/lit/ - Literature

its better to have eternal live in the bliss of heaven than to just stop existing

>>15718451
Nibbana itself is supposed to be bliss

>>15718461
Lol it can’t be, since it annihilates everything proper to a human being. The bliss of unconditionedness it describes is that of God, but the lie is that ‘you’ will ever experience it.

>>15718945
I guess you've never experienced ego death.

>>15718945
>>15718451
We're already in nibba though. The principles of non-self and sunyata apply to everything in the present moment.

>>15718061
Yes. Jesus literally came to suffer-with us. He does not have contempt for our finite condition, but takes it up and forever joins it to himself, so that we can see the face of God without losing what we are.

Jesus cares more about our good because he both knows and can deliver on it. The Buddha has not glimpsed the true nature of beatitude, nor given a way to which could actually attain it.

Buddha flees from suffering by annihilating himself and invites others to join him. Jesus enters into suffering with us, bringing it to the point of absolute horror- the Crucifixion, where the Unconditioned himself meets death- only so that he can destroy its power by rising again. When all suffering is suffering-with Christ, and to participate in Christ’s sufferings is also to be joined to his Resurrection, the fundamental horror of suffering is overcome. Buddha fears and flees; Christ endures with us, and conquers. It’s no contest.

>>15718949
Since experience presupposes the experiencer, and the conditioned being that I am is denied as real, no, of course not. It is logically impossible.

>>15719048
No, we’re not, since we clearly do exist. The Buddhist flees contingent existence because he finds its limits unbearable, and in his horror at suffering tries to deny creation itself by saying that nothing exists or that things lack ‘intrinsic existence’ and therefore may be denied as unreal. The whole aim of Buddhist praxis is to kill the connection with creation by denying it in thought, in hope that what would be left is the Unconditioned. Because it denies creation, and thereby categorically denies the positive reconciliation of finite and infinite existence, Buddhism is self-damnation of the most profound kind, sold to the desperate as an escape.

>>15718061
Mahayana is fan fic though

>>15718451
You don't know how STUPIDLY WRONG you are. Stop existing is the best desirable thing as existence itself shouldn't even exist in the first place.

NON-BEING >>> BEING

>>15719185
Buddhism btfo

>>15719075
>>15719185
Based and Christpilled

>>15718461
bliss can only be experienced by sentient entities, which are not admitted by Buddhism to exist in Parinirvana

>>15718945
The entire point is that you're not a human being, you're God dreaming a human being. The personality and organic body is in a state of flux even in this lifetime but the self always remains.

>>15719828
The default state is bliss, sentient beings are just mirrors and reflections of what is eternal and fundamental. Extinguishment doesn't imply nothing in a nihilistic sense, but rather the true state that's indescribable.

>Nibanna = annihilation
Not this meme again...

>>15719185
You don't know anything about Buddhism or Christianity, all you know are dialectics.

>>15719075
Jesus taught the inner kingdom which is the same thing as nibbana

>>15719208
Everything is a fan fic if you look at it objectively.

>>15719886
>The default state is bliss, sentient beings are just mirrors and reflections of what is eternal and fundamental
If that bliss is not consciously experienced as the default state it's not bliss, if that bliss is consciously experienced as the default state it becomes an eternal consciousness and all the Buddhist metaphysical claims about nothing being eternal and about conciousness being conditioned gets thrown out of the window for being incompatible with that.

I, too, wear the dharma wheel in twitter.
Yes, I'm trans.
Yes, I'm valid.

>>15719097
>experience presupposes the experiencer
why do you suppose you are the experiencer and not the experience

>>15719075
source needed from within the gospels

>>15718061
why do retards say mahayana is buddhism

>>15719075
>>Buddha flees from suffering by annihilating himself
wrong

>>15719097
>>Since experience presupposes the experiencer,
wrong

>>15719949
wrong

>>15719185
>No, we’re not, since we clearly do exist. The Buddhist flees contingent existence because he finds its limits unbearable, and in his horror at suffering tries to deny creation itself by saying that nothing exists or that things lack ‘intrinsic existence’ and therefore may be denied as unreal. The whole aim of Buddhist praxis is to kill the connection with creation by denying it in thought, in hope that what would be left is the Unconditioned. Because it denies creation, and thereby categorically denies the positive reconciliation of finite and infinite existence, Buddhism is self-damnation of the most profound kind, sold to the desperate as an escape.
intellectuals and their spooks are a mistake

>>15719886
>but rather the true state that's indescribable.
mahayana drivel

>>15719185
>tries to deny creation itself by saying that nothing exists or that things lack ‘intrinsic existence’
name one thing in the universe that has an intrinsic existence un-reliant on something else

>>15719865
Right, and what more absurd contention could there be than that God could be deluded, or that we whose entire experience of ourselves are of finitude and conditionedness, are the Unconditioned. Such stupid claims have no attraction for one rooted in reality.

>>15720380
The Father

>>15720334
Did you not read John's entire gospel

>>15720409
You're a fucking moron. The Father is an intellectual hypothesis that is used to resolve the fact that things don't have an intrinsic existence. It's a sociological lodestone. Answering "What is something that has intrinsic value" with "The metaphorical conception of intrinsic value" is a tautology, it's a non-answer.
To be fair, the question is retarded and the answers are for the most part axiomatic, but the fact that you didn't catch it is as annoying as the fact that it was asked in the first place.

>>15720409
Not really in the universe but: the Father could only be known by what He is not, i.e. the Son, the Holy Spirit, and creation. Is the Father holy? In relation to what? Is he good? In relation to what? (As an aside, to say evil doesn't exist and is only the absence of good is logically untenable).
And to say He is infinite would be to say that you could not describe Him, either as holy, good, or the inverse. This is because to describe something is to limit it. You wouldn't even be able to call the Father infinite, because that would only limit Him. He would have to contain everything and nothing at the same time, and both exclusively. Which you could say but it would no longer match the description of the Father as laid out by theologians.

>>15719911
Jesus taught the Resurrection and eternal life. He did not say to the thirsty that they should realise thirst is an illusion, nor tell the cripple that lameness is not real, or tell the dead that life is suffering. No, he told the thirsty to be filled, the lame to walk, and the dead to live. He taught the eternal life which satisfies our proper desires rather than denies them. He was able to do so because he is truly God, unlike the weak philosopher Gautama.

>>15720425
John was written after 100 AD and is not considered a reliable source.

>>15719185
>we clearly do exist. The Buddhist flees contingent existence because he finds its limits unbearable
You are completely misunderstanding the entire principles behind Buddhism. The thesis of Buddhism is not that nothing exists. The thesis of Buddhism is that ALL existence is contingent. Achieving nibbana is not "Denying that reality exists", it is best approximated as complete and total depersonalization.

>>15720380
Only God is not reliant on anything else. But because even reliant things must have imperfectly what God has perfectly, they do have a finite existence. Finite existence thus longs for and is worth reconciling with infinity, not merely negated in the face of the infinite. Aristotle surpassed Buddha when he articulated the means of affirming the contingent world metaphysically. The Jews surpassed Aristotle when they affirmed the possibility of the self-declaration of the infinite within the finite. Christ surpassed all when he definitively united the finite and infinite in himself. Buddhism is the last gasp of the pagan world- the despairing hatred of their own being and ignorance of God which is the inevitable result of running up against the limits of human power. In the wake of Christ, such despair is needless. We are free to embrace being without loss, desire without dissatisfaction, suffering without fear. Repent and be saved.

>>15720571
Look here:
>>15720492
I really think you misunderstand the stance of Buddhism. Have you read anything concerning Buddhism or its sects?
Also:
>>15720469

>>15720492
>all reality is contingent

Yeah that’s an absurd thesis, which does entail that nothing exists. The logic of Buddhist soteriology demands the unreality of the contingent, since what is real is in that respect possibly desirable, and the frustration of its denial therefore real and reasonable. But if desire is real, then salvation by avoiding its demand is self-delusion. So if Buddhism is not to be self-delusory on its own terms, it has to embrace the unreality of everything. The buddhist’s half-hearted attempts to acknowledge the contingent world are a poor disguise over a fundamentally conoeehensicy nihilism.

>>15720619
Over a fundamental, comprehensive nihilism*

>>15720590
Yes. I’ve never been much impressed.

>>15720619
>Yeah that’s an absurd thesis, which does entail that nothing exists
No it doesn't. It means that things in the world rely on each other for their existence. It doesn't mean nothing exists, just that nothing exists by itself. You also talk about denial, which is not the Buddhist belief. It does not say to reject the world (which one can argue is what Christianity teaches) but to simply understand its nature and to not attach oneself to things that are fleeting and ever-changing.

>>15720619
There is a major Buddhist aphorism which tells the story of a new monk telling his teacher that he's finally understood the heart sutta by recognizing that nothing exists, and his teacher smacks him and mocks him saying "If nothing exists, why did you feel pain when I hit you"?
Your idea that Buddhism is about recognizing nonexistence is not and never has been an accepted interpretation of the texts. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>15720640
What did you read?

ITT:
>NOBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT NIRVANA IS IN THIS THREAD BRO. NO, THAT ISN’T NIRVANA EITHER.

Anyway, to answer your question, Jesus Christ is more compassionate. See the 6th post on this thread.

>>15720645
>It means that things in the world rely on each other for their existence. It doesn't mean nothing exists, just that nothing exists by itself.

Whatever relies upon something else for its existence lacks existence in and of itself. If everything were like this, then nothing would exist, since nothing would have being to impart to anything else. So, if anything at all exists, there must be at least that which has existence in and of itself, and for us to exist, there must also be that which derives from the unqualified being.

In any case, given the acknowledgement of contingent being, the entire system unravels. Nonattachment to conditioned being, given that one *is* a conditioned being, is simply to deny the core existential paradox which follows upon our nature, not to resolve it. If conditioned being is true being, then the conclusion that we truly do, and thus truly ought, desire that existence despite its suffering, is unavoidable. If that is the case, then deliverance from it is impossible, and attempting to 'depersonalise' an exercise in self-deception.

>Your idea that Buddhism is about recognizing nonexistence is not and never has been an accepted interpretation of the texts. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I think I do, but feel free to articulate what you think the metaphysics of suffering and deliverance are, and I'll be happy to deal with that.

>>15720785
Based Christchad

>>15718451
you stop existing every time you sleep, degenerate

Nibanna actually seems based, where do I read more into it?

>>15720860
this is pretty short and directly illuminates misconceptions

>>15720785
This doesn't solve the problem that you're essentially inventing God to provide existence. This is the same pseudoness as the Weak Anthropic Principle.
>"Why do things exist?"
>"God provides them definition"
>"Okay but what provides God definition"
>"If God didn't have definition, things wouldn't exist, but obviously they do, so God must exist"
None of this conclusively establishes that God provides definition or that he's needed to provide definition. It just calls attention to your complete ignorance of metaphysics in general. You are inventing a problem (Things need an 'unmoved mover' to exist) solving it using your existing system (God is an 'unmoved mover' so things can exist), then declaring that because Buddhists don't believe in unmoved movers that they must believe nothing exists instead of actually providing evidence that Buddhism believes in nonexistence. Worse than this, you are actively ignoring the fact that I've pointed out Buddhists EXPLICITLY REJECT the concept of nonexistence, and you do this by declaring that even though Buddhists reject nonexistence, they haven't solved your invented problem, they must ACTUALLY believe in nonexistence IN SECRET.

>I think I do, but feel free to articulate what you think the metaphysics of suffering and deliverance are
There is no "deliverance" in Buddhism. The concept of deliverance and salvation are fundamentally Christian notions. It is actually a complete waste of everyone's time, including yours, to smack your head against the wall of "WHAT IS BUDDHIST SALVATION THOUGH!?" when it is fundamentally a form of Christian metaphysics and not projectable onto every single religion. Buddhism does not believe in deliverance. Even Pure Lands Buddhism is not analogous to deliverance.

tl;dr: ESTABLISH WHERE IT IS IN BUDDHISTS TEXTS THAT THEY CLAIM NOTHING REALLY EXISTS, OR FUCK OFF AND STOP WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.

it was thru reading the Amitabha Sutra that I finally got into Christianity

>>15720590
good point anon. I barely read something about Buddhism, but why the fuck should I? The best judgement of buddhism are buddhists. Buddhists are fucking vegetable soi cucks, absolutely boring shit. Buddhism is psychic disorder.

>>15720860
Bhikkhu Bodhi's anthology is a good starter for Buddhism

>>15718451
what Amitabha provides is exactly the "bliss of heaven" btw, he is not Gautama Buddha

>Disproves God
>affirms Nibbana (Ataraxia)
was Epicurus a bodhisattva?

>>15720871
>Buddhists are fucking vegetable soi cucks
While Western Christians are washing Muslim's feet, Burmese and Japanese Buddhists are kicking them out of their fucking country back to their homes. The Dalai Llama is also one of the few major religious leaders to promote using guns in self-defense, and encouraged nationalism.

note that it is explicitly written that there are no women in buddhist heaven, western academics try to obfuscate this

>>15720893
yet girls prefer chads, children and kittens.

>>15720893
This

>>15720912
Okay? You can be a Buddhist and a chad. You can be a Buddhist and have kids. You can be a Buddhist and own a cat. There are pretty much no restrictions for laypeople, it's not a governmental religion like Judaism where the law and the religion are basically the same.

>chads, basedcucks, the Dalai Lama
>no discussion of Amitabha

>>15720912

>>15720943
afaik pure lands is mostly a mahayana, they're a big face of buddhism because of the Japanese but they're not really representative of the population in general.

>>15720867
>weak anthropic principle
Not at all. The weak anthropic principle explains the appearance of conditions appropriate to our existence by reference to survivor bias. The argument I gave is that since any kind of world in which only contingent beings exist entails universal non-existence, then since there are contingent things, something non-contingent must exist.

My argument is not about definitions, but about what simply follows given the statement of universal contingency, i.e., that nothing exists. I think this follows from Buddhist metaphysics, not that Buddhists by and large believe this, but discerning an implication which is otherwise unattended. If this implication holds, then clearly the thesis cannot be sustained, and if we want to affirm contingent being at all, we will also have to affirm necessary being.

Where I do give an argument I expect to have teeth to a Buddhist, is where I show that suffering cannot be overcome if contingent existence is acknowledged as real, since contingent existence is inherently marked by Dukkha and we are contingent beings. The dilemma I an introducing is between the possibility of really overcoming suffering, and the acknowledgement of contingent reality. If Buddhist metaphysics has the resources to evade it without doing something silly like denying we exist, feel free to post.

>Buddhists don’t believe in deliverance

Sure they do. They believe in the cessation of dukkha and the means to do so. Hence, deliverance from suffering. What exactly it means to suffer and overcome it is a technical thing with different shades depending on your school, so rather than try to interpret sources you may not hold to, it’s easier to directly ask your opinion that I may answer it.

>>15720983
So how does the man Jesus Christ fit into this bro?

Pic related, that’s you.

>>15720983
>If Buddhist metaphysics has the resources to evade it without doing something silly like denying we exist, feel free to post.
Where does Buddhist metaphysics spell this out?

>i-it implies it!

>>15720953
OP is explicitly asking us to compare Jesus with Amitabha, the Pure Land Buddha

Pure Land Buddhism and Mayahana in general is by far the most popular form of Buddhism in the world, like 80% of them iirc, don't confuse Shin Buddhism, a Japanese form of Pure Land, with Pure Land in general

>>15720380
>>15720464
>>15720492
What is the point of this question? Anything that is not the First Principle/Supraprinciple Principle, God, One, The Absolute, etc. is contingent, even metaphysical realities and principles of manifestation, this is most obvious in Vedanta.

>>15720469
Description is not definition. Do you think something like God is exhausted by descriptions? You are right when you say that the only approach to the Father is apophatically, in the same way it is to approach the Son and the Spirit. But that is it. God is not good nor bad, etc etc.

>>15718461
This is true. Sadly most buddhists ignore this and I think people who attack buddhism as nihilistic, atheistic etc. are legitimized due to such corruption.

>>15721001

This is a good nutshell of where Jesus comes in;
>>15720571

Contingency leads us to God, the acknowledgement of God leads us to a desire for him which cannot be evaded, which underlies all desires because it is the condition of our being. The only hope of deliverance from dissatisfied desire is a God who relates interpersonally with us, given his ontology is naturally so remote. Only in the man Jesus, in whose person the distance between God and Man is nonexistent, is the fullness of relation with God possible. Through his suffering and death on the Cross for our sake, the worst privation of our most fundamental desire has already been overcome. All suffering after points back to it, and beyond to eternal life.

Buddhism is at its most profound when it discerns the instability and dissatisfaction which attends contingent being itself, but it cannot overcome this problem, since it does not attend to God.

>>15720341
because it includes metaphysics and thus becomes more interesting to the despairing westerner

>>15721152
as if it hasn't proven immensely popular with Asians

>>15721127
>some jew died
>therefore the philosophical/metaphysical problem was resolved
No thanks, I'll stick to Vedanta/Buddhism

>>15720867
I have seen so many buddhists here denying any aspect of eternity, essence and being, even referring to nirvana itself. I know that these people follow corrupt buddhism, but what your post does not seem you are talking about buddhism as well.
You could say there is no deliverance in Buddhism since there is nothing to be delivered from, since nibbana is the only reality. Otherwise there is a clear emphasis on samsara, karma, reincarnation and reaching nibbana as to escape all of that. In this latter sense buddhism is nothing but another gnostic sect.

>>15721168
it hasn't

>>15721170
Christ wasn't a "Jew".

>>15721204
>According to scholar Peter Harvey, the number of adherents of Eastern Buddhism (Mahayana) is 360 million, Southern Buddhism (Theravada) 150 million, and Northern Buddhism (Vajrayana) 18.2 million. Seven million additional Buddhists are found outside Asia.

>>15721170

Yes, the metaphysical problem of our distance from God is overcome not in a theorem or a method, but a definitive event (the Incarnation) and in a person (Jesus). Philosophy’s job thereafter is to play catch-up. Vedanta/buddhism cannot deliver you from the existential problem of contingency (with its implicit alienation from God which cannot be overcome by human power).

>>15721246
that's not popularity, it is a dynamic evolution, popularity exists where there is a conscious choice which in issues of tradition and religion can only be applied from the outside

>>15721286
>jew die = goyim solved

>>15721170
Based. Personally I'm into kashmiri shaivism but I'll side with buddhist bros any day over some semitic filth like christianity.

>>15721286
>metaphysics was solved by a human sacrifice
Yea I don't think you have much leg to stand on

>>15720480
source: my ass

>>15721289
Snopes-tier cope

>>15721170
>>15721286
>>15721327
I think it is not difficult to realize how Christ's death not only expresses the infinite separation from God that is creation, within time and space and brute matter, that is triumphed by God's love, but also how it gathers literal, allegorical, symbolical and metaphysical sense, being yet surpassed by His incomprehensibly unifying love.

>>15721394
I agree. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was really an unprecedented symbol. Christianity wouldn’t be anything without the Cross, however the big thing is that the story of Jesus of Nazareth didn’t stop at the Cross. It didn’t end in His death and His burial. He did something completely different;

He came back.

>>15720470
Christian salvation is odd to me, what's the purpose of having a resurrected body when the trinity itself is perfectly sufficient? Do our bodies just float and watch the face of God on a TV screen? It seems like in the more orthodox forms of Christianity there's always a separation between God. It creates a weird problem where you have souls that merely exist to suffer in hellfire, as if the idea of hell is something desirable to God which seems silly.

>>15721394
Amen.

>>15721394
Christ dying is just a jewish man dying, nothing too dissimilar than some random auschwitz prisoner.

/lit/ likes to talk about the Bible a lot, it's become almost a meme, we all seem to agree Bible is a source of wisdom.

But comparing the ancient Indian Indo-European civilization with the Jewish one, to see the spiritual level they were at.

Deuteronomy was written in 7th century BC (according to scholars). It has stuff like:

>You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and that chews the cud. However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit, or the coney.

A veritable pearl of wisdom.

TWO CENTURIES before that in the 9th century BC, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad had already been composed. Sample from the text:

>"That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite. the infinite proceeds from the infinite.
>(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), it remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone."

One text deals with stuff like what you can eat and where you can put your penis, the absolute retardation probably due to excessive exposure to sun of the desert man can be felt on every page of the Bible.

On the other hand, the Indian text of the time show a philosophical depth of a Kant or a Hegel. Schopenhauer said that the re-discovery of the Upanishads by Europe is comparable to the rediscovery of ancient Greek materials in the Renaissance. He said it's by far the most profound material he's ever read.

Question: Why do we still waste so much time & energy with Desert Trilogy when our own, Indo-European heritage, is so much more richer and profound?

>>15721414
>>15721417
cringe and jewishpilled

>>15721421
based

>>15721414
>>15721394

Based, simple as.

>>15721421
Based af

>>15721445
>>15721436
>>15721424
>>15721421
>>15721417
>>15721414
>>15721394
>>15721385
>>15721369
Super cringe shower thoughts ngl

>>15721421
Christ was not a Jew.

>>15721449
based

>>15721421
Christ dying is not just a Jewish man dying, instead Christ dying is probably one of the most important events in history. Much more important than your death or my death.

You want to quote the Upanishad? Ok, listen to this:
>This earth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this earth.
Truly a great piece of wisdom.
Let’s read from the Book of Job, coming from Solomon’s reign, 10th century BC:
>For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up: So man lieth down, and riseth not.

christianity is just watered down gnosticism which in turn is crypto-buddhist in nature

>this was the man who solved metaphysics
LOL

>>15721466
Upanishads is BY FAR more lucid than some jewish babble

>dying jew
kek

>>15721476
>>15721470
Cope

>>15718061
Jesus can't be more compassionate. He literally threatens to torture people for all eternity who don't idolize and worship him in his cult. He's kind of a piece of shit of the absolute worst variety.

>>15721487
>Cope

>>15721494
>Cope

>this is what Jesus believed in

>what would jesus have to say?

>we are all brothers in Him

>welcome all strangers for ye shall cucketh thyself

>>15721470
Yes. (Or someone who is from that guy’s ethnic group at least).

>jesus was a refugee bro

>>15719215
Just kill yourself already

>love is love, sayeth the saviour

>open your hearts out for Him and his children

>we are all His children

>Jesus asks you to open your house for them

>>15721490
That's just part of his kindness anon

>...And ye shall become one in flesh

>Based christ

>Amen

>>15721513
>>15721515
>>15721516
>>15721522
>>15721526
>>15721530
>>15721533
>>15721537
>>15721540
>>15721544
>>15721546
Lel

>>15721554
I know ey? Christianity is far cucked, why are we even bothering with this jewish drivel.

>>15721513
>>15721515
>>15721516
>>15721522
>>15721526
>>15721530
>>15721533
>>15721537
>>15721540
>>15721544
>>15721546

I can take this as the price of knowing with certainty that there was once a good man. You probably can't accept that.

>>15718061
well a lot of the religions are based around the central noe theorum concept tha tws developed probably around the 15th century bc but you could argue earlier. al ot of what we know is that people worshipped obese women who bullied them into doing activtieis then the men killed all the women and started becoming raiders and made a lot of societies that were strong like history says. we find this in the archaeology we find this in the scripture we find this that the christ figure had long hair = woman = cucked = burnt = ambahala or whatever dumb retard shit you drink for a good time to keep off that that chain of a hound you call the specter of death or whatever is just a big time distraction from the fact that we're all skinnyfat and drink too much alcohol. we need to start lifting weights and eating right this month together

>>15721421
Have you read the Yajurveda, the Atharvaveda? They have stuff similar if not worse.
>...The ritual proper lasted for three days. On the second day, after some specific ceremonies, numerous domestic animals were immolated. Finally, the stallion, which thenceforth incarnated the god Prajāpati ready to sacrifice himself, was suffocated. The four queens, each accompanied by a hundred female attendants, walked around the body, and the principal wife lay down beside it; covered with a cloak, she simulated sexual union. During this time the priests and the women exchanged obscene pleasantries. As soon as the queen rose, the horse and the other victims were cut up.

The other chapters from those vedic books talk about other practices in daily life. This is not surprising since they are meant to be read in the same way Leviticus, Deuteronomy were meant. It is the Holy extended to the most common and mundane aspect of practical life.

I have read some upanishads, I was into advaita vedanta for a while a few years ago. I really like Katha Up. But as for the quote you posted, sincerely. That is nothing impressive. It has no depth as in beyond what is there. Most of the Old Testament has so many subtle and symbolic passages it is impossible to exhaust them in a few readings. It is easy to observe merely the concrete words and nothing more. People like you don't realize that behind the words there is the Word.
Anyway, I don't know why you brought Schopenhauer and Kant in here. They were inclined to rational enquiry, the former is known for missing the metaphysical point of the Upanishads. Hegel was deeply influenced by a lutheran and was a christian, heretic, but still.

As for the date I will not comment since both Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka are dated differently by many, being dated also much later to ~800-600 BC.

>>15721556
You really have an obsession with Jews, huh Rebbe?

>>15721546
well im an ex-christian fundamentalist had a lo of unabomber episodes in my teenage years that involved cornering prohibitonists, larceny, theft, and occassionally beatings of mormons mostly but we all tried to find the solution to the T problem you see its all based on the T = sin =life is sin because of quantum mechanics you are more or less locked into it like a wheel on a hamster that is wearing a cross and watching his fuck balls droop fj ..

well jesus was more or less a gas chamber model that invited a lot of people into his hotel for a few nights then he just died on them because thats what happens a lot of the time when you spend more or less your life trying to walk on water

>>15721490
>accurately diagnoses the human predicament, provides way out of it
>threats

Facilitating self-indulgent ignorance is not compassionate. Christ does precisely the opposite.

>>15721579
>provides way out of it
Worshiping a cult leader isn't some kind of magical way away from vice, idiot.

>>15721570
his mother probably fucked a kike and he realized it in himself... self-hatred is very common among these people

LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!! its not an illusion but an reflection and thats what you see in a mirror

>>15721098
>This is true. Sadly most buddhists ignore this and I think people who attack buddhism as nihilistic, atheistic etc. are legitimized due to such corruption.
Except Suttas directly state that "a state where nothing is felt" is blissful.

>>15721589
Sure. Worshipping the incarnate God and being transformed by supernatural reorientation of the soul is the only way to overcome vice. That’s what Christ commends to us.

>>15721568
The Upanishads and Pali Canon are ancient wisdom par excellence. The old testament simply can't compete with the might of the rishis and arhats.

>jew man hate other jew tribe, jew man command jew men to genocide other jew tribe, jew man set up penis rules

vs

>That which is flaming, which is subtler than the subtle, on which the worlds are set, and their inhabitants -
That is the indestructible Brahman. It is life, it is speech, it is mind. That is the real. It is immortal. It is a mark to be penetrated. Penetrate It, my friend.
>"'All phenomena are rooted in desire, come into play through attention, have contact as their origination, have feeling as their meeting place, have concentration as their presiding state, have mindfulness as their governing principle, have discernment as their surpassing state, have release as their heartwood, gain their footing in the deathless, have Unbinding as their final end.'

>>15721760
Jim Jones offers that too, he can absolve you of all the sin if you follow him

>>15721466
>This earth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this earth.
In Ancient India's philosophical terminology honey represents the connection between the actions and their results, and so your quote means that the entire phenomenal existence is interconnected, and that nothing is isolated.

>>15721748
>Except Suttas directly state that "a state where nothing is felt" is blissful.
Do they say that "nothing is felt" in Nirvana?

>>15721765
All come from God. Christ is the messiah for all regardless. The wisdom from outdated Hindu religions is only valid when it leads to Christ.

>>15722627
>All come from God. Christ is the messiah for all regardless. The wisdom from outdated Hindu religions is only valid when it leads to Christ.
*tips*

>>15721286
>Vedanta/buddhism cannot deliver you from the existential problem of contingency (with its implicit alienation from God
Vedanta does indeed do this by showing that consciousness in its true nature is neither contingent nor alienated from God

>>15720646
Source for that aphorism?

>>15721765
he gave you a thoughtful response that logically addresses what you brought up and instead of replying to what he brought up the only thing you can say is "muh book more good see here"

>>15721286
i am sorry but your mental gymnastics is worthless outside a circle of armchair philosophers. go back to plebbit.

>Jew got spanked and crucified once
>Will let only people who suck his dick into his secret club dedicated to sucking his dick
Meanwhile,
>Amitabro lived and died trillion times trillion times just so he could accumulate enough merit to create a no-suffering-allowed dimension where everyone else could be enlightened without additional suffering
>Literally could pass to eternal bliss at any moment, but chose to continue on for you
>Will let pretty much everyone in, so long as they don't kill their moms or some shit, even those who doubt his teachings, the only caveat being that they'll have to spend about five hundred years (which is nothing) in a cocoon of infinite spiritual orgasms
>Won't force you to do anything, but you'll be free to die if you want to
How is this even a question?

>>15722613
No, because Nirvana is not nothing. It's a transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint. If you're a Christian, this is literally what heaven is. If you're a Christian, you agree with Buddhists that this state of transcendental freedom cannot be put into words because of the constraints of being a Sinful (Samsaric) being.

Anyone claiming that the Buddha said Nirvana is "annihilation" literally has no idea what they're talking about. He explicitly, and repeatedly, says that Nirvana is not just snuffing out (the etymology of Nirvana is "un-binding", its usage as "putting out a fire" draws from the Ancient Indian idea of fire being "bound" to fuel) into a black void. He also gives arguments, metaphors, and explanations, repeatedly, as to why Nirvana is more than (or at the very least, different than) annihilation. The best you could do is argue that the Buddha couldn't find an eternal unchanging permanent Self, but you can, so his methods don't work because the mechanisms of how they're supposed to work aren't in line with reality, or are at least arguably pointless (There are no Selfs so I would say it's pointless to argue over whether or not staying in Samsara forever is desirable if your ego can live forever, but if you do find a Self then it's something you could argue over).

>>15722742
>Indian ate some bad pork and died
>Will let you in only after you suffer for thousands of years in animal bodies, which isn’t actually you because you don’t have a self, yet somehow after thousands of years of suffering in an animal body you will be let to go to some weird spiritual state of being
>Doesn’t care if you die, just wants you to either follow him or not, doesn’t exactly care about the life of people
Meanwhile,
>Jesus died one time, with the one time death powerful enough to join man and God together, millions of meaningless lives and deaths not needed
>Literally could of stayed with the Father and the Spirit eternally as ruler of all of creation, instead decided to take on the form of a servant to help you and me
>Will let anyone in as long as they are truly repentant and faithful, doesn’t let you in because you lived for thousands of years in continuous torment as literal animals
>Won’t force you to follow Him, but through His eternal love wants you to follow Him so you don’t die
How is this even a question

all the enemies of Christ display an irrational and immature behavior. look at this thread for example. something is up, you can't talk about metaphysical questions, eternal bliss, "ego death" etc and say this amount of shit against He whom sacrificed even for you and me. way to prove the point hinduism and buddhism cater to the demonic. you join the team of fedoras, trannies and all the other rebellious people

again and again you show that you do not love God, you love 'wisdom' (the appearance of it), you do not want to be saved and join the beatific vision, you want to become god

>>15722804
>Will let you in only after you suffer for thousands of years in animal bodies, which isn’t actually you because you don’t have a self, yet somehow after thousands of years of suffering in an animal body you will be let to go to some weird spiritual state of being
lol you only have to say his Amitabha's name ten times and you're guaranteed a spot in his pure land in your next life, from which you can enlighten directly. No further engagement in Samsara is required of you. He literally did all the hard work for you. Imagine being this ungratefu.

>>15722804
>Amitabha
>India
lmfao you LARPers can't even spend five seconds to look this shit up

>>15721286
I do science and law, not fantasy. Religion is just another form of addiction for low agency people.

>>15722757
>No, because Nirvana is not nothing. It's a transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint.
But is it consciously experienced? Freedom that is not actualized through the sentient experience of freedom is not true freedom, just as happiness that is not experienced is not actual happiness. If it is consciously experienced, than why label consciousness as transient and as one of the aggregates if Parinirvana is consciously experienced as eternal bliss even after the destruction of the physical body? If Parinirvana is not consciously experienced, then it is not actually bliss, but it is only bliss in a figurative sense, bliss in the sense of "freedom from returning to the pain of existence", but not actual bliss itself.

The former means that the vast majority of Buddhist philosophy (who deny any form of eternal consciousness/sentience) got Buddha's teachings wrong and misunderstood a fundamental aspect of them and that his teachings are actually much closer to the position of the Upanishads than most Buddhists are willing to admit. The latter means that it really is an annihilation, as consciousness is permanently destroyed and the only thing blissful about it is that consciousness doesn't return to existence.

>>15722863
>It's a transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint.
>Okay but I'm going to place this constraint...
It's a transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint. It's freedom from conscious experience, and non-conscious experience. Any constraint you place, it's freedom from that, and any and all constraints

>But I can't conceptually understand that!
Yeah, that's... the point of a transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint. You can't conceptually define it because it's beyond conceptuality. If you don't like this, perhaps religion isn't for you. I'm not trying to dunk on you when I say this.

>>15722816
What really did it for me with Christianity was the dogmatic teaching that everyone outside the church is automatically damned, and also the concept of eternal punishment for finite crimes. I don't see how the Christian concept of heaven is actually good or desirable, it's just God jerking off to trillions of damned souls.

>>15722897
sinful people willingly damn themselves and will not want to join God in accordance to their own sinful nature as only Truth prevails eternally

>>15719075
That is pure sentimentalism. Sounds all flowery and makes old ladies cry at sunday service but in the end has no actual substance.

>>15722915
And people who reject Dianetics choose to be tormented by the evil influence of Xenu

>>15722918
More to the point, it's also literal Heresy from the point of Christianity, and just outright wrong from the point of Buddhism.

>>15722896
>It's a transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint. It's freedom from conscious experience, and non-conscious experience
If one is not conscious of Parinirvana than it's neither freedom nor bliss. Simply saying "it's a transcendental state of freedom" without answering whether one is conscious of it or not is a cop-out answer that doesn't do anything to resolve the underlying contradiction.

>>15722937
Yeah, like I said, this religion thing might not be for you. I'd unironically recommend STEM, or Law. You're trying to understand concepts and topics that are beyond human experience in terms of rigid conceptuality through the lens of human experience, and, I'm sorry to break this to you, but that's not how the world works. If you don't like that Nirvana is transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint because that implies a contradiction in the system that you've created, then your system is wrong, and the universe has no reason to operate along the principles and arbitrary constraints you place on it.

The best I can recommend is taking up Physics, or cracking open Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (Nagarjuna wrote this with people like you in mind).

>>15718061
>Poo Religion

>>15722984
imagine posing this much as an contemplative ascetic enlightened when you have to copy and paste sanskrit and pali terms on an international anime hentai forum. yep it's all larping

absolute mumbojumboyana

>>15723025
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T USE ALT CODES TO ENTER DIACRITICS TO USE NON-ENGLISH WORDS!
Okay cringe monoglot, "The Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way".

>>15718061
>Do Christians honestly believe that Jesus Christ is more compassionate than Amitābha?
Jesus was perfect from all eternity. Amida was mortal, sinful and had to create some buddha realm to improve himself. Jesus is ontologically real and a historical figure. Amida is a thought experiment. Jesus is actually compassionate, Amida is only compassionate as a thought experiment.

Amida made the exclusionary vow which excludes forgiveness/compassion for people who commit one of 5 offenses, meaning you are fucked. I forget all of them, but one is insulting the dharma or a buddha.

>>15723107
>Amida was mortal, sinful and had to create some buddha realm to improve himself.
No he didn't, Amitabha became a Bodhisattva and then made a Pure Land. He didn't have to make the Pure Land first, because he was already a Bodhisattva. He couldn't have made the Pure Land without being a Bodhisattva first (if it's so easy, why don't you do it?), and in order for him to become a Bodhisattva he had to become enlightened, and chose to not Parinirvana out, so he'd already reached the pinnacle.

>Amida made the exclusionary vow which excludes forgiveness/compassion for people who commit one of 5 offenses, meaning you are fucked. I forget all of them, but one is insulting the dharma or a buddha.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Firstly, the Five Precepts are refrain from killing, refrain from stealing, refrain from sexual immorality, refrain from lying, refrain from drugs and alcohol. So, yeah, we could lump "lying about the Dharma" into the fourth, but that's not insulting the Dharma or a Buddha. Secondly, there's nothing exclusionary about what Amida's doing, he'll take in anyone who chants his name, even non-Buddhists (being "A Buddhist" is technically a Western invention). There's nothing that will exclude you from his Pure Land as it's a special place to reincarnate in that's perfect for attaining enlightenment (this is a big point of criticism of Pure Land Buddhism within Buddhism, even among various denominations and schools that do actually do Pure Land Practice).

>Jesus was perfect from all eternity
Nothing is eternal.

>>15718061
Yes.

>>15722984
>Yeah, like I said, this religion thing might not be for you
I have mostly read religious scripture and religious philosophy for the last several years
>You're trying to understand concepts and topics that are beyond human experience in terms of rigid conceptuality through the lens of human experience
I'm merely subjecting a concept that you are proposing exists to critical scrutiny. The Buddhist explanation of Parinirvana lands itself in contradiction by saying that it's bliss, but not admitting any sentience or intelligence which experiences this bliss. Similarly there is a contradiction to say that it's not an annihilation but that consciousness as an aggregate doesn't continue in Parinirvana and there is no other awareness admitted which is spared annihilation. In defense you say "it's beyond all concepts", however there is no evidence to support this though or any reason to believe it's true, it is a highly convenient unfalsifiable axiom which must be accepted on faith, but when it is subjected to reason there are fundamental and unresolvable contradictions; and the Buddhist method of philosophy has long been to reject such contradictory faith-based claims as untenable, but strangely enough Buddhists don't consistently apply this position to their own metaphysical claims and instead excuse in Buddhism what they find fault in viz other religious traditions.

>If you don't like that Nirvana is transcendental state of limitless freedom from all constraint because that implies a contradiction in the system that you've created, then your system is wrong,
I haven't created any system. I am simply stating the fact that freedom that is not consciously experienced is not actually freedom, but only an empty concept with no meaning to it; just as happiness not experienced is not really happiness but an empty concept, and just as suffering not experienced is not really suffering but an empty concept.

>Nagarjuna
Nagarjuna in the MMK dismisses other schools by purporting to find contradictions in them. I have pointed out a contradiction in your explanation of Parinirvana that you are unable to answer except by attacking me and by saying it's unexplainable and so by the standard of the thinker that you yourself recommended Buddhism should be dismissed.

>>15723146
>no he didn't, he became....become..he became bodhisattva
Becoming implies he originally was imperfect. He was a man. Men aren't perfect, he didn't create himself. He is subservient to his creator.

If you believe a man can make himself perfect by eastern mental gymnastics, ok, that is incoherent.
Christ didn't lift weights or meditate to *become* perfect, he is perfect by nature.

>I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you have no idea what the 5 exclusions are in Pure Land Amida Buddhism then you haven't read the sutras enough. There are 5 "sins" that Amida doesn't forgive, if you commit them you don't go to pure land, one is insulting the dharma or buddha. Google the 5 exclusions of Amida buddhism.

>Nothing is eternal.
Baseless. Truth is eternal, what is true does not become untrue. What is morally good is always morally good. 1+1 = 2 doesn't change. God doesn't change, he transcends transient phenomena. etc

>>15721170
Some princeling starved himself, rejected orthodox religion, got spooked in a forest, came out and codified a new orthodoxy.

Oversimplifying makes every idea sound dumb and helps no one.

How about you say what makes Buddhism your choice of metaphysics and start there?

>>15722673
sorry goyim, judeo-christianity will always be inferior

>>15718061
>Everyone who believes different is wrong
>And therefore ignorant and/or stupid
The makings of a fundie.

>>15718061
This thread is proof enough that religious traditions are not the answer, they may be able to inspire us towards something, but this bickering is pathetic and meaningless

>>15723195
ironically, liberal pluralists and perennialists are the worst fundies and most dogmatic. When they encounter an authentic muslim or christian they recoil and immediately get offended that they don't accept every religion as a beautiful path up the mountain like they do

>>15723194
>Your peace of mind irks me
t. John 8:44

>>15718061
>believe
No anon. We KNOW that the Son of God is more compassionate, than this Nephilim/chimera/hybrid demon worshiping faggotry.

imagine believing there's no distinction between God's Perfect Self and our created selves, made freely out of nothing by a personal God. you'll end up in hell for this blasphemy, you spiritual midgets. identification of one's self with God's self is absolutely egoic. may the heretic muslim bulls take over pajeet metaphysics, inshallah

>>15723246
based

>>15723213
That does fundies a disservice, because pluralusts really believe nothing. They entertain ideas only until the point it requires a commitment of blood or money, then they suddenly become fully secular rational materialists.

Fundies have one good quality: they will live and die by the dictum honestly, however retarded it is, and however retarded it makes them. Even if they are failures, they show what a failed experiment looks like.

Middlings OTOH demonstrate nothing. They quibble and complain and let other people take the existential risk for them....then mock them for failing. I can understand their reasons for being conservative; i just cant respect them.

>>15723249
Why would the perfect self need tiny humans to be his bootlickers?

>>15723274
He doesn't need anything. why would you think the Perfect Being needs something? creation was an act of freedom, not necessity. this isn't hard to grasp

>>15723261
What do you define as fundie and conservative and what mistakes do you see in their principles? I'm not sure where you're coming from.

>>15723182
>Becoming implies he originally was imperfect. He was a man. Men aren't perfect, he didn't create himself. He is subservient to his creator.
We could go into the bigbrain "You're already Nirvanaing, you're just also samsaraing, there's no dust to wipe off the mirror, no mirror can be found, just become instantly enlightened bro", stuff, but given that you're ignorant about the basics that'd just make you more confused.

To demonstrate:
>If you believe a man can make himself perfect
You're already perfect. Buddhism is about coming to terms with that.

You're also going to have to be more specific about the "Five Exclusions", because that's not a thing. I googled (and yandexed) that term, and nothing's coming up. If you're referring to the Five Hindrances (Sensory Desire, Ill-Will, Sloth, Restlessness, Doubt) then no, these are just five things that get in the way of the Buddhist path. If you're referring to the end part of Amitabha's "Primal Vow", where he talks about the Five Great Offenses of
>intentionally killing your father
>intentionally killing your mother
>killing a fully enlightened being
>killing a Buddha
>creating a schism in the Sangha
Then no, you also are wrong, there's nothing in there about badmouthing the (or a) Buddha. There's nothing in there about lying. These grave offenses also only apply in this life, so you could in theory just die and reincarnate (you have to spend time in hell, these five crimes guarantee that) and say Amida Buddha's name ten times and be secure.

>>15723274
He wanted to be known. He doesn't need us, we need him. Any human who doesn't relate to his creator accordingly isn't being objective with himself.

Like a man walking around thinking he has no parents and just appeared out of nowhere.

>>15723213
Loool they want an authentic Maumau.

It's "beautiful" to ritualistically eat the flesh of your foes and paint yourself in blood.

They only go
>All religions are beautiful
>All are true for a given value of true
because that seems to let them off the hook of choosing which religion is best.

Buddhism calls them ignorant; Abrahamics call them sinners. They dont want that, cant begin to admit it, so they dodge it by not choosing at all.

>>15723286
I should add, here's the entire Primal Vow:
>If, when I attain Buddhahood, sentient beings in the lands of the ten quarters who sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to me, desire to be born in my land, and call my Name, even ten times, should not be born there, may I not attain perfect Enlightenment. Excluded, however, are those who commit the five gravest offences and abuse the right Dharma
"Abuse the right Dharma" means "commit the Five Gravest Offenses".

>>15723286
>You're already perfect. Buddhism is about coming to terms with that.
Almost no school of buddhism teaches that, that's a peculair advaita vedanta idea that creeped into some zen schools and gained traction in the West. If you go to traditional buddhist countries and talk to the monks, whether they are tibetan, thai, cambodian, chinese, none will be teaching that you are already perfect. You might find that being taught ironically in some Zen schools, maybe. It's definitely not the orthodox position.

>You're also going to have to be more specific about the "Five Exclusions", because that's not a thing
The thread is talking about Amida buddhism. You aren't familiar with it? You haven't read the vows he made and how he made exclusions for those 5 things. What is an exclusion??

>>15723291
>Any human who doesn't relate to his creator accordingly
According to the Bible? The Pope? All of this just smells like bullshit through and through

>>15723274
Whatever do you mean?

Everytime in the bible an angel of God appears to Jews, or Jesus appears to believers, they always start with "fear not..."

This idea of God wanting bootlickers is a caricature.

>>15723274
>loving the Source of all goodness, the Perfect Being, is bootlicking
you don't get it

>>15723309
Each human should be interested in seeking God since he has made himself known by his creation, designs and power.

"For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.…" Romans 1:19


Start reading the bible, if you don't seek, how will you understand?

>>15723285
I am talking about commitment to a faith (secular or not) without very hard inspection and introspection when i say fundie.

When i say conservative, i refer to their attitude to risks. In this case, the risk of losing a unfettered "godless" lifestyle. In christian terms, they really do love (their enjoyment of) the world more than God (and the response He requires).

Sorry if i lost you.

>>15723306
>Almost no school of buddhism teaches that
Yes they do. They all do. That's the entire point of Emptiness (Sunyata). If they don't teach that, they're not Buddhist, so who cares? There is no intrinsic Self to be imperfect. This is directly from the Buddha, you can find this in the Pali Canon. This has been the Orthodox Buddhist position since the Buddha himself was walking the earth.

>You haven't read the vows he made and how he made exclusions for those 5 things. What is an exclusion??
Yes, I did. The exclusion is for those who commit the Five Great Offenses, stated in >>15723286. After spending time in hell to make up for the offense, he'll take you in (okay it won't be "you", but there isn't a "you" now anyways, which again is just casting pearls before swine because you don't get Emptiness AKA Sunyata). Your claim that people who slander the Buddha are fucked forever is wrong, because slandering the Buddha isn't something Amitabha will exclude you for, and it's not forever. Cite the Sutta where this is said you disagree.

Before you go digging through texts you've never read, I'd recommend you start with either What the Buddha Taught, or In the Buddha's Words. Follow that up with Red Pine's Heart Sutra. They're all simple, short, and explain the basics, which it's pretty clear you need explained. The first two are Theravada, and the third is Mahayana. I feel this combination works well, as it gives you an introduction to both.

>>15723306
>Almost no school of buddhism teaches that
It's one of the central ideas of Dzogchen teachings

>>15723338
>they really do love (their enjoyment of) the world more than God (and the response He requires).
A fundie is a religious person who loves the world more than God? Not sure I follow your leap here.

Fundie would imply someone who follows his religions' fundamentals as expressed by his religion, without compromise for the changes of the time.

>>15721470
Yes. Would you rather have him be bald and slint-eyed? Or blond and with a long beard?

>>15723309
>pope
seriously?
If you actually read the Bible you would know that the Catholic Church is corrupt and pagan to its bones. And part of their duty is to keep people away from the truth of scripture. Another part is to have people follow literally the direct opposite of Christianity.

>>15723339
>Your claim that people who slander the Buddha are fucked forever is wrong, because slandering the Buddha isn't something Amitabha will exclude you for, and it's not forever.

In Amida buddhism no one is perfect, in fact the whole world is so "fallen" and "hopeless" that practicing the 8 fold path is useless, you have to put faith in Amida buddha to be saved. Amida made his vow to save such and such people, but there are the 5 exclusions. So if you're excluded, you're excluded indefinitely, there's no verse that talks about second chances.

>>15723360
>evangelical americanism

>>15723373
not him but
>what is orthodoxy

>>15723373
Just another head of the same hydra.

>>15723368
This is completely counter to Orthodox Buddhism, and indeed Orthodox Pure Land. You're absolutely right, that certain schools did historically hold that position, but those schools were held as heretical by other schools, within Buddhism as a whole and within Pure Land Buddhism. The Orthodox Pure Land position is that spending time in hell makes up for these Five Grave Offenses.

Anyone who believes what you're saying is simply not a Buddhist, because they're not holding to Emptiness AKA Sunyata AKA dependent origination. It's just that simple, dude.

>>15723381
Pure Land Buddhism is heterodox. Amida buddhism is even more heterodox.
Zen buddhism is heterodox. Zen buddhism that teaches (you are perfect already!) is even more heterodox.

Orthodox Buddhism is theravada stuff, see Thailand and Cambodia. Their monks and priests don't teach you that you're already perfect, they say you are ignorant as fuck and you need to do X, Y, Z to fix it.

>>15723378
are you actually an orthodox? or a protestant/evangelical infatuated with the orthodox church? (there's a an amiable relationship between the two, interestingly enough... all enemies of the Church conform to a single group in the end)

>catholic church is pagan
>palamist orthodoxy is orthodox

>>15723399
I'm agnostic.

>>15723285
I am not qualified to pass judgment on their principles, so i go out of my way not to until i've read at least the core text and the wiki.

With christian fundies, esp the ones that politicise their christianity, i can cite text that goes against them.

>Moab is your washpot oh Israel
This means that the prochoice people, antiprayer in schools, evolution getting mainstream, all these are hardships meant to refine believers. Historically Moab oppressed israel for a long time and there was no possibility of winning a war; so God's take is, these enemies are supposed to hammer you into shape.

>We should judge the believers
>Let God judge the ones outside
This means, all sex predators within the church should be castigated even by the church. At the same time, the sodomites outside the church should not be picketed or protested against or stoned or what else. Westboro deleted that memo without reading.

>Let the good continue to be good
>Let the evil continue to be evil
>God has made the wicked for destruction
This basically works out to: mind your own business, Christian. Don't start fights, dont make abortion clinic staff worried, dont nothing. Mind your own shit, the Lord is coming soon.

All of this should go down with everyone. The problem is, the fundies are not reading their own text, and the antitheists are reading the wrong bits of it (stoning virgins, keeping slaves, instead of this more pertinent stuff about civil conduct.)

>>15723360
The Bible doesn't say anything explicit about Catholicism, Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy.

>>15723405
well let it be known that the catholic church is more orthodox than the orthodox church. palamism is simply wrong as well as their rejection of papal primacy and filioque

>>15723411
in matthew 16:18 jesus creates the catholic church on peter

>>15723411
Exactly. The Bible tells you to follow Christ, that you are the church, your body is the temple that houses the Holy Spirit. The only medium you need between yourself and your Creator, is Christ himself.

>>15723422
Shut up heretic.

>>15723423
>who wrote the gospels and the epistles
>what is matthew 16:18
>who recognized the biblical canon
it was the church that wrote and recognized the canon

>>15723432

>>15723436
take your meds schizo evangelical. how about you study church history

>>15723432
>it was the church that wrote and recognized the canon
lol they wrote what?

>>15723410
So to you a fundie is a Christian who expresses and fights for his beliefs in the public sphere? And that's bad? A Christian should just be a hermit pacifist? Lol. No that's not biblically or historically accurate.

The apostles and Jesus went around telling people to repent and flee from their sins. Jesus flipped the tables of the money lenders and whipped the jewish merchants for sacrilege.

Matthew 28:19-20 commands Christians to preach their faith far and wide, to convert, to baptize, and change people's minds.

The moral law was never abrogated, murder, rape, incest, homosexuality, theft, adultry, all deserve punishments and a Christian is supposed to make that clear and not allow evil to take root of society.
Christians are supposed to be a light in the darkness, hiding in obscurity and remaining silent isn't an option.

>>15723449
yes. oral tradition preceded written tradition. the church is the tradition.

>>15723444
The church is corrupt and overrun by Jesuits. How about you study its history.

>>15723455
Oral tradition was basically the gospel. Not the innovations of the RCC.

There was no mandatory priestly celibacy for 1000 years, but the RCC decided to invent their own óral tradition. Bizarre. The reformation was basically necessary.

THe orthodox didn't have one because the stuck to 7th century teachings. The RCC went too far. Don't blame prots for fleeing a corrupt church.

>>15723455
Your body is the church anon. The temple that houses the Holy Spirit. Stop blaspheming. Repent and keep away from false prophets.

1 Corinthians 3:16

>>15723471
why did jesus give the apostles the power to forgive and retain the sins of the lay people then? can you forgive your own sins?

>>15723506
No one but God can forgive. Which He never did. Jesus died for our sins. The price has been paid in blood. Our sins are not forgiven, they have been paid for. This is why Jesus is our "savior". Otherwise nobody can into the kingdom of heaven.

>>15723506
Forgiveness is free grace.
While Christ enjoins the Apostles to forgive sins, he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his name, to proclaim the forgiveness of sins, that through their agency he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers. [208]

But it may be asked, Since he appoints them to be only the witnesses or heralds of this blessing, and not the authors of it, why does he extol their power in such lofty terms? I reply, he did so in order to confirm their faith. Nothing is of more importance to us, than to be able to believe firmly, that our sins do not come into remembrance before God. Zacharias, in his song, calls it the knowledge of salvation, (Luke 1:77;) and, since God employs the testimony of men to prove it, consciences will never yield to it, unless they perceive God himself speaking in their person. Paul accordingly says,

We exhort you to be reconciled to God, as if Christ besought you by us, (2 Corinthians 5:20.)

We now see the reason why Christ employs such magnificent terms, to commend and adorn that ministry which he bestows and enjoins on the Apostles. It is, that believers may be fully convinced, that what they hear concerning the forgiveness of sins is ratified, and may not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven. And the Church daily receives the most abundant benefit from this doctrine, when it perceives that her pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation, and that it must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust.

>>15723524
>>15723549
>No one but God can forgive.
yes but the priest receives this power from God. Jesus explicitly said:
>If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

if everyone were the church they would have the power to forgive their own sins. stop corrupting the scripture with your head canon. your mental gymnastics about forgiveness that was developed 500 years ago do not change christ gave sacramental powers to the apostles who were the shepherds of the church

>>15723450
>Hermit pacifist
Not a hermit, just unconcerned with the world.

Pacifist, definitely. Not very doable, i admit, but pacifism is the ideal.

>Turn your cheek
>Give your coat
>March two miles


You are free to believe what you will, and to order your life by your beliefs. Nowhere does this require fighting, literally or metaphorically.

Also, Kampf and Jihad both mean Struggle; the historical result of those concepts is unpleasant. Religious people should avoid fighting at all costs, even at their death.

By all means proselytise. But if people reject your message:
>Do not call fire on the ones that dont accept Me; you do not know what spirit you are of

Jesus did use a whip and he did drive the money changers out. But it does not say he actually whipped them. Check it out. "He made a whip of rope and drove them out". Doesnt say he actually beat them; he might be firing warning shots, in our modern parlance. Also, he chided peter about using the sword, and he healed the injured; this speaks pacifism.


You said: the christian is supposed to make sure that all sin (homosexuality et al) are punishable by God. I agree.

But then you say the christian must change society. No sir, he need not. I have read no obligation in the bible for the christian to reform the society; his responsibility is only the stewardship of the church and ministry of the gospel. Please tell me if you have; i will look.
My take is:
>you are in the world but not of the world
>Your heart is where your treasure is: in heaven

I am not the one who is supposed to bring down to earth the Heavenly Jerusalem; Jesus is, per Revelation.

>>15723573
*Make **known** that all sin is punishable...

>>15723570
Blasphemy!

>>15723570
Neither the Catholics nor Orthodox teach that ultimately a priest forgives your sin, they might request God on your behalf.

>>15723573
To add about pacifism:

Rom 12:18

"If at all possible" means i try 100% not to punch even the people who deserve to be shot.

>>15723605
yes, the priest is a vessel for God's power.
>>15723603
read st justin martyr's first apology

>>15723621
read the BIBLE

>>15723633
you are a sad individual. will you keep posting low quality evangelical images? where in the bible does it support sola scriptura? who do you think recognized the canon of your bible in the COUNCIL OF ROME?

>>15723573
>Also, Kampf and Jihad both mean Struggle;
did you just repeat a cringe meme you saw on twitter? lmao. Is german supposed to be spooky? I saw that the other day. Jihad is based when done for God, Crusade, Struggle are fine.
Inaction is a form of violence, if a husband doesn't protect his wife & children from violence he does not really love them.

>he made a whip and turned tables but didn't whip them
Even if he didn't whip them, his example is totally contrary to your position. Since he's scaring away merchants for religious reasons and defiling a temple with mundane money matters. So don't be surprised when you see Christians protesting child sacrifice hospitals.

>You said: the christian is supposed to make sure that all sin (homosexuality et al) are punishable by God. I agree.
If a society suddenly allows rape of grandmas because of some wacky empirical reason it's a duty of Christians to fight against that law and change it. We aren't supposed to condone evil silently. THat's wicked.

>>15723393
You're wrong, and the Theravada would disagree. It's really that simple.

Read the books outlined in >>15723339. I can elaborate why you're wrong, if you would like.

>>15719898
>OP posts a dialectic
>guy responds with a dialectic you can't accept

yeah, he must not know anything

>>15723669
I live in Cambodia and Thailand lmao
Ive read enough books and actually seen what they teach

>>15723450
I am a bad tempered person and have lots of rages.

I identify strongly with the impulse to call out and fight fuckery wherever i see it. The crusader meme appeals to me very much.

All that said, the bible does not agree with my approach, and i have no desire to pretend it does.

Is this the schizo thread?

>>15723684
schizos think they came from fish and the fish ultimately came from nothing for no reason, mostly by chance

>>15723691
Awesome sauce pastor Jim

>>15723676
And my dad works at Nintendo.

>>15723681
we all must deal with our temperaments. remember when st john and st james asked if they should cast fire upon a city?

>>15723642

>>15723707
not everyone here is 19 and living in their mom's basement

>>15723642
Jesuit filth does not get to decide what is inspired scripture and what isn't.

>>15723657
I didnt repeat a meme; i understood for myself. "Struggle" as a concept is a justification for violence to the level of war.

>Women and children undefended
This is a specific and limited use of violence; "struggle" is nonspecific, extending the license to do violence to every area of life and interaction. Jesus did no such thing: even when he debated, it was because his detractors challenged him in the middle of his sermons. He did not actively go out to look for instances to "struggle".

>Jesus used a whip in temple
> so abortion protestors can protest.
I do not think so. Jesus chased out the money changers because they were crowding out the outercourt of the temple, where nonjews can pray to God. "My father's house is a house of prayer for all nations; you have made IT a den of thieves". When christians protest clinics: a) it is not a temple or church of God and b) it is not preventing nonbelievers from seeking God. The israelites were rebuked for child sacrifice by God, yes, but the rebuke is on them, not on the heathen. So the jew or christian cannot commit abortion; but if a midianite did it, that's really the midianite's business.

>Rape of grandmas
Oy. Must you?
I never said condone; i agreed with you saying that christians should call sin as sin. But to force nonbelievers to Act Correct is not our responsibility; only the assembly of believers is purview to the policing and governance by believers.

Do stop making fun of me for not thinking the same as you.

I believe you are much better than this.

>>15723669
Who gives a fuck about Theravada opinion on pure land?

>>15723713
Yeah i know. I cited it previously.

:)

>>15723657
Jihad may be fine for the muslim; it is a concept in the Koran.

Struggle is fine for the Nazi; it is the logical conclusion of race purity and superiority.

There is no equivalent in Christianity. The Crusades were a failure, and quite a bad one; Deus non Vult, IOW. To be quite fair, a big part of why it started was because Jihad had driven out the christian occupants of the holy land; the HRE decided to stop turning the other cheek for once. On that account i think it was more a last ditch gamble to keep some realestate in the holy land than an actual scriptural doctrine.

Correct me if i'm wrong of course.

>>15723769
To add:

If christian really wanted to fight abortion clinics, they should do what Teresa did: build a little shack manned by dedicated volunteers, saying "give us your unwanted".

If christians will picket, why not do a Teresa? I think it is because it requires lots of blood and money; a picket sign is five hours and $2, much more affordable.

>>15723899
Guilttripping the sinner is cheap and selfrighteous. It does nothing but make the protestor feel good and the sinner feel bad and/or rebellious. There is no good outcome.

>>15723899
>hey should do what Teresa did: build a little shack manned by dedicated volunteers, saying "give us your unwanted".
they do that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFWaEawXJ_0

>>15723980
That is very good.

I applaud it sincerely.

Even unbelievers can say like Pilate
>I find no fault in them

Yes, this should be a meme.

>>15723867
read OT
all the moral laws are valid and applicable so is just war.
only thing fulfilled were sacrificial, ceremonial, dietary laws, Jesus's sacrifice didn't undo morality and our duty to each other to create some sense of order and justice in the material realm.

From my experience on this website, christians mostly don't even fucking know what their own religion is about

>>15724024
Just a heads up but what you're advocating is literal heresy, and is punishable by death and eternal damnation, and no orthodox Christian would agree with you.

>>15724024
I have read OT, and repeatedly. Favorites Kings and Ezekiel.

>All the moral laws are valid
Yes
>And applicable
Not exactly. Jesus said "i not here to do away with the law, i have fulfilled the law" and "we are no longer under the law, but under grace." The law of moses is quite useless for the christian, because it only prevents evil by recommending oubishments, whereas the christian is supposed to be ruled by love. In love is every law fulfilled; Jesus said "love god and your neighbor, for on these two pegs hangs the law of moses". Soif i always act in love, i surpass the requirements of the mosaic law even if i dont know them.

>Just war
A very abused idea; every powermonger and belligerent faction will label his war a just war, which cannot possibly be true. It is better not to have it, if possible.

Here's the OT instances of just war:
1) God commands Joshua to lead israel into canaan and kill the giant nations; loot is given to God
2) God commands Saul to kill the Amalekites (he took bribes to spare the Amalek King); loot was supposed to be given to God
3) The rebuilders of the temple wear swords while they worked with permission from King Darius
4) The jews were granted permission to carry weapons in self defense against the arabs and philistines who wanted to take advantage of the edict of haman to kill jews; no looting was done

So i can *barely* accept a christian doing war IF:
1)God HIMSELF ordered it, and i require proof on the level of prophet; i require someone with the stature of Moses or Elijah/shah to show up
2)no loot is taken except to be sacrificed to God; war for oil is unjust
3) purely for self defense; no preemptive retribution.

>>15724024
>Attempt to create order and justice in the material realm
Two of Jesus disciples lamented that He went to the cross; "we thought he would be the one to liberate israel."

You are doing the same thing: you think God's mission is to correct social injustice, inequity, all of that. But that is not God's mission: His goal is it to save Man from Sin. These are entirely different.

>>15724098
Saint Justinian (Emperor) signed a law in place that punished unrepentant homosexuality with death. In Justinian's Code, promulgated in 529, persons who engaged in homosexual sex were to be executed, although those who were repentant could be spared.

Definitely biblical and historical precedent for capital punishment and outlawing sins like murder, rape, homosex, etc

>>15724191
""but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. "

>>15724046
They have the Cliffnotes, but /lit/ wants to start with the Greeks, and then the whole library of apologetics.

It's not fair really.

>>15724203
Sure.

That doesn't mean that christians should go around tying millstones around the necks of antitheists.

The exact wording is "better for him to get millstoned", not "we should do the millstoning."

Are you trying to be horrific?

You are succeeding.

>>15724138
The moral law doesn't get "fulfilled" like the sacrificial law. THe moral law is eternal. What Christ meant is that all the animal sacrifices and circumcisions and atonements people were doing to cleanse there sins with ceremonies had been fulfilled.

But the moral law is eternal. That doesn't only mean RIGHTS but also duties. Children have duties to parents, the state has duties to its people (protect the people, punish criminals, etc), people have a duty to the state (pay caesar) A good state will be in line with Christian values and implement biblical moral law in it's legal system.

This radical idea that church should be completely separate from public life and remain silent and pacified is just modernist liberal nonsense. The church and state should be working together, complimentary, to create the best Christian society possible. Not some atheist secular dystopia full of child sacrifice and rioting.

>>15724235
Christianity is a barbaric religion that spreads hysteria and creates theological conflicts that are unresolvable, the only acceptable Christianity is liberal protestantism

>>15724235
Agree first para.

Agree with first sentence second para.

The idea that the church should work with the state for social and national objectives to make a Christian state is not doable. Lot, to use a biblical example, sat at the gates of sodom, meaning he was a civil official of that city. The result: "he was tormented in his righteous soul" and the sodomites said "do you think you rule over us, foreigner?" Which is precisely what is happening when people with Christian agendas try to make them happen politically like in america.

>Being separate from the secular state
>Being passive
>Is modernist liberal nonsense
I object to being called a modernist and a liberal. I have substantiated my position by pulling bible, and i have addressed your objections the same way.

If you wish to continue to crusade (i dont know how else to put it), i cannot dissuade you. I can only point out what i have read in the bible has made no provision for such activities or goals.

>>15724191
my goal is to explain human nature. the only thing a man can be saved from is stupidity, egoism. stupidity makes people think that Universe is somehow evil, unfair, that they are somehow special. humans victimize themselves with morality and demand rewards. narcissism. no, every atom in Universe was, is and always will be in the proper place, if anything happened it happened for a reason. people just fail, don't want to see it, afraid of truth.

>>15724349
The truth of human nature and salvation according to the bible and according to enlightenment/humanist ideas are different in premise and destination.

Trying to make the bible serve the humanist agenda is not going to work very well.

The premises of humanism and biblical religion simply do not agree. Bible states categorically "man is made in the image and likeness of God", whereas you say "no human person is special". The bible says Man is enslaved to sin and Man is cursed; humanists say there is merely ignorance and man is free. These two positions cannot be the made the same without great violence to language and meaning.

>>15724437
At the most basic level, the bible serves God, but humanism serves Man.

"No one can have two masters, he will love one and hate the other." Says Jesus.

On the same note i put forward that one cannot strictly follow the bible and the humanist manifesto. Different masters.

>>15724289

Be fair.
Any body of ideas can be simplified to the level of militant populism and used to mobilize mobs for (secret) cynical objectives.

Unscrupulous leaders and credulous followers are a bad combination everywhere.

>>15722918
Sentimentalism is very different from the inevitable feelings which the numen awakes in a person experiencing it. If you think numinous experiences don't arouse one's senses as an analogous response to the experience of this mysterium your understanding of religions and their common element is very superficial.

>>15723339
>There is no Self to be imperfect
you have no idea about what you're talking, this is why people who corrupt buddhism are called nihilists; you don't know what buddhism is.

>>15720571
>We are free to embrace being without loss, desire without dissatisfaction, suffering without fear.
aka Christianity must be true because it makes me feel better

>>15724996
>nihilism must be true because then there’d be nothing to feel bad about

>>15721466
The Book of Job was written in the 6th century

>>15724725
Are you upset because I used "There is no Self" instead of "No Self can be found"? Skillful Means, we're talking about someone who doesn't even understand the basics. For fuck's sake, I had to explain the Five Precepts to him.

>>15725043
You can only have Nihilism BECAUSE you believe in an immortal, impermanent, unconditioned Self. If you accept that there are no Selfs, then you cannot have Nihilism. The entire construction of Nihilism requires you to believe Selfs are real, but get upset when you can't find one. This is why crises of faith occur, because you inevitably realize that you can't find that Self (and you will, everyone who believes in eternal Selfs does) you get scared and realize that means that one day, you'll die.

>>15720888
>autistic definition of God that is made to rule out any God he doesn't like
Not disproved, Evil isn't real, read Leibniz

>>15722816
Most of the non-Christian posters have been respectful yet critical. The more dogmatic Christian anons have been quite the opposite, acting irrationally and immature but hiding it behind a thin veil of intellectualism

>>15724437
every human is just like any atom is governed by laws. that is, everyone deserves what he has, and must cope with it.

yes, humans are "mirrors", like a leaf made in image of the tree, "father". man is subject to the original sin, a fake mind that makes him larp. internal silence can break it. without it humans would be still monkeys on trees, no music, no art, no lessons to learn. "cursed". sin is just a motivator for biorobot. there's no morality in it from the perspective of the Creator. think of life as a Game, rules exist within the game, outside the game no rules, and it is rules that make it a game.

there's no true freedom, man is slave to reality and to higher consciousness. we are all toys, puppets, anal slaves in hand of God, yet we have some will, and it is his Will. this is paradox only to unenlightened.

that is, every nanosecond of his life hitler did absolutely nothing wrong. from his perspective he was absolutely right, and from Gods perspective he was perfect, perfect hitler, perfect Role in Theater of Life. good, bad, evil, wrong, these all just thoughts, judgements, function of a body, ego, they help to survive, help to play the game. but once you logout you no longer care about it. it was just a journey, just a dream, one of many.

>>15723280
Why'd he do it? Just cause?

>>15725111
not one of the guys you've been talking to, but I've always had the question: If there is no self, what is it that is reincarnated/has karma accumulate to it?

>>15723684
this thread deteriorated really quickly

>>15725202
A "Self" (capital S) is an unconditioned, eternal, unchanging, permanent thing. It's a discrete packet that cannot be broken down anymore than it already is. A Self exists because of itself and only because of itself, nothing made it exist. The proper term is that "A Self cannot be found", not that it doesn't exist (Buddhist metaphysics deny the possibility of "nothing" existing, precisely because there are no Selfs). This state of having no Self is Emptiness AKA Dependent Origination AKA being Conditional AKA Sunyata. This does NOT mean that things don't exist, it just means that they exist because of other things, and can broken down into more things (that exist because of other things). Tables are real, they're just lumps of stuff that we call "tables", there is no one atom that makes a table a table. Buddhism also denies the possibility of the ethereal Realm of the Forms (this realm has to be beyond time in Platonism because if it wasn't, then the forms couldn't be eternal and permanent).

So you are real, but there is no "You". Thus, you are a lump of stuff, some of which is Karma, among other things. Karma is just "actions". "Good" and "Bad" Karma are just arbitrary restrictions we put on Karma as humans, there is no celestial being setting out which kind of Karma an action generates (as is in Hinduism), nor is Karma a physical thing (as in Jainism). Karma is just cause and effect. There's two uses of "Rebirth" ("reincarnation" is technically a misnomer, as no Self to reincarnate can be found, but bits of you go on to become part of something else), both are used by the Buddha in the Pali Canon and are held as doctrinal. The first is the simple continuity of life, wherein your prior self (note the little s!) put your current self where it is, and your current self makes your future self. Your karma put you where you are, and you determine the karma that will take you where you go. So, for example, if you were to impregnate a woman and have a child, some part of you is now in that child. This is one view of rebirth.

The second is the "after this-lump-we-call-I dies" style rebirth.

>>15718061

Yes.

>>15725320
So, what holds the Karma? Nothing does, there's no Self to hold it. Rather, the karma, the actions, the cause and effect, has resulted in certain things, and those things play out. Again, Karma isn't "A thing" like in Jainism and Hinduism, we Anglophones have been saddled with this problem. You don't "have" karma, Karma is almost something you "do". So, nothing has karma accumulate to it, because Karma doesn't accumulate (Merit is often viewed as accumulating, but Merit is something a little different).

But then what gets reborn? Your everything. Your body is chewed up by worms, plants, mushrooms, and is reborn in them. Your ghosty bits have a long drawn out process that happens after death, too. Buddhism doesn't deny souls (little s!), ghosty bits inside the body that are composite and non-eternal, or chakras, or chi, or ~energies~, or whatever. The Bardo Thodol is a book that teaches you how you're supposed to guide your ghosty-bits through Limbo before your ghosty bits fall apart to be reborn.

But what about the ego? No ego can be found. The mind, the conscious process, is composite as well. So, it too falls apart. Westerners reject the idea of mind-bits continuing after death because of Western beliefs that the mind is purely in the brain, but there's no reason, say, memories can't exist after death (somehow).

>>15725390
This is how something like memories of past lives works: you have the memories of someone else in your head, because you picked them up (again, somehow). You as a Westerner believe this with DNA, you literally have bits of your parents in you, and who the fuck knows where all of your atoms have been. It's entirely possible for someone to die, their liver rots, and all of those atoms go on to become someone else's liver.

I'm using physical examples of this because Westerners, again, with Western views of minds and how thought works (which are not aligned with neuroscience), reject the idea of something like "your love of cheese" continuing on after death, because mental things (in the Western view) are purely within the mind. But, to other people who have different views of thought, something like that continuing on after death is perfectly reasonable.

It's worth noting that the Buddhist definition of "a person" thus means that a person can continue on after death in strange ways. Julius Caesar is, in many sense, still "alive". Likewise, another consequence of this is that you can be reborn as multiple people, or even across time. Again, I'm using physical examples because Westerners tend to handwave away the sort of notions of spirit and energy that are more common in the East for explanatory purposes.

So, if there no Self, what is reborn? The lump that you call "you", and all that is combined together to make up "you". Remember, the mind and all of its processes are composite.

>>15725111
>if you become a nihilist then there is no nihilism
you are a proud retard

>>15725320
>>15725390
Thanks for the in-depth response, I still don't quite get it but I like to tackle stuff like this and contemplate it for a while.

>>15725474
In Hinduism, "good Karma" takes you to higher states with each rebirth (because in Hinduism there IS a Self), and "bad karma" takes you to lower states with each rebirth. Thus, Good Karma could make you rebirth as a deity! But... the purpose of Buddhism is Nirvana, not apotheosis, so clearly there's a problem there, with the term "Good karma". Thus, the term "Merit" is used. Merit (and Demerit, by proxy) is karma that takes you closer to the goal of enlightenment. So, Merit might include actions that take you away from being reborn as a deity. But, it'll also take you away from being reborn as a snake or in a hell.

>>15725476
Buddhism does result in Nihilism. Namely, Emptiness does not mean that there is no such thing as objective truth, or of objective reality. I'll restate your problem: You're trying to find a Self to point to and say "This here means I get to live forever! I can use this thing as an axis to find meaning!". In doing so, you miss actual meaning, and actual objective truth, because you haven't found a Self. When you lose it, you get sad, because you no longer have a thing to point at and get meaning from. You're orienting your life around a definition in the dictionary, and then getting upset when Merriam-Webster puts out a new edition with a different definition.

You can only have Nihilism when you say that nothing can exist, which you can only have if you say that something can be Eternal. But for something to be Eternal, it has to be nothing. You're the Nihilist, not me, because you're the one saying Nothing is.

Accept it, dude. Change is. If something can't change, you can't interact with it, so you can't use it to live forever anyways.

>>15718451
They're the same thing though, light without darkness is nothing at all.

>>15725556
Emptiness, Void, Nothingness, all these are used to express the utter transcendence of the mysterium, the Wholly Other. It is not the void and nothingness from which all things sprouted. The latter ones are a reality ever present, hovering our fully manifested world. The mistake is thinking that this world surrounded by its own nothingness is completely separated from that Reality, from Its energies. There is no complete scission, separation is not a thing, this is why buddhists say you are already ''nirvana-ing'', Hindus say Tat Tvam Asi, Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21. Ancient Egyptians and Platonists knew that our world was like an initiation of the Mysteries. All the world teems with tokens. I don't know why you concluded that I am negating change. I am merely saying that change and its counterpart are in harmony, like Being and Non-Being, eternity and the created world. To limit God, Nirvana, the One, Self, to any of these distinctions is to distort it, but worse is to deny the reality and the symbols of our manifested universe.

>>15719075
This is why i think Jesus has a much more powerful story.

>>15722847
*Tips fedora*

>>15719075

this is a good post not because i agree with it, but because at least you have the balls to accept that both of them were correct for whatever reason. most christians here are too feeble minded to accept buddhist doctrine as logical and true

>>15722847
>implying science and law aren't fantasies
to imagine that we grasp any semblance of reality in knowing is pure delusion, and law is literally made up rules by people so that we don't go gorilla mode on each other

>>15725556
Buddhism also teaches that good karma takes you to a higher realm and bad karma to a lower realm. And conversely Hinduism teaches moksha, an escape from rebirth just like Nirvana. They are both describing the same thing with different terminology and ontology.

>>15725128
Is mockery, even without abuse, to be considered respectful?

/lit/ antitheists are less likely to call theists/metaphysicists racial or ablist epithets, yes. But just in this thread it is implied that i am either of unsound mind or at significant intellectual disadvantage, even before we reach the end of the discussion.

It is ungallant at the least.

>>15726261
Most X will have a wrong concept of Y just on the virtue that Y is not native to their beliefs.

That is understandable.

Only when a professor of X has a conception of X that that is indefensible is it without excuse.

>>15727490
I'm sure you can find it in your heart to forgive us.

>>15722897
Church doctrine is not Christ's word. Read the bible for what it is and eschew the Church. Christianity in its essence is pure but its practices and dogma standardized by the Church (and protestants also) have almost completely corrupted/subverted over the millennia.

>>15727490
The one's who have been mocking haven't said anything of substance and should be discounted. I just think you are incorrect and have a misunderstanding. It's not some insult, it's what happens in a debate about ideas. Just because someone thinks you are incorrect is not an assault on your mental capacities. People of intellect can be wrong. Some anons have expressed agitation but that is because, to be frank, the same mis-conceptions have been repeated over and over and many good arguments have gone ignored. There has also been a lot of blatant mudslinging (idk if you're the one who's done it so I won't accuse you) and mockery on the part of the Christian posters. Saying that Buddha was a "coward" and was "fleeing" from the world is mockery, saying someone is wrong is not.

>>15727820
>>15725128
i'm a different anon, but have you read the fricking thread? holy shit just look at what anticrhstian posters posted. i even tried to argue rationally and sicerely with one of them and the guy just behaved like an animal spouting the same things over and over again.

>>15721568
The sacrifice of the stallion is not a barbaric meaningless act. It's not only to represent Prajapati. It's the appex of the Secular Power of a claimant of the title of Cakravarti (King of the World). The stallion was meant to be released to run as it pleases anywhere. The kingsmen would scort the stallion for one year and as far as possible. This act was to prove that all the land on Earth were from the King. After one year, the stallion would be sacrificed to serve as proof for most sacred contact that sealed the knowledge and legitimacy from the mortal Cakravarti over the world with the consent of the immortal Prajapati.

>>15728055
I know there is significance, anon. My point is that making sex with a dead horse and human sacrifice (ashvamedha and purushavedha) are kinda wicked, don’t you think?

>>15722863
Consciousness is explained as not being an entity, but instead as an illusion made as it's part of the five aggregates (Skandhas).

>>15718451
Indeed it would be. But, you must understand, there is no such thing as eternal bliss. After a long, wonderful, pleasurable, creative, and meaningful life in heaven; you will still die, and if ever you abused someone, you will fall from the heavens to be reborn into a world of suffering once again. Nothing is permanent.

>>15728097
It's wicked. There is a clear opposition from buddhism and jainism regarding such acts, making them not orthodox and, as such, against the principles of vedic brahmanism.

>>15727876
The antichristian guy who just spammed stupid shit is just one guy though. That's why I said most were respectful. And to be fair I'm sure most of the Christian posters were being fair and honest too. The thread fell apart really quickly though and god filled with shitposting so it's kinda hard to tell

>>15723410
>>15723573
>>15723769
>>15724098

>>15728269
The alternative to liberal Christianity is going back to the times when Christians killed each other over religious hysteria. Modern Christianity is a step forward, only larpers want to drag us back to the dark ages.

>>15728282
Dragging us back to the dark ages would be better for everyone unironically
Maybe not pleasurable, but better

>>15728282
False dichotomy. The alternative to liberal (false) Christianity is simply Christianity. Cherry picking bad things Christians did in history is not an argument, every ideology [specially liberalism] has proponents who are violent and immoral.

>>15728312
>Maybe not pleasurable, but better
>Things would be worse, but it's for the best
I hate dark enlightenment faggots so much, it's pure contrarianism and pseudo intellectual larping

>>15728335
Sorry that I think some things are of more importance than immediate pleasures of the flesh
The planet is being destroyed, socially we've become fractured, the 24-hour news and media sectors have begun to drive people insane, the government is run by corrupt politicians that are either pedophiles themselves or in close contact with pedophiles
Things need to be smaller for the world not to fall apart, I'm not larping for the sake of "woah man we need Jesus and swords and crusader larp"

Liberalism in all it's forms is simply a destructive anti-human force. Look at the results of the French Revolution and Enlightenment, WW2 up to modern times. The globohomo pandemic, the destruction of the family, intense racism, eugenics and colonialism these are all liberalism in action, man being the arbiter of right and wrong and worshiping the state and economic growth above virtue and God's law. Liberalism is satanism. Whether it comes in the form of marxism or fascism, they're all systems based on relativism, materialism, and utilitarianism in some sense.

Just for the record, Buddhism isn't annihilationist as some anons have been claiming. Nibbana doesn't mean annihilating yourself

>>15728422
Buddhism doesn't use nirvana to annihilate the self, it annihilates the self by being nominalist and denying the existence of fixed essences/natures/selfs via sunyata and impermanence.
The problem of "who gets reincarnated?" or "who is the one who suffers?" exist not because nirvana extinguishes the self, but because sunyata denies the possibility of a self within any phenomena. The whole project of buddhism is to get people to deny the nature of things and become comfortable with nihilism.

>>15728397
>Things need to be smaller for the world not to fall apart
I've never heard this rhetoric from a Christian, do also you believe in depopulation? Traditional Catholics from my experience believe in having 50 kids and spreading the notion that birth control will send you to hell.

>>15728467
I'm sure plenty of Buddhists would disagree with me, but my understanding of it isn't that the Buddha said there is no self, it's that he said there is no self with regards to the 5 aggregates. And by detaching from the 5 aggregates one extinguishes suffering (roughly speaking ofc). Therefore people often tend to think there is no self in the absolute sense.

>>15728467
The problem is that we don't actually understand the nature of things as much as we've told ourselves we do, nominalism was an advancement in human consciousness. Nominalism is also the driving force in technological innovation.

>>15728525
>nominalism was an advancement in human consciousness. Nominalism is also the driving force in technological innovation.
Quite the contrary, scientists and engineers definitely believe in universals and natures/essences, specially when it comes to physics/chem and mathematics, otherwise they couldn't analyze things abstractly and come up with universal laws to describe them.
Nominalism has more to do with how we use technology (i.e cutting off boys' dicks and turning them into women because human nature is malleable and men and women are just abstract categories) it doesn't have much to do with engineers building a bridge or rocket.

>>15728556
Correct, nominalism is brain damage.

>>15728570
>>15728556
Being an anti nominalist is midwit tier

>>15728579
Of course you can't account for universals or essences if you are a brainlet nominalist, but that's your problem. There's no good argument for it, simply a presumption of the Enlightenment along with materialism.

>>15728619
Having an absolutist attitude towards universals just breed psychosis and stagnation

>>15728623
the nominalist is absolutist, except in the wrong direction.

>>15728123
God is permanent, and so may we rightly hope to be.

>>15729380
>God is permanent
No

>>15722757

The ‘freedom from constraint’ is achieved by means of the negation of the finite in the human being. Unboundedness sans finite being belongs only to God, and to wish to be identical with God is spiritual self-annihilation for a creature, since it is impossible to attain and in the trying one must negate all that truly is. Christian salvation, rooted in the Incarnation, is fundamentally different. In the Incarnation the Unconditioned takes up the Conditioned without negating its conditionedness and in the miracle of that union conditionedness no longer alienates the conditioned from the Unconditioned, but unites them. By participating in the incarnation, by taking up common life with Christ, we realise that what is not real and enduring in itself, is real and enduring in relation to God, and it is perfectible as such by responding to the grace God offers. The germ of this is contained in Genesis: finitude is not to be left behind, but redeemed and affirmed as Good. The Incarnation and the resurrection unto eternal life is the only possible culmination of that promise for us finite beings.

The buddhist denial of selves- the refusal to identify with the finite perishing self and its troubles, as if denying such selves really exist could make it go away- is pure nihilism. And as a nihilism, it solves nothing pertaining to the real human being.

>>15718061
Literally who

>>15727560
I'm not even offended, so there's nothing to forgive. But, I dispute the claim that the a(nti)theist camp generally enters into arguments with a spirit of fair play,

>>15727820
The anon did not call me wrong, because at the point he could not (yet). But it was implied that I had lost my mind &c to believe as I do, at a time when he was not very sure what I even believed.

But no matter. I will not pursue the point.

As for the christians who go into abuse instead of apologetics, I really dont know how to correct them. They are passing judgment on things I am not very certain of (certain traditions of buddhism and the historical Buddha instead of just the Darmapada text and Heart Sutra).

On their behalf I apologize. It is a poor show to throw abuse when cornered without argument.

I say for a fact that no christian knows what Jesus thinks of Buddha exactly, or vice versa. Our Lord and their Teacher's opinions must have final say, and they are not at this moment disposed.

Jesus said do not return evil for evil; Buddha teaches evil thought>evil speech>evil action. Very little abuse is really justified.

>But Jesus called the Pharisees X
>Buddha described the ascetics as Y
Christians have no way of telling if their opposing anons are truly hypocrites; Jesus saw them face to face and knew for certain they were perverting the Law. Buddha, as far as I know, gave no (memorable) abuse.

There is no need to agree in order to be agreeable. Unpleasantness just clouds the argument with ego, then no one gets a satisfactory answer.

As an evasive strategy, effective. Dishonest and wicked, but effective. Like treachery.

Again, I apologize.

>>15729942
To add, once a certain severity of abuse is embarked upon, I see no more value in the conversation.

The one throwing it out is not trying to learn or teach; he is trying to win.

If a person is found to be obviously and consciously a liar in the course of his conversation, I cease to take interest in further conversation. Likewise, when any party throws out abuse that is calculated, intended to provoke and upset, he can no longer be considered to be arguing anything. At that point he becomes irrelevant.

I think all of /lit/ is better than this. Just by being here betrays at least the impulse to learn. It is unfortunate that /pol/luted discourse and a/b/use do prove to be stronger habits.