/lit/ - Literature

>>18331595
>Yeah there are no negatives associated with anti-depressants and painkillers lol
my point is that there is negatives with meditation and buddhism too. you just have to talk with a buddhist. like i said before, there is no enthusiasm, no innocence in them.

>So I shouldn't be attached to the walls I put up around myself and just think of them as means or expedience? Interesting.
i dont know what are you talking about but no. you dont put a roof inside a roof. its a bad metaphore. i shouldnt respond to your retard and self-defeating assumption of buddhism is the same as a roof for raining.
we dont need a metaphore. buddhism promise that you should not suffer because not because is uncomfortable but because there is a place where you should go. the "real" place. they dont have this utilitarian view of the world that you are having now.
>next respond is some branch of buddhism that say exactly what im saying.

>>13442772
metaphysical philosophers don't need to smoke weed

>>13108813
>It is a religion because it teaches rebirth, has a cosmology of the realms of rebirth, has a system of monasticism dating back 2500 years, and generally involves practices that reveal things that are not fully clear to the untrained eye which means it requires some degree of faith
what the fuck are we talking about then?. you know perfectly the dumb metaphysics behind buddhism and still you try to save some tiny part of buddhism like pure knowledge or something?. imagine a christian say christianity is not about jesus or about sin or about god but only about love and compassion and therefore, christianity is not metaphysical. i dont understand you.

>it does not entail transcendence to some kind of universal consciousness.
dont be hypocrite. you know perfectly you calling "ultimate reality" because a reason.
and the fact that you or whoever happily say "ultimate reality" is the seed of the rest. and its not because a cold "dropping of subject-object distinction". i repeat, dont be hypocrite. the buddhist mystify all this and because of this mystification you have the buddhism as a religion.

>Then again, perhaps your gripes are with the Western "Secular Buddhists," and to that I would agree, it is absurd to suggest that Buddhism is just a self-help philosophy that is compatible with mainstream scientist/materialist beliefs - it is not.
my gripes are mostly about them, yes, but you have the same problem in a way. you are telling the core teachings of buddhism are safe of faith or metaphysics. and to me sound exactly like this people you clearly view as wrong. you pretend to think this dropping of subject-object distinction is some innocent thought without mysticism. but buddha and his followers never try this like some kind of strange and peculiar thought with no more importance that any other strange autorealization of the mind. they do not see this like some poetic introspective thought. and they are a religion exactly because of this. not only for the rebirth and karma shit.

pic related in a way.

Is there a psychology chart? Any recommendations?