/lit/ - Literature

>>16396143
>No, I'm asking why a person would want an end to their life
thats a question for a psychologist of some suicide prevention coach.
killing yourself isn't a Buddhist teaching

>You admitted an end to samsara is being erased from existence. Most people would rather suffer from time to time than be erased from existence
how is what "most people" want somehow an argument?

>It's rhetorical, you retard, read it in context.
lol cope

>Doesn't seem to me that eating meat, and taking pleasure in it, leads to mostly suffering
ok? I don't really care about your opinion if it runs counter to to Buddha's teachings.
>Maybe some, from time to time, but most of my life I am enjoying food and taking pleasure in it, not suffering.
Don't really care about your life experiences anon
The Buddha taught that clinging leads to suffering, suffering leads to a bad rebirth
through non clinging we are lead to a good rebirth and eventually the end of suffering.

>I take pleasure in eating meat, more than I suffer from it. I know you call it clinging to make it icky, but I call it desire, preference, action, whatever you want, and I'm asking you to show me why it's bad, if the alternative is being erased from existence.
this is just another example of clinging to meat. Really nothing here for me to respond to.

>>suffering leads to a bad rebirth
>No proof of that.
no one is trying to prove it to you.

>Everyone has tried meditating
no proof of that :^)

>the Buddha's teachings don't provide proofs of this reincarnation system with its specific karma stuff you're arguing, it just asserts it.
Yes.

Do I need to learn hindu metaphysics to understand buddhism?

What is it like to be a Bodhisattva and Arhat

What Buddhist tradition should a person follow? I find them all appealing.

Can you direct me to Buddhist criticisms of Hinduism


Are different schools of Buddhism "wrong" the way a christian would see a different sect or just different methods of achieving enlightenment

>>15412291
>Buddhism is a set of spiritual teachings and associated practices like meditation
>but he doesn't sufficiently establish what his positions
what his position is on meditation? Early buddhism calls it Dhyana, Jhana in Pali its found in the Anguttara Nikaya and Dhammapada

>there are little to no points of contention that he is raising regarding metaphysics
then what is the point of centention?

>I consider the denial of the existence of self/atman/abiding witness-consciousness to be completely foolish
all you're saying is " i disagree because I think its foolish"
When it comes to the opinions of the self I'd trust the words of an enlightened being to one of none enlightenment.

>however many Buddhists deny that Buddha said there was no self and say instead that he considered it to mistake to say that it exists or doesn't exist and in one pali canon verse Buddha himself says that to claim that the self doesn't exist or that there is no self whatsoever is an extreme of nihilism and not his teaching.
ok and?

>I don't criticize people for preaching meditation or asceticism in general
buddhism isn't general meditation or asceticism

>but there is no really no clear "system" or "positions" in the Pali Canon
there is though you clearly haven't read them.

>This is why so many Buddhist schools read totally different things into Buddha's teachings and have completely different metaphysics
no this isn't why different Buddhist schools arose

>because Buddha was so opaque and close-lipped on those subjects that people can read whatever they want into it. It's like asking someone to refute jogging or gardening.
again, sounds like you haven't read the Buddha's teachings because what you're saying is "opaque" is clearly laid out in the Vinaya. Is there something specific you're confused on?

There isn't much wrong with Buddhism.
The biggest problem is the hippie type who think Buddhism is some atheist philosophy

Any books arguing for life and the many activies in life being meaningful? I'm stuck with the inherent meaningless of aspects of life even from a religious point of view

From a religious perspective the only thing that would be worth doing is whatever requirements you need to reach the divine.

From an atheist perspective nothing matters if there is no eternal life.

How do followers of philosophies such as taoism, buddhism, stoicism etc rationally decide which to follow over the other?
Is there a thought processes to it or is it which one makes you feel good?

Specifically philosophy not religion