Let me guess, you need more?
>Idealists?
Dead
>Materialists?
Dead
>Dualists?
Dead
Alas, only those who have tamed and understand their anima can reach the correct conclusions, and seeing as how all of you have never left your rooms...
You need more?
Why Heidegger? I haven't read him, does he have traditional views?
Ask our beloved robotic companion ChatGPT why Heraclitus, Nagarjuna, Buddha Shakyamuni, Bodhidharma, Heidegger and Pyrrho together give us the truth of reality.
>Ask our demonic ghost in wires for advice
lol
Cope
the disciples of the devil Schopenhauer show themselves like crackheads to defiled buildings. you'll find no abode here.
>Heidegger
Lmfaoooooo
Heidegger is the dust of Schopenhauer's shoe
This
>correct conclusions
How do you know they are correct?
The correct conclusion is that everything is everything is empty without inherent being, including conclusions.
Im asking which criteria you are using to determine correct conclusions.
There is no truth apartment from the statement that there is no truth.
I don't do epistemology.
So how do you know it is corect conclussion?
Do you just.. say it and dont need to elaborate?
>The correct conclusion is that everything is everything is empty without inherent being, including conclusions.
That's not the buddha's teaching. Buddha only says that the 5 aggregates are empty of a self
Did you see my opening picture? It has Nagurjana and Bodhidharma. I'm not Therevada. Read the MMK.
>everything is and is not, neither is nor is not, blah blah blah
What am I supposed to do with this information?
There is still conventional truths, what we call "common sense". You don't need to know the ultimate truth. Just be a good person.
The true metaphysics is no metaphysics. All that is simply is without being, for they are not.
Stop reading. Act.
I am very sick. And nothing is giving me any consolation. This is the failure of philosophy and art.
Suffering brings everyone on their knees. I am alone as I always was without any sense of security metaphysical or physical.
A Farmer was driving his wagon along a miry country road after a heavy rain. The horses could hardly drag the load through the deep mud, and at last came to a standstill when one of the wheels sank to the hub in a rut.
The farmer climbed down from his seat and stood beside the wagon looking at it but without making the least effort to get it out of the rut. All he did was to curse his bad luck and call loudly on Hercules to come to his aid. Then, it is said, Hercules really did appear, saying:
"Put your shoulder to the wheel, man, and urge on your horses. Do you think you can move the wagon by simply looking at it and whining about it? Hercules will not help unless you make some effort to help yourself."
And when the farmer put his shoulder to the wheel and urged on the horses, the wagon moved very readily, and soon the Farmer was riding along in great content and with a good lesson learned.
Nice story but I don't have the courage to commit suicide
The Buddha uses the word '' empty" of a self, ie anatta, way more frequently than ''emptiness''. If emptiness was the israeliteel of Buddhism, the frequencies would have been the opposite, ie exactly like in mahayana.
The israeliteel of his teaching is not emptiness applied to the universe, ie what mahayana is pushing for, but anatta applied to the senses.
It's the same situation when he uses the word ''world'', ie the senses, and the buddha doesn't give a shit about the universe or the whole world or whatever. Another thing which doesn't go thru the head of the people in mahayana lol.
And by the way not caring about the cosmos, universe, the whole world is precisely what salvages buddhism over the religions.
The people who made up religions and gods can't help themselves making their gods making the whole universe, explaining everything, from the mundane daily life to supernatural events, then they have to explain the problem of suffering and they are fricked.
The whole point of the buddha is that you don't have to care about the universe, nor find out where it comes from, nor gods and whatever made up myth by the normies and intellectuals and drug addicts, in order to end suffering.
I wouldn't say I'm Buddhist per se. Half of the people in my opening pic are Western after all. But go off queen
>anima
perhaps you'd be better off with Tibetans rather than 'Jeets
Tibetans are full-on hedonists, they tamed nothing at all.
I am only familiar with Jungian ideas through osmosis but "taming the anima" probably has more in common with Indo-Tibetan deity-yoga practices and the underlying theoretical framework (which includes concepts like tathagatagarbha or a permanent true "buddha nature") used in Vajrayana than it does with earlier expressions of Mahayana Buddhism
Chan also believes in an inherent buddha nature innit?
it's a paradox. that's the point. even the truth itself is not completely true. faith.
Pffff please with this dogmatic skepticism. Not even a true skeptic!
>>Chan also believes in an inherent buddha nature innit?
Yeah, which means it's bogus.
I am not as familiar with Chan but the Lankavatara sutra which is traditionally affiliated with Bodhidharma considers such teachings to be expedient and not definitive. To invert this and consider teachings about a permanent substance or ego definitive is to engage in highly delicate mental gymnastics, which a lot of the later literature does, especially tantric stuff. That said buddha nature is not always taken as de facto atman surrogate, in some cases it is just meant as potential for enlightenment, which is an expedient reading.
>tamed and understand their anima
What's that??????
*heh*
potential for enlightenment is still not the buddha's teaching anyway