/lit/ - Literature

Cope harder lifecuck

>>16581995
reddit: the post

>>16581995
>”and we do not envy the miserable, do we?”

Marge simpson

damn... what if

>>16581965
Quick! Tell me one (1) thing I should read

>>16582296

>>16582296
Diamond Sutra, or at leas the Heart Sutra

>>16582302
Funny how he wrote on Zen and spiritual shit but died a depressed, lonely alcoholic

>>16582302
Not you

>>16582305
>Diamond Sutra
Will read, thank you. Already know the heart sutra

sneedsara

>>16582323
Funny how you know his mental state and zero about zen

>>16582302
>>16582362
I thought you were a materialist

>>16582302
This ain't it.

>>16582302
Butters, if you like Alan Watts I recommend you read this

>>16582365
to be fair zen lies beyond the materialism/idealism duality.

truth = nirvana = night
music = brahman = twilight
poetry = samsara = day

>>16581965
Who is this blue haired guy?
People say Guenon ripped him off.

>>16582403
How do I get into non dualism? Any western philosophies that were non dualist, like Hegel?

>>16582465
Parmenides
>>16582296
http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm
>>16581965
>>16582002
pic related

>>16581965
>samsara = nirvana
Hinduism is wrong view

>>16581965
Holy...

>>16581995
Biased, truly the end game of Buddhism

>>16581965
potentiality = nonexistence
t.butthist being mad

>>16581995
pro-tip: both you and op are nihilists

>>16582365
All buddhists are.

>>16583448
how

>>16583454
How aren't they?

>>16583448
Based.
Buddhists win again.

>>16581965
Sneedsara = feedvana

>>16581965
enlightened and diamond-pilled

>>16582391
Im not a fan of Evola but i actually really enjoyed this book.

>>16582302
Without fail, metaphysical atheism is commensurate with buddhism

>>16583456
Buddha refuted materialism (Charvaka/Lokayata), your point is invalid.

OP is correct because the conception of nirvana itself comes from samsara and can thus never be outside it, whatever you think nirvana is its not that.

>>16583605
most buddhists believe in gods and demons, you give western larpers too much credit.

>>16583485
>Sneedsara = feedvana
this

>>16583629
whereof one cannot samsara, thereof one must be nirvana

>>16583704
the nirvana that can be told is not parinirvana

>>16583629
>>16583704
>>16583725
Boddhisattva level of based

>>16583630
nope

Buddhism is rad as hell. Spending your entire life seeking the meaning of life, rejecting meaningless wordly things yet having absolute respect for all life on earth, until you reach the ultimate epiphany and ascend.
I can only wonder how enlightenment feels.

Reminder that the reason Buddhism is so popular in the west is because it's ethically the same as Christianity. Schopenhauer predicted the decline of the Christian religion because it was tied to inferior Jewish dogmatism.

So even when atheists reject Christ, they still search for him in other religions.

>>16584052
its ok, not *that* great

>>16583622
The Buddha also said he refuted nihlism while being a nihilist himself so I don't think anyone should trust what you just said.
>buddha: nihilists do not believe anything exists but I think things exists therefore i'm not a nihilist
yeah.. t-thanks Gautama.

>>16584075
>So even when atheists reject Christ, they still search for truth in other religions. And sometimes Jesus was so vague that you can find similarities between what he said and religions like Buddhism, if you try really hard(for some reason)
Fixed.

>>16584075
>Buddhism is so popular
It is mahayana and hinduism which are popular. Buddhism is hated because liberals want to hear that nirvana is unconditional love and demand a social doctrine out of buddhism and there is none. This is why Westerners hate women and nonceshate so much.

>>16581995
Reddit-tier anti-natalism. Pathetic.

>>16584075#
>Buddhism is so popular
It is mahayana and hinduism which are popular. Buddhism is hated because liberals want to hear that nirvana is unconditional love and demand a social doctrine out of buddhism and there is none. This is why women and nonces hate theravada so much.

>>16584207
Christ literally preached rejecting the material world, telling his disciples that there is only eternal peace in the Kingdom of God, which is the Christian Nirvana.

>>16584210
They did the same thing to Christ, they basically portray him as a hippy who wanted free love. Just because he preached not to hate even your enemies, they make it seem like he thought you shouldn't fight evil. You should, but from a place of love, show your enemy where he goes wrong from example instead of calling them sinners and telling them they'll die in hell.

>>16584187
Yes. That's literally the definition of someone who isn't a nihilist. If you think that objective morality, objective reality, and objective truth exist, you are by definition not a nihilist. The Buddha affirmed all three.

>>16581965
that's a strange pic of marge simpson

>>16581965
Fuck nirvana

>>16584075
Western Buddhism incorporates Christ as a Boddhivista, a being who out of compassion refuses nirvana and choses to be reborn on Earth to teach people dharma.

Buddhism is well equipped to absorb any other religion and messanic ones in particular, they can be interpreted as gods/beings who convert to Buddhism in their god/dream-realms. Buddhism always has recourse to tiers of imaginary realms where imaginary spiritual beings can be won over to the Buddha.

The hard problem for Buddhism is its opposition to sexual libertinism. Buddhism can't endorse Grindr morality so it will be condemned by the West as an evil sect on the wrong side of history and pushed aside.

>>16581965
your mom = my dick sleeve

>>16584361
>Western Buddhism incorporates Christ as a Boddhivista
Western Buddhism was a mistake. People really think someone with a god delusion that thinks he will judge whoever dies to determine whether they go to eternal heaven/hell and that no one goes there but through him, and thinks he is the son of God whom he will sit next to in eternity could have been a Bodhisattva?

Pretty low bar to be a Bodhisattva if Jesus was one, don't you think?

Mahayana & Hinduism is the Islam of eastern religions.
They are the hijack of buddhism and jainism, saying they are the real deal and everybody before them ''doesn't get it'', and they offer a political view on the lay life.

>>16584593
>and they offer a political view on the lay life.
So they completed the system?

>>16584593
Buddhism is literally an offshoot of Hinduism, which came first. Brainlet.

>>16584593
>Mahayana & Hinduism is the Islam of eastern religions
Based Mahayana & Hinduism I suppose

>>16584075
>it's ethically the same as Christianity
Buddhism does not deal in ethics, only metaphysics and epistemology

>>16584913
Yes it does deal in ethics. It has vows of abstinence and Siddharta gives prescriptions on how one should act.

>>16584924
Yea but those are only means of liberation. They don't do it because of any moral law.

>>16584930
So? it's still ethics. Ethics and morals arent the same thing anyway

>>16584075
>ethically the same as Christianity
Wrong. Eastern liberation theology doesn't care one lick for ethics. In most systems it's at best a means to the end (release), at worst ignored by yogis as precepts for better living for the worldly minded. It's only similar theologically because new-agers, theosophists and fascist perennialists fucking LOVE christianizing everything, even unconsiously. Even Jung said that buddhism and christianity weren't commensurate, though their figureheads (The Buddha and Christ) were both similar symbols in that they were ideals for people within their respective traditions to emulate.

>>16584075
Don't Vajrayana monks practice yoga having sex? That's pretty un-Christian.

>>16585113
The gnostics had orgies. Just about every spiritual tradition has some left-hand mysticism that makes sensuality a means to soteriological ends

>>16584219
> and demand a social doctrine out of buddhism and there is none.
why does buddha act like a moralizing proselyting faggot in the PC then?

>>16584593
hindu advaita was plagiarized from buddhism

>>16581995
>Noooooo my life is bad therefore we shouldn't exist!

>>16585369
perfect reasoning though

>>16581965
>die
>your memory vanishes
>your intellect vanishes
>your values vanishes
>your sense of self vanishes
>your know some insect and are now forced for the next 10,000 cycles to fight so some dumb bug colony can survive
>this colony bacteria, protein will be now everything you will care about
>sometimes you get reborn as cattle in a giant meat factory
>able to feel sufferinh but no complex thought
>suddenly you get reborn as a human
>finally have the chance to break the cycle
>get told by culture that suicide is irrational
>cultures opinion is now your opinion
>get immediately offended by anti-natalism
>be OP making a smug thread of how the disgrace of reincarnation is BASED

samsara truly is hell
maybe some of us dies and gets reborn as OP with his shitty opinions....

Is reincarnation literal or metaphorical? Like do you actually get reborn as an animal or is it symbolism for continued conciseness being reborn every moment. I wonder

>>16584052
I shoudn't tell you this because i dont want you to waste your life. So ill just first say i have heard the stories of medieval monks praying so hard they floated was never true just something the older monks told the acolytes in hopes they would apply themselves. I think this might be the true apprenticing to a medieval craft guild myself i can attest they do stuff like that. But I refused to believe monks cant sometimes float even if they never have they might possibly right. so i remembered a couple other things unexplainable that happened to me.I told you researching about some of the things like OOBE and lucid dreams i found a lot of what i considered fraud but some themes recurred that i dont know sounded a bit more well historically consistent. chakras was one. not only because they were old in eastern traditions but because they seemed to have relatives in other old traditions. I was never very good at meditating on nothingness so the fom of single point meditation seemed the way to go for me and when i decided charas were interesting i began to meditate by visualizing energy flowing in a loop in various way usually having it spllit above my head and go back into my feet. I also coupled this with breath producing the energy, i tried to sort of light up each chakra then go on to the next, sometimes try to give them the colors the indians claimed they had in a book i read. I totally made the procedure up.anyway i got into the habit of coming home from work showering up and doing this lying down. sometimes i fell asleep or it got me aroused dont know why but the monks aleways claimed the devil was tormenting them so thats a possibility., but i tried to be disciplined and do this well. as i said i not great at meditating to much internal dialogue.(castaneda claims internal dialogue is the glue that holds reality together.) so one day after maybe six months im doing this im not deep into meditative state really but i have gotten much better at staying in the process so i guess a bit but i certainly was not sleeping or in some other consciousness i would have heard a pin drop it was just i had gotten good enough i could concentrate on this like you would something you were reading but not for a long periods as you can reading. This I used to think was dangerous to communicate. Then I tried a few times, to explain it to people who told me they were philosophy students, I figured that'd be the type to understand, but I got no recognition, these rather sane college students didn't really understand the vision, the trick, the mental effect, maybe you gotta be a little crazy to be able to let it happen. Spent ten years with that crazy stuff as my main psychosis hobby, this was before this website or the internet itself was available. I worked in the city, spent an hour each way on the subway, had a seat, so I read the little photocopied books.

>>16582302
Alan Watts was based. Realest nigga in the west.

*gong sound*

>>16581965
based and nagarjuna-pilled

>>16585414
suicide gets you sent to super hell dumbass

Samsara = schizo tier babble conjured up in the mind of drug taking psychotically meditating literal Indians thousands of years ago
Nirvana = atheist materialist death. The end of rebirth. Nibbana is not nirodha. Consciousness stops

So, as we are rational, we reject the first, don't breed, and commit suicide.

The yawning void will spit you out of non-existence after time eternal until forever. Nirvana is only temporary and the cycle will never end. You will only delay it

>>16581965
>negative soteriology
take the christpill

>>16581965
I know that this claim is technically true from a buddhist perspective but it fucks me up ever time I consider it.

>>16581965
>>16588354

>technically true

it's not because the flaw of the claim is the implied equivalence and reciprocity between the distinctiveness of both with a false premise to be merged therefore as a symbol representing whatchamacallit versus the living

>>16587314
Is that just being reborn as a cockroach? Or a literal super hell

>>16581965
holy shit, i unironically thought that was supposed to be marge simpson for a second. how retarded am i on a scale of 1 to 10?

>>16588354
>true from a buddhist perspective
it's not. It's posited only mahayana fairy tale.

>>16582302
>meme self-help: the author
what the fuck moth I used to respect you

>>16583622
>>16584187
it's almost as if there are thousands of accounts of what "the Buddha said" by more than 32 different schools of thought, meaning we know jackshit about him if he even existed

>>16585564
>chakras
Useless in buddhism. Whatever you did is not buddhist concentration.

>>16585564
is this a pasta

>>16581965
Seed = Feed

>>16584075
>it's ethically the same as Christianity
where in Buddhist teachings does it say to kill all infidels and to rape their women? where does it say fags will go to hell for no reason other than liking dick? I be you understand little about Jesus and even less about Siddhartha.
Schopenhauer was a massive piece of shit traitor who physically abused an elderly woman. He had the writing style of an average /lit/ schizo and said nothing I didn't already know.

>>16584361
>Buddhism can't endorse Grindr morality so it will be condemned by the West as an evil sect on the wrong side of history and pushed aside.
except it can but you western retards don't get it. Not everyone MUST free themselves ASAP. As you say, Boddhivista did it out of compassion, not all the Buddhas give a shit. You can be born a slut and well that's ok, better luck next time. Not everyone has to follow the teachings for ascetics. Gautama gave specific instructions to laypeople for a more blessed life even if they're still stuck in the cycle and aren't ready to free themselves in their current lifetime. Most actual Buddhists in Asia don't really oppose libertinism and won't ostracize you for using Tinder or Grindr.

>>16588555
where in Christian teachings does it say to kill all infidels?
Point it to me, especially at the New testament.

>>16581965
WITH THE LIGHTS OUT

>>16588611
>Deuteronomy 13:6-10
>6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace[a] or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, 8 you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. 9 But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

>1 Samuel 15
>his is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

>4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. 6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.

>7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves[b] and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

>10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
the whole passage is about the LORD seething over the fact that Saul showed some mercy. He regretted making him king.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%2015&version=NIV
>especially at the New testament.
>no no no but h-he changed his mind!!
cope. The Buddha didn't have to change his mind. He was never like this. Buddha isn't even a God. So it's a bullshit comparison made by western retards, as usual.

>>16584688
Wrong.

>>16588508
you'll be a shit eating ghost

>>16588555
checked and agreed

>>16589126
no

based

>>16588610
This kills the trad.

>>16588610
Actually does it kill the trad? Isn't the third of the Five Precepts explicitly against adultery, sex outside of marriage, all kinds of unlawful sex? That concerns laypeople, right?

>>16588555
>>16588661
what about buddhism being a sect from a tradition which one of its main scriptures and the most influential teaches others that killing not only infidels but relatives is ok?
also buddhists still persecute and kill people to this day, hindus, muslims.

>>16590463
What?

>>16590461
Gay sex sends you straight to hell in Buddhism. He's doing the "stretching and harry potter are DEMONIC because pastor anderson said so" thing. Yeah, sure, you COULD spend your life racking up sin and go to hell. You could. Just like in Christianity, you COULD spend your life wracking up sin and go to hell. You could.

But why the fuck would you?

>>16590463
>muslims
Muslims deserve to be persecuted.

And no, Buddhism is not a Hindu sect. Hindu ethics do not condone the random killing of relatives as you are implying. Neither do Buddhist ethics.

>>16590498
The other anon asked for anything from the NT and you gave him ancient hebrew ethics. I'm playing the same game. The killing in the passage was not ''random'', there is a justification in the very passage. What is the justification for saying Muslims deserve to be persecuted? Is this how Buddhist ethics work? Is this why they still kill people today?
Also: Buddhism came from Hinduism, in case you don't know.

>>16590494
I guess at least hell isn't eternal for them. But yeah, it's just another axial age doctrine, that's all there is to it to me. That kind of ascetic morals has to at least be mixed with more vitalist beliefs like Shinto or it's really shit.

>>16590519
Not him, but persecution isn't killing. If you think a community's out to do you harm, I guess even buddhists allow you to throw him out of your country. In which case he's lost his land, his house, etc. ; he's been persecuted. Even if you don't do it in order take anything from said community or if you don't physically harm them.
We should bring back persecutions in the West too...

>>16590463
You don't see a difference between behavior being justified in the religious texts vs behavior being justified by people in x religion?

Muslims and Christians destroying haram cultures and killing infidels is what Muslims and Christians are supposed to do. Buddhists destroying haram cultures and killing infidels are what Buddhists can do.

>>16588610
>>16590441
>>16590494
wait wait. if a person leads a corrupt life and that means being egoist and acquiring bad karma, won't this person rebirth be according to how she lived her past life? that is, won't she be rebirthed as someone still far from the truth and still be vitiated and acquiring more negative karma and being rebirthed again as egoist, deluded, etc. and isn't samsara eternal? so...

>>16590583
>Muslims and Christians destroying haram cultures and killing infidels is what Muslims and Christians are supposed to do.
Chirst, Our Savior, and who all Christians follow maintained the Old Law but actualized it. Now I ask you, where in Christ's teachings, those whose followers are called christians, is a command to kill infidels?

>>16590599
No, I think that's not how it works. Hare Krishnas I talked to (ofc. not the same thing, but I'd guess the theory is similar) will say it's harder to lose karma/aquire "good" karma in inferior "worlds", but moving up from an inferior world also requires less karma. So you're never really doomed. The time frames can be scary, though.

>>16590599
you'll just spend a trillion years as a worm

>>16590639
>a being without self consciousness
Sounds like a blessing

Will eating meat give me bad Karma?

>>16590650
It gets worse than wormhood if you really fuck up though.

>>16590656
Depends on your state of mind. Is it passionate, gluttonous, and with attachments? Yes, probably.

>>16590657
There's no punishment nastier than human consciousness.

>>16590670
I'll give you the non-buddhist truth ; that's just you, because you're human garbage.

>>16590675
So a hedonist on the Saturday night is the pinnacle of humanity?

>>16590618
Nullified/actualized. These are distinctions without a difference in this case. Jesus did not come to destroy the laws, therefore he did not "actualize" it in the way you're implying. Either he did away with the laws like you're implying and he lied, or he did not.

The Old Testament is still there for a reason, and it isn't just so that people can count all the supposed prophesies Jesus fulfilled.

>>16590656
it fucks your ability to concentrate your mind

>>16590682
How psychologically damaged are you to make the jump from "life is worth experiencing for most people" to "hedonism is the pinnacle of humanity"? If you think human consciousness is a punishment, I hope you also think the pinnacle of humanity is suicide.

>>16590639
Can a worm create negative karma? What can a worm do that is adharmic?

>>16590650
>>a being without self consciousness
Worms have consciousness.

>>16590686
Jesus's testimony in the NT is incoherent.
The global message is antinomian, the 'I came here to fulfill the law, not destroy it' or w/e reads like an afterthought addition by people who were uncomfortable with the original message.

>>16590693
He's talking about self-consciousness, which he thinks specific to humans. That's pretty reasonable. Read what you quote.

When buddhism rejects metaphysics as conjecture, it makes me think they’re just sticking their heads down in the sand and pray it goes away on its own

>>16590689
I am just applying your logic here. The religion you're defending is literally based on a lifestyle to cope from horrors of reality.
If life is such a blessing then why do people want to end the cycle of rebirth?

>>16590713
I'm not buddhist at all, I was just describing what I knew of their beliefs. When you wrote "there's no punishment nastier than human consciousness", I assume these were you own beliefs.

>>16590719
* assumed

>>16590686
Why would he nullify the command thou shalt not kill? The main problem is that you people has no understanding of the numinous consciousness and its development. This consciousness of tremendus, as Rudolf Otto would put it, is prevalent in a stage of the numinous. This was the case in Hinduism and pre-Christ hebrew religion (and many other traditions obviously since we are dealing with universality). With Christ there is a turn or a development of this consciousness of the numen, much like the Upanishads, some rishis, the Buddha, represent in their traditions. The case with Christ's Sacrifice is more evident and profound. Girard also writes about it and how in Christianity the turn against Violence, or the consumation of Violence, is enhanced.

>>16590695
Seems silly to even discuss things like that. Either everything in the New Testament is Jesus' teachings or we can know nothing about Jesus' teachings and we should just discard all of it.

>>16590732
You're making the silly assumption there. The NT is probably one of the most well-studied documents in history. It's possible to debate, using many methods to analyse the texts, what's original and what's not, what's old and what's not. Of course, there's no easy answer, but it can be discussed rationally and debated, probably more than with any text in the world.

>>16590731
Not interested in your perennial or any special snowflake Christianity nonsense. Either discuss orthodox Christianity or don't discuss it at all.
>Why would he nullify the command thou shalt not kill?
He wouldn't. Hence the pagans, goyim, and infidels needs to be put to the sword, according to Jesus.

>>16590731
Thou shalt not kill is a prohibition of murder, unlawful killing. The ancient hebrews obviously didn't take it as a forbidding of killing their ennemy tribes and infidel neighbours, which they did under the explicit patronage of Yawhe.

>>16590753
always a fucking loophole heh

>>16590750
snowflake Christianity? This meaning of Christ's Sacrifice reeks in the writings of the old fathers and late ones, not to mention the Bible itself, yes even in OT there is already consciousness of other aspects of the numen.

>>16590757
I'm not a christian, but I don't think that's a loophole. Every hebrew at the time always understood it like that. Why would God allow and patron after the fact so many killings otherwise? I even think I've read it's obvious when considering the hebrew word that's used for murder.
I guess if you think God really did send these laws and he meant otherwise, he was indeed betrayed by petty people reading a loophold in it.

>>16590782
>>16590750
Also if you have no idea about what Christianity is, what is the point of discussing it with you?

>Hence the pagans, goyim, and infidels needs to be put to the sword, according to Jesus.
Just confirming what I'm saying above.

>>16590750
>>16590686
>>16590583
>>16588661
>>16588555
>christianity is literally the religion where God is Love
how do you cope with the fact that even an old lady who goes to the church because its is comfy has a more profound and better understanding of christianity than you?

>Yfw you were born into a good family so you can skip the heresy of buddhism and use your intuition to go straight to Brahma Jnana, the best religion, as explained by the Supreme Lord in the Bhagavad Gita. Thereby becoming a jivanmukta and attaining moksha in this life, even before the (completely inevitable) destruction of this physical body which confused and lost souls refer to as the "self".

>>16591090
Basado

Imagine following a jewish cult

>In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.[27] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly described as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[27] In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.[27] Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus's life and in the Christian community.[28] Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion.[29] Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not only for the Jews.[28] The Gospel of John is the only gospel to call Jesus God, and in contrast to Mark, where Jesus hides his identity as messiah, in John he openly proclaims it

>>16590599
Most theories of Karma that I've seen postulate that a karmic "load" you accrue in life X is "spent" getting you to life X+1. That is to say, life X-1 is totally irrelevant for life X+1. If you're asking if you can get into a bad karmic cycle where a king rapes a woman, and is reborn as a duke, who rapes another woman, who is reborn as a count and then rapes a woman, etc... all the way down to becoming a pederastic rapist, the answer is yes, you can. However, because of anatman, there is no "core". Just as you cannot intrinsically be a sinful shitty person because there's nothing intrinsic, you cannot be an intrinsically sinful person destined to just forever acquire more sin. The opposite, meritorious cycles, can and do happen. This is a problem Evola had with Buddhism, in that he didn't like that the Buddha totally rejects a permanent (in the bigbrain galactic eons and eons and eons sense) underclass for the aristocrats to step on for fun.

There's a term for a kind of person who has an incredibly grievous sinful karmic load, and they spend something like a hundred trillion years in hell. I can never remember, it's something like "ichiggita". Even they can, and will, one day attain nirvana. But, they'll still spend 100 trillion years in hell first. The Diamond Sutra talks about "the last 500 year period" and "the last 500 (unenlightened) people".

This ties into the Buddha scolding the kids for fishing: your actions, however small, could be what lead the prince to become a rapist, leading to him entering a bad-karmic spiral that leads to him eventually being reborn as a worm. Not only do your actions affect YOU but they affect OTHER BEINGS.

>>16584412
His methods of teaching and messages may have been different due to the culture and context of the times, and interpretations have taken his wisdom in different directions (e.g., both Siddhartha and Jesus have been deified by many sects). But when I read the actual teachings of Jesus, he seemed wise and compassionate.

The Buddha used the metaphors and myths of the day to make his teachings understood. Jesus seemed to do the same, e.g. in his parables: Expedient means.

I doubt the theory about Jesus having studied Buddhism. Partly because I'm a natural skeptic, but also because it implies that only through studying and practicing historical Buddhism can one be awakened, and I don't buy that. It's much easier, perhaps, through the Buddha's teaching and meditation practice. But we risk making awakening seem extra-difficult, extra-special, or even an impossible fiction. I imagine Jesus walking into the desert, sitting down, and asking "Who am I? What is this?"

>>16591212
>But we risk making awakening seem extra-difficult, extra-special, or even an impossible fiction
This is what happens when you buy into this sort of nonsense about how "all paths are valid in their own way".

Stop being a cuck. All roads do not lead up the mountain, we wouldn't even have conquered Mount Everest by now with this sort of thinking.

Begome zealot. Reject ignorance. Embrace truth. Reject either Buddhism or Christianity, stop trying to have the cake and eat it too.
>I imagine Jesus walking into the desert, sitting down, and asking "Who am I? What is this?"
Doesn't sound like something a god would do. If he wasn't god then he was mentally ill. A mentally ill person can technically say correct things at times but you shouldn't keep them as a role model or validate them in any way. If they said correct things that someone else also said who were not mentally ill then you can reject all things the mental patient said(including his truths) and embrace the other. This my friend is the way of truth and masculine striving.

>>16591212
If Jesus does not talk about the 8 fold path, then he is not a buddha and knows nothing about consciousness, perception and so on.

And compassion, universal love and all the hippie crap as the highest goal is a jain view, in buddhism it is only a tool for the lowest people who go into autistic screeching when they hear about non-self.
Nobody can get enlightened on compassion alone.

>>16591369
Jesus also taught that ritual washing(baptism) is utterly necessary for salvation. I don't even think the Hindus that the Buddha was arguing with went that far in their ritualism.

>>16591330
I'm Buddhist and Christian because it's what I am, although I'm not very good at it.

Buddhism isn't something to believe in, it's something to do. Walk the middle way, and regardless of what happens on the journey you'll end up where you need to be.

>>16591369
Isn’t compassion kenotic?

>>16590656
If it did so would burning gasoline. Stop splitting karmic hairs. It's a waste of attention.

>>16590656
i thought only eating what was offered was the safe option, choosing what to eat is bad karma because plants and animals have been harmed in making the food

>>16591668
>I'm Buddhist and Christian
Cute

These are the six actions a sotapanna can not do. Notice the last one.
>Murdering one's own mother.
>Murdering one's own father.
>Murdering an arahant.
>Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
>Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.
>Taking another Teacher [besides Buddha].
So at some point you have outgrow your need to cling to false teachers and religions, if you actually want to advance on the path.

>>16591668
typical western buddhist larper

where to start with buddhism?

gotta fap later

GNOSTICISM > BUDDHISM

>>16593488
no

>>16593488
There's barely any gnostic movements left after they were BTFO by Christians so it's basically larping at this point.
Like, give me actual instructions for gnosticism. There are several sects of buddhism each which have their own literature and practices, but gnosticism has nothing except a few biblically noncanon texts discovered in a desert.
Like, how do you become a gnostic exactly?

>>16581965
Everyone on this thread is awful and everything that's wrong with this board.

>>16593844
AHAHAHA

>>16584289
pitiful invalid

>>16593786
You literally can't, Gnosis has to be passed from those who have it. Your best bet is to kill yourself and try to reroll as a Druze/Yazidi/Mandaean/Alawite (technically only Madaeans are "Gnostics", however).

>>16591979
If you're willing to put Buddhism before Christianity, you could argue that it's fine to take teachers for things other than escaping Nirvana. If you're only following Christ for other reasons, yeah you could be a Buddhist and a Christian. From the Buddhist end. From the Christian end, having anyone in your life besides God is absolutely prohibited, of course.

>>16591079
>God is Love cause I (John) say so
>no no just ignore all the times he's been and will be a massive dipshit psychopath, muh mysterious ways
grandma is using bullshit abrahamic cope cause she's afraid of hell. She's trying to redeem her slutty ways just like you're trying to redeem your 4chan degeneracy

>>16590461
>all kinds of unlawful sex
it's about adultery/infidelity. The point is not being a dick/not harming others. Cheating on your spouse or being a pedophile is unlawful sex. Being a fag is not.
>Undertaking and upholding the five precepts is based on the principle of non-harming (Pāli and Sanskrit: ahiṃsa). The Pali Canon recommends one to compare oneself with others, and on the basis of that, not to hurt others.
>The third precept refers to adultery in all its forms, and has been defined by modern teachers with terms such as sexual responsibility and long-term commitment.
meanwhile, monks have no problem drinking tea. In fact, tea is an important part of ceremony for some.
>>16590494
>Gay sex sends you straight to hell in Buddhism
source: your ass. There isn't a hell in Buddhism, and the Buddha said nothing about Tinder/Grindr.
>Yeah, sure, you COULD spend your life racking up sin and go to hell. You could. Just like in Christianity, you COULD spend your life wracking up sin and go to hell
it's not remotely close to the same. God sends you to hell for breaking one rule, and it's eternal punishment. In buddhism there are 31 realms of existence, you have to be an exceptional piece of shit to be reborn in Naraka. And it works via karma, like a social credit score. As it improves you'll be reborn in higher realms until you're back in Earth

>>16594750
>There isn't a hell in Buddhism
lol

>you have to be an exceptional piece of shit to be reborn in Naraka
lol

You have no idea what you're talking about. Start with What the Buddha Taught (in the Buddha's Words also works), then read the Heart Sutra.

>>16594750
Huh? Isn't naraka just hell but finite? But it makes more sense than the Christian hell lol. Why would you send someone with a finite amount of evil deeds to a place with infinite punishment? That's way too harsh.
Also, if someone replies with "original sin" do you think black people deserve reparations for being slaves? Then you are a hypocrite if not.

>>16594770
>if someone replies with "original sin" do you think black people deserve reparations for being slaves? Then you are a hypocrite if not.
i need to leave this board and never come back

>>16591682
Compassion is one of the Brahmavihara (abodes of Brahma, or divine States of mind). Cultivating such states of mind will lead to rebirth in the heavenly realms, but they are insufficient (but helpful, I think) for attaining enlightenment.

>>16583975
they actually do lol

>>16590707
it makes me think they are actually based, metaphysics is such a shitty meme 2bh

>>16585369

>>16595411

>>16590707
Buddhism does not reject metaphysics, it just says that it won't help you achieve nirvana. Literally every religion holds this position.

>>16594770
He's disagreeing for the sake of arguing, literally nothing he said contradicts the post he's responding, to except for him disagreeing with the Buddha that sodomy is a bad-karmic act.

>>16595419
>Implying preventing suffering isn't a reason

>>16595419
Absence of suffering is better than the presence of pleasure.

>>16595442
What is nirvana? The absence of being? Or some sort of incomprehensible superconsciousness?

>>16595455
how will one notice absence of suffering in nonexistence?

>>16581965
Extreme fatalistic, defeatist post

>>16581965
All the little devils are proud of hell

Daily reminder that believing in not-self and also believing in reincarnation is an absurd contradiction which even a 12-year old could see past. Buddhists somehow managed to come up with a doctrine almost as dumb and self-refuting as the trinity.

>>16595621
>rebirth can't happen if there is not soul, because rebirth is not conditioned

is this peak poo thinking or what

>>16595621
Okay, define your self. Where exactly is the self located? If you say your brain isn't that merely conceptual instead of experiential? Tell me which part of your perception is "you" exactly.
Where are you? I know that you exist, but where exactly do you exist? And in what sense do you, as a person, exist?

>>16595697
i am one and not-one. it is not located anywhere because it is not phenomenal, it does not arise and vanish.
are you implying the buddha taught anatta as no-self?

>>16595725
Okay, you're answer is decent. I wasn't really trying to imply anything, I just wanted to know if you actually have the knowledge necessary for the statements you made.

>>16595697
>Okay, define your self.
self-luminous sentience
>Where exactly is the self located?
sentience is without boundaries and is hence without a location, it is the objects of awareness which appear in it which seem to position sentience or awareness in relation to them but it does not have a location
>If you say your brain
I didn't
>Tell me which part of your perception is "you" exactly.
Perceptions aren't, the perceiver of them which is sentience is
>Where are you?
everywhere
>I know that you exist, but where exactly do you exist?
ibid
>And in what sense do you, as a person, exist?
I, as luminous space-like awareness, am the enduring foundation and reality of all the transient sensations, dualities, and objects which come and go in that awareness.

>>16595758
Your conception of self seems quite nondual, anon.

>>16581965
>meme concept 1 = meme concept 2

>>16595758
>>16595780
>>Your conception of self seems quite nondual, anon.
Yeah, The luminous awareness is the garbage made up by Advaita Vedandists and Mahayanists that they try to pass as enlightenment.

>>16583630
Buddha probably didn't believe in them so much and only used them for cultural purposes

>>16595937
No-self was irrefutably refuted by Shankara, and so any school/interpretation of Buddhism which accepts no-self or which says the self is intrinsically dependent/contingent/conditioned simply doesn’t lead to enlightenment, except for *possibly* some of the schools which smuggle in the Atman with some superficial makeup i.e. Dzogchen “yeah bro, you’re timeless primordial spotless undivided awareness, but it’s like ..... empty.....”

>>16595937
> The luminous awareness is the garbage made up by Advaita Vedandists and Mahayanists that they try to pass as enlightenment.

> The Pali Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) states:[8]
>"Luminous, monks, is the mind. “

>>16595972
headcanon

>>16581995
if you hate life so much then kys and stop existing brah.

>>16596125
>expecting anti-nutters to commit to their own ideas

>>16596011
>>> The Pali Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) states:[8]
>>"Luminous, monks, is the mind. “


ignorant and cringe. Mahayashits should stick to sutras instead of their pipedream.


The Pali Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) states:[8]

"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that — for the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — there is development of the mind."[9]

A parallel passage can be found in the Śāriputrābhidharma, an Abhidharma treatise possibly of the Dharmaguptaka tradition.[7]

Another mention of a similar term in the Pali discourses occurs in the Brahmanimantaṇika-sutta of the Majjhima-nikāya and in the Kevaḍḍha-sutta of the Dīgha-nikāya, the latter has a parallel in a Dharmaguptaka collection surviving in Chinese translation.[7] The Brahmanimantaṇika-sutta describes an “invisible consciousness” (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) that is "infinite” (anantaṃ), and “luminous in every way” (sabbato pabhaṃ). However, there is disagreement among the various editions of the Pāli Canon as to whom the statement is spoken by, and in some editions it seems as if it is spoken not by the Buddha but by the deva Baka Brahma in a debate with the Buddha.[7] The Chinese parallel to the Brahmanimantaṇika-sutta has the term used by Baka Brahma.[7]

The Kevaḍḍha-sutta and its parallel in the Dharmaguptaka Dīrgha-āgama meanwhile, does have a statement spoken by the Buddha which mentions luminous consciousness. The Dīrgha-āgama sutra states:

Consciousness that is invisible, Infinite, and luminous of its own: This ceasing, the four elements cease, Coarse and subtle, pretty and ugly cease. Herein name-and-form cease. Consciousness ceasing, the remainder [i.e. name-and-form] also ceases.[7]

However, Analayo mentions that parallel recensions of this sutra in other languages such as Sanskrit and Tibetan do not mention luminosity (pabhaṃ) and even the various Pali editions do not agree that this verse mentions luminosity, sometimes using pahaṃ ("given up") instead of pabhaṃ.[7] Whatever the case, according to Analayo, the passage refers to "the cessation mode of dependent arising, according to which name-and-form cease with the cessation of consciousness".[7]

According to Bhikkhu Brahmāli, the references to luminosity in the Brahmanimantaṇika-sutta refers to states of samadhi known only to ariyas (noble ones), while the pabhassaracitta of Anguttara Nikaya (A.I.8-10) is a reference to the mind in jhana.[10] He cites a common passage which notes that the mind with the five hindrances is not considered radiant and thus it makes sense to say that a mind in jhana, which does not have the five hindrances, can be said to be radiant:

>>16596188
So too, bhikkhus, there are these five corruptions of the mind (cittassa), corrupted by which the mind is neither malleable nor wieldy nor radiant (pabhassaraṃ) but brittle and not rightly concentrated for the destruction of the taints. What five? Sensual desire ... ill will ... sloth and torpor ... restlessness and remorse ... doubt is a corruption of the mind, corrupted by which the mind is neither malleable nor wieldy nor radiant but brittle and not rightly concentrated for the destruction of the taints. (SN V 92 and A III 16, cf. AN I 257 and MN III 243).[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind?printable=yes

>>16595972
maybe

>>16595972
??
if you mean that he didn't believe in them so much because they were still not ultimate reality youre right but if you mean that he didnt believe in them so much as he believed in the grass he was sitting or in the people he talked to then you're wrong

>>16597314
I thought he was an atheist.

>>16595509
Absolute freedom from all limitation. It's freedom from existence, non-existence, up, down, etc. There's a book, "The Mind Like Fire Unbound" that goes through the Buddha's words on this. The tl;dr of why this book even exists is that ancient Indians viewed fire as a thing pulled from a realm of constant potentiality (don't think of this in an Aristotelian sense) and not like a "substance". So, you light a fire, you rip it from the fire dimension, and then it burns the fuel, and then it goes out and goes back to the fire dimension. "Where does a fire go when it goes out?". Nowhere and everywhere. Misunderstanding this metaphor (and it is a metaphor, the Buddha is very clear when he using rhetorical devices, because he is Indian) is part of why people think "nirvana = non-existence", because nirvana means "snuffing out", but literally it more so means "releasing from bondage".

>>16595621
Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, they believe in rebirth. I don't see how you can not believe in rebirth, though. Did your mother just create all of the atoms that compose you when you plopped out of the womb?

>>16583629
>anyone who has awakened has escaped the cycle of death and rebirth
>but somehow nirvana is within samsara
Can you elaborate?

ITT: Pseuds who haven't read a single Sutra debating Buddha's teachings with each other based on wikipedia articles.

>>16597371
>Absolute freedom from all limitation. It's freedom from existence, non-existence, up, down, etc.
If there is no sentience or no sentient entity to experience that freedom, than it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Non-sentient entities don't experience anything, including freedom. Freedom that is not actually experienced is not actually freedom. Wherein lies one of the major contradictions in Buddhism, that they want to deny that parinirvana is a void of nothingnesss but then they can't give single reason this is not the case which makes sense, they only say "uhhhh buddha says it isn't and we believe him even though it defies logic and there is no reason to believe it is true"

>>16595455
It's just not.

>>16597513
>no sentience
It's freedom from needing to be sentient. Did you miss the "Absolute freedom from all limitation" part?

This is the problem you Vedantins run into: You think that "nothingness" is a thing, and that you can build stuff out of it. You can't. Emptiness isn't a noun, it's an adjective. It's a descriptor of how real, existing things are. If you don't like that this is a mystical doctrine that requires you to move past language and conceptuality, then you should just go back to low church Protestantism because this whole "religion" thing isn't for you.

>>16597541
>It's freedom from needing to be sentient.
Okay, but who experiences that freedom? If nobody experiences it, then how can it be distinguished from nothingness, from a complete non-existence of experience/sentience? It can't, ergo it is nothingness.

>You think that "nothingness" is a thing, and that you can build stuff out of it.
Did I write that "nothingness" is a thing or noun? No, I didn't.

>>16597541
>>16597583
nibbana is The Good and The Love that is God. nothing predicated of it, ultimate good, ultimate reality, ultimate goal and ultimately apophatic.

>>16597648
If that was true then Buddha wouldn't have acted like a redditor edgelord athiest whenever theism, gods, etc are brought up in the Pali Canon, which he often does.

>>16597696
>buddha was a redditor edgelord
wew lad
thats a hot take

>>16597696
buddha was just a radical apophaticist

>all these armchair buddhists on this board
unless you have some meditative attainments your opinion is completely worthless.

>>16597696
you are terribly misguided, i will pray for you to find the light of the buddha in this life

>>16598138
why not the light of the godhead christ brought to us through the spirit?

>>16597994
>unless you disturb your mind enough to accept logical contradictions your opinion is worthless
>doesn't matter if doing so seems to always validate your presupposed religious notions (the meditating Jesuit sees Jesus, pleasure and fullness of being, the meditating Mahayana experiences cesssation of suffering and ultimate emptiness...).

>>16597371
>Did your mother just create all of the atoms that compose you when you plopped out of the womb?
Were those first atoms that compose everything created from nothing?

>>16598183
Do you think that it matters a meditating Jesuit experiences something other than what a meditating Mahayana sees? Given the logical arguments made in Buddhism (suffering is universal, there is an underlying true reality which is separate from the illusory realty, and the self is nonexistent), I think what they see is not working towards a contradiction, but working towards observing what is logically argued and true.

>>16598241
>Do you think that it matters a meditating Jesuit experiences something other than what a meditating Mahayana sees?
Yes, why would it not? They're describing incompatible things, leading to incompatible beliefs.
>Given the logical arguments made in Buddhism (suffering is universal, there is an underlying true reality which is separate from the illusory realty, and the self is nonexistent), I think what they see is not working towards a contradiction, but working towards observing what is logically argued and true.
Sure, it depends on the brand on Buddhism. Some advance more contradictory things than others. I find Mahayana sunyata to be transparently absurd, so I take that exemple. I'm not sure about other conceptions of no-self.

>>16598241
>but working towards observing what is logically argued and true.
for this you need to hear the right view detailed by a buddha, this is why the vedantists, Mahayanists, jains, sufists, christian mystics and whoever the fuck meditates don't get and they end up confusing the jhanas with nirvana and ''open awareness'', non duality and all the feel good crap. Meditation is not enlightenment.

>Meditation is not enlightenment.
I haven't read a single text or anything which states this, except pseuds.

>>16598277
Discussing this way is ridiculous. Someone tells you the Buddhist arguments aren't convincing or pokes holes in them, you tell them their opinion is worthless because they haven't meditated enough. If someone meditates and has an experience contradictory to the supposed Buddhist truth, you'll tell them that's worthless too because they don't accept the Buddhist arguments. This is brainwashing.

reminder that the buddha was on youtube

>>16585101
Christian morality/ethics is just a means to the end

>>16588661
>all of the quotes are from the OT and with reference to God's chosen nation at the time
>nothing for God's injunctions to all nations in the NT
>implying God changed His mind and didn't just move from stage 1 of His plan to stage 2

>>16590757
muh loopholes and not looking at the original hebrew but instead going with the english translation

I'll bet you're one of those iron chariot cucks, too?

>>16584412
The word “eternal” in Greek doesn’t actually mean forever, it means age-lasting, which is incredibly vague

>>16593786
>they were BTFO by Christians so it's basically larping at this point.
look at tradcaths and the average normie christian and tell me you don’t see the irony in this point
>gnosticism has nothing except a few biblically noncanon texts discovered in a desert.
the nag hammadi is more than a few texts, some of them just as old as the Synoptics (gospel of Thomas most notably). also, why the fuck should we trust a council of asshurt Rome-lovers in the third century to tell us what is “canon” or not? As if that means shit

>>16598658
>implying Yahweh wasn’t a perverted false image of god the Israelites created to justify their own materialistic and bloodthirsty desires

>>16598713
That would be the idols they worshiped. After all, their "idol" punished them as much, and sent them prophets, and cursed them for their iniquity, and so on, and they always strayed from Him

>>16598725
Damn, so Yawheh is a egoistical, bloodthirsty piece of shit *and* the hebrews are egoistical, bloodthirsty pieces of shit, to the point that they can't even get along? What a beautiful narrative.

>>16598779
No, He was just. Why should He thirst blood if He stands to gain nothing from killing people? Why would He need to flatter His ego if He is the all-powerful God of all nations? You might as well just say He doesn't exist, forget your pitiful attempts at psychoanalysis. All peoples were "egotistical and bloodthirsty," and waged wars, won territory, killed men, took children and women. Even genocides were not unheard of. You needed a tough, no nonsense God to survive in such times. Not all could get along, but some righteous Jews got along with God. Pagan gods didn't care too much about that, did they? Or syncretism, or being supplanted by another pantheon? Some gods those are

>>16585369
all life is painful but you can have a good life and still accept this conclusion (thought as you identified most people come to this conclusion only because their life sucks)

>>16598834
The natural consequence of utilitarianism is either just seizing up and dying now because we need to avoid pain or forging on to some "pleasure-filled utopia." Both are pipe dreams

>thread on Buddhism
>filled with christcucks desperately trying to convince people that their religion is in fact not shit or if that doesn't work then that their religion is kinda like Buddhism
Every fucking time

>>16598725
So it wasn’t Yahweh that was ordering them to utterly destroy the Amalekites?

>>16597583
See >>16597541.

>>16598224
There are no "first atoms". Nothing can be created from nothing. The entire idea of creation ex nihilo is fundamentally incoherent.

>>16599080
but how did it come into being? i mean what do buddhists say about the world, samsara? there is no purpose in it, it was never willed nor is it because it is good to be this way? this seems just as bad as a particular conception of maya in advaita vedanta

>>16598817
>Why should He thirst blood if He stands to gain nothing from killing people? Why would He need to flatter His ego if He is the all-powerful God of all nations?
If he wasn't the God that he or people pretend he was.
>You might as well just say He doesn't exist, forget your pitiful attempts at psychoanalysis.
If he existed, he wasn't what theologians generally say he was ; an all powerful, all good, omniscient creator of the universe.
>You needed a tough, no nonsense God to survive in such times.
So, not really an all powerful God.
>Pagan gods didn't care too much about that, did they?
Pagan Gods are explicitly described as entities with particular goals, tastes, preferences, a personality. They're not supposed to be the ultimate sources of all goodness and being. And their personalities are less jealously paranoid, honestly less despicable.

>>16599763
>If he wasn't the God that he or people pretend he was.
Or perhaps if He was not the egomaniac or bloodthirsty monster you characterize Him as, but rather carrying out His plan. If God is "wrathful" that is our analogous description of His action, not the chemicals coursing through His brain or whatever you believe

>If he existed, he wasn't what theologians generally say he was ; an all powerful, all good, omniscient creator of the universe.
If you say so

>So, not really an all powerful God.
No, I was speaking about what God ordered. Not only was He omnipotent, but also demanded certain things of His followers.

>and their personalities are less jealously paranoid, honestly less despicable.
I can tell you haven't read any texts regarding pagan gods and their quarrellings, punishments and feuds. Take the Iliad, for instance. All gods are equally despicable from a shallow, human perspective, you just need to apply the magical ingredient of bias to favor the entirety of the pagan pantheons over one, particularly and strangely irksome God.

>Pagan Gods are explicitly described as entities with particular goals, tastes, preferences, a personality
So, in short, all too human, even in their essence.


>They're not supposed to be the ultimate sources of all goodness and being
Then where do they derive their sense of goodness from? What sustains this existence? Some primal force? Unnecessary multiplication of entities

>>16599080
The idea of eternal matter and energy, infinite or finite, is far more absurd than any ex nihilo account. All of these things exist, operate according to certain immutable patterns, and never decay, just for "no reason." It opens questions that have no hope of being resolved

>>16599052
It was, and it was that same Yahweh who ordered them to kill the Canaanites, and just about any enormity your mind can parrot, as well as Hell, and the suffering in this world. An "evil god" just doesn't make sense to me. Why is it wrong for a God to take away what He Himself made? If the souls of the damned are destroyed in Hell, or if they absolutely desire to be in Hell and away from the God they hate, does that allay your fears?

>>16595395
metaphysics is cool

>>16595448
NOT MY HECKIN' SUFFERINO!!!!! THAT'S LITERALLY ALL THERE IS TO LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>16599698
>come into being?
Why would you assume it had to? Aristotle's rejection of an infinite historical progression is purely a means of defending a foregone conclusion (this is not an insult to Aristotle).

>>16600060
>It opens questions that have no hope of being resolved
Yes, that is the point. No amount of answering questions will ever make you happy. You will never dig deep enough to find some single thing that you can stop at and say "ah, yes, THIS, THIS explains everything, we can make a big word game to explain everything because of THIS". That's precisely the fucking point. This is why the Buddha said to many of his disciples "look, there's an answer, but it just opens another question, so don't bother". That is why it is a mystical doctrine that requires lived experience. This is why you have to abandon conceptuality: it literally cannot, by its own rules, explain everything, and it cannot help you.

>>16600312
It can explain all things and help all people. The Good explains everything, but it cannot be explained for being precisely utterly apophatic. God will always explain things.

>>16600312
>That is why it is a mystical doctrine that requires lived experience. This is why you have to abandon conceptuality: it literally cannot, by its own rules, explain everything, and it cannot help you.
I agree with this, and Christianity seconds. The mind will always find a way to doubt, even if the "dead were to rise from the graves." The body is the instrument that the mind uses, so the soul must have a different instrument to be moved by God, and he who is not moved by the Holy Spirit is not human, but there is no such man

>>16600251
>>metaphysics is cool
metaphysics is a dead end, but career thinkers hate to admit it

>>16588611
>New testament
Not canon.

>>16598631
There is no wisdom in Christianity.

>>16584075
>Christ
>>16584238
>>16598658

i am sorry, but words like ''god'' and ''infinity'' and ''potentiality'' are just huge coping placeholders made up by bored intellectuals who smell their own brain farts.

>>16601365
>>16601383
>>16601424
why has this board been so braindead in the last years holy shit

>>16601365
>metaphysics is a dead end
t. doesn't understand metaphysics

All religions ultimately originated in Persia.
The ancient Aryans originated in Iran (Mitanni civilization), and their descendants created the major religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism. Indo-Aryan religion also developed Greek philosophies like Stoicism through cultural contact.
Judaism developed while the Hebrews were under the Persian rule of Cyrus the Great. Its descendant, Christianity, spread across all the Roman lands, which were already somewhat Persianized from their Stoic influence.
Islam was originally little more than a radical sect of Christianity, and it only became the powerhouse it is now due to the success and conquests of the Shia Persians.

>>16601680
what about Confucianism? Daoism?

>>16601680
The persians were just yet another mutt offspring of the older true Hyperborean Ancient North Eurasians

yeah

>>16581965
fuck off Mara

>>16594613
>reroll as an Alawite
>end up as a Sunni in all but name because Hafez had to pander to sunnis
>get beheaded by sunnis for being a shia apparently

>>16581995
cringe

based

based

>>16604444
checked

cringe

based

Any Pure Land practicioners here? I'm rather new to the tradition, but I find it very fulfilling to simply chant and visualize Amituofo. I'm currently reading the Infinite Life sutra and a commentary by Venerable Master Chin Kung.
Anyway, may everyone on this board be free from suffering and attain their liberation.

>>16605374
>simply chant and visualize Amituofo.
Mantras a good at calming the mind superficially, but you can only get deep and enlightened with right samadhi, ie by focusing on anicca, dukkha and anatta.

>>16581995
>an antinatalist telling others to cope
the irony...

>>16605374
Get the fucking bulldozers.

Bump so I can read the thread

>>16581995
>existing is pain
uhh duh
we as humans are just complex machines that exist for the single purpose of spreading through any form or mean
suffering and pain exists because as humans use that suffering and pain as way to help us survive
nowadays however our whole view is warped from our hunter gatherer roots and everything that is good is bad and bad is good

>>16590519
Buddhism did not "come from hinduism" in the same way christianity came from judaism. there were multiple systems of belief across india, many of which used the same stories and myths or rose from the same philosophical backgrounds. that does not mean that buddhism is a sect of hinduism. youre just buttmad that your religion of choice is not logically consistant.

>>16590731
Imagine trusting a christian, european take on indian philosophical thought and religion.

>>16581965
it has been well established that moksha=nirvana

>>16605374
I have a couple Pure Land friends that are very enthusiastic about practice

>>16597648
I hate christians trying to force their shit into other philosophies.

>>16581995
kys then

>>16582465
Meister Eckhart is the quintessential Western Non-Dualist
Pseudo-Dionysius with worth reading too and so is John Scotus Eriugena but he's a lot harder to find material on

The Classics of Western Spirituality prints of Eckhart's work are very good

>>16607891
>>it has been well established that moksha=nirvana
by morons yeah

>>16582465
>>How do I get into non dualism?
Kill your brain or just transition into a woman. Why do women love nonduality so much by the way?

>>16588354
it belongs solely to nagarjuna and the mahayana school that followed him.

>>16595455
literal nonsense. value does not exist in the world. pleasure is no better than suffering and suffering is no worse than pleasure. it's flat.

>>16588354
Prajnaparamita is a huge mistake

>>16607943
the point was hinting at the apophatic nature of both of them, peabrain. hatred really impairs brain functionality

>>16607889
What are you talking about? It is a feature of all religions specially in their primitive character, you can read the Vedas and recognize this sort of numinous consciousness. But again, people in this board does not read.

>>16607877
cope. buddhism is rehashed upanishads

>>16609556
No it isn't. The Upanishads weren't a thing in the Buddha's day, there was just an amorphous intellectual discussion going on in which certain parties had memorized certain lines and arguments. The Buddha's ideas are divergent from other thinkers to such a degree that only someone who has no understanding of Hindu or Buddhist thought could say that they're just "rehashed Upanishads". The Buddha's idea of karma alone is so radically divergent from the Hindu idea of karma that such a statement is blitheringly retarded.

>>16608189
You could make a case that all pre-Socratic philosophy is non-dualist.

>>16608612
And the Theravada. And the Buddha.

>>16609881
>Patrick Olivelle gives the following chronology for the early Upanishads, also called the Principal Upanishads:[52][21]
>The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.[53][22]
>The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE.
>Stephen Phillips places the early Upanishads in the 800 to 300 BCE range. He summarizes the current Indological opinion to be that the Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Isha, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Kena, Katha, Mundaka, and Prasna Upanishads are all pre-Buddhist and pre-Jain, while Svetasvatara and Mandukya overlap with the earliest Buddhist and Jain literature.[18]

Not to mention the shruti tradition can go even to the date of the Vedas themselves (as a lot of what is in the Upanishads can be found in the Rg Veda).

Buddhism may differ in some superficial way, like his radical negation culminating in anatta (and its misinterpretations culminating in many different buddhist sects).

tldr; youre coping hard

>>16609902
oh, shit, i didnt copy the whole passage from wikipedia! whoops!
>Scholars are uncertain about when the Upanishads were composed.[52] The chronology of the early Upanishads is difficult to resolve, states philosopher and Sanskritist Stephen Phillips,[18] because all opinions rest on scanty evidence and analysis of archaism, style and repetitions across texts, and are driven by assumptions about likely evolution of ideas, and presumptions about which philosophy might have influenced which other Indian philosophies. Indologist Patrick Olivelle says that "in spite of claims made by some, in reality, any dating of these documents [early Upanishads] that attempts a precision closer than a few centuries is as stable as a house of cards".[21] Some scholars have tried to analyse similarities between Hindu Upanishads and Buddhist literature to establish chronology for the Upanishads.[22]

>Patrick Olivelle gives the following chronology for the early Upanishads, also called the Principal Upanishads:[52][21]

>The Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya are the two earliest Upanishads. They are edited texts, some of whose sources are much older than others. The two texts are pre-Buddhist; they may be placed in the 7th to 6th centuries BCE, give or take a century or so.[53][22]
>The three other early prose Upanisads—Taittiriya, Aitareya, and Kausitaki come next; all are probably pre-Buddhist and can be assigned to the 6th to 5th centuries BCE.[citation needed]
>The Kena is the oldest of the verse Upanisads followed by probably the Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, and Mundaka. All these Upanisads were composed probably in the last few centuries BCE.[54]
>The two late prose Upanisads, the Prasna and the Mandukya, cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era.[52][21]
>Stephen Phillips places the early Upanishads in the 800 to 300 BCE range. He summarizes the current Indological opinion to be that the Brhadaranyaka, Chandogya, Isha, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Kena, Katha, Mundaka, and Prasna Upanishads are all pre-Buddhist and pre-Jain, while Svetasvatara and Mandukya overlap with the earliest Buddhist and Jain literature.[18]

>The later Upanishads, numbering about 95, also called minor Upanishads, are dated from the late 1st-millennium BCE to mid 2nd-millennium CE.[23] Gavin Flood dates many of the twenty Yoga Upanishads to be probably from the 100 BCE to 300 CE period.[24] Patrick Olivelle and other scholars date seven of the twenty Sannyasa Upanishads to likely have been complete sometime between the last centuries of the 1st-millennium BCE to 300 CE.[23] About half of the Sannyasa Upanishads were likely composed in 14th- to 15th-century CE.[23]

>>16609902
No he's right, the 'upanishads' were not distinct until centuries later and were at the time scrambled into the Vedas and seen as part of it. Nakamura concludes that Buddha didn't even know or give a fuck about the upanishads.

>>16609957
>>16609902
Very good display of hermeneutics. This is why it's important to read a text in its entirety, and not just cherrypick lines that in a vacuum support your argument.

I call this the Protestant Problem: people think they can just interpret things in a vacuum, detached from the context in which they were written. They end up thinking that the academic classifications applied on things that happened 2,500 years ago have any actual concrete existence or validity. The system becomes more real than the text itself.

>>16609964
whats funny is that the same anon cherry picks all the time and has been doing so for years even though:
>Adi Shankara cautioned against cherrypicking a phrase or verse out of context from Vedic literature, and remarked that the Anvaya (theme or purport) of any treatise can only be correctly understood if one attends to the Samanvayat Tatparya Linga

e-Advaitins will use any means to 'win le argument' (think 2006 internet atheism style), against the warnings of their own literary idols, whether its cherry picking select verses of the upanishads to claim that it exclusively teaches non-dualism or skimming sections of books and cherry picking a single sentence in order to screencap it but being ignorant of the entire book and later btfo when confronted with missing pieces of information.

The resident schizo isn't limited to wikiskimming.

>>16609556
hindu seethe

>>16609957
>>16609964
Where does anything of that contradicts what I posted? There are debate concerning their dates but many serious scholars do date the earlier Upanishads back to around ~600BC/~500BC. Still, these are the approximate datings of finished, edited, written texts of shruti tradition. As I said in my previous post, these go back orally to much older tradition going back to the Vedas themselves (much long before the Buddha by hundreds of years if not a millenium).

>>16609958
> the 'upanishads' were not distinct until centuries later and were at the time scrambled into the Vedas and seen as part of it
well, that's kind of my point.

>>16610015
There is a fact that the Upanishads and their content are pre-Buddhist. This is not subject to argumentation.

>>16610090
>There is a fact that the Upanishads and their content are pre-Buddha. This is not subject to argumentation.
Firstly that wasn't even the subject matter at hand, anon clearly said the Upanishads weren't a thing in themselves at the time of the Buddha and were Retroactively considered as part of the 4 Vedas until centuries later.

Secondly, only about 4 or 5 out the 108 can perhaps be considered pre-Buddha. That is less than 5% of all Upanishads, and less than 50% of the primary Upanishads.

Third, you missed the part where scholars themselves admit that the evidence is scanty, I wouldn't really put that much faith into a linguistic analysis by a couple of scholars (one of whom remains doubtful) so as to consider it a 'fact' that 5% of the Upanishads may be pre-Buddha/post-Shramana. I hope you move past your dogmatism but given your history, I won't hold my breath.

>>16610209
>Retroactively
i see what u did there

>>16610209
>Firstly that wasn't even the subject matter at hand
We are discussing whether the Upanishads and what is in there are or not pre-buddha.

>anon clearly said the Upanishads weren't a thing in themselves at the time of the Buddha
and he was proven wrong.

>Secondly, only about 4 or 5 out the 108 can perhaps be considered pre-Buddha.
So what? The most important ones are pre-buddha and all subsequent ones ground on these ones. Terrible refuge, you're proving me right.

> you missed the part where scholars themselves admit that the evidence is scanty
and still there are ground to date them back to 7th/6th centuries BC, what we have point to it.

>I hope you move past your dogmatism but given your history, I won't hold my breath
What dogmatism, my friend? You are the dogmatic one asserting incoherent stuff, contrary to scholarship and the evidences available. You deny what you are affirming yourself. This is not even dogmatism, this is brainwashing.

>>16610090
If you go by the date of the textual material, indian history begins with the pillars of asokha, year -250
Ashoka talks about himself mostly & reading some sutras from the pali canon

Then you go directly to the year +50_+150 with the g&hari buddhists sutras & garbage Mayana suttras & some chinese translations of those.
Then you go directly to year +400 with some more chineses travellers translating some buddhists sutras

All thats stuff is based on carbon dating & chinese records of the dates of the translations

The oldest texts are not the Vedas, contrary to what the poos say. It even gets worse. There are 3 vedas & they
-don't have ignorance
-don't have karma
-don't have rebirth
-don't have meditation
-are 100% ritualistic & killing animals to please the gods, like all the other retards did. Hindus are horse sluts. literal women.

The poos are still SEETHING to this day that the buddhists & jains contradicted their garbage vedas.
The poos had to change all their vedic crap in the commentarial upanishads where they still talk about doing rituals & symbols but started to talk about karma, rebirth , meditation & ''muh killing animals is bad bro, god was joking in vedas teehee''

You have the same problem with greeks history. The earliest date for the materials is year +XXX, even though the texts itself says it is about some dudes living in year -300 [like alexander]

The only way to have the usual timeline hindus->hindus+jains+buddhists is through the ''linguistic analysis'' meme.
The major problem of the textual analysis is that putting a date on group of texts with this is fruitless. The best those people can do is throwing a number like year -500, but it could have been -450,or -600 or even further away than this.
The other major problem with textual analysis is the ''oral transmission'' meme: people change the texts all the fucking time, some times on purpose to make it seem older or younger, whatever suits them.

>>16610655
none of this makes the least sense holy shit

>dont have ignorance, dont have rebirth

HYMN CLXXVII. Māyābheda.
1. THE sapient with their spirit and their mind behold the Bird adorned with all an Asura's magic might.
Sages observe him in the ocean's inmost depth: the wise disposers seek the station of his rays.
2 The flying Bird bears Speech within his spirit: erst the Gandharva in the womb pronounced it:
And at the seat of sacrifice the sages cherish this radiant, heavenly-bright invention.
3 I saw the Herdsman, him who never resteth, approaching and departing on his pathways.
He, clothed in gathered and diffusive splendour, within the worlds continually travels.

>dont have meditation
agnimiile, nasadiya sukta

>dont have karma
''The earliest appearance of the word karma is found in the Rigveda. The term karma also appears significantly in the Veda''.

cope more

>>16610976
Given that every post you've made has been nothing but moving the goal posts, I'd say that yes, you are indeed coping pretty hard.

Also, I don't know why you'd use that bit about karma, karma just means "actions". It's spiritual meaning is a specific usage of the term.

>>16588515
Why does this board hate AW?

>>16611111
how is that moving the goal posts? the whole discussion is about everything in hinduism predating buddhism, which is a fact i proved to you refuting your nonsensical assertions that the vedas dont have ignorance, karma, meditation, etc.

you still have to prove how buddhism is in any way original.

>>16611111
Looks like a waste of quints to me.

>>16611111
You've been BTFO'd pretty hard and it's ironic that you talk about coping.