in the direction of continuation of the cycle so hard, thats why the monastic circle was created in the first place. But if your mind is already steeled, you can return back to life.
So monks can become steeled layman but layman cannot become steeled without being a monk first?
Yes. Thats how the training regiment goes in all fields.
the things you get out of living your moral life, for a buddhist, are not worth it in the first place. even if you abandon coarser forms of sensuality and look to more wholesome objectives, it is still within the sensual domain of seeking out pleasure and avoiding pain, which the buddhist finds to be ultimately unsatisfying. more accurately is the worldling who covers up this unsatisfying truth by seeking out random tasks and (even wholesome) distractions
Isn't seeking to end suffering avoiding pain? Also, I'd disagree with categorizing a lot of wholsome attachments as distractions. What are they distracting from?
yes, at the beginning, because that is everyones starting position. but then if you practice correctly on account of that desire, you will THEN stop avoiding and resisting pain.
you distract yourself from the fact that you are prey to suffering. thats why people fear boredom and having nothing to do - it is terrifyingly anxiety inducing for the vast majority of people because it reveals to you what you are running away from, which is your existential situation of unsatisfactoriness. wholesome attachments are obviously better than coarse sensuality, but it is still very likely at the level of this generalised distraction
>you distract yourself from the fact that you are prey to suffering. thats why people fear boredom and having nothing to do - it is terrifyingly anxiety inducing for the vast majority of people because it reveals to you what you are running away from, which is your existential situation of unsatisfactoriness. wholesome attachments are obviously better than coarse sensuality, but it is still very likely at the level of this generalised distraction
But it isn't like that for me. That's the best way I can put it. I'm well aware I'm prey to suffering. It's part of my philosophy. I don't see boredom and having nothing to do the same way as that. Mindfulness has helped me reach that state of awareness of things. It doesn't scare me but I'm still subject to it. I'm really not trying to sound pedantic but I feel what you just said doesn't apply to everyone like that.
At least I'm taking it seriously and engaging the argument.
yes if you are really that well developed in regard to yourself then just keep doing what you are doing, buddhism is not some universal path for everyone, its specifically for people who want to attain the uprooting of possibility of suffering. you just need to have self honesty to the degree where you know whether you are just coping or not. are you really okay with if everything you depended on was to be swept away? your loved ones? your possessions? your home? your health? your life? is you telling yourself your quite aware of this you actually being fine with it or is it just you covering it up so you can distract yourself?
>buddhism is not some universal path for everyone, its specifically for people who want to attain the uprooting of possibility of suffering.
That's probably it then, I got wrapped up in that one true religion bullshit mindset
>are you really okay with if everything you depended on was to be swept away? your loved ones? your possessions? your home? your health? your life?
No I wouldn't be okay with it. That's kind of my point. I believe the suffering that comes from that in exchange of having those things and then losing them is unavoidable and as such just for taking such gravitas in them. It cements their meaning and value to me that I would suffer at the loss of them. Suffering to me is meaning. It defines what truly matters. You can escape suffering only of attachments that don't actually matter to you. And I'd make sure to only value and take meaning in those which should only matter to me. So maybe not my health or house or reputation but things like the ability to help others and the lives of my loved ones.
If you were to steel yourself as a monk then return to society as a layman and had the same things I had, would they really be worth anything to you if they didn't cause suffering? And if the point wasn't for them to have worth, what's the point of even being then? In this case, most likely you wouldn't return as a layman at all but then you're just this blip that didn't really do anything other than recognise it's a blip.To me it looks more like nihilism than freeing yourself from suffering. In the grand scheme of things, maybe attachments don't matter but what if the pount isn't to care about the grand existential scheme and just be in the present because it's a blessing? What if the point isn't to care about some point and just be there in the now you're given. I've definitely mistepped over some semantics or something else here with the hypothetical scenario but my general point remains the same. Maybe I've even looped back round into Buddhism making more sense but still from my perspective ending suffering doesn't sound that great.
It should be said that you ultimately are projecting an image of suffering on to that which is, by definition, without suffering. You are virtually saying that in the state without suffering (nibbana), you wouldnt have the things you currently deem meaningful, therefore it doesnt sound so great. But that doesnt tell you anything about the nature of nibbana, only that you are already subject to suffering and would at the very least like to hold on to some pleasant attachments so as to make that suffering worth it. You cannot imagine a life without the pleasantness of your attachments, so you interpret renunciation as nihilism or bad.
You are also right that there is no point of being for a buddhist. The path culminates in cessation of existence, the letting go of being, or ones sense of ownership. But just like the previous paragraph, this only sounds bad if you already cling to your being. For someone who has seen that this is the way to the end of suffering, it is joyfully done, there is only peace and equanimity left.
But again, it is not a universal path, like I said before. You dont need to follow it if you do not agree with it, but it is good to reflect on regardless. The five remembrances that the Buddha told laymen to think of daily was for this reason - it puts your mind in the right direction and lets you know whether suffering is something that is a problem for you or not.
>You cannot imagine a life without the pleasantness of your attachments, so you interpret renunciation as nihilism or bad.
That along with the nibanna stuff pretty much gets me. There's no point to buddhism for me because its goal and my philosophy are conflicting. I see no need to transcend suffering so as such I can't imagine greater meaning coming from renuncing that which causes suffering. I can't really explore further to witness joys of unattachmemt myself and compare them to attachment and suffering because I see no need or desire no want to unattach.
To me, it can't be a lie because it proves itself true to me.
Is there anyway to get around this?If I was first a buddhist, I could truly test this philosophy but since I have this philosophy first I don't really see how I can become a buddhist.
I'm going to go as far as to say
is just blatantly strawmanning me and is more ignorant in that sense.
This is why I like the other guy better. He's less arrogant/ignorant. You do still have valid points to consider and have brought to the table though and I thank you for that.
>I can't really explore further to witness joys of unattachmemt myself and compare them to attachment and suffering because I see no need or desire no want to unattach.
Buddhism is a soteriological system. If you think everything's fine, you can just go on with your day.
>In the grand scheme of things, maybe attachments don't matter
The thing is, its not just a grand scheme of things, its a matter of practical outlook. There are more ways to live a life than just being ignorant of the nature of suffering and crying about it at every chance you get, and then justfying thats the only way to live a "normal" life. Ofcourse you can still continue to say "I like suffering and not doing anything about it" but these would be a lie. The fact that you're constantly trying to avoid suffering isn't lost on me. You're wearing comfortable clothes so you dont get sick, as you worry you might die if you get sick, or at the very least, not be able to get a job, earn money to feed yourself or your family, which might result in losing your home due to inability to pay the bills, etc. Slightest thing that you take to be mundane are rooted in existential suffering that you live daily, all based around the foundation that there is some sense of permanence that must be had/to be protected/gotten, which there is none, so the chase continues daily as a result.
Just to clarify my points a bit, its not so that you shouldn't wear clothes or have jobs or etc, its the idea stemming from those action that really make or break suffering. Nominally, these actions are rooted in ignorance of the state of permanence(or lack of), grasping of such state, which cause suffering. But a free mind can act the same, but have a motive that is not rooted on ignorance but out of care for others.
So don't take the argument as "nothing matters lmao, give up everything", but you can do all actions permitable with a clear conscious.
This doesn't mean that anything that causes suffering objectively real meaning. "Real meaning" is a pretty subjective term. What I'm getting at is if you minimise what can cause suffering (not the total amount if suffering that can be caused though) and concentrate it on that which is considered most meaningful, it's generally a good way to go.
It also should be said that this was, in any case, the mode of life that the Buddha mainly offered to laypeople (supramundane truths were not taught to laypeople at the beginning, but only at a much later point in the buddha's life).
Abandoning coarse sensuality (i.e. taking up the 5 precepts) and then inclining ones minds towards more wholesome goals (especially those of generosity). And then contemplating impermenance and suffering here and there. All of this is good.
But it wont satisfy anyone who sees even wholesome attachments as ultimately samsaric and subject to the same cessation. Anyone who has a will for the unconditioned needs more.
>But it wont satisfy anyone who sees even wholesome attachments as ultimately samsaric and subject to the same cessation. Anyone who has a will for the unconditioned needs more.
I can take pleasure in a day well spent, but it's still samsaric, I agree. So what's next?
nothing, if you are fine with it. otherwise consult the suttas for teachings on unconditioned release from suffering
perhaps at some point you will feel more unsatisfied and then you will have the right set up to consult the buddhas teaching more fruitfully. but for now you should just do what you do, you dont seem to currently have a need for the buddhas teaching
The "scientist" (most likely just pedantic) in me wants to test it out but you're right again. What's seems to be working I should just stick with until I see that it doesn't. Do you have any guidance on how to continually test this philosophy I have? I can try the buddhist practice but I feel with my philosophy I can't do it properly in a way that actually tests me. Am I jumping the gun here?
suffer. just pursue the extremes of loss and pain and see if you have the nuts for it.
Well, you don't need to pursue extreme loss, extreme loss happens in life in periods. Your grand parents will die, your parents will die, your friends will die, etc. Its all natural process.
However, waiting it out for those is not ideal because then you're at the mercy of the unknown. So just try with simple tests first. Examine a mundane suffering and do a root analysis there.
>Examine a mundane suffering and do a root analysis there.
How exactly would I go about that? What should I read to better be avle to do this.
Answered myself already "just read the buddhist texts because they're all about understanding suffering ya dingus!" I gotta stop desiring to be spoonfed.
I want to say mindfulness/insight meditation, but that may sound like a cope answer, however that is the right way to analyze it. Its a specific tool developed to analyze the contents of the mind.
https://www.lionsroar.com/how-to-practice-vipassana-insight-meditation/
What would classify a mundane suffering? Actually I probably do need a guide on performing a root analysis.
Think of the next thing you're looking forward to today, and examine your reaction when you tell yourself you're not going to do it. Enjoy.
Already got insight meditation in my kit. It's what lead me to where I am. I practise it daily along with metta (cus I'm big on attachment of loved ones y'know). I just meant something more literal on the logic of analysis/critical thinking to take it a step further. I'll just google "how to do a root analysis" and go from there. I need to flex my insight skills more with a bit more secular training. Like using math to make a garden.
If you're talking about the actual "root analysis" aside from buddhist context, then that just means problem solving skills in technical terms. Aka how to find the causes of the problem and finding solutions to it.
>your dad calls you
>he says he's sick
>you ask whats going on?
>he says my back, it hurts
>you ask did you fall down?
>he says no
>you ask what happened?
>he says poor sleeping posture
>you ask is the bed too stiff
>he says probably
>drive to his house
>check/verify bed
>if bed is issue, buy some firmer bed with soft feelings
>double check if he's got some other back issue other times
>maybe get x-ray if its an ongoing issue
etc etc.
Yeah, I just need to better collect my thoughts and ask the most efficient questions.
Why this?
Why that?
Why that if this means so?
Why so if that is also this?
Etc.
Any good books on critical thinking? Or is it a case if "if you're moronic/uneducated read one pop-nonfiction and if you still don't get it intuitively you're just confused/fatiqued or an idiot.
Draw out the problem, not imagery drawing, but like a flow chart.
Insight meditation allows you to train your mind into observing the "mental life." So you can see what your feelings are for what they are and not how they appear outside. As series of chain reactions, with external influences, that take hold of your entire body, that comes and goes, etc.
And ofcourse you don't just want to observe and analyze, you actually want to change the outcome and live better. So you need the calmness meditation, the stillness in the mind that wont be disturbed by the roaming feelings. And ultimately a combination of the two to steel the mind by analyzing correctly and not being disturbed by them.
I think I've been confusing my insight med with calmness one
You would also want to do the metta/caring (as action) meditation so that the actions you take are bourne out of good will towards other rather than just primarily a logic/rational.
>What would classify a mundane suffering? Actually I probably do need a guide on performing a root analysis.
You have a good starting point in your insight in the post
IMO - that was a pretty legitimate introspective insight at the end there.
On it's surface the recognize to on of uncomfirtableness in the mundane doesn't confirm the soecific answer given befire answer, just similar foundations being used. I'm already in the mindset of both of the compared philosophies using a lot of the same logic though. In this case fear of the unknown is a pretty general occurrence to pretty much everyone regardless if philisophy. It's why we try to remove ignorance and increase understanding. It signifies not knowing things is generally bad.
There's an almost certain chance I will eventually have to face that and that will be the definitive test but I was looking more into exercises I can do to help this introspection and self critique of mine or if there is a way to practise buddhism properly and my notion of being unable to due to conflicting philosophy is wrong. Because if I do somehow "have it right" I feel like a kind of tool being in a situation where I just have to twiddle my thumbs and wait-- OOOOOHHHHH this is where the talk about fear of idleness and shit comes in!
If you really want, spend time in undisturbed seclusion and
contemplate the 5 remembrances the buddha outlined, and how you would react in relation to them. If you realise you are prey to suffering on account of them, you will never be able to go back to your daily routine of ordinary life, asyou will always now have a background knowledge that what you do is distraction from that underlying subjection to suffering. And then you can more fruitfully consult the buddhas teaching.
You cannot test the pleasure of renunciation except by actually contemplating the drawbacks of sensuality and then renouncing it. Otherwise you always have the value of sensuality in the back of your mind while you try to restrain yourself.
you are diminished by the negative because you cling to things. negation enriches when you can let go, being filled by emptiness. anyways, this anon
is correct.
>Buddhists are afraid to live a moral life so they choose not to live at all.
whatever you call morality, it is not included in the goal of buddhism.
Buddhism is oriented towards one goal only: the ending of suffering. Buddhists don't give a shit about israeli morality or whatever moronic half-baked morality atheists are trying to make up.
A buddhist wants to end suffering. The buddha says '' to end suffering you do ABCD". And part of ABCD is ''sila'' which is jsut ''the 5 precepts'' and guess what, 99% of all people can't even follow those 5 simple precepts. Especially the atheists. Sila is typically morality in buddhism. Sila is tool and not a goal.
The goal is only ending suffering. Here is the purpose of various stuff in buddhism
"What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"
"Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of rapture? What is its reward?"
"Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of serenity? What is its reward?"
"Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?"
"Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?"
"Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?"
"Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"
"Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."
"And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"
"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.001.than.html
sila is not just the 5 precepts, it is also sense restraint, watchfulness of ones intentions, and moderation in eating. basically everything in the gradual training up until the point of seclusion. but otherwise you are right
Women unironically vainly try to be different (to be just like others that are "different") and suffer because of it. It is the manly thing to go your own way, make and take your own path. Women are followers, men are leaders, explorers, pioneers, philosophers.
>and snuff all desire and suffering in one fell swoop?
because that's not what happens, desire cant be destroyed by death, it just keep existing in a new mind, that's the whole point of nirvana, to stop the chain of causation
Buddhist collectivism bullshit once again.
>Do you not desire to have a wife and a big healthy family? Do you not desire to make things other people enjoy? Do you not desire to see the world? Do you not desire to know about what had happened throughout time? Do you not desire to see what extents humanity will explore the galaxy in your lifetime? Do you not desire to see how far you can push your body to it's peak performance?
No to all, what now?
Why live?
Why die?
You tell me.
You desire to write this. Buddhists and nihilists are basically the same.
>Buddhists and nihilists are basically the same.
i know you don't care, but for the benefit of anyone lurking, there is nothing of nihilism in the Buddhist rejection of delusional constructs, or in the Buddhist belief that actions have consequences, or in the Buddhist affirmation of reality as a non-duality beyond all discursive thought. As for what is nihilism proper, that is the resigned position of someone who doesn't believe anything has value or matters, or who only values his delusions. And to be delusional is to cling to mere things under the assumption that they are of lasting permanence and that satisfaction (or even salvation) can be gotten from them. A rather basic insight—one that can be encountered just as well in "western philosophy"—is that any source of pleasure can become a source of pain, and this is obvious in some cases and less so in others. (Less intuitive is that pains can also become pleasures, though anyone who has been in a romantic relationship can likely attest this. So "delusion" is at the most basic level to ignore these sorts of integrated perspectives). The anon denigrating his brother probably also has at least some affection for him or he would not be so upset by his shortcomings! Seeing things as they are—that is what the Buddha aimed to teach a method of. Nihilism is to reject things as they are, whether because they are totally denied as worthless, or because made-up things are valued in their place which have no reality themselves—these are both nihilisms.
You'll just be reborn and continue suffering in ignorance. C'mon man this is basic shit.
So there is a desire to not be reborn.
A lot of desire to explain shit to people here. Go to a doctor man, you're suffering so much.
Go back to collecting funko pops or whatever it is you do
Do you desire for me to do that?
so this is the power of universal compulsory literacy in action
Do you desire for people to not be literate? Does it still have to do with your unfounded superiority complex?
You're not bothering to understand "desire" within the Buddhist framework; you've merely adopted the idea that "Buddhism means you can't desire anything so Buddhists should kill themselves" so literacy is mostly wasted on you. Classically speaking you'd be a good candidate for rebirth as an animal
Why do desire to explain this to me?
At this point you can have the last word if you'd like, and it should be obvious to a third party you're engaged in low-effort trolling. Whoever will benefit from the clarifications your shitposting ellicited will benefit and whoever doesn't doesn't
Do you desire for your posts to be educational?
because this is a public forum bro, that's how thing work around here lol
Do you desire to post on a public forum?
kek the beta cuck is mad. I also love how guntards are so weak they embrace the liberal ideas that peasants should be strong like the aristocracy.
Protip, only kings should have guns. Puny turds like you should respect social hierarchy. Fricking liberal trash.
>Do you not desire to see what extents humanity will explore the galaxy in your lifetime?
lol. goyslop brain
>let me judge an entire religion by this one negative interaction
you really are your brother's brother
>if you don't endlessly desire fleeting things you're a net negative to society
shoo shoo blackrock shill
>Desire is a natural state
Chanda/intent is a natural state, tanha/craving is created by our own action, what we do creates our patterns of addiction, is not natural to be an alcoholic or to play PC all day like your brother
>and so is suffering
pain is natural, suffering/dukkha is the result of a neurotic mindset that is totally contingent, every psycocholigst can tell you that, suffering is the signal your mind gives you when something needs to change, saying that suffering is natural is like puttign your hand in fire by accident, felling pains and saying, yeah i'm not gonna move my hand, "this feeling is natural", suffering is designed to let you know you're enabling neurotic patterns into your life,
Nature isn't a standard to follow, it's simply the status quo of physical phenomena. It's "natural" for little kids to die of disease, but this has no basis on the actual ethics of the kids dying. Likewise, it's natural to desire and to suffer, Buddha knew that, but suffering is still bad, that's why Buddhism exists as a path to end it. Westerners put so much emphasis and meaning into their suffering that in itself is ultimately meaningless. Also if your brother sits around and plays videogames, an entertainment product specifically designed to be desireable, then clearly he's not actually paying attention to what he's reading, even if he's reading at all. I bet he doesn't even know Pali. Your brother sucks, and will continue to suffer forever, and he will reincarnate into a lower lifeform as deserving of strategy game players, perhaps a male grasshopper, and it's all his own fault.
No one on IQfy is a particularly competent Buddhist, one of the first things you’d do is leave if you we’re actually practicing
>one of the first things you’d do is leave
If the religious simply left people alone for being irreligious we'd live in a very different world!
there is none, they can only cope
I love this guy's delusion that desire is some sin to be avoided like the plqgue or else you're damned. Nobody but some Zen schizos expects people to let go of desire in a single day.
yeah he's projecting his own christian background and neurosis into another religion, many such cases, this is not the first or last time we'll see this kind of "argument"
but this also makes a perfect example of what's behind this idea that buddhism contradicts itself "desiring to stop desire"
it's just (ex)christian projecting their own neurosis into a whole different set of philosophical notions
There's a great interview of the Dalai Lama by a French journalist, which was translated into English as a book over twenty years ago with the unfortunately marketable title of "Imagine all the People"... but the only things I remember from it are (1) him being critical of immigration and (2) noting that Westerners seem to have high rates of mental illness compared to Tibetans. And this was twenty years ago, it was before the digital natives were born, before the increasing political derangement, before the opioid crisis went off the rails, etc. Not looking to orientalize or exoticize here as Asian societies whether Buddhist or ex-Buddhist or Buddhist-modernist have their own problems, but it's no wonder Western people have trouble "letting go" of things when they've been lugging around a dead god. "Desire? Isn't that all we have left to affirm without... you know, the big guy?"
that's a really good point anon
Nietzsche destroyed Buddhism
Cessation of desire is will to power
Nietzsche had a shallow understanding of Buddhism
Doesn’t matter, his philosophy still demolishes Buddhism
Keep coping with nihilism
no it doesnt
Nietzsche is a moronic atheist who was desperate to create optimistic nihilism, and he completely failed.
if nihilism is understood as a transitional period from theistic world denial (god is good and real and the lived world is evil and fake) to post-theistic world affirmation (just B.E. yourself), as in Nietzsche, then nihilism (nothing matters because there is no divine real) had already happened in India, and Buddhism was a response to it. The formulation that nirvana is not different from samsara, or that emptiness is form (i.e. that the absolute is immanent), is a rejection of nihilism. It negates what had negated. Nietzsche does not have this reading of Buddhism but it is compatible with his view of nihilism.
>NOOO MAMMY ME FEEL BAD SUFFERING BAD IT HAS TO STOP EXISTENCE BAD
>not nihilism
Cope
Existence isn't feeling bad. Ignorance is feeling bad. You haven't done the needful and it shows.
>knowledge will save you bro
Knowledge? You don't have to know anything. Just be rid of ignorance.
>Ignorance BAD. Why? Because cessation of suffering
Nihilism
worshiping pain and ignorance is nihilism
Paradoxes are lazy arguments. It relies entirely on your capacity to understand, which is inherently limited. Why would you think it impossible for answers to exist outside of the scope of human understanding. We will only ever perceive the most minute fraction of all there is to know.
According to Evola, there is a distinction between anagogical and catagogical transcendence.
Buddhism is when you realize there is an apparatus better than your "desires", which is indescribable with regular words.
That's just asceticism. Or I'm a moron, explain how the Middle Way is different?
why do people knowingly come to a buddhism thread and then get offended? just go to some other thread or stick to r/atheism
What is Buddhism?
What did the Buddha attain?
And how tall was he?
Everyone knows
Buddhism is a death cult
pushed West by Satan
the west is the death cult. keep eating your children for humvees, homosexual
I think a lot of my disagreement comes from that I believe suffering is a natural part of life and can't not/should exist and from my understanding buddhists believe you can be be rid of suffering and suffering itself mainly comes from the desire to be rid of it; in which we fail because we aren't doing the right things. If we have attachments that are subject to tragedy beyond our control, why shouldn't we have those attachments just because they cause suffering. Is suffering really that bad? I'm serious. In this desire to be rid of suffering regular people have which in turn causes suffering, why not embrace suffering instead?
Just shut the frick up already you mushbrain c**t
>is suffering so bad?
Cut your own arm and try saying that again.
You know what I mean. Do we have to dictate our lives around removing suffering or surpassing it when we can just live with it? People who've actually lost limbs and survived labor camps, gulags, etc. Have similar things to say.
People live with it in sofar as we all suffer daily, hourly, from moment throughout our lives. Its so ubiquitous and abundant from the tiniest reaches of grasping to the long stay of suffering. If only the problem of suffering was localized, then you could ignore it, but its not. Our behaviours are influenced by the way we think and the way we act, which are in a vicious cycle. So not only is the suffering localized internally to the body, its spreading all around from your actions to others.
Its important to note that the suffering from grasping for a sense of permanence creates not just the suffering, but also it colors our perception and conscious activities that arise from it. Hence its not just a ethical livelihood for the person, its a way to perceive/see reality accurately, act act accordingly in principle.
>I think a lot of my disagreement comes from that I believe suffering is a natural part of life
suffering is part of life and so ending suffering means ending rebirths, and to do that you need to see that perceptions and feelings and consciousnesses of the 6 senses (ie 5 senses + imagination) are conditioned, not self and suffering
At that time the Blessed One said to the monks: “All is impermanent. What is all that is impermanent? That is, the eye is impermanent, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and feeling arisen in dependence on eye-contact, be it painful feeling, pleasant feeling, or neutral feeling, that is also impermanent.
“The ear … the nose … the tongue … the body … the mind is also like this.
“A learned noble disciple who contemplates like this gives rise to disenchantment for the eye, and gives rise to disenchantment for forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and feeling arisen in dependence on eye-contact, be it painful feeling, pleasant feeling, or neutral feeling.
“He gives also rise to disenchantment for the ear … the nose … the tongue … the body … the mind, and for sounds … odours … flavours … tangibles … mental objects … mind-consciousness, mind-contact, and feeling arisen in dependence on mind-contact, be it painful feeling, pleasant feeling, or neutral feeling.
“Because of being disenchanted, he does not delight in it. Because of not delighting in it, he is liberated. Being liberated, he knows and sees: ‘Birth for me has been eradicated, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done, I myself know that there will be no receiving of any further existence.’”
When the Buddha had spoken this discourse, hearing what the Buddha had said the monks were delighted and received it respectfully.
As with the discourse on being impermanent, in the same way also [discourses] are to be recited in this way for being dukkha, empty, and not-self.
https://suttacentral.net/sa195/en/analayo?reference=none&highlight=false
>yes, it's the only desire.
Here is what normies hate to hear about buddhism
Two Kinds of Search
“Bhikkhus, there are these two kinds of search: the noble search and the ignoble search. And what is the ignoble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth seeks what is also subject to birth; being himself subject to ageing, he seeks what is also subject to ageing; being himself subject to sickness, he seeks what is also subject to sickness; being himself subject to death, he seeks what is also subject to death; being himself subject to sorrow, he seeks what is also subject to sorrow; being himself subject to defilement, he seeks what is also subject to defilement.
“And what may be said to be subject to birth? Wife and children are subject to birth, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares, gold and silver are subject to birth. These acquisitions are subject to birth; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to birth, seeks what it also subject to birth.
“And what may be said to be subject to ageing? Wife and children are subject to ageing, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares, gold and silver are subject to ageing. These acquistions are subject to ageing; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to ageing, seeks what is also subject to ageing.
“And what may be said to be subject to sickness? Wife and children are subject to sickness, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are subject to sickness. These acquisitions are subject to sickness; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to sickness, seeks what is also subject to sickness.
“And what may be said to be subject to death? Wife and children are subject to death, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are subject to death. These acquisitions are subject to death; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to death, seeks what is also subject to death.
“And what may be said to be subject to sorrow? Wife and children are subject to sorrow, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are subject to sorrow. These acquisitions are subject to sorrow; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to sorrow, seeks what is also subject to sorrow.
https://suttacentral.net/mn26/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
“And what may be said to be subject to defilement? Wife and children are subject to defilement, men and women slaves, goats and sheep, fowl and pigs, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares, gold and silver are subject to defilement. These acquisitions are subject to defilement; and one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself subject to defilement, seeks what is also subject to defilement. This is the ignoble search.
“And what is the noble search? Here someone being himself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, seeks the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna; being himself subject to ageing, having understood the danger in what is subject to ageing, he seeks the unageing supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna; being himself subject to sickness, having understood the danger in what is subject to sickness, he seeks the unailing supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna; being himself subject to death, having understood the danger in what is subject to death, he seeks the deathless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna; being himself subject to sorrow, having understood the danger in what is subject to sorrow, he seeks the sorrowless supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna; being himself subject to defilement, having understood the danger in what is subject to defilement, he seeks the undefiled supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna. This is the noble search.
how do i quench my eartly desires
By reading the suttas, gaining inspiration in the path, gaining strength through restraint of craving, and contemplating the drawbacks of sensuality and the freedom of being free from unwholesome states (while secluded) until the value of sensuality has been slowly dripped out of you, never to reappear again.
>What's the Buddhist response to this?
semantics
From what I'm reading in this, it seems buddhism doesn't really conflict with my more stoic/biblical philosophy. I can use the disciplines I learn via sila in my other world. I'm guessing you really can't make this discipline secular even if it can be applied to other philosophies.
Seems you deleted the dupliacte. What happened there?
>Meaningless word games can overcome intuitive truths.
*tips fedora*
Analytics has a lot to answer for.
This thread is dogshit, and I mean actual dogshit. With diarrhoea.
What are with the dupes dude?
i quoted the wrong part of post, copied my old post, didnt remember to to erase the previous posts reference to your posts etc. i have ADD
Shorter version of Buddhism: let's pretend we're not afraid to die
This to me sounds like the way to end suffering is to have a nice day.
>but reincarnation
i wouldn't bet on that
"cope"
idk, learn to read? nothing more annoying than a midwit who doesn't understand the meaning of words beyond the dictionary definition
Buddhism is useless if not paired with an artistic impulse to create. You should only want to rid yourself of desire to make room for a new desire. Otherwise, it's like muting the one song that is your life.
"hurr durr everything you do is born out of desire". thats not how this works lol. the point is to diminish suffering. that's it. if you're getting high off the fruits of existence there is always an equal and opposite low. unless you're entirely fufilled and already leading a regular life aware that you have everything you need. chasing things while productive is and fufilling from a societal pov is ultimately an individual distraction from being. everything is infinitely impermanent you don't live foreveer
To desire to cease all desires is to be a snake stuck eating its own tail forever. Realizing that this is the case, and that this cycle will continue endlessly, is the first step in waking up from it. It is also worth mentioning that a similar dynamic is at play within meditative practice itself. To be channeling your focus towards the seat of attention is to be caught up within a new form of attention in the very process itself. Again, once you have truly realized this (felt it instinctively, at the most basic level, truly knowing that this is the case from personal experience), you are on the path to waking up from it.
One response is the Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya.
"There is no understanding and no attaining."
(This heart sutrais still just a technique, a trick, as is all Buddhism)
The other answer is happiness isn't gaining anything just letting go. So you just let everything go, you 'open the hand'
Anyway it's really not that complicated.
There's a solution to this: good desires and bad desires. Some desires are good and some are bad. Buddhism destroyed.
wrong
Buddha rejects interdependence and teaches only dependent origination.
Oh look another edgy high schooler coming up with shitty gotchas as a form of mental masturbation
Why should I believe it is possible to escape this so called “cycle of suffering”? Why should I believe that Buddha escaped?