/lit/ - Literature

>>15410060
>lobotomize yourself: the religion
Just lobotomize yourself.

>>15410066

this but unironically

>>15410066
How is Buddhism lobotomizing yourself?

>>15410076
Surrendering your life force to trying really really hard not to want anything is peak cope.

And the pathetic good-evil balance is achieved by focusing on smaller and smaller goods and evils, which means a budhist life graph is convergent towards dirt.

>>15410060
Well, the /lit/ Buddhists have apparently decided that Buddha agreed with Madhyamaka, so nonwithstanding all the unfalsifiable metaphysical claims that Buddha makes viz rebirth, karma, various attainments etc apparently since he taught Madhyamaka there is absolutely nothing for me to refute as Buddha never advanced any views or held any views or ideas as a system according to Madhyamikas. If you instead would like a refutation which shows how the Madhyamaka fails to actually establish that all views lead to inevitable contradiction and antinomies then I would direct you to the book "Emptiness Appraised" by David Burton which shows how Nagarjuna's writings fail the test of modern logic and use common sophit tactics.
>>15410066
this

>>15410106
t. has not even read the Wikipedia page for Buddhism

>>15410106
Buddhism is about non-attachmment, not completely eliminating desire.

>>15410060
>kill and you will go to hell for eons
>humans are meat eaters
There you go. He have been proven wrong.

If a religion causes the newly converted community to die off within a week or two unless it happens to live around the equator then geography > the religious dogmas and therefore the religion can be rejected.

>>15410060
Buddha is right about everything

>>15410106
>coomers trying to refute buddhist thought

always a laugh riot

>>15410106
fucking coomers man

>>15410060
did he even exist?

>>15410362
yes

>>15410106
>Surrendering your life force to trying really really hard not to want anything
when does the buddha say this?

>And the pathetic good-evil balance is achieved by focusing on smaller and smaller goods and evils, which means a budhist life graph is convergent towards dirt.
where does the buddha promote fighting evil with focusing on smaller goods?

>>15410113
so you have nothing against the buddha only Nagarjuna

>>15410185
except that doesn't disprove anything try again.

it is not about pretending to change what humans are by default, in order to indoctrinate them, but rather about acknowledging openly what we are by default, in order to avoid the additional drama that inevitably comes when we take our perspective to be absolute.

>>15410678
>geography vs religion
Religion should win that fight.

>>15410060
Did he get laid?

>>15410825
He had a wife and children, so yes

>>15410728
and it does

>>15410944
Sure convert the Inuits and they'd be dead within weeks. Convert the Tibetans and the same thing would happen, unless ofc they come up with a bunch of copes and basically let a segment of the population utterly destroy themselves morally and spiritually for eons. Creating what is essentially a Buddhist caste that is lower than the lowest of untouchables in India.

Maybe Buddhism could work if it advocated for slavery but a religion necessities a bunch of foreigners in your land is just another form of retardation.

>>15410992
>Maybe Buddhism could work
I'm not sure what you mean, Buddhism has worked just fine for the past 2.5k years. If you're upset that Tibet had feudalism like Europe, okay sure fine, but they had that before Buddhism came along. If you're upset that Monks eat eggs, s()y, and dairy instead of taking lives, I'm not sure what to tell you. The Buddha acknowledged that most people wouldn't be able to follow the monastic code of conduct, which is why there's a Buddhist laity.

>>15410362
I don't see why not. Realistically, his existence doesn't make or break the religion like the absence of certain figures does with Abrahamism. The Buddhist cosmology posits there being infinite worlds, each with their own Buddhas, so "Siddhartha Gautama" isn't even necessary. According to Buddhist eschatology eventually Islam tries to take over the world, fails, and everyone becomes a Buddhist. Then 3000 years pass, everyone is degenerate hedonists and forgets about Siddhartha Gautama, and Maitreya comes along and fixes things, so sometime after 5,000AD there wouldn't be "Buddhism" at all, but there would be "Maitreyism", if you will.

>>15411054
>Buddhism has worked just fine for the past 2.5k years
With contradictions.
>If you're upset that Tibet had feudalism like Europe
Fuck you talking about
>If you're upset that Monks eat eggs, s()y, and dairy instead of taking lives
Stop pretending the laypeople do not abide by the same 5 precepts, even whether they take them or not. The monastic code is irrelevant in this context.
>be layperson
>go to hell
Simple as

>>15411087
Your problem seems to be that you're historically ignorant and don't really know what Buddhism is about. A good book to set this straight is What the Buddha Taught. In the Buddha's Words is a similar good starter book.

>>15411109
I've read what the Buddha taught and tons of other Buddhist texts. None of them refute what I just said.

>>15411134
Well, yeah, you have to actually read the book to get the information inside. If you just want me to sum up a 2.5k year old religion so you can pick apart my post with greentext and dunk on yourself by show off your misconceptions, I'm not going to play ball.

>>15411146
It's clear you have no counter arguments.
"dude just go read x books" is not an argument.

No one ever asked you to sum up 2,5k years of history. Or even a single month of history for that matter since this is not a discussion of history but of philosophy and theology.

>>15410836
Alright, I'm interested. WHere do I start?

>>15410185
If you go to hell for aeons it's because you chose to do so, because you believe that you deserve it

>>15411082
yeah each world has a buddha, and eve he didn't exist it breaks its cosmo-soteriology

>>15410066
Practicing mindfulness and meditation actually heals you mentally, it's been said that it regenerates brain cells

>>15411195
>I can hunt and butcher but as long as I have good self esteem then I won't go to hell
This doctrine is found nowhere in Buddhist scriptures.

>>15411211
It's not self esteem, it's about letting things go

>>15411185
If you're completely unaware of what Buddhism is about, see >>15411109. After that, or if you can read Wikipedia articles well enough or what have you, read the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra is super simple you can fit it in a 4chan post, but it's also super dense. It sums up the intellectual "point" of Mahayana Buddhism (historically, it was written as part of Dharma Combat between two schools within the Mahayana Tradition; the Heart Sutra guys won). If you want some big-brain high IQ "philosophy with arguments", get ahold of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way. This is the Summa Theologica of Mahayana Buddhism.

accesstoinsight.org is the best I can point you to if you're interested in Theravada Buddhism. The Theravada ultimately agree with the Heart Sutra and Nagarjuna, they just argue that Nagarjuna didn't need to write all of what he did because the Pali Canon works just fine. Ignore anyone telling you to read the entire Pali Canon before you can get started or whatever; the Pali Canon is a recording of every sermon, teaching, and lecture the Buddha gave over his 40-45 year post Enlightenment life, it's literally a literary canon (in the Pali language) of hundreds of texts.

>>15411202

Best way to learn the basics for an absolute beginner?

>>15411238
Phillip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen is a decent introduction

>>15411247
>Zen
>Buddhism
>Oh nonono

>>15410992
>Sure convert the Inuits and they'd be dead within weeks
proofs
>Convert the Tibetans and the same thing would happen
are you just pretending they haven't been buddhist for hundreds of years?
>Creating what is essentially a Buddhist caste that is lower than the lowest of untouchables in India
what mental gymnastics do you do to rationalize this?

>Maybe Buddhism could work if it advocated for slavery but a religion necessities a bunch of foreigners in your land is just another form of retardation.
what are you even talking about?

>>15410060
I also can't prove myself wrong and I'm literally insane

>>15410106
based coomer

>>15410066
Yes.

>>15410060
The Buddha is wrong because dragons are only good animals in buddhist cosmology and hierarchy of being when in reality being a dragon is better than escaping samsara

>>15410060
How could he withstand against the possibility of violence if it's non-wishful? As the aggregates, there shouldn't be any reason to not engage in violence as there isn't any to engage in it.

>>15411863
escaping samsara is better because eventually you stop being a dragon

>>15411875
Not if I have anything to say about it I won't

>>15411887
wrong

>>15410661
I can't really make up my mind because Buddha wasn't clear enough what his actual positions are such that there are a bunch of competing interpretations of his teachings. I don't find any of them to be very compelling though although I still agree that being spiritual and having something like meditation or another equivalent practice in your life is much better than nothing

>>15410106

congratulations on describing your position and not using the phrase 'life denying', might be the first time that ever happened on this board

>>15411863

this is a cooler rebuttal, i hate buddhism now

>>15411905
THE DRAGONSPHERE WILL RETURN ETERNAL

>>15411915
>I can't really make up my mind because Buddha wasn't clear enough what his actual positions
sounds like you haven't read the Buddha's teachings. Is there something specific you're confused on?
All of the Buddhists positions are quite clear in the Nikāyas

>>15411925
anti buddhists utterly btfo

>>15411871

there is a sutta out there regarding a monk becoming disturbed after his insight level becomes so high that he sees the bacteria in the water that he's drinking. he wishes not to drink it because that would be killing the bacteria, almost a jain-like position. the buddha tells him to get over it and drink his water

>>15411951
>sounds like you haven't read the Buddha's teachings. Is there something specific you're confused on?
>All of the Buddhists positions are quite clear in the Nikāyas

Do I really need to lay out for you the many instances where the Theravada and Mahayana and their sub-schools take the same passage or chapter from the nikayas and draw opposing conclusions from it? Buddhists can't even agree among themselves whether Buddha taught a realist pluralism, epistemic non-dualism or subjective idealism.

>>15412010
>Do I really need to lay out for you the many instances where the Theravada and Mahayana and their sub-schools take the same passage or chapter from the nikayas and draw opposing conclusions from it?

Considering you're only issues seem to be with other Buddhists and not the buddha himself yes you are speaking very vaguely
>Buddhists can't even agree among themselves whether Buddha taught a realist pluralism, epistemic non-dualism or subjective idealism.
Again you seem to be complaining about something but refuse to articulate what the actual problem is.

>>15412173
>yes you are speaking very vaguely
>but refuse to articulate what the actual problem is.
Buddhism is a set of spiritual teachings and associated practices like meditation etc just like Hinduism, Jainism, Tantra, Daoism, Abrahamic religions etc. In the pali canon Buddha mostly is prescribing different types of meditation practices and talking about why and how craving, suffering etc can be overcome and that sort of stuff, but he doesn't sufficiently establish what his positions are (such as what his metaphysical views are) beyond those things to the point of offering something that can be refuted, because there are little to no points of contention that he is raising regarding metaphysics.

The one main contention he has with the other schools are on the subject of Self, but even this subject is a confused debate and many Buddhists have different understandings of it. I consider the denial of the existence of self/atman/abiding witness-consciousness to be completely foolish and I consider that the Hindu/Tantric philosophers have refuted all the arguments for no-self, 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.

I don't criticize people for preaching meditation or asceticism in general so I wouldn't criticize Buddha simply for those aspects of his teaching, but there is no really no clear "system" or "positions" in the Pali Canon (which is mostly a meditation manual) for me to refute. This is why so many Buddhist schools read totally different things into Buddha's teachings and have completely different metaphysics , 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.

>>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?

>>15412010
buddhist philosophy is not buddhism and is utterly worthless

>>15410060
First, you prove him right

>>15412414
>what his position is on meditation?
Obviously, he endorses it
>then what is the point of contention?
There are very little, this is why I said there is nothing for me to refute, because he doesn't take a stand on enough metaphysical positions or claims for there to be any semblance of any position for me to refute. How can I refute someone if I don't know what their position is?
>all you're saying is " i disagree because I think its foolish"
Incorrect, that's not "all I said", I added that I think Hindu and Tantric philosophers have refuted the 'no-self' position, which is why I think it's foolish. The obvious implication here is that I read some of their writings, evaluated their logical arguments against the 'no-self' position and decided that I agree with their reasoning. Here in this picture for example is one Hindu philosopher explaining why the 'no-self' doctrine is illogical and how it's contradicted by our actual experience.
>I'd trust the words of an enlightened being to one of none enlightenment.
If Buddha truly denied that there was any self or Atman whatsoever then he wasn't truly enlightened
>buddhism isn't general meditation or asceticism
I agree, that's why I described it as a 'set of spiritual teachings' there are things beyond meditation included. These teachings about meditations, desire, suffering etc are what the Nikayas are mostly about though, if you want to assert otherwise you are free to give examples.
>there is though you clearly haven't read them.
Beyond the broadest similarities such as the 3 characteristics, 8-fold path, dependent-origination etc you are unable to explain what these "systems" and "positions" are without ending up describing something that is just the conclusions of one specific school of Buddhism that the other schools disagree with
>no this isn't why different Buddhist schools arose
I think so, the early Buddhist schools and the later ones were in a constant series of debates with each other and were constantly trying to refute one another out of a perceived need for proving each of their respective schools was actually what Buddha had actually taught.

>>15411871
violence is craving

>>15412291
>Hindu/Tantric philosophers
Hindus cling to the idea of primordial mind

>>15412519
>I've read very little of what the buddha taught. How can I refute someone if I don't know what their position is?
Sounds like you should read the Buddha's discourses

>I added that I think Hindu and Tantric philosophers have refuted the 'no-self' position
cool so your unenlightened opinion is that hindu's refuted an enlightened being but yet the Buddha never actually said the self does not exist. "no self" is a conclusion the mahayanas came to.Which doesn't necessarily mean its wrong but if the pajeets did refute anything they refuted nagarjuna not the Buddha.

>If Buddha truly denied that there was any self or Atman whatsoever then he wasn't truly enlightened
you just made this up.

>Beyond the broadest similarities such as the 3 characteristics, 8-fold path, dependent-origination etc you are unable to explain what these "systems" and "positions" are without ending up describing something that is just the conclusions of one specific school of Buddhism that the other schools disagree with
I already addressed this. what you are claiming "there is no really no clear "system" or "positions" in the Pali Canon"
where the Vinaya is clearly rules and regulations of monastic life that range from dress code and dietary rules to prohibitions of certain personal conducts

>no historical evidence proves this isn't the case
>I think it is.
wew

>the early Buddhist schools and the later ones were in a constant series of debates with each other and were constantly trying to refute one another out of a perceived need for proving each of their respective schools was actually what Buddha had actually taught.
early schools of buddhism stuck with the Pali cannon and new schools arose when they found different suttas years later, see Mahayana also the Tibetans incorporated tantra and different aspects from Bon

>>15412605
Whining about 'clinging' and 'reifying' is how buddhists often try to criticize an idea without actually putting forward any criticism of substance worth responding to. It's funny in this instance because a lot of early Buddhist Tantra was directly taken from Hindu Shaivite Tantra, including parts of certain texts being copied and certain Buddhist texts claim the Shaivite texts were actually revealed by the bodhisattva Manjushri. If it's so bad then why did the Buddhists take so quickly to it? The Tantric Buddhism found being practiced from Tibet to Japan is partially Hindu Shaivite in origin.

>>15412660
>where the Vinaya is clearly rules and regulations of monastic life that range from dress code and dietary rules to prohibitions of certain personal conducts
I'm sorry I should have been more clear in what I meant. I was specifically talking about metaphysical positions, such as, what is the cause of the universe and samsara, whether causation is real, whether the phenomenal world is constituted by real physical objects or by our own consciousness and ignorance, whether nirvana is distinct from samsara, whether or not nirvana is a complete annihilation and vanishing like a candle going out, whether dependent-origination is merely a phenomenological description of how thoughts condition one another and give rise to further suffering or whether it's actually means that the universe/samsara is a beginningless series of cause and effects extending back like an infinite chain. These are all subjects that the Buddhist subschools sometimes disagree on significantly, and this is because Buddha does not give definitive answers to these in the Pali Canon, or there wouldn't have been such disagreement about them in Buddhism.

>early schools of buddhism stuck with the Pali cannon and new schools arose when they found different suttas years later, see Mahayana also the Tibetans incorporated tantra and different aspects from Bon
The Mahayanists disagree and say that other texts like the Prajnaparamita Sutras also come from Buddha. At the time of the 2nd council there were already the proto-Theravada Sthavira and the proto-Mahayana Mahasamghika. The early proto-Theravadin schools like the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda disagreed often with the Madhyamaka and Yogachara schools of Mahayana on what Buddha taught and what his positions were on some of the above metaphysical positions and others. The later east-Asian Mahayana schools often disagree on exactly how Madhyamaka and Yogachara are supposed to be reconciled let alone what Buddha's actual teachings were. Among all this one cannot really say "I'm just going to refute original Buddhism" because if I try to just refute Theravada then Mahayanists come in and say that Theravada isn't real Buddhism because Theravadins don't understand that dependent-origination is not the cause of the universe and that Nagarjuna refuted both that along with the Theravadin doctrine of momentariness

>advaitafag seething again
every time...

>>15413485
based

>>15412010
>>15412291
>>15412519
>>15412867
great posts

>>15412414
>ok and?
and this makes clear that buddhist can't agree among themselves

>>15412660
>you just made this up.
are you retarded? if there is no atman there is no elightenment

>so your unenlightened opinion is that hindu's refuted an enlightened being
imagine being this lobotomized. only proves that buddhism is dangerous and makes people become like this. really sad

>>15414363
Is there a single religion where everyone who believes in it will all completely agree with each other?

>>15412010
>>15412291
>>15412519
>>15412867
cringe posts...

Why do Hindus always have a chip on their shoulders when it comes to Buddhism? is it inferiority complex on their part considering Buddhist societies helped flourish east Asia?

>>15414540
hindus in general have a chip on their shoulder for everything, not just buddhism

>>15414540
>virgin pacifist Buddhist monk with pointless muscles vs chad Hindu Will to Power with muscles that can be used to drive his enemies before him

>>15414553
>Pajeets getting BTFO by Muslims
>Dalai Lama: Europe for Europeans
Hindus fear the BHVDDIST BULL

>>15414560
based Ashin 'Asian Wrath' Wirathu

>>15414553
>steroids

>>15414566
both clearly uses steroids but one is not even allowed to garden with these muscles because muh poor plants

>>15414553
>*destroys your Atman with right-hook*
nothing personhood, dasa

>>15410060
> 2020, being a nastika
I don't think the burden of proof should be on my shoulders. My claim is that I'll escape Samsara by dying, as there's nothing after death, tips Fedora. He's the one making all those weird claims about escaping Samsara through deeds, as if my brain contained a way to escape this reality. I say "He" but I should write "They", as there are so many different stories on buddhism that Buddhism may as well be twenty different religions: magical monks, reincarnation and the blue light of whatever his name goddess saving your soul from the demons, your soul being disturbed if someone sacrifices a chicken the first week after your death, etc. none of this is consistent with the historical findings. As a mere example, your pic is a statue of Buddha, and the first buddhists refused to represent him, suggesting him by absence (footprints, a horse without a rider, etc.). Not even talking about Zen and their "it's in your mind bro" approach.
Excuse me, I'm a perfectly sane individual who has offerings to make - it's René Guénon (pbuh) Puja's time.

>>15414600
>René Guénon
t.

>>15414496
dude they don't disagree with each other in fundamental metaphysical matters, as is the case in buddhism

>>15413485
>>15413486
good posts ITT

>>15414600
Basically this. Buddhists just takes Nibbana on faith and no one can ever explain what it refers to. The problem is that every part of Buddhist philosophy leading up to the supposed Nibbana doctrine is just materialism.
>no self
>not even some sort of Substrate
>consciousness is just co-dependent arisen through objects and senses, and therefore without these could not exist
Buddhist philosophy doesn't naturally lead to some Nibbana, it leads to utter and complete extinction, Nihilism. And then Nibbana is just sort of stacked on top.
>b-but trust us NIbbana is real!
Why should I?

>>15414842
>utter and complete extinction, Nihilism
cringe...

>Buddhism = Nihilism

>>15414842
>>Basically this. Buddhists just takes Nibbana on faith and no one can ever explain what it refers to.
nirvana= end of craving
>>15414842
>Buddhist philosophy doesn't naturally lead to some Nibbana, it leads to utter and complete extinction, Nihilism.
nihilism is an idea

Buddhism was invented in 15th century by Europeans, there is no such thing organically.

>>15414858
>>15414862
Not an argument.
>>15414882
>nirvana= end of craving
And the end of the craver. Both can be achieved by destroying the five skandhas by throwing yourself off a building.
>nihilism is an idea
Also known as the idea of Buddhism.

>>15414909
>>15414842
THIS

>>15414909
>Both can be achieved by destroying the five skandhas by throwing yourself off a building.
false
>>15414909
>>Also known as the idea of Buddhism.
false too

>>15414882
>>15414919
THIS

>>15414909
>>And the end of the craver. Both can be achieved by destroying the five skandhas by throwing yourself off a building.
that's what materialists say

>>15414909
>>nihilism is an idea
>Also known as the idea of Buddhism.
ideas are useless in buddhism

You try to be an intellectual and think it's a good desire, but it's non-sense in buddhism.

Prove him wrong about what? Be specific.

>>15414946
you know everything you wrote only confirms what he said, right?

>>15414946
>that's what materialists say
Yes I know. But Buddhists more specifically.
>ideas are useless in buddhism
Except for the ideas of suffering and its cessation.

>It must be repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered "Self", or "Soul", or "Ego", as opposed to matter, and that consciousness should not be taken as "spirit" in opposition to matter.
>These five Aggregates together, which we popularly call a "being", are dukkha itself. There is no other "being" or "I", standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says: "Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found."
But sure Buddhism is not materialism. Just so happens that everything that can be said to exist is material and mental states which arises out of the material, and there is no Being beyond the material.

Buddhism was started as a neo vedantian movement

>>15415029
Neo-vedantists plagiarized Buddhism

>>15414991
false

>>15415029
>*proto vedantian movement
fixed

>>15415022
If your quibble is just that you're autistic and that the term "Materialism" falls apart and doesn't work in Buddhism then I don't know what to tell you other than stop trying to shove Western dualist conceptions into non-Western philosophies and dualism where it doesn't belong. Or are you one of those "Gnosticism is MATERIALISM for BUGMEN because it's not BASED CATHOLICISM" types who doesn't actually know what "Materialism" means?

>>15415022
>Yes I know. But Buddhists more specifically.
Buddhists don't say it
>Except for the ideas of suffering and its cessation.
suffering and its cessation are phenomena, not ideas.

>>15415034
holy kek

>>15414842
>Why should I?
Because of countless Buddhists who achieved it and confirmed Buddha's words?

>>15415022
>Stuff is dependent therefore everything comes from matter

>>15415029
>materialist superficial scum
meanwhile he literally buys and reviews cameras for a living

>>15414842
You know both the Buddha, and later Nagarjuna if you want "philosophy with arguments" explained how Nirvana works, right? Like, the Buddha isn't just saying "lmfao dude just trust me", he actually explains how this shit works.

You ARE aware of this, rig-
>it leads to utter and complete extinction, Nihilism
Oh, you genuinely have no clue what you're talking about. Scroll up, there were some good starting points mentioned earlier in the thread.

>>15415071
How dare you talk about Guenon's most noble disciple in this way, you profane h*lic C*CK! Are you even aware of how many authors have granted him the legal rights to their works through the sacred arts of astral projection?!

>>15415071
and then shills his stuff on /p/

>>15415080
>buys ipad
>FUCK YOU MATERIALIST SCUM
guenon would be proud of this hypocrite

>>15415075
the funny thing is that Buddhists, including the Buddha himself, answered accusation of nihilism from detractors from the very beginning. That is if one bothered actually reading Buddhists text, they would know about it.

>>15415049
>Buddhists don't say it
They do. They go on and on and on about being materalists but then at the end they say they're actually not materialists.

It's kinda like when the Buddha says he does not preach eternalism or nihilism but the only time he ever does not preach nihilism is when he say words that he "does not preach eternalism or nihilism".
>the 5 skandhas are the source of suffering
>you are nothing but the five skandhas and there is nothing beyond the five skandhas
>the purpose of the spiritual life is to stop the five skandhas from arising as then suffering is clearly also destroyed
>btw this is not nihilistic extinction ;^)

>>15415104
>They do. They go on and on and on about being materalists but then at the end they say they're actually not materialists.
Those are western buddhists, they much like western hindus are just hippies larping as orientalists.

>you are nothing but the five skandhas and there is nothing beyond the five skandhas
Buddha doesn't say this, identifying with the skandhas is wrong view. You clearly haven't read beyond wikipedia.

>>15415104
So, what you're essentially saying is, that you personally view Buddhism as being "Materialist" because it doesn't posit an eternal, unchanging, discrete Self. In essence, because things can change, it's Nihilistic? Is that what you're getting at? That because the Buddha affirms things like souls and spirits and energy, but because these too are subject to change, that this means it is "Materialistic"?

I'm just trying to get at what you mean, because it's pretty clear you don't actually get what "materialism" means. Is this definition accurate? That affirming the existence of change means that Buddhism is "materialistic"?

>>15414842
>nirvana = non-existence
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "How is it, Master Gotama, does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is eternal: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is not eternal: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is finite: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is infinite: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul & the body are the same: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata exists: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?"

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...

"...'the cosmos is finite'...

"...'the cosmos is infinite'...

"...'the soul & the body are the same'...

"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...

"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...

"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...

"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...

>>15415139
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'... does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

>>15415144
"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

>>15415152
"Any feeling... Any perception... Any fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, it is as if there were a great sala tree not far from a village or town: From inconstancy, its branches and leaves would wear away, its bark would wear away, its sapwood would wear away, so that on a later occasion — divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood — it would stand as pure heartwood. In the same way, Master Gotama's words are divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood and stand as pure heartwood.

"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or were to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time this evil supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: "As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death." A large number of monks heard, "They say that this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'" So they went to Ven. Yamaka and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Yamaka, "Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

"Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"

But even though Ven. Yamaka was thus rebuked by those monks, he — from stubbornness & attachment — maintained his adherence to that evil supposition: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

When those monks could not pry Ven. Yamaka loose from his evil supposition, they got up from their seats and went to Ven. Sariputta. On arrival they said to him: "Friend Sariputta, this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.' It would be good if you would go to Ven. Yamaka out of sympathy for his sake."

Ven. Sariputta consented by remaining silent.

Then in the evening Ven. Sariputta left his seclusion, went to Ven. Yamaka, and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Yamaka, "Is it true, my friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

"Yes, my friend Sariputta. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"What do you think, my friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, my friend."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, my friend."

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."...

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."...

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."...

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

"Inconstant, my friend."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, my friend."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, my friend."

"Thus, friend Yamaka, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

>>15415168
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

>>15415170
"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good. In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further. Suppose there were a householder or householder's son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well-guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: 'It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?'

"So he would go to the householder or householder's son and say, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord.' With that, the householder or householder's son would take the man on as a servant.

"Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder's son would come to regard him as a friend & companion, and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, 'This householder or householder's son trusts me,' then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.

"Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder's son and said, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord': wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

"Yes, my friend."

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

>>15415177
"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant feeling.' He does not discern inconstant perception... He does not discern inconstant fabrications... He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He does not discern stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He does not discern stressful feeling... He does not discern stressful perception... He does not discern stressful fabrications... He does not discern stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He does not discern not-self feeling... He does not discern not-self perception... He does not discern not-self fabrications... He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

"He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He does not discern fabricated feeling... He does not discern fabricated perception... He does not discern fabricated fabrications... He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

"He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He does not discern murderous feeling... He does not discern murderous perception... He does not discern murderous fabrications... He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

"He gets attached to form, clings to form, & determines it to be 'my self.' He gets attached to feeling... He gets attached to perception... He gets attached to fabrications... He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, & determines it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss & suffering.

>>15415180
"Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He discerns inconstant feeling... He discerns inconstant perception... He discerns inconstant fabrications... He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He discerns stressful feeling... He discerns stressful perception... He discerns stressful fabrications... He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He discerns not-self feeling... He discerns not-self perception... He discerns not-self fabrications... He discerns not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

"He discerns fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He discerns fabricated feeling... He discerns fabricated perception... He discerns fabricated fabrications... He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

"He discerns murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He discerns murderous feeling... He discerns murderous perception... He discerns murderous fabrications... He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

"He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."

"Even so, my friend Sariputta, are those who have people like you as their fellows in the holy life, teaching them, admonishing them out of sympathy, desiring their welfare. For now that I have heard this explanation of the Dhamma from you, my mind — through lack of clinging/sustenance — has been released from the effluents."

>>15415118
>identifying with the skandhas is wrong view.
Good thing I never said that. The point is clearly to stop identifying with the skandhas. Unfortunate for the Buddhist there is nothing beyond them.
>>15415119
If you deny Being and only posit a psychophysical Becoming then you are indeed a materialist. But more importantly you're a nihilist, whether you're a hard materialist or not is less important.

Remember that Mind is also materialistic in Buddhist philosophy, which is why it can be controlled and developed like the other faculties.

>>15415187
>Good thing I never said that

>"you are nothing but the five skandhas and there is nothing beyond the five skandhas"

>>15415190
Yes.

>>15415187
>If you deny Being and only posit a psychophysical Becoming then you are indeed a materialist
nope, you can still be an idealist. See: Hegel

>Remember that Mind is also materialistic in Buddhist philosophy
Citta isn't material, its mental. The more you post the more you reveal your lack of knowledge in Buddhism. Must be sad skimming wikipedia thinking you've figured it out.

>>15415202
>Yes
Yes as in you admit you said it? You clearly contradicted yourself lol.

>its another guenonfag gets BTFO by based buddhists episode

>>15415204
>A word about what is meant by the term "Mind"(manas) in Buddhist philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be understood that mind is not spirit opposed to matter. It should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognize a spirit opposed to matter, as is accepted by most other systems of philosophies and religions. Mind is only a faculty or organ(indriya) like the eye or the ear. It can be controlled and developed like other faculty, and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of controlling and disciplining these six faculties. The difference between the eye and the mind as faculties is that the former senses the world of colours and visible forms, while the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and mental objects. ... What of ideas and thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot be sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faculty of the eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by another faculty, which is mind. Now ideas and thoughts are not independent of the world experienced by these five physical sense faculties. In fact they depend on, and are conditioned by, physical experiences. .. Ideas and thoughts which form a part of the world are thus produced and conditioned by physical experiences and are conceived by the mind. Hence mind(manas) is considered a sense faculty or organ(indriya), like the eye or the ear.

>>15415187
Okay, then you're wrong. It's just that simple. Ignoring anything about Buddhism, your usage of these words is just incorrect. That's not what these terms mean in the Western sense, and that's not what these terms mean in the Buddhist sense. That's also not what they mean in the Hindu sense. Or any sense. You're just arbitrarily redefining words so you can dunk on yourself by exposing how little you know. I genuinely have no idea why you would do this.

No one but you uses these terms like this, and it's not even a useful redefinition. It's just dumb.

>>15415217
I did not but you're clearly too stupid to realize it.

>>15415187
lmfao what the fuck planet are you on dude, there is no religion, philosophy, or ideology on earth that isnt "nihilistic" and "materialist" according to your definitions

>>15415075
please post anything on nirvana from the buddha

>>15415204
hegel never denied being lol

>>15415325
His idealism is grounded on Becoming. He even hails Heraclitus and considers his ideas as a major influence.

>>15415306
There are literally 2 suttas ITT from the PC which you seemed to have glanced over.

Are you just lazy to read things?

>>15415293
>Abrahamics
>Hindus
>Platonists
>Taoists
None of these are nihilistic or materialists. A large portion of the Mahayana too. Theravada though? Nihilists.

>>15415276
You do know we can see what you posted? You claimed the Buddha posited that 'you are nothing but the Skandhas' then denied it immediately. You're clearly breaking down.

>>15415187
>If you deny Being and only posit a psychophysical Becoming then you are indeed a materialist.
Absolutely retarded.

>>15415269
Citta isnt the same as Manas.

>>15415391
>platonism
>taoism
Ok Ken/guenonfag

>defeats both buddhism and advita

Buddhism is nihilism and the way Buddhists try to squirm out of being labelled nihilists is by claiming that nihilists say that nothing exists which they can then proclaim that they do not believe in. It is dishonesty.

This is how the Buddha tried to have his cake and eat it too. Deny Being(eternalism) and when people put two and two together and asked him about his nihilism then he said he's not a nihilist because he doesn't say that nothing exists.

>>15415507
Buddhism isn't nihilism try again.

>>15415362
you literally vouched for hegel denying being which is false

>>15415371
what? you mean buddha saying no to everything?

>>15415391
>>15415507
dude, you were outright asked if you believe that things being capable of change makes something "nihilistic" and "materialistic", and you said yes. there is no philosophy on earth that would agree with you. at all. all of those groups you mentioned would call you a fucking retard (especially taoism lmfao what the fuck dude) for this entire endeavor.

which brings up a good point because it's pretty clear you genuinely have no clue what you're talking about as nagarjuna literally goes over why what YOU are suggesting is actually nihilism and materialism in their actual, real usages as used by literally everyone but you. so in fact, YOU are the nihilist and YOU are the materialist.

>>15415816
>dude, you were outright asked if you believe that things being capable of change makes something "nihilistic" and "materialistic"
All philosophies/religions accept change but they also accept Being which is not change and therefore what is to be regarded as real. Buddhism does not.

>>15415459
>the moon landing is fake
No thanks

>>15415934
this was arlready dealt with, see >>15415274

>>15415946
Nothing in that post deals with it. You ever thought it is weird that all the western nihilists agree with Buddhism on self, everything just being interdependent causes and effects, nothing beyond psychophysical phenomena, and that consciousness is a mirage which in actuality is nothing but matter and sense input?

>>15416062
>interdependence therefore materialism
Wrong again.

>>15416062
No, I don't, because that's not what Buddhists believe, as you've been shown numerous times in this thread, and quite frankly it's not what most "western nihilists" (I'm being incredibly generous here as you've outright admitted that this term means literally everyone with you) believe either.

The fucking Buddha himself has demonstrated that you're wrong, and you refuse to read his words. I'm curious as to why. Anons have shown you to be wrong, as has the Buddha. This isn't just a matter of you not understanding what you're talking about (you don't), it's a matter of you having this weird idea in your head and refusing to even read works by people who would disagree with you. Why would you hold an opinion on anything, let alone about a religion and philosophy, and refuse to even read the works of the religion and the philosophy? If you're so right, why are you so afraid to read what the Buddha himself has to say on the subject?

Ironically, this sort of thing you're doing is what Buddhism sets out to try and fix.

>>15416177
>literally everyone with you
literally everyone besides you*

>>15415935
lol ok normie

Buddhists in this thread haven't answered any of the questions as to why it isn't nihilist or metarialism. Because of nibbana? And what is nibbana? Neither this nor that? wew

>>15416363
If you're going to claim buddhism is nihilism you need to prove it first.
Throwing around accusations of nihilism and expecting people to prove a negative is a logical fallacy

>>15410362
He did, but most of the Buddhist canon attributed to him was written by other people, sometimes centuries after him. It's kind of as if all ancient Western philosophy were said to be suddenly "rediscovered" writings of Plato.

>>15416403
does buddhism have any unchanged/unchangeable, uncaused cause? anything eternal?
how is nibbana different from nothingness?

>>15416403
There have been plenty of arguments in this thread why Buddhism is a nihilist religion. How about you give one argument for why it isn't. If you choose nibbana then provide some proofs for nibbana.

You won't though because you're in a cult.

>>15416528
>does buddhism have any unchanged/unchangeable, uncaused cause? anything eternal?
no in fact the exact opposite buddhism teaches that samsara is impermanence

>>15416528
>>15416537
see >>15411109

>>15416537
>buiddhism is a nihilistic religion!
>oh no I'm not going to prove that, there has been tons of examples already! tons! how about YOU prove that it isn't?!?
If you're going to claim buddhism is nihilism you need to prove it first.

>>15416363
I wondered this for a long time too, and found most Buddhists similarly evasive about it. I've only recently been reading about Buddhism on my own and come to a different view. The real answer seems to be that Buddhism is primarily a method, and indifferent to metaphysics. What the Buddha taught, and himself accomplished, is the ascetic component of Buddhism. What exactly that was is obviously subject to dispute, and different sects disagree on whether the initial indifference to metaphysics can later be overcome through practice and the different forms of experience and consciousness that come with practice, or whether scepticism about the world is truly the final position you're supposed to reach, and on related things like whether Buddha only taught this asceticism or whether he had a moral mission. Some people and sects even talk about how the Buddha had secret esoteric knowledge and secret doctrines, hinted at in some sutras but never revealed in the sutras themselves.

Of course there are many shades of Buddhism, connections and overlaps with related practical and ascetic philosophies/methods like tantra and yoga for example, and with folk religions in which the Buddha might as well be a Christ figure or a random god. It seems to be like if Christianity never clamped down on its early ascetic, gnostic, and heretical offshoots and became associated with monolithic orthodoxies like Catholicism and Protestantism. The Buddhists did have councils somewhat like the Christians, for similar reasons of regulating the community and preventing divergences, but nothing like in Christianity emerged, so again it's like if you could still easily meet "Christians" who are basically medieval forest pagans practicing folk magic, who got their thin veneer of Christianity 800 years ago, or holy fools and all kinds of crazy renunciates like them, and perennialist Christians who also acknowledge other prophets.. and so on.

>>15416363
Because it's not. That's really all there is to it. The problem you (assuming you're the autist who redefines "nihilism" and "materialism" to mean "everyone that isn't me") are running into is that you're 1) refusing to even read what the Buddha, or later Buddhists after him, said 2) you're creating these bizarre terms out of thin air for no reason other than to get upset about other people not knowing what you're talking about and 3) you're refusing to actually look at what the Buddha said, so you're incorrectly using a combination of your incorrect terms and misunderstandings about what these terms mean with a misunderstanding about what other, unrelated, philosophies mean.

Namely, this entire conception of "materialism" you have is just bonkers. Ignoring your personal redefinition (because it's worthless) the entire idealism-materialism, mind-body dualism completely falls apart if you enter a philosophical system that explicitly rejects dualism. It CAN'T be "materialist" BY DEFAULT because there is no "material" for it to be, or an "ideal" for it not to be. Do Buddhists believe that things like spirits, souls, minds, consciousness, thought are "material"? No, because "material" is useless construction in a non-dual system. That's all there is to it. Secondly, do they believe these things come purely from the brain as a physical thing? No, they don't, so the dunk you're trying to make about LE BUGGISH BUDDHISM LE DANIEL DENNETT XD is completely non-sensical because Buddhists don't believe what Daniel Dennett does.

Secondly, the claim of nihilism is simply laughable, the Buddha literally addresses this, you were shown this, and you refused to read what he said. "Emptiness" doesn't mean things aren't real, it means your conceptions of them are wrong. Tables are Empty; tables are real. There is no discrete Thing that makes a lump of matter a table. The matter is there, and it's shaped a certain way, however. That's it. That's all there is to it. Anything more is literally just trying to cope with impermanence, as you want some discrete eternal thing to cling to so you can live forever. That doesn't make it "nihilistic", as the exact opposite, what you are trying to do, is literally nihilism, as you're the one saying that the lack of eternal things makes things meaningless, and spoiler: everything is impermanent. So in fact, Buddhism is the only way to not be nihilistic, as it's the only way to hold that impermanence does not, in fact, make existence meaningless.

>>15416763
>Do Buddhists believe that things like spirits, souls, minds, consciousness, thought are "material"? No, because "material" is useless construction in a non-dual system.
>this entire conception of "materialism" you have is just bonkers
>The matter is there, and it's shaped a certain way, however. That's it. Anything more is literally just trying to cope with impermanence

>>15416806
If you're getting upset at the idea of "things are made of stuff", then I'm not sure what your problem is, as even explicitly dualist thinkers would agree that non-material things are "made of stuff".

>>15416763
>Buddhism is the only way to not be nihilistic, as it's the only way to hold that impermanence does not, in fact, make existence meaningless.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>15416676
I understand, anon. The problem is exactly that though: buddhists disagree on fundamental metaphysical matters. This changes everything. I appreciate a lot of buddhist practical doctrines. Its comprehensive compassion to all sentient beings, its way of life in mendicancy, etc. But the metaphysical foundation, even though it leads to the Ineffable and to what is inscrutable, is indispensable, it is what sustains every thing.

>>15416978
>buddhists disagree on fundamental metaphysical matters
Better discard religion as a whole then, as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Taoists, and Shintoists do that as well. Even Atheists do, as it turns out.

>>15417004
Care to show me a christian who does not believe in a personal god?

>>15415022
There is Buddha nature, which is true self

>>15417004
>Better discard religion as a whole then
you are saying it like it was something bad.

>>15416944
back to plebbit

>>15410060
I love existence warts and all. Why would I ever want to escape from it? I genuinely cannot understand the Buddhist mindset anymore then I can the anti-natalist mindset.

>>15417217
Buddhism isn't about non-existing, though, so I don't get your point. Nirvana isn't just black void .The Indian conception of fire is different from the Modern understanding of fire, the "snuffing out" of fire in the sense that Nirvana refers to has nothing to do with non-existence, but rather of a return to true existence. Buddhism isn't breaking the mirror, it's wiping the dust off of it.

If you're fine with Samsara, then don't be a Buddhist, there's nothing wrong with that. There's a laity for a reason.

>>15417233
stop perverting buddhism into your crypto advaita eckhart tolle shit, nobody cares retard

>>15417217
This world isn't the true home, but not everyone is ready to ascend and that's expected, I don't even know for sure if I am. Think of this existence as a pilgrimage through many lives, it's all ultimately leading towards liberation, you will be ready when you're ready if that makes sense.

>>15417233
>If you're fine with Samsara
but still, by your mindset... i have the mirror full of dust and you (or whatever buddhist) dont.

>>15417266
So what? Buddhism isn't Abrahamism, it's a toolkit to get out of Samsara. Don't want that? Then don't use it, that's fine. You're not any lesser than, say, a monk, unless you're explicitly defining goodness or merit as being based around nirvana, in which case, you wouldn't be cool with just wallowing in Samsara anyways, so the entire point is moot.

The Chinese take this to its logical conclusion, believing Buddhism alone to be "incomplete". Confucianism and Taoism are needed to properly run a society.

>>15417292
i doubt any buddhist have that subjectivist pov. i mean, if they think samsara or nirvana is only a "point of view" i doubt they go full with that.
i appreciate your tolerance but is a superficial approach i think.

>>15417341
This is pretty standard across Buddhist societies. It's not that samsara and nirvana are subjective or a point of view, it's that an individual has to do the work themselves, you can't enlighten someone by force, or against their will. At best you can just force someone to become a monk at gun point, but you can't make them meditate or whatever, they'll just grumpily sit there with a gun pointed at them. Ignoring whether or not it should be done, it's that it can't be done.

>>15417217
Buddhism is about loving existence as it is

>>15417370
im only saying that a buddhist think i have the mirror full of dust, and they dont have it. your subjectivist approach confuse me and make me think you think their thought is that samsara or nirvana are not different but only an individual option.
now we get to the same place. they think they have the clear mirror and i am full of dust and i dont see "real reality".
i mean. if im fine with samsara they see it as an error. dont try to water down or being humble and tolerant. they think is shit.
your point of "thats ok" is stupid and condescendent.

>>15416177
>because that's not what Buddhists believe,
not him but I've seen buddhists on /lit/ argue for all of those, and everything being interdependent and the sense of being one unchanging stable consciousness or self being an illusion are both absolutely common buddhist tenets which also happen to be shared by materialists and post-modernists

>>15417140
That is a view which surfaces from time to time in certain Buddhist schools and sutras but for a long time it has generally been regarded by the majority as a heresy, it's like the Shiʻite Islam of Buddhist metaphysics. That's why the founder of Yogachara Asanga accepted a true self in his writings but then all the later Yogacharins after him reversed his position and denied it.

>>15415598
Nope, I just reaffirmed the idea that a framework of Becoming doesnt necessarily lead to materialism.

>>15417233
>The Indian conception of fire is different from the Modern understanding of fire, the "snuffing out" of fire in the sense that Nirvana refers to has nothing to do with non-existence, but rather of a return to true existence
You say this as one individual but the vast majority of Buddhists and many Buddhist thinkers insist that anyone who says that there is anything that continues in Nirvana is under a dangerous delusion that is making them ignorant; and one is forced to arrive at your view via inference as Buddha never once explicitly states in the Pali Canon that anything continues in Nirvana or that there is any unbound 'true' existence there. Several of the major thinkers of Mahayana Buddhism argue precisely against such a transcendental 'true existence' as being illogical in their view.

>>15418692
Would you care to cite your source? Mine is https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/index.html

>>15418726
>Would you care to cite your source?
countless debates on 4chan, I have also read (the revised and expanded edition of) What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula and he writes polemics against the idea of any sort of eternal soul or existence in that book

>>15410060
>prove X wrong protip you can't
>190 replies
You never learn, /lit/.

>>15418887
>he writes polemics against the idea of any sort of eternal soul or existence in that book
Yes, this is the point of Buddhism. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

>>15419002
it's a contradiction to say that any sort of eternal soul or existence is bad while also saying that Nirvana is a return to eternal true existence, you have to pick one and stick with it

>>15419002
Yet the buddha never taught that the soul does not exist

>>15419031
Your problem is you're interpreting "true existence" to mean "there is an eternal Self". That's not the case. You make the same mistake here, >>15418692, assuming Nirvana means a return to an eteranl Self, and then getting upset about Buddhists saying that's not the case.

The problem isn't with Buddhists, it's with you being wrong about what the Buddha said.

>>15419065
Indeed.

>>15419116
>Your problem is you're interpreting "true existence" to mean "there is an eternal Self".
No I didn't, that's a random aside you are bringing in to avoid addressing the underlying contradiction in your position, in neither of the posts you cited did I specify that the Nirvana as the "flames returning to embers" model had anything specifically to do with an "eternal Self"

>>15419182
You did that just here >>15418692.

>>15419402
how could I have done that when the word "self" literally doesn't appear in the entire post?

>>15419116

annatta means 'not self', not 'there is no self', and if there was no eternal unchanging self to return to there would be no point to enlightenment. you are wrong

>>15419487
>if there was no eternal unchanging self
Yet all the Buddhists deny it, including in this thread.

>>15419523

a lot of them are dumb. it is what it is

>>15414589
Lmao

>>15414842
>Buddhists just takes Nibbana on faith and no one can ever explain what it refers to.
https://journals.equinoxpub.com/BSR/article/view/7139/4835

>>15419562
>In the final section I aim to show that the most reasonable interpretation of the Nikāyas is that final Nibbāna is no more than the cessation of the five khandhas.
Suicide cult

>>15419589

consubstantiality is hard

>>15419562

>1. To understand the principle of dependent-arising. This is to say that gold has no inherent nature of its own [i.e., no Svabhāva]. It is owing to the artistry of the skillful craftsman that the form of the lion arises. This arising is the result solely of the cause-conditioning; therefore it is called the arising through dependent-arising.

>2. To distinguish form and Emptiness. This means that the form of the lion is unreal; what is real is the gold. Because the lion is not existent, and the body of the gold is not non-existent, they are called form/Emptiness. Furthermore, Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed. This fact that Emptiness does not impede the illusory existence of forms is called form/Emptiness [sê-k'ung].


>Furthermore, Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed.
>Furthermore, Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed.
>Furthermore, Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed.
>Furthermore, Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed.
>Furthermore, Emptiness does not have any mark of its own; it is through forms that [Emptiness] is revealed.

>>15411226
what defines Mahayana vs Theravada?

>>15419637

forgot link

https://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Miscellaneous/Treatise_on_Golden_Lion.html

>>15411809
What defines "zen"? What's the issue with zen?

>>15419615
Becoming clear that the reason why Buddhist; at least Theravada, civilisations ever existed is through the preaching of the noble lie to the laity in order for the monasteries and its NEETs to survive. If the people had known what the monks truly believed they would have stormed the monasteries and slaughtered them all in the most gruesome ways.

>>15419637
>This is to say that gold has no inherent nature of its own
>what is real is the gold
Sorry I don't get it.

>>15419487
>and if there was no eternal unchanging self to return to there would be no point to enlightenment.
If there was an eternal unchanging self, how would enlightenment be possible if there is no change? Seems like a paradox if you ask me.

>>15419722
Knowing an illusion for what it is does not entail a change in the illusion. It does not go from being real to being unreal when knowledge arises. It was always unreal and no change have taken place.

>>15418726
I just read through your source, he explicitly says that Nibbana is an extinction of consciousness, that nothing whatsoever continues in it and that it's not a 'state' or permanent 'true existence' at all, and then he tries to say >well.... uh... it's not an annihilation because you weren't a real person or being to begin with lol :^)

Your own source disagreement with your statement that Nirvana is some sort of true existence like the embers continuing when there is no fire, and that because of this existence Nirvana is not annihilation or an extinction. Your own source disagrees with you and explicitly affirms that it is an extinction of consciousness, but then says that if you already accept the claims of Buddhism that there is no abiding self, there it's not really an extinction. However, this is ultimately circular logic involving accepting Buddhist axioms to patch the holes up in other Buddhist teachings, so it's utterly unconvincing to the non-Buddhist.

>>15419828
holy shit, therevadins confirmed nihilists

>>15419706

i wouldn't go that far, but perhaps you are correct

>>15419711

the gold is a metaphor for the entire universe. the craftsman takes the gold and gives it the shape of the lion, the shape being the multitude of forms and various experiences that we have and deal with. the form itself is not real, it is empty. the gold-lion is imagined, but the form has to be there in order for you to realize that it is empty, just as the universe has always been the same exact mass of 'the same thing', in the same exact quantity and always will be

>>15419722

the methodology is to 'pull back' to the true self, not to nullify. for a crude metaphor, your question is like asking why doesn't the sun change when clouds obscure it. the sun is going to shine regardless of what happens here on earth

>>15419689

there isn't any issue with zen other than people being fearful of the mcdojo style of westernized school

>>15419828
>well.... uh... it's not an annihilation because you weren't a real person or being to begin with lol :^)
"So, to summarize: The image of an extinguished fire carried no connotations of annihilation for the early Buddhists. Rather, the aspects of fire that to them had significance for the mind-fire analogy are these: Fire, when burning, is in a state of agitation, dependence, attachment, & entrapment — both clinging & being stuck to its sustenance. Extinguished, it becomes calm, independent, indeterminate, & unattached: It lets go of its sustenance and is released."

>>15420115
you mean, aside from how some Buddhists claim that Dogen faked his dharma transmission and made up his own fake zen meditation cult with no real connection to Chinese Chan teachings, and that this fake zen lineage ensares and confuses a lot of people who confuse it for the real thing?

>>15420151
This

I don't get how some people just impart their own crude conclusions when 95% of the time the scriptures come to the opposite conclusion.

>>15420152

i'm only slightly familiar with that, i've only investigated it slightly. lineages have always been a strange concept to me in general

>>15411835
absolutely based

>>15420152

i'm only slightly familiar with that, haven't investigated it long enough. lineages have always been a strange concept to me in general

>>15419745
but who becomes enlightened if the self is already an enlightened being behind the illusion? Furthermore why does Brahman even produce illusions at all?

Hindus literally cannot explain their own paradoxes.

>>15420151
>The image of an extinguished fire carried no connotations of annihilation for the early Buddhists.
Nobody is arguing about whether nirvana has the connotation of annihilation for people already indoctrinated into Buddhism, we are arguing about whether it is an annihilation as such. It is an annihilation of consciousness as explicitly admitted by Buddhists themselves, but Buddhists still try to claim that it isn't "annihilationism" as such because they believe there was no stable, permanent or unchanging 'being' 'soul' or 'person' who is annihilated when the skhandas including consciousness are extinguished. However, this tenet is not accepted by non-Buddhists, and so the protestation of the Buddhist that Nirvana is not an annihilation is not taken seriously by people who aren't Buddhist. It's like a Christian trying to refute someone pointing out that Yahweh is immoral for ordering the murder of infants in the Old Testament by replying that as the source of morality Yahweh can't be immoral, it's just circular logic.

>>15420194
to be fair most buddhists can't explain their paradoxes either and hindus likely inherited their flaws when they appropriated large swaths of their philosophy

the difference however is buddhists don't bother fixing paradoxes (they even use it for inducing insight in some schools) while the hindus frantically try to resolve it via logic and reason

>>15410106
>I want to spend my life ping ponging dopamine around my brain
just say what you mean anon

>>15410106
Buddha isn't telling you to do anything, he's just telling you how it is and, given those facts, how to achieve enlightenment. You can choose to be enlightened or not.

>>15420194
>but who becomes enlightened if the self is already an enlightened being behind the illusion?
There is no real separate 'you' which becomes enlightened, the self is always abiding unaffected in it's true state, and in enlightenment one wakes up from the illusion and realizes that one's inner consciousness which they had taken to be a limited individual self is actually the one all-pervading supraindividual Self. The illusionary individuality, illuminated by the light of the Supreme Self assumes itself to be a real individual entity existing in a world of multiplicity until that ignorance is eradicated by knowledge, leaving the non-dual Self remaining as the basis.

>Furthermore why does Brahman even produce illusions at all?
It's considered Brahman's inherent nature to do so as it is the nature of the sun to emit light, the creation and dissolution of the cycles of manifestation are like the rhythm of the in and out breathing of an eternal being

>Hindus literally cannot explain their own paradoxes.
As if you've read enough Hindu literature to state that with any certainty, lol

>>15420215
>99% of Buddhists including the Buddha: This 8 fold path is a middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, here's why....
>1 anon on 4chan: No, its still annihilationism goddamnit >:(

>>15420282
>the self is always abiding unaffected in it's true state
>"one wakes up from the illusion"
nice contradiction pajeet

>Brahman just produces illusion bro, its like the sun yo
ie no explanation

>As if you've read enough Hindu literature to state that with any certainty, lol
you've already demonstrated itt you don't read anything other than Hindu dogma, try again shitskin

>>15420289
>This 8 fold path is a middle way between eternalism and annihilationism
>but also consciousness, personhood, and other essential aspects of intelligent sentient beings are just a transient bundle of illusory aggregates which have no real stable existence, you have no soul or self and are basically like a fart of the universe produced by accident (surely not by God though!) but despite being an accidental emergent property of the universe you surprisingly are reborn throughout many lives and aquire karma, imagine that! Long story short though you are supposed to obliterate yourself into a """"blissful"""" extinction where no trace of anything including consciousness remains but this isn't nihilism or annihilation because according to my unproven assertion you don't exist to begin with as a real being and so if you blindly accept as true all at once the various claims made by my unfalsifiable metaphysical system then you'll be able to fool yourself into thinking it's not an annihilation!

>Hindutvas ITT right now

>>15420322
>nice contradiction pajeet
It's not a contradiction, the 'one that wakes up' is not the self
>ie no explanation
That is an explanation, you can not like or accept it but it remains an explanation all the same. Things have their inherent natures, i.e. the sun shines, in the same way God has an inherent nature too.

>>15420322
>nice contradiction pajeet
It is clear that he made a distinction between the self and Self.

>>15420322
There's a difference between true Self and what you perceive as your self

>>15420349
>This 8 fold path is a middle way between eternalism and annihilationism
YES

>>15420362
>It's not a contradiction, the 'one that wakes up' is not the self
ie enlightenment is impossible

>God's perfect nature.....is to make illusions
lol

>>15420322
>pajeet
>try again shitskin

ah yes, the 'british-jewish totally-not buddhist mid-wit poster who has an inferiority complex about white people that causes him to obsessively try to dunk on others for not being white despite not being white himself', I was wondering when you would show your spiteful face again

>ah yes, the 'british-jewish totally-not buddhist mid-wit poster who has an inferiority complex about white people that causes him to obsessively try to dunk on others for not being white despite not being white himself', I was wondering when you would show your spiteful face again

>>15420420
kek

>>15420392
>ie enlightenment is impossible
No that's not true, since we have two selves, the individual self and the Supreme Self. The former is unreal, contingent and vanishes in enlightenment and the latter is real, non-contingent and eternal. The false self allows one to seemingly experience embodiment until the truth of liberation is revealed because the false self was being illumined by the light of the unchanging unaffected Supreme Self, and when illuminated by this light it endows the mind/intellect/little self with a seeming existence that can be experienced, so enlightenment is indeed possible. When enlightenment happens one realizes that one was the Supreme Self all along and that the individual self never had any real existence.

>God's perfect nature.....is to make illusions
Yes, God abides forever as immutable Bliss-Awareness, maya is a power of Brahman which does not affect God in any way, or require His effort or interrupt His eternal blissful equipoise. Maya can also be considered as 'divine art' and God as the divine artist. If you are not coming at it with inherently Abrahamic ideas of God there is nothing irrational in it.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

>>15420517
>were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]
Yes you see, instead of death giving this to you now you have to subscribe to my system to reach it!

On one occasion Ven. Sabhiya Kaccana was staying at Ñatika in the Brick Hall. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to him and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sabhiya Kaccana, "Now then, Master Kaccana, does the Tathagata exist after death?"

"Vaccha, that has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata exists after death.'"

"Well then, Master Kaccana, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"

"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata does not exist after death.'"

"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"

"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.'"

"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"

"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'"

"Now, Master Kaccana, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the Tathagata does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata does not exist after death."' When asked if the Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death."' When asked if the Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that has not been declared by Gotama the contemplative?"

"Vaccha, whatever cause, whatever reason there would be for describing him as 'possessed of form' or 'formless' or 'percipient' or 'non-percipient' or 'neither percipient nor non-percipient': If that cause, that reason, were to cease totally everywhere, totally in every way without remainder, then describing him by what means would one describe him as 'possessed of form' or 'formless' or 'percipient' or 'non-percipient' or 'neither percipient nor non-percipient'?"

"How long has it been since you went forth, Master Kaccana?"

"Not long, my friend. Three years."

"Whoever has gained just this much in this much time has gained a great deal, my friend — to say nothing of the things he has thus gone beyond."

On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. And on that occasion the bhikkhuni Khema, wandering on tour among the Kosalans, had taken up residence between Savatthi and Saketa at Toranavatthu. Then King Pasenadi Kosala, while traveling from Saketa to Savatthi, took up a one-night residence between Savatthia and Saketa at Toranavatthu. Then he addressed a certain man, "Come, now, my good man. Find out if in Toranavatthu there's the sort of brahman or contemplative I might visit today."

"As you say, sire," the man replied to the king, but having roamed all over Toranavatthu he did not see the sort of brahman or contemplative the king might visit. But he did see the bhikkhuni Khema residing in Toranavatthu. On seeing her, he went to King Pasenadi Kosala and on arrival said to him, "Sire, in Toranavatthu there is no brahman or contemplative of the sort your majesty might visit. But there is, however, a bhikkhuni named Khema, a disciple of the Blessed One, worthy and rightly self-awakened. And of this lady, this admirable report has spread about: 'She is wise, competent, intelligent, learned, a fluent speaker, admirable in her ingenuity.' Let your majesty visit her."

Then King Pasenadi Kosala went to the bhikkhuni Khema and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to her, "Now then, lady, does the Tathagata exist after death?"

"That, great king, has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata exists after death.'"

"Well then, lady, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"

"Great king, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata does not exist after death.'"

"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"

"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death.'"

"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"

"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.'"

"Now, lady, when asked if the Tathagata exists after death, you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the Tathagata does not exist after death... both exists and does not exist after death... neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause, what is the reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?"

>>15420577
"Very well, then, great king, I will question you in return about this very same matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think great king: Do you have an accountant or actuary or mathematician who can count the grains of sand in the river Ganges as 'so many grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of grains of sand' or 'so many thousands of grains of sand' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand'?"

"No, lady."

"Then do you have an accountant or calculator or mathematician who can count the water in the great ocean as 'so many buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of buckets of water' or 'so many thousands of buckets of water' or 'so many hundreds of thousands of buckets of water'?"

"No, lady. Why is that? The great ocean is deep, boundless, hard to fathom."

"Even so, great king, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply.

"Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean. 'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply." [1]

Then King Pasenadi Kosala, delighting in & approving of the bhikkhuni Khema's words, got up from his seat, bowed down to her and — keeping her to his right — departed.

Then at another time he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there [he asked the Blessed One the same questions he had asked the bhikkhuni Khema, and received precisely the same responses and analogies. Then he exclaimed:]

>>15420581
"Amazing, lord! Astounding! How the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching! Recently, lord, I went to the bhikkhuni Khema and, on arrival, asked her about this matter, and she answered me with the same words, the same phrasing, as the Blessed One. Amazing, lord! Astounding! How the meaning and phrasing of the teacher and disciple agree, coincide, and do not diverge from one another with regard to the supreme teaching!

"Now, lord, we must go. Many are our duties, many our responsibilities."

"Then do, great king, what you think it is now time to do."

So King Pasenadi Kosala, delighting in and approving of the Blessed One's words, got up from his seat, bowed down to the Blessed One and — keeping him to his right — departed.

>>15419589
why do retards take the aggregates as self?

>>15419637
>1. To understand the principle of dependent-arising. This is to say that gold has no inherent nature of its own [i.e., no Svabhāva]
This is the view in mahayana and hinduism, but that's wrong in buddhism. Dependant origination is only about aggregates.

>>15420753
No one does that. The question is why you Buddhist take on the spiritual life when there is(not really I know) nothing but the co-dependently originated aggregates.

>>15420758
>Dependant origination is only about aggregates.
False. Dependent origination covers all Dhamma's apart from Nibbana.

“Anuruddha, when they have eight qualities females—when their body breaks up, after death—are reborn in company with the Gods of the Lovable Host. What eight?

Take the case of a female whose mother and father give her to a husband wanting what’s best for her, out of kindness and compassion. She would get up before him and go to bed after him, and be obliging, behaving nicely and speaking politely.

She honors, respects, esteems, and venerates those her husband respects, such as mother and father, and ascetics and brahmins. And when they arrive she serves them with a seat and water.

She’s skilled and tireless in her husband’s household duties, such as knitting and sewing. She understands how to go about things in order to complete and organize the work.

She knows what work her husband’s domestic bondservants, employees, and workers have completed, and what they’ve left incomplete. She knows who is sick, and who is fit or unwell. She distributes to each a fair portion of various foods.

She ensures that any income her husband earns is guarded and protected, whether money, grain, silver, or gold. She doesn’t overspend, steal, waste, or lose it.

She’s a lay follower who has gone for refuge to the Buddha, his teaching, and the Saṅgha.

She’s ethical. She doesn’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or use alcoholic drinks that cause negligence.

She’s generous. She lives at home rid of the stain of stinginess, freely generous, open-handed, loving to let go, committed to charity, loving to give and to share.

>>15420517
>>15420561
>>15420577
>>15420581
>>15420583

Buddha is not saying anything compelling here or giving any reason why anything he is saying is correct or why we should believe him, all he is saying is that saying X like the Buddha or the Self continues to exist or doesn't continue to exist in Nirvana doesn't actually describe what happens, but ultimately that is because of Buddha's failure to properly describe or come up with the terminology to otherwise convey what does happen. There is no proof that 3rd or 4th special options such as "neither existence nor non-existence" are actually real categories and not just mental-constructs, it sounds like stuff he just pulled out of his ass to save him from the hole he landed in by saying that you are supposed make extinct the aggregates including consciousness but that it's still not an annihilation.

It's like a robber who gets caught robbing a bank and then when he is in court he is trying to save himself by saying "your honor, I did not rob the bank but neither was I not caught leaving it with a bag of cash" yeah well sorry pal it doesn't work that way

>>15421153
>There is no proof that 3rd or 4th special options such as "neither existence nor non-existence" are actually real categories and not just mental-constructs, it sounds like stuff he just pulled out of his ass to save him from the hole he landed in
The Catuskoti is a well founded feature of Indian logic, even pops up in the Rig Veda. There is nothing fictional about dialetheist arguments, Quantum Mechanics has shown that electrons can both exist and not exist at the same time (or exist in 2 different positions at the same time).

>>15420758

if there is something conditioned, there is something that once was or is unconditioned

>>15421249
>The Catuskoti is a well founded feature of Indian logic, even pops up in the Rig Veda.
I know some hindus had posited something like Catuskoti but this seems really interesting. Can you tell me more about it, what part of the Rg Veda?

>>15420753
Because they're scared of loss. They know impermanence is a thing, so they latch onto something eternal so they can say "I get to live forever because X is eternal and I can get really close to X". Historically, this would have more to do with Hinduism (and later Islam) than Christianity, but on 4chan you'll mostly get people arguing that Selfs do exist from a Christian perspective.

There's also a sort of stealth-cowardice by people who don't want to impose their will on the world. Politically people try to "go back to source" to try and force people to do something by hoodwinking them rather than outright forcing them. Like, they want to say "abortion is bad" but they don't want to run the risk of people getting upset with their for disagreeing nor do they just want to enforce their will upon the world so they pull this "oh, but GOD" or "the CONSTITUTION" or "the FORMS" trick so that something else said so and you obviously HAVE to do what THAT said. The problem there is, of course, that when you set that up your opponent can just disagree with the existence of the thing whose Self you are proposing (God, the forms, the constitution, Zeus, whatever, it doesn't matter). But if they deny the existence of that thing whose Self you are proposing, then they don't have to do what you want, and they're entirely right to do so by your own logic because by saying "If X exists we must Y" you also agree with "If X doesn't exist we don't have to Y". This is the eternalism-nihilism pendulum, they're two sides of the same coin (in the mind, nihilism still reifies Selfs, it just does so by getting sad about not being able to find a Self).

Buddhism posits a third option, as Selfs are Empty. This is not non-existence, this is a third way entirely. The chariot is real, the chariot is there, how you understand the chariot is wrong. Attempting to understand Emptiness through the eternalism-nihilism dichotomy (they're functionally the same thing, mentally, as they both reify Selfs, and metaphysically as Nagarjuna lays out because if something is Eternal it can't actually exist because it never changes, which is something Plato 100% agreed with which is why the Forms have to exist in their own realm) doesn't get you anywhere, and will just make you confused, like the guy who didn't read Mind Like Fire Unbound upthread.

>>15421153
Nagarjuna goes over this, specifically why the last two portions of the tetralemma have to be there and why they're nonsensical (as you rightly point out). This is the entire point of Emptiness, which critics often just completely ignore because of what I outlined above. Read the Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way, he goes over whatever you'll say in response to this as well. And in response to that.

>>15422599
nibbana is not eternal?

>>15422599
>Historically, this would have more to do with Hinduism (and later Islam) than Christianity
Are you stupid? Christians doesn't just think the soul is eternal but their literal bodies of shit and piss too.

>>15422948
what christians? church fathers? theologians? clerics? you are really retarded huh

>>15422948
Historically most of Buddhism's interaction with other religions outside of China was with Hinduism and Islam, yes. For fuck's sake, the Chinese first impression of Christianity was that it was a heresy of a heresy of Zoroastrianism.

>>15422980
>church fathers? theologians? clerics?
Yes.
>>15423004
>the Chinese first impression of Christianity was that it was a heresy of a heresy of Zoroastrianism
Not too far off.

>>15423004
>the Chinese first impression of Christianity was that it was a heresy of a heresy of Zoroastrianism
That's quite accurate desu

>>15423051
>yes the church fathers
thank you for confirming you're really retarded lol

>>15423185
>the church fathers didn't preach physical resurrection and an eternal embodiment on the remade earth
You do realize heaven is just a stop on the road right? It is not the goal of Christians and Christianity.

Get your gnostic copes out of here.

>>15422599
>and metaphysically as Nagarjuna lays out because if something is Eternal it can't actually exist because it never changes,
It seems like Buddhists want to take the argument that an eternal unchanging thing existing *here on this plane as a physical object* would involve too many contradictions, but then wrongly try to take that idea to try to imply that no eternal or unchanging could could exist at all, even in it's own transcendental realm or nature despite that the normal laws of the physical realm no longer would apply there. Parmenides and the Eleatics made similar arguments about how there are too many absurd implications in the nation that there is a world of multiplicity with real separate interacting object in time, but they came to the exact opposite conclusion of nagarjuna and said yes there is an unchanging existing one

>>15423236
wrong.
resurrection is not a physical, bodily resurrection. you should start reading books before speaking of what you have no idea.

>>15423468
>resurrection is not a physical, bodily resurrection
yes yes your special snowflake takes on Christianity is really important... Christians just don't get it! If only they would read more like you

>>15420259
fuck this made me laugh
thanks anon

>>15422599
why can something not exist if it's eternal, I don't buy that at all, you wrote "it can't exist because it never changes which is absurd", many schools who accept the existence of God say that God is unchanging, how could that unchanging nature mean that God doesn't exist? It makes no sense.

>>15423481
>special snowflake takes
literally upholds by the fathers and THE BIBLE itself. again: read a book for once

>>15423604
it is as if those who preach non-attachment were attached to an exclusively empirical mode of thinking

>>15410254
>>15410314
>>15411855
>le coomer xd
Do you take pride in falling for mindless bait? Go back to making shitty wojak edits in ms paint, you underage faggots.

>>15419661
>Mahayana Buddhists believe they can achieve enlightenment through following the teachings of the Buddha . ... Whereas Theravada Buddhists strive to become Arhats and gain freedom from the cycle of samsara, Mahayana Buddhists may choose to stay in the cycle of samsara out of compassion for others.
1 second on google

>>15424552
If that continues to be peoples response no one is going to talk to one another. Of course I could Google it dingus. I am interested in getting the answer from a stranger on 4chan.

Bump

>>15422599
can you answer this question? >>15423604

Let's read someone who apparently experienced Unconditioned:
>('There is, monks, a non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined; for if, monks, there were not that non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined, an escape here from the born, become, made, determined, would not be manifest.') 'Such a positive assertion of the existence of the Unconditioned' it is sometimes urged 'must surely imply that nibbāna is not simply annihilation.' Nibbāna, certainly, is not 'simply annihilation'—or rather, it is not annihilation at all: extinction, cessation of being, is by no means the same thing as the (supposed) annihilation of an eternal 'self' or soul. (See Majjhima xi,2, above.) And the assertion of the existence of nibbāna is positive enough—but what, precisely, is asserted? In the Asankhata Samyutta (i,1 & ii,23 <S.iv,359&371>) we read Yo bhikkhave rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo, idam vuccati bhikkhave asankhatam/nibbānam; ('The destruction, monks, of lust, of hate, of delusion—this, monks, is called (the) non-determined/extinction.') and we see that, if we do not go beyond the Suttas, we cannot derive more than the positive assertion of the existence here of the destruction of lust, hate, and delusion. And this is simply a statement that to get rid, in this very life, of lust, hate, and delusion, is possible (if it were not, there would be no escape from them, and therefore—Anguttara X,viii,6 <A.v,144>—no escape from birth, ageing, and death). And the arahat has, in fact, done so. But if, in our stewing minds, we still cannot help feeling that nibbāna really ought, somehow, to be an eternity of positive enjoyment, or at least of experience, we may ponder these two Sutta passages:
>('There are, monk, these three feelings stated by me: pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling, neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling—these three feelings have been stated by me. But this, monk, has been stated by me: 'Whatever is felt counts as unpleasure (suffering)'. That, however, monk, was said by me concerning the impermanence of determinations...' (See Vedanā Samy. i,9, quoted at A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPĀDA §17.)) Vedanā Samy. ii,1 <S.iv,216>
>('The venerable Sāriputta said this:—It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! When this was said, the venerable Udāyi said to the venerable Sāriputta,—But what herein is pleasant, friend Sāriputta, since herein there is nothing felt?—Just this is pleasant, friend, that herein there is nothing felt.') Anguttara IX,iv,3 <A.iv,414>
https://www.nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma/shorter-notes/nibbana

>>15425583
>Let's read someone who apparently experienced Unconditioned:

Nanavira's works have been criticized by other Buddhists for misunderstanding and mistranslating certain concepts and parts of the Pali Canon, if he truly reached the Unconditioned then I doubt that he would have killed himself because he couldn't overcome his lust and the irritation of his intestinal disorder. If you want to read the works of real people who experienced the Unconditioned check out Ramana Maharshi and Nisaradatta Maharaj who become world-famous for their profound wisdom that they would offer without preparation to people who would ask them questions and then record and publish on their own the answers. Every Buddhist figure put forward as being enlightened ends up being an all-too mundane person with foibles, sometimes even writing basic-bitch self-help books presenting dumbed down versions of their teachings. Meanwhile the chad Hindu sages simply live as possesionless monks and others approach them for advice, and they become world-famous without even trying to simply by the shining wisdom of their words that others had published and spread

>>15410185
mongols are cute! CUTE!

>>15425583
>The nature of Nirwana, or cessation of being, is obvious from this. It is not the destruction of an existent being, but the cessation of his existence. It is not an absorption into a superior being, as the Brahmans teach; it is not a retreat into a place of eternal repose, free from further transmigration; it is not a violent destruction of being, but a complete and final cessation of existence. - Nanavira Thera

>>15425658
>if he truly reached the Unconditioned then I doubt that he would have killed himself because he couldn't overcome his lust and the irritation of his intestinal disorder.
You write like you possess knowledge about what reaching Sotapanna entails.
>If you want to read the works of real people who experienced the Unconditioned
Many Buddhists experienced it, but most don't have good advice beyond what was already said. Almost no one got enlightened watching Guru's talking random things on youtube. Buddhism power lies in it's structured practices.
>possesionless monks
It's easy to maintain perfect conduct as a monk who doesn't need to partake in worldly affairs. It's even easier in India, where people will fanatically defend their guru's reputation. Somehow Indian spiritual stars shine less when exported to the west, like Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

>>15424716
Not him. Theravada is the original ascetic buddhism taught by Buddha, and it seeks liberation. Mahayana is a deviation that combines elements of Hinduism to make it more appealing to the masses. It's much more mystical and religious than Theravada, and the focus is on becoming a boddhisattva, a sort of enlightened demigod that helps others liberate themselves.