/lit/ - Literature

>nirvana means dissolution into a pantheist One

No.

>>16753086
I have to stand with Asuka, becoming one with everyone else sounds absolutely disgusting.

>>16753099
Nirvana is the obliteration of the self. It's death.
Some people paint it as a sort of 'awakening' state but if this state does not guarantee the continuity of the self, then it is also death.

>>16753086
>>16753148
>>16753110
Wait, are you saying my Myxomycota soul theory is an established idea?

Wait a minute.

oh my fucking god. Have I just been reinventing Buddhism this ENTIRE TIME?

>>16753208
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>16753923
don't worry about it

>>16753110

the only thing she found disgusting was that even after all that shinji was still too much of a bitch to strangle her

>>16753208
Ah yes, the Very Special Teenager has arrived.

>Are there any books that address this issue?
my diary desu 2bh. having hindu parents is an easy way to annihilate your self esteem. every mistake and circumstance of your life is cosmic retribution for your past lives and karma.

Nirvana is absolute freedom from all limitation, it's not the obliteration of the self (>implying there is a self). It's freedom from being and from non-being. You're already in (the state of) Nirvana, you're just also in (the state of) Samsara. Also, what the fuck is this "with every cycle"? Once you're out you're out. Nirvana in Advaita Vedanta doesn't involve dissolving into everything, it's just the realization that you've always been part of everything. You've always been part of Brahman anyways, there's nothing to "lose", and there's nothing to dissolve into because you're already in it.

Neither are nihilism because neither deny objective reality or objective truth. If you mean "they're depressing because it says that I can't CONSOOM my way to bliss", well tough shit. I would totally agree that the whacky incoherent dualistim that Guenonfag and his discord followers shill is actual literal nihilism, however, but who cares what they think.

>>16753086
Hey I wouldn't mind dissolving into everything, could be nice.

>>16753148
It's death of the false self, similar to waking up from a series of dreams

God. Buddhism is such a depressing religion

>>16754034
How is the dreaming consciousness a false self?

>>16754054
>God. [thing I don't know anything about] is so depressing
Maybe you should learn about it before having an opinion?

>>16753996
I feel like this is a common theme in Asia. Hindus just have it rough because your parents can bitch at you for stuff that you did before you were born.

>>16754009
>freedom from being and from non-being.
What does this even mean?
If it's freedom from being, then you don't exist.
>with every cycle
Of Samsara. It's cyclical by definition. And eastern religions teach that there are thousands if not millions of cycles to go through before liberation.
>just the realization that you've always been part of everything. You've always been part of Brahman
That's dissolution. Being "part of" something. You are not "that", you are a part of it, which negates your existence by reducing it to a component with no individuality.
>CONSOOM
If individuation is consumption, then I don't know what to tell you.

>>16754076
It's real but the identification is false. Imagine being in a nightmare and believing that you're actually being chased by monsters, it can be scary but it's simply smoke and mirrors

>>16754101
Yeah but you're not really answering my question
To liken nirvana to "waking up from a dream" implies a similar process
When you're dreaming, your consciousness is impaired, a bit like when you're intoxicated; your understanding and focus on what you assume to be the surrounding reality is narrow, shallow, incomplete. You only realize how nonsensical everything was after waking up.
When you wake up, you don't change. You're the same person, ego, self as you were in the dream. Your perception changes, your awareness broadens, but there is no change to your consciousness itself, just a return to a normal state

This doesn't sound similar at all to what nirvana describes

>>16754137
>This doesn't sound similar at all to what nirvana describes
Nirvana doesn't describe anything, the whole point is that it's indescribable. Imagine this life and all it's natural laws, restrictions, ect as shadows being cast from a greater truth. Nirvana is the truth, and duality is a distortion that takes on different forms and shapes which are wildly disconnected from the source.

>>16753086
>To aim for yourself to be destroyed, even if it is by merging into something greater, is life-denying
careful with the Nietzsche there kid, its sharp, swinging it around willy-nilly is gonna get someone hurt

>>16753086
Do you really want to exist as a concious entity forever? Do you really want to remain separate from everything else forever? You're not wrong that your individuality is destroyed and you become one with the sphagetti monster, but that isn't particularily nihilist as much as it recognizes that our egos and individuality is a construction that should eventually be shed.

>>16754181
Why do you not want it the other way?

>>16754095
It means "freedom from all limitation". It's beyond conceptuality. Yes, that means that you need direct experience to understand it. Yes, that means that eventually you have to get off the internet and stop arguing. Yes, that means that reality is far more complex than simple word games allow for. Go read "The Mind Like Fire Unbound" if you want more.

Also, you're misunderstanding how cyclical time in the Indopshere works. The cycles are within Samsara. It's not appropriate to talk about Samsara as "a thing" because it's actually a process/state, but if we're being fast and loose, yes, there is "only one" Samsara. There aren't multiple cycles of it, there are cycles of things (namely time) within Samsara. Once you're out, you're out. In fact, Buddhism explicitly reifies an "end point" where everyone gets out (see: The Diamond Sutra). This is a specifically Buddhist example, but the same applies to Hindusim. At the end of the cycle, everyone who got enlightened doesn't suddenly become unenlightened, they stay enlightened.

And as for Advaita Vedanta, no, it isn't. Your ignorance of the interconnections of things and how things are leads to the supposed multiplicity of things. You're the one saying that the left half of the table is some distinctly ontologically different part of the right half of the table. You're the one saying that the pacific and atlantic oceans are actually two separate things, despite the fact that they're the same body of water. That's the entire point: you can't "dissolve" because there's nothing to dissolve, and nothing to dissolve in. Shankara's example of this phenomena -is mistaking a rope for a snake. Your ignorance tells you the rope is a snake.

You should look into these things before having an opinion on them.

>>16754163
If it's indescribable then how can I be in it currently?
>the truth
I understand that. But nobody agrees on what its implications are for the continuity of the self

>>16754273
>If it's indescribable then how can I be in it currently?
Just be present

>>16754180
>merging into something greater, is life-denying
Yes.
If I am to become part of a whole, I want to retain a sense of self. Otherwise it is assimilation through destruction
>>16754181
Individuality can evolve and expand, like the dream analogy stated earlier. You could wake up from an infinite succession of dreams and have your experience of self change every time while still retaining the same individuality
>>16754293
I can't be anything else than present.

>>16753208
Yes you have, faggot. Go do something productive. Like writing a cyberpunk murder-mystery detective novel in first person where mr detectiveman, (a blatant self-insert) gets regularly pegged in his apartment by a black female detective from a rival private investigation firm, wielding a mechanical strapon MOOSE COCK; on these occasions she usually bullies you because no crime ever gets solved by your pathetic department. You will never have anything original to say, so you might as well.

>>16753975
American, 19

>>16754245
>you can't "dissolve" because there's nothing to dissolve
This is disingenuous. Saying something doesn't exist doesn't make it cease to exist.

>>16754310
>I can't be anything else than present.
You can be carried away in thought simulations. You're always present, but in a simulation.

>>16754080
>Maybe you should learn about it before having an opinion?

You're right my understand of Buddhism is entirely superficial, but isn't the core teaching literally that we are stuck in an endless cycle of reincarnation and suffering and that we must liberate ourselves from this. How is that not depressing? So the entire goal and endpoint of this religion is to strive to NOT EXIST. Until then, we are stuck in life after life of suffering, potentially for all eternity? So, in that case it would be better to never have existed at all?

>>16754337
Saying something exists doesn't make it exist. Saying there's a difference between two things doesn't mean there is. A droplet drawn from a bucket and dropped back in does not "dissolve". It was always water, it just understands what it is. An Advaita Vedantin would argue that this isn't a loss of anything, it's a gaining. All of the water molecules are still there, in fact there's even more. It's becoming even more of what you are.

>>16754362
Firstly, Samsara is an endless state of dukkha, not suffering. Suffering is torture. Suffering is "getting skinned alive and then dipped in battery acid". Dukkha is that, sure, but it's also "feeling sad because you don't want to go to work on Monday". It's any negative feelings resulting from impermanence. An enlightened being (that is still alive) still feels "pain in the sense of bodily damage", but they do not suffer. They do not experience dukkha. The first Noble Truth, commonly translated as "life is suffering" is actually "nidham dukkham", meaning "Dukkha is".

Secondly, Nirvana is not non-existence. It is a state of absolute limitless freedom. Yes, this means that it cannot be described conceptually, that's the entire point: Trying to describe things in terms of concepts is part of the entire reason that you experience dukkha. You HAVE to let go of this idea of "boxing things into neat little mental packages". It causes you dukkha.

Thirdly, you're already in Nirvana. Nirvana is a state. So is Samsara. You're in a state of Nirvana AND Samsara. Your goal is to stop "doing" Samsara, to stop the wheel of cyclical rebirth. Doing so stops Dukkha. What is left? The state of Nirvana. That of absolute limitless freedom.

Fourthly, from this, you can not not-exist. You have never not-existed. HOW you have existed has changed, and will continue to change. Eventually, you WILL leave the state of Samsara. All beings will. It will take a long time. But it will eventually happen. Is that dismaying? Yeah. Does it suck that we live in a world where we experience dukkha? Yeah. That's why Buddhists want to stop samsara. But you have plenty of time, and the reward is worth it.

>>16754009
> . I would totally agree that the whacky incoherent dualistim that Guenonfag and his discord follower
>Aka I lose every debate about Buddhist vs Vedanta doctrine and cope for it by sophistically claiming there are problematic dualisms where none exist

every time

>>16753086
>How are they not crypto-nihilism?
They are.
>Are there any books that address this issue?
Nietzsche.

Poos, tradfaggots and hindu LARPers will tell you otherwise but this is likely just cope in my estimation. Rebirth doctrine seems *specifically* designed to get you to realize nirvana/moksha, which is the state of complete unconcern with the world.

>>16754933
Rather unconcern, more admissanxe.

>>16754362
>So the entire goal and endpoint of this religion is to strive to NOT EXIST. Until then, we are stuck in life after life of suffering, potentially for all eternity? So, in that case it would be better to never have existed at all?
Plato describes philosophy as preparing for death. Christ says his kingdom is not of this world. Guenonfag says Brahman pilots you like an Evangelion. If what bothers you about Buddhism is its sobriety regarding birth and death you aren't ready to study any religious or non-modern philosophical system.

>>16754933
Metempsychosis is the least 'cope' of any doctrines regarding life after death, because it also stipulates there was life before birth. You did not come from nothing and you do not return to nothing, nor do you escape to heaven eternally or be damned eternally. You arose from conditions and your actions will lead to future conditions for arising. I don't see how apathy or not caring about anything result from this, unless someone was already disturbed to begin with. To be sure equanimity and quietude are valued as ascetic practices, so accordingly one who has not cultivated such an attitude would see them as indifference, as he is ruled by passions and desires to a greater degree. But askesis is not unique to Buddhism or Hinduism anyway.

>>16753965
tfw no anime gf that calls me disgusting after i cause the apocalypse by merging all consciousness and try to strangle her just to be seen as an individual after i pussy out of it.

>>16753208
I live and breathe for chuuni shit.
Thank you based Myxomycota soul therory-anon

>>16753086
Buddhism and Hinduism are complete self-contradictory garbage. There's the whole let go of all attachment thing to achieve nirvana and escape samsara, except when you do you become a bodihstavva ascended enlightened being with no attachments who exists outside of space and in all time and yet is somehow going around bumfuck india/japan/korea taking offerings.

Literal ponzi scheme. Like a franciscan order with onions sauce.

>>16754009
>dualistim that guenonfag shills
you people are literally insane

>>16755478
Well as the saying goes: if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

>>16754488
But what is Samsara? Why there is Samsara? Samsara is not reality but Nirvana is? This sounds like advaita's Brahman and Maya, Self and self. I find it difficult to think that Samsara was not willed, or necessary.

>>16754488
Could you please recommend intro books on this topic?

>>16753086
>To aim for yourself to be destroyed, even if it is by merging into something greater, is life-denying.
In Hinduism you are not destroyed but the soul is eternal and it continues on eternally in a state of freedom.
>Are there any books that address this issue?
Introduction to the Study of the Hindu Doctrines - Rene Guenon

>>16754362
>So, in that case it would be better to never have existed at all?
Congratulations, you figured it out.

>>16754488
Good post.

>>16755478
>Buddhism and Hinduism are complete self-contradictory
That's the point

It seems to me as if Buddhism as a whole intentionally tries never to answer questions of "why", but a rational examination of the Buddhist doctrines would suggest that Samsara must have come about for a reason, and going by the description given by >>16754488, I would be forced to conclude we created Samsara ourselves. If not, we must presume the existence of superior factors in the structure of reality that we are subject to, and which Buddhism appears to disingenuously opt to ignore. If we created it ourselves, why should I contradict this decision I apparently made? No one returned from enlightenment to confirm the desirability of this outcome, did they?

If Nirvana is an eternal state and Samsara is a temporary one, Samsara was brought about from Nirvana. Why, then, should you assert there is only one "Samsara" and it will never happen again, and on what basis do you proclaim that it should be stopped to begin with? For all I can tell, I placed myself in Samsara through my unlimited freedom because it was more interesting to me, and so long as I perceive it this way and desire to maintain it, I should have no reason to want to attain Nirvana.

>>16756218
>For all I can tell, I placed myself in Samsara through my unlimited freedom because it was more interesting to me, and so long as I perceive it this way and desire to maintain it, I should have no reason to want to attain Nirvana.
Well you're not even wrong about that, insofar as you desire to desire, you will be born

>>16753086
Yeah this is my main gripe with buddhism and medktation. Buddhism is liberal in that it thinks suffering is a bad thing and not the entire point. Everything is just a cope and mechanisms to escape suffering, which is weak
Also medotation is like a mental and spiritual neutering.

>>16756469
Your entire worldview consists of desiring to be punished by blond beasts for being a degenerate.

>>16755478
>enlightened being with no attachments who exists outside of space and in all time and yet is somehow going around bumfuck india/japan/korea taking offerings.

He who is clothed in knowledge roams the earth freely, whether dressed in space itself, properly dressed, or perhaps dressed in skins, and whether in appearance a madman, a child or a ghost.
The wise man lives as the embodiment of dispassion even amid passions, he travels alone even in company, he is always satisfied with his own true nature and established in himself as the self of all.
The wise man who is always enjoying supreme bliss lives like this - sometimes appearing a fool, sometimes a clever man, sometimes regal, sometimes mad, sometimes gentle, sometimes venomous, sometimes respected, sometimes despised, and sometimes simply unnoticed.
Even when poor always contented, even without assistance always strong, always satisfied even without eating, without equal, but looking on everything with an equal eye.
This man is not acting even when acting, experiences the fruits of past actions but is not the reaper of the consequences, with a body and yet without a body, prescribed and yet present everywhere.
Thoughts of pleasant and unpleasant as well as thoughts of good and bad do not touch this knower of God who has no body and who is always at peace.
Pleasure and pain and good and bad exist for him who identifies himself with ideas of a physical body and so on. How can there be good or bad consequences for the wise man who has brokened his bonds and is one with Reality?
The sun appears to be swallowed up by the darkness in an eclipse and is mistakenly called swallowed up by people through misunderstanding of the nature of things.
In the same way the ignorant, see even the greatest knower of God, though free from the bonds of the body and so on, as having a body since they can see what is obviously still a body.
Such a man remains free of the body, and moves here and there as impelled by the winds of energy, like a snake that has cast its skin.
Just as a piece of wood is carried high and low by a stream, so the body is carried along by causality as the appropriate fruits of past actions present themselves.
The man free from identification with the body lives experiencing the causal effects of previously entertained desires, just like the man subject to samsara, but, being realised, he remains silently within himself as the witness there, empty of further mental imaginations - like the axle of a wheel.
He whose mind is intoxicated with the drink of the pure bliss of self-knowledge does not turn the senses towards their objects, nor does he turn them away from them, but remains as a simple spectator, and regards the results of actions without the least concern.
He who has given up choosing one goal from another, and who remains perfect in himself as the spectator of his own good fortune - he is the supreme knower of God.

does this random sutta i looked up help explain the position of buddhism any better, anon?
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_59.html

>>16754488
>Saying something exists doesn't make it exist. Saying there's a difference between two things doesn't mean there is.
There we go again with the typical weaseling out of having to make a coherent point.

>>16753110
Asuka is soulless

>>16755792
>the soul is eternal and it continues on eternally in a state of freedom.
Depending on what "the soul" means in this context, then you might be destroyed.

>>16754095
>NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST NOT BE AN ATOMIZED INDIVIDUAL SNOWFLAAAKE NOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST RETURN TO GOD AND LEAVE CHILDISH GAMES BEHIND NOOOOOOO YOU NEED TO BE THIS ISLAND IN AN EVERCHANGING WORLD AND CONSOOM PRODUCT WHO IS GOING TO WORK FOR OUR OLIGARCHIC OVERLORDS
t. You

>>16758263
>wanting to be dissolved and assimilated into the great nothing
Literal bugman. Fuck off with your strawmanning.

>>16758263
So this is the power of enlightenment and letting go...

>>16753086>>16756469
>>16755478
>>16753148

there is no self in the first place dumdum

>>16758284
>>16754337

I love how mental midgets cant stop deifying suffering as a cope.

>>16758300
>unable to handle suffering to the extent he'd base his entire life philosophy around avoidance
>calls others mental midgets

>>16756218
>>If Nirvana is an eternal state and Samsara is a temporary one, Samsara was brought about from Nirvana
huh no, and logic is useless to talk reality and/or buddhism

>>16756218
>If not, we must presume the existence of superior factors in the structure of reality that we are subject to, and which Buddhism appears to disingenuously opt to ignore. If we created it ourselves, why should I contradict this decision I apparently made? No one returned from enlightenment to confirm the desirability of this outcome, did they?
no
first rebirth has a condition and second it does not matter what created the first birth. What matters is how to end it. And the knowledge of what created the first birth is not necessary to end rebirths.

>>16755271
>I don't see how apathy or not caring about anything result from this, unless someone was already disturbed to begin with.
I think the crux of the matter here lies with the eastern denial of an individual soul, or its sublation into a higher universal principle (as seen in the nondualist strains). You're entirely right, rebirth doctrine on its own doesn't do much, you have to qualify what exactly is being reborn to get to the point I'm trying to make. I'll make some sweeping generalizations here to make my point but bear with me.
Western philosophers seem to hold soul (Psyche, Nous, Logos, w/e) to be self-evident and foundational. The eastern analogue would be something like the atman of the *dualist* traditions (atman =/= brahman but you can enter into communion with him) Eastern thought holds this kind of belief in an immutable and individual soul to be 'unreal', that is to say transient and consequently a delusion. To them it's confusing the relative with the absolute, as I'll try explain.
What would hypothetically be the western soul in eastern thought is split into two components -- the gunas (psychophysical foundational 'attributes'), and what is keeping the gunas self-perpetuating according to their nature -- karma. What exactly is *karma*? Karma is both a mechanism and a measure. It is the measure of how bound you are to the waxing and waning of the gunas, and it's the mechanism which determines what is being reborn. This is because being bound and being reborn are *the same thing*.
Good karma implies you are less identified with, or bound to, the qualities of your "individuality", and consequently you're born less often, because you are those qualities. You suffer less. Bad karma is the converse, you identify yourself with a lot of things, desire a lot of things, and so karma is simply just the measure of *how much you want to be reborn*, or to put it in the western sense, and to get back to the point I tried to make earlier: how much you're concerned with the world.

>>16758308
So the apparent transcendence of Nirvana beyond logic serves to handwave any legitimate questions as "it doesn't matter" or "it will be revealed"? That's convenient.
How can Nirvana simultaneously be beyond all comprehension, yet also be qualified as the return of the soul to its original state?
Buddhists will tell you "Nirvana cannot be known" but their entire philosophy is based around the abnegation, or rather the denial of the existence of, the self. This makes no sense.

>>16754362>>16755836

>but isn't the core teaching literally that we are stuck in an endless cycle of reincarnation and suffering and that we must liberate ourselves from this. How is that not depressing? So the entire goal and endpoint of this religion is to strive to NOT EXIST.
Yeah but nobody said that buddhism was a teaching to have a optimistic outlook on samsara.
It is the westerners attending mediation classes in dilettante and the Mahayanists who are desperate to turn buddhism into a happy go lucky self help crap by defining nirvana as unconditional love and so on. Mahayana was created by people just like you.

>>16754181
>Do you really want to exist as a concious entity forever?
Yes. And that's good since I don't have a choice, because I exist eternally in the mind of God.

>>16754009
>freedom from all limitation
No such thing.
Existence is defined by limiations. To remove all limitations would mean that you would not exist. There is just a little problem with that. Non-existence is not possible. It's a non-entity.
As such, Buddhism is bunk.

>>16758328
>Non-existence is not possible. It's a non-entity.
>As such, Buddhism is bunk.
Buddhism is about this exact conundrum though

>>16758313
So to sum things up, you acquire good karma by detaching yourself from your self, and bad karma by individuating.

>>16754054
Yeah it's amazing that simple gaslighting and self-hatred can be built into a major religion.

>>16758333
There is no conundrum. Buddhism just invented one where none was needed.

>>16758334
I'm sure it's a little more complex than that and that somebody will correct me on some points, but I figure that's the gist of things yes.

>>16758340
>There is no conundrum.
There is, though? The fact you've just attempted to upend an entire tradition's worth of philosophy in a 4chin post by saying "nonexistence cannot into existence therefore buddhism wrong lul". The buddhists have responses for this sort of objection. IIRC Nagarjuna addresses this at length.

>>16754245
>you need direct experience to understand it
That already contradicts the very premise of "freedom from all limiations", because all experience is limited.

>>16754488
>Saying something exists doesn't make it exist
>no u
Actually we say that things exist because they do and not the other way around. lmao

>>16754933
This. The Doctrine of Rebirth basically allows you to just not give a fuck and live a comfy life, because you can eternally move the goalpost of your salvation into eternity (you can literally see that this is all buddhists ever do whenever they encounter criticism).

>>16758345
>I figure that's the gist of things yes.
And why? What justification does buddhism give for the rejection of the self?
Buddhists always tiptoe around this, saying "no but actually there is no self" or "we just don't know what nirvana is" but the fact is that their religion unambiguously preaches self-rejection. To what end? Ending suffering?
But the you that exists now and the you that will exist in your next rebirth are not the same. Buddhists speak of a soul, but the soul and the individual experience of the self are obviously not the same in the context of samsara, so this is a non-issue.

>>16755212
>Buddhism
>sober
lmao

>>16755212
>Christ says his kingdom is not of this world. Guenonfag says Brahman pilots you like an Evangelion.
How the fuck do any of these imply nonexistence?

>>16758336
look at what loserdom and bitterness spawned in the west.

>>16755212
>If what bothers you about Buddhism is its sobriety regarding birth and death you aren't ready to study any religious or non-modern philosophical system.
I think his problem is moreso Buddhism doesn't even have a satisfying end-goal in the first place.

I don't think that people that still fall for 'depressing' or 'life-denying' are going anywhere spiritually. There is no going around total materialism.

>>16757844
>mporary one, Samsara was brought about from Nirvana. Why, then, should you assert there is only one "Samsara" and it will never happen again, and on what basis do you proclaim that it should be stopped to begin with? For all I can tell, I placed myself in Samsara through my unlimited freedom because it was more interesting to me, and so long as I perceive it this way and desire to maintain it, I should have no reason to want to attain Nirvana.
This

>>16758401
This is barely a step above gnostic retards calling people they don't agree with hylics.

>>16758369
>What justification does buddhism give for the rejection of the self?
None! (Besides those already mentioned, and as far as I can tell anyway) I had an awakening when discovering this. Rebirth doctrine cannot get past the fact that karma is always an individual choice, and that I myself determine how much I am bound to it. I determine my own karma, but buddhist always chalk this up to my inborn karma being "bad" or "good". It's the fixed-point or "essentialism" of nondualist thought.

>>16758345
>There is, though?
No there isn't. Non-existence is a non-entity, therefore it can be safely ignored because it's note real. Only existence is real. As such your conundrum is fake.

>>16758401
>dude what do you mean you're not okay with your entire fundamental substance being utterly obliterated regardless of what you do and for no purpose whatsoever? are you some kind of materialist?

>>16758394
lmao, that coming from an easterner is pretty damn fucking rich
you had fembois before we did

>>16758423
How dense are you? I can't be fucked defending the buddhists, as I said they already do a fine job of this themselves. Go read Nagarjuna who as mentioned has responses to objections of this kind.

>>16758435
>doesn't adress argument
>moves the goalpost
>lol just read book by author
Yep, this is why buddhism will always be fringe. It attracts a very specific type of ideologue.

>>16754349
>thought simulations
So imagination is considered a hindrance to buddhists?

>>16758446
Existence itself is a hindrance to buddhists

>>16758450
Bruh :D

>>16758445
I'm not so much caught up in trying to defend buddhism (because I'm not a buddhist, if that wasn't clear by my other posts) as I am pointing out that you're being intellectually dishonest by not reading an author which specifically addresses your point of contention with the tradition. I'm trying to engage in good faith but you seem to have misinterpreted me, which is completely understandable considering the nature of this board so I'll leave it at that.

The Bardö Thodol states that liberation is achieved after death by recognizing the visions that come to you as the primordial, spontaneous play of one's own mind.
Does this imply a form of solipsism? Does it extend to Buddhist teachings as well?

>>16758483
You might find Jung's writings on the book of the dead interesting.

>>16758483
>Does it extend to Buddhist teachings as well?
Not one tibetan teaching is about buddhism.

>>16758446
day dreaming is wrong, jsut like craving for non-existence and sensual pleasures craving and craving for being

>>16758516
>day dreaming is wrong
Why? A life without imagination is an animal's life.

>>16758503
That's not what I asked.

>>16758521
yes according to daydreamers, like women and intellectuals, day dreaming is the best life. Turns out it is shit to be happy.

>>16758586
Who brought up happiness, midwit?
If the goal of buddhism and hinduism is detachment from the material, imagination, as an means of escapism, is a means to an end.

>>16756558
Will achieving enlightenment get me a gf?

>>16758760
no

>>16758393
If we can call these existences then clearly we have to discard our conventional, worldly notion of existence of being wrapped in a body experiencing sensations and dying. Ascending to heaven, or being god all along without knowing it (or not being born again for that matter) all require some sort of denial of the experiences we use to construct the idea of our existence.

>>16758400
That's a personal problem. Wanting to feel satisfied is not the point of Buddhism anyway, unless you are from California or in a Thai tourist trap

>>16758417
>karma is always an individual choice

>>16759074
But the christian view does not at all imply a different notion of existence, but rather a different state of being.
As for brahman I don't know. I'm wary of all philosophies that imply that the end goal is to "return to" god as if we were just a bunch of cells whose only purpose was to function inside an organism.

>>16758516
>day dreaming is wrong, jsut like craving for non-existence and sensual pleasures craving and craving for being
Manifest reality is dream-like to begin with. Day-dreaming is no more 'wrong' than any other mere cognition. The point is to be able set things aside, not compile a list of commandments to brandish at people. It isn't wrong to be living out the consequences of previous actions.

>>16759112
Look, if we are supposed to leave *this* all behind after we die and be in communion with God in his heaven that's as life-denying as any other religion. I don't see how they would deserve a pass from nietzscheposters as life affirming whatever that means

>>16759081
Ah yes, fucking Californians wanting to feel pleasant and/or interesting things, instead like high-IQ Buddha you ought to want to feel nothing in order for suffering to stop!

>>16759128
>if we are supposed to leave *this* all behind
What is *this*?
Christianity does not state the destruction of the self like buddhism or hinduism do, there's a notion of conservation through salvation. Heaven is proximity with God, not assimilation into Him.

>>16758516
Day dreaming is probably better than most of what you do. I'm sure your life is mostly ugly Anon. I'm sure it'd be more beautiful if you exerted your mind to picture and hear beautiful things. Nothing bad will come of it, I can assure you.

>>16759143
I've always wondered the exact mechanics of this. Like how many selves is heaven crowded with, or does it just stretch on for eternity like rows of suburbia or brutalist apartment complexes? Wouldn't some selves be closer to God than others. Or are we without earthly needs of time and space, having either shed or bodies or received miraculously incorruptible ones which suffer no injury nor want?

>>16759186
You assume it's one single spatial space. Even if it's sensual (i.e. there are secondary qualities like form, shape, colour, smell that exist in Heaven), no reason to think it's physical (i.e. follows the laws of physics). It just works however the master of Heaven wants it to, is my bet.

>>16755710
>What
The state of delusion.
>Why
Who knows? Does it matter? A monk asks the Buddha why, and he basically says that if there is a beginning, it happened so long ago that it's irrelevant, and if there is no beginning, then it never began and there is no why. The Buddha was a practical man. If you're shot by an arrow, do you demand to know the hair and eye color of the man who shot you before it is pulled out? Do you care about the wood the shaft is made of, and whether the head is flint or steel? No. So why should you care why you're in Samsara? It sucks, and there's a way out.

>>16755770
What the Budda Taught, or In the Buddha's Words. Pick one, read it, don't read the other, they're basically the same thing. Then, read Red Pine's translation and commentary of the Heart Sutra.

>>16757844
>>16758355
Counterpoint: I can talk about the amazing sex you had when you lost your virginity. But you're a virgin! So, clearly, saying something exists, or saying something is a certain way, doesn't make it so.

>>16756218
Buddhists would agree that yes, Samsara is ultimately our own doing in the sense that our ignorance causes it (Zen makes it a point that you can just snap out of it RIGHT NOW if you really want to). Whether you can re-enter Samsara or not is a doctrinal point. The Theravada rejects it; whatever got you into Samsara originally, you can never do that again. The Mahayana is a little more iffy, and it varies tradition to tradition. Some say that it could happen again, others disagree. Most hold, however, that while it's possible to "fall out" of Nirvana back into Samsara, it's very unlikely. This gets into bigbrain eschatology, however, and is sort of like asking a Christian "what comes after heaven". It's a question with no answer, because we can't actually conceptualize how this would even work, it's just totally beyond us.

However, "a Buddha" is a being that has in this life achieved nirvana, seen the opportunity to peace out into Nirvana, but has instead chosen to remain in this world teaching (the title is actually a lot more complicated, so this works). Siddhartha Gautama was one such Buddha ("The" Buddha), but he wasn't the first or the last. People who can pull this off are extremely rare. This works in part because the Buddha still has a body, whereas most people "enter" Nirvana (or rather, "Stop Samsaraing") at death.

>>16759216
If we start removing the conditions which allow us to recognize selves it becomes a little more challenging to claim we have selves, I would think

>>16759226
>But you're a virgin!
False. Try making an actual argument instead of passive-agressively seething next time. You're pathetic.

>>16759186
>>16759216
There's no reason to believe the nature of heaven is comprehensible to us as we are now.

>>16759142
Fact of the matter is that Buddhism has been poorly transmitted and that California was and continues to be the vanguard of this, from stoner hippies to Silicon Valley promoting mindfulness. But as Plato advises, the masses are seldom judges of what is good; thus the Buddhism given in popular perception is this weepy posturing that everyone is suffering rather than a dedicated askesis aimed and purifying one's mind and body of base impulses and desires which would lead to further attachments and as a result of said attachments, inevitable 'suffering,' which in extension becomes craving for rebirth and so on. Someone who cannot stop bleating about suffering and how much they want to escape from it is all the less likely to do.

>>16758423
Correct. This is why Buddhists reject the idea of "non-existence". How could you make something that exists not exist? HOW something exists changes, but it never "doesn't exist".

You should read the thread, this was literally explained already.

>>16759276
That sounds about right, so why assert we have an existing self which will be extended into heaven in permanence?

>>16759289
Much like the nature of heaven is most likely incomprehensible because it is much more vast in scope than what our limited perception can envision right now, I would wager it's the same for the self, and that the self doesn't extend from this world into heaven as much as it narrows down from heaven into this world. Like tunnel vision.

>>16759300
Well now we appear to be crossing over into neoplatonism, though it wouldn't be the first time it was pressed into service to buttress Christian religion.

>>16759277
The Buddhism given in popular perception, be in it california or in the everyday life of laymen in Buddhist countries, is more humane because it makes use of Buddhist doctrines and/or techniques to relate to worldly ends. "True" Buddhism is indeed radical and therefore only for a small "elite", but that's because it asks you to want to cease to desire, and to reject all this-worldly experience rather than merely undesirable experience. This disdain for desire, experiences, yourself and the world you inhabit has always only attracted a minority. You think it's the smart minority, I think it's the neurotic one. I'd rather take the californian.

>>16759276
>There's no reason to believe the nature of heaven is comprehensible to us as we are now.
There's no reason to not believe it either. Nothing in the Bible or the Catechism or whatever tells you Heaven will not share a single property with our world or that you can't think about it.
Also, honestly, I'm not even thinking about Christian heaven, I'm thinking about heaven sui generis.

>>16759318
>I'd rather take the californian.
I get what you're saying, but no, trust me, you wouldn't. You might be trying to argue in favor of a sort of American folk-Buddhism, but that is NOT what California Dharma, Secular Buddhism, and Buddhist Modernism are. These things are just Liberalism cloaking itself in Eastern garb. It's your boss making you do "mindfulness seminars" so he can lull you into working a 16 hour shift.

Every time i go into a thread about buddhism i hope i learn a bit and every time i dont learn anything

>>16759316
What makes this a neoplatonist view?
I'm just talking about degrees of the incomprehensible. If you could somehow communicate with an ant, could you make it understand the purpose of a web app?

>>16759238
I agree, but honestly, I think the only true condition for the self is continuity of memory. I think that's the introspectively correct answer. Sure, other things are nice (I'd like my memories to be accurate, for exemple), but the continuity of your identity is constituted by your memories imo.

>>16759333
Maybe you're right.

>>16759328
>Nothing in the Bible or the Catechism or whatever tells you Heaven will not share a single property with our world or that you can't think about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but nothing in the Bible says anything about the nature of Heaven in the first place, aside from it not being of this world, which is obvious.

>>16759318
I would agree it's not for everyone but if you gut the metaphysics, discipline, soteriology, etc. you are left with something as trendy and empty as pop-stoicism, which is exactly stoners and megacorps will give you the same shallow coping advice

>>16759350
>Correct me if I'm wrong but nothing in the Bible says anything about the nature of Heaven in the first place, aside from it not being of this world, which is obvious.
No I think you're right. I guess if you're a protestant with a bible-only orientation, you have little to nothing to chew on with regards to what Heaven might be.

>>16759338
It just sounds like chain of being, or monads, or what we experience being mere images of a greater intellective Idea, etc. You might as well say heaven is a greater degree of participation in the Good. But it would end there for the Christian since there is no henosis.

>>16759342
>the only true condition for the self is continuity of memory.
This. Your "self" is your identity, and your identity is entirely reliant on the memories you've formed, and to a lesser extent to how you relate these memories to your current subjective perception.
For Nirvana (or any kind of afterlife model really) to be anything else than the annihilation of the self, it would have to ensure the conservation of your memories.

>>16759356
>if you're a protestant with a bible-only orientation
Do other sources, exegeses, catechism and whatnot talk of heaven in an unambiguous way?
They might comment on its essence, in terms of proximity with God, but not on its actual substance.
>>16759358
>there is no henosis.
In orthodoxy there is.

>>16759342
>the only true condition for the self is continuity of memory
I don't disagree but if we are getting into the notion of ascension to heaven with a self we would need to find a way to uncouple memories from the body that experienced them, since as experience confirms, all bodies perish.

>>16759342
>>16759362
Also, I just thought of something: when you dream, there is often a haziness to your memories and experience of self, but when you wake up and remember the dream, you wouldn't say that you were a different person during the dream. So maybe there is a more fundamental component to the self that cannot simply be summed up with memory.

>>16759366
>In orthodoxy there is.
I have only ever heard this on /lit/. I am curious how the Orthodox would square that with Christianity, which is otherwise to me very clear about a hard break between Human and Divine nature except in the mystery of Christ.

>>16759337
it is just name calling but with sanskrit terms

>>16759381
They call it theosis, but it's the same thing.

>>16759366
>orthodoxy
literaly palamist heresy

>>16759378
In a dream you can't remember how you got there. But if you really think about it, wakefulness has the same problem. You can't arrive at recollection of your first cause of being conscious, what those early stimuli were that let you know you were you. It has to be told to you, by other people who have the same problem.

>>16759351
I think you and >>16759318 are right. I think Buddhism as a concrete religion in Buddhist countries though, at least is in the way it's practiced by laymen, is much more oriented towards worldly ends and much more attentive to the concrete human soul, whereas the Buddhism of the "elite" of practicing monks really only concerns a specific type of psychology (that, concretely, they don't really as superior... They're only happy they're there and they serve a social purpose).

>>16759366
Well, I know Catholics have Saints who say they've had visions of Heaven. How literally you take them is another question.

>>16759368
I agree, I don't think it's a problem though. I'm not Christian, but I guess the Jehovah-type Christians who think heaven in a strongly bodily, even physical way, have no troubles thinking you just resurrect the brain or something, if the brain-correlate is really essential to memory. Honestly I don't see why it would if you assume an all-powerful entity though.

>>16759388
That sounds even less Christian than henosis, just etymologically speaking.

>>16759397
*that concretely, they don't really see as superior

>>16759400
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)#Catholic_theology_(including_Latin_and_Eastern_Churches)
I'm not your interlocutor though, I think he's wrong to think of theosis/divinisation as "becoming" the Divine, you're only always getting closer and closer to it.

it is ridiculous how these wiki articles always paint a dichotomy between catholic and orthodox theology, as if catholic were "academic scholars" while orthodox "mystics" when in fact palamist theology is neoplatonic in its base and purely rational

>>16759395
Yes, but in a waking state, you have an identity, this is immediately verifiable.
In a dream state, you have an identity as well, which is immediately verifiable by your dreaming consciousness, otherwise you would realize you were dreaming; the dream "makes up" for the lack of memory with something that acts as a substitute for the perception of your own identity. But what is that thing?
As you said, when dreaming, you can't remember how you got there, yet you perceive yourself (even if that perception is limited) and have an identity. When you're awake, although you don't remember your birth, or what happened before that, you also perceive yourself and have an identity.
So memory is not the prerequisite for the existence of the self (identity). But then what is?
Can it be assumed that the process of dying is similar to the process of awakening? If we can apply the previous comparison to this waking life, couldn't we say that this lack of recollection of your first cause that you brought up is very similar to how the dream makes up for the absence of memory in order to ensure the existence of your identity?
When we die, is this "padding" process removed as the veil is lifted, and do we similarly zoom out of a limited perception in order to grasp a fuller, more complete sense of identity, much like what happens upon awakening?

>>16759408
That was my understanding as well. And if Christians did believe men could become gods they would have had no issue with the Roman empire for that matter

>>16753086
>>16753086
The real question: what is worse? Knowing that you exist in a reality of eternal suffering or not knowing?

>>16759438
I would agree death and awakening are interlinked, as are birth and falling asleep; all are passages, some more intensive and (con)sequential and others less so. We can directly know of states before and after dreaming, as terminated by falling asleep and awakening. But as for before-life and after-life, we only have speculation on what is beyond life, to be filled in by philosophies or religions we find to be the most agreeable (and for some, nihilism is agreeable).

>>16759378
>>16759395
Maybe there is more to identity than memory externally. For exemple, if you kill someone and then forget get because you hit your head, you'll still go to jail.
But insofar as the *feeling*, the subjective notion of being someone is concerned, I think it's all memory. In the exemple of the dream, you remember the dream, so it becomes part of your subjectively felt sense of identity, of who you are. Your identity changes. During the dream, when your memories were modified, you were a different person. But insofar as they were the same, there was continuity.
I can even imagine someone being implanted memories of things "he didn't do" (as in, with regards to how externally we'd identify him ; by our memories of his bodily continuity, for exemple), that are contradictory (for exemple, happening at the same time), and imo it would all become part of his subjectively felt identity.
I don't have a strong notion of personal identity. I do think it's a messy thing. You don't need to have a strong notion of personal identity to have a notion of personal identity at all. That's a strawman from the no-self side of the argument. I think self-identity is always changing, but that doesn't make it not unimportant. Quite the opposite, I think it's absolutely fundamental to ascribing any judgement of preference ; I only want things insofar as I project continuity of experience through memory between my wishes and my future experiences. The Buddhist negation of this is destructive of the most basic coordinates of any discourse, experience, spiritual project, whatever.

>>16759500
There are four noble truths, not one. And ignorance can only appear to be good.

>>16759501
>We can directly know of states before and after dreaming, as terminated by falling asleep and awakening
Yes, but we cannot know of them while we are in a dreaming state, that's why I said it can be likened to the experience of reality. There's an issue of scope, hindsight, of being able to stand back and say "I was in a state of hindered consciousness, but now I have regained the full extent of my awareness" that we currently don't have and will presumably acquire once we die.
I don't know if death is literally like awakening in that this process is repeated identically, so this is pure conjecture. But if it is indeed repeated, I'm sure you've already had that experience of awakening from a dream and being momentarily astonished at how diminished and profoundly gimped "you" were in your sleeping state, and how you suddenly regained the full extent of your conscious capacity upon awakening. It's not merely a transition from one state of consciousness into another more complete one, it's the expansion of perception into an experience that is unimaginably different, qualitatively speaking, than the one you are in.
How can religion tie into this? Religions tend to assume that the experience of this reality, if it doesn't translate into the next state of existence, is at least tangential to it in that this existence naturally flows into the next, rather than expanding in the way I described before.

>>16759337
take 1h to read that and you'll be up to date

>start
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
>middle
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
>finish
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html

>>16759509
Externally yes, but this is irrelevant to our personal experiences, which is all that matters in this context.
>During the dream, when your memories were modified, you were a different person.
Why? When I dream, there are times when I perceive my personal situation to be vastly different from the one I have in my waking life, but in most cases, I recognize myself (during the dream) as still being "me", with some elements (mostly mnemonic, but also intellectual and intuitive) that ensure that I am indeed Anon, and that my dream didn't completely shift my perception of myself or create a different identity for the duration of the dream.
>I don't have a strong notion of personal identity.
I don't think anyone does, because identity is hard to pinpoint once you've simply identified that "you", as far as you can tell, are the conscious process capable of observing itself. What is interesting is that this process appears to be continuous despite temporary alterations (like unconscious or altered states). From what you're saying, the "Ariadne's thread" of consciousness is memory, but in my opinion memory is more of a consequence stemming from a phenomenon that cannot currently be observed.
> The Buddhist negation of this is destructive
Yes, I agree. I don't think the explanation Buddhism provides when it comes to addressing the problem of the erasure of the self is a satisfying one

>>16759651
>Why? When I dream, there are times when I perceive my personal situation to be vastly different from the one I have in my waking life, but in most cases, I recognize myself (during the dream) as still being "me", with some elements (mostly mnemonic, but also intellectual and intuitive) that ensure that I am indeed Anon, and that my dream didn't completely shift my perception of myself or create a different identity for the duration of the dream.
No, I agree. I should have expressed myself more rigorously. I should've said something like : "your memories being changed, you are substantially the same person, but slightly modified". I think that's closer to the truth.
But I can imagine a dream where you'd be a totally different person, so that as the dream happens, there is no continuity with who you were before subjectively ; but then, as you wake up, you remember it, so it becomes part of your subjective continuity of memories and thus, identity.
>I don't think anyone does, because identity is hard to pinpoint once you've simply identified that "you", as far as you can tell, are the conscious process capable of observing itself. What is interesting is that this process appears to be continuous despite temporary alterations (like unconscious or altered states). From what you're saying, the "Ariadne's thread" of consciousness is memory, but in my opinion memory is more of a consequence stemming from a phenomenon that cannot currently be observed.
This is true. I suspect we do observe such a continuity of an empirical centre of consciousness. But I don't think the memories we have of most events include a memory of observing this continuity, however it may be done. So I tend to think the way identity is constituted empirically is by reference to concrete memories, where you see yourself as the centre of consciousness, sure, but you don't have a memory of seeing the continuity itself. Or maybe you do, in the same way maybe you do experience that continuity right now, but I'd need to be shown how it works to retrospectively see it in my memories too. If one can show it, all the better for our subjective notion of identity.

>>16759615
>It's not merely a transition from one state of consciousness into another more complete one, it's the expansion of perception into an experience that is unimaginably different, qualitatively speaking, than the one you are in.
Don't see much of a difference in terms here unless we are getting heavily invested in some architectonic explanation of experience. I would add that whatever this state or expansion is that it isn't necessarily reached by everyone either, given that not everyone has the same dreams, just so they do not have the same lives.

(cont.)
>>16759717
I said "this is true" because if there is such a continuity of a centre of consciousness, which I suspect I would agree with you there is, then it is a logically more fundamental ground than memories to rationally assert continuity of the self. I just think even without it you can ground a notion of the self, and that anyway to access to this continuity its memory will be empirically (not logically) prior.
By the way, I remember the beggining of Timothy Sprigge's The Vindication of Absolute Idealism spelling out something interesting with regards to that question of the continuity of identity, memories and the centre of consciousness. I'm sure there are other ressources and I'm a bit ashamed I've forgotten what he said, but I remember thinking it was on point.

>>16759717
>then, as you wake up, you remember it, so it becomes part of your subjective continuity of memories and thus, identity.
Assuming you had a dream where you were an entirely different person, with no memories of your waking life at all, you would indeed integrate that experience into your identity upon waking up nonetheless. You might perceive it as somewhat nonsensical, or disconnected from your waking experience, but that's not very relevant.
I would be inclined to agree with Buddhists if they summarized entry into Nirvana in such a way, but they always omit the feature of continuity that allows an experience to be assimilated into the everchanging, malleable stream of subjective identity.
At this point, though, the value of identity becomes a bit muddled, doesn't it? You value your identity because it bestows to all of your experiences a quality which makes you able to integrate them into who you perceive yourself to be. When you awaken from a nice dream, you're not disappointed that the "you" from that dream has now disappeared into your greater, more aware waking self, because you identify to your waking experience of consciousness. In other words, the "you" who is awake is the foundation for the self that you recognize and value, while the "you" which existed when you were asleep was an emanation of it. There is a sense of individuation built into your current self that is the basis from which all experiences are assessed.
Do you think this phenomenon is scalable? If, right now, you suddenly woke up from this life into another existence, would it be into an expanded "you", similar to what I described above? Would you regret this life, deplore that this hypothetical higher "you" would be different from the self you are currently experiencing? Or would you react the same way as when you awaken from a vivid dream?
I think that if the thread of consciousness, the process that guarantees its continuity and the integration of seemingly fragmented experiences into a fundamental sense of identity, continues to exist after this "awakening", then it can't be called a destruction of identity. This is a view I find somewhat compelling. What do you think?
>I don't think the memories we have of most events include a memory of observing this continuity
Well, if this continuity is transcendent, then it is unobservable in our current state, but maybe I'm missing your point here.
I agree that you can construct a self through the observation of memories, but perhaps this is because the aforementioned continuity largely constitutes an underlying process that is congruent to the association of memories to a notion of identity in the first place.
>Timothy Sprigge's The Vindication of Absolute Idealism
I should check it out, thank you.

>>16753208
Take your meds.

>>16759740
>unless we are getting heavily invested in some architectonic explanation of experience
Yes, that's what I was getting at. The linear, transitory model provided by religions suggests that states of existence are, if nothing else, ontologically linked. When I refer to an expansion, I'm talking about a hypothetical overarching state of existence that is conceptually different, and not just a transition from one state to another.
>it isn't necessarily reached by everyone either,
I think the phenomenon of expansion from a gimped state of consciousness to a fuller, more complete one due to the process of awakening from a dream is relatively common. Did you never have one of those dreams where you were doing some kind of calculation or logical deduction which made sense in the dream's context, but that immediately struck you as utterly nonsensical once you woke up?

>>16759391
Who cares what some crusty old vatican virgin called it. All ideas should be examined if you seek truth.

>>16760146
>All ideas should be examined if you seek truth.
You can't really examine Christianity if you only read the Bible. The word of saints, the Church, etc are also important.

lmao depressing from what standpoint

If you hit nirvana you will understand why they call it bliss.
Everything is beautiful because the filter and resultant zombification that the individual undergoes is shattered.
You can literally -feel- things like rooms and the effect they're having on you. You -become- awareness.
You become extremely sensitive and thus, you have access to things that this other you did not.

There's a lot more, but you are looking at this through your filter, and not one who has become "filterless".

Also the buddhists aren't the only method.
The tantrics would play life at a level of sheer boldness for the existential thrill. They would engage in activity that would "shatter them" just the same, and be able to achieve enlightenment as well.
It was basically an opt-in with no "self", or self existing as the boldest tool. Any way that the self was reluctant to go, that means that is where the self had to go, no matter the taboo.

>>16759914
>Did you never have one of those dreams where you were doing some kind of calculation or logical deduction which made sense in the dream's context, but that immediately struck you as utterly nonsensical once you woke up?
Sometimes that is indeed what wakes you up in the first place, a shock of incongruence. But what I was getting at in terms of waking up from the life-reality which contains the dream-reality, is that doing so is not as universal. Consider the Timaeus, where Plato describes how souls choose their next bodily life according to how they had practiced philosophy while alive, that is to say, how they had prepared for death. Or how in the Indian systems there is karma as a mechanism for births. So if there is a state beyond life reality or consciousness which can be awakened to as if coming out of a dream, it would seem we are too capable of falling back asleep from it.

>>16760172
Depressing is the same attitude of the people who don't read Schopenhauer because they've been told by wikipedia he is a "pessimist," as if a pessimist would have a theory of aesthetics or marvel at our power to create the world

>>16760247
Cool strawman

>>16760233
>if there is a state beyond life reality or consciousness which can be awakened to as if coming out of a dream, it would seem we are too capable of falling back asleep from it.
That is, if the hypothesis of transmigration is correct.
Assuming it is, then it would imply that "falling back into sleep" implies a severing of the transcendent continuity of identity, since you wouldn't remember your previous incarnation once the process of metempsychosis is complete.
Sometimes, when you dream, the dream reality shifts from one state to another completely different one, and you tend to not remember the former while experiencing the latter. Can this be compared to the process of rebirth?
Is the transmigration of the soul simply the transcendent consciousness (we could call it the "true identity") shifting from one transient dream to another? It's a very pleasing idea in my opinion, but I'm not sure how it holds up theologically as I'm frankly not familiar with the intricacies of karma in the hinduist and buddhist doctrines. But given that karma is inherently self-negating, I'm not sure the eastern view is compatible with what I'm describing. Falling back asleep implies a continuous self experiencing various sleep states, while karmic rebirth has no such concept. I don't consider Brahman to be a "self" in the same sense as what was defined in earlier posts.

>>16760233
>>16760314
Also I forgot to address this
>how they had practiced philosophy while alive
Before writing this post I thought that this was where my comparison with the dream state fell short, but actually it doesn't, although it's true that there is no requirement of awareness while inside the dream that has to be fulfilled in order to wake up. Putting aside physiological considerations and whatnot, while you do usually wake up when you acquire a high enough level of awareness (or have the dream become lucid, it's not a prerequisite for awakening.
Awakening naturally is a spontaneous process that isn't predicated on gaining awareness. If there are two ways to awaken when you fall asleep in this reality (gaining awareness or waiting for a natural awakening), and if we keep the comparison going, then what Plato referred to would be a forced awakening, while the process of escaping the transmigration of souls (assuming a continuous higher self as said in >>16760314) naturally is simply a matter of iterations, so to speak.
Sorry if my posts are getting incresingly unintelligible, I'm tired

>>16760314
As the buddhists would say, Keep It Simple, Stupid.

When you're in the enlightened state, you are "awake"
The only way to know this is to experience it for yourself
When you are not in it, you are little more than a zombie

Imagine that. The way you and I are now is little more than a zombification

>>16760445
The way you describe it does not make it sound like self-negation, yet Brahman or Nirvana (I know they're not entirely the same, but for all intents and purposes they can be assumed to be in this context) explicitly negate the current experience by likening individuals to drops of water that fuse into the same ocean. Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism entertain the idea of the self being a continuity like I described in >>16759882 rather than a purely illusory state that necessarily erases itself.

>>16758247
>then you might be destroyed.
Wrong, if something can be destroyed, then that thing is not you

>>16760314
>Is the transmigration of the soul simply the transcendent consciousness (we could call it the "true identity") shifting from one transient dream to another? It's a very pleasing idea in my opinion, but I'm not sure how it holds up theologically as I'm frankly not familiar with the intricacies of karma in the hinduist and buddhist doctrines.
For Buddhists at least, the metaphorical explanation for karmic birth is that of a fire consuming fuel, thus so long as there is fuel there is fire, which is expressed more systemically in pratitya samutpada or dependent origination. But in this system there no theology governing the process because Buddhism does not view gods as birthless and deathless (immortal) but as merely greater than men in their powers, enjoyments, lifespans etc.; nor is there a permanent self identified with a One, Absolute, God, etc. who undergoes rebirth.
>Awakening naturally is a spontaneous process that isn't predicated on gaining awareness. If there are two ways to awaken when you fall asleep in this reality (gaining awareness or waiting for a natural awakening), and if we keep the comparison going, then what Plato referred to would be a forced awakening, while the process of escaping the transmigration of souls (assuming a continuous higher self as said in >>16760314 #) naturally is simply a matter of iterations
Yes you could awaken naturally at the 'end of the dream' but it may just as well be punctuated from within by awareness, or cancelled from without by external stimuli, such as a loud noise or sudden motion. Just so death is certain but one may get there in different ways and with different preparations, and these influence the favorability of one's return if one is still to return.

>>16760541
That's taking the problem from the wrong end, I can identify "myself" as being the succession of conscious experiences that form my identity, forming a continuous process. If that process is halted instead of expanded, then that is destruction.

>>16760497
When you're in that state, words slip away.
Your entire understanding changes and makes perfect sense the way words cannot. Language semantics fails the enlightened state, which is why they speak in mysterious poetics.
The more verbal convolution, the further from "truth"

The semantics of "identity" "ego" and "self" are not absolutely defined.
A tibetan buddhist experiencing the bardo will have a pulse that is different from another buddhist. Thus, their experience will differ to some degree.

Drops of water into the ocean is a good way of putting it, but the self will still have a different experience with that ocean by virtue of having its own composite.

Identity is, at best, a tool to employ. Since enlightenment followers maintain an absence of self, this tool is meant as a means to help dissolve the suffering of others (to their individual needs), which will also help those people come closer to the blissful state.

But the self can really do whatever it wishes after achieving knowledge of the illusion of self.
No matter what path one chooses, dissociation, association, etc. how much of the decision making process is resultant of their preconditioning, be it in their life time or their familial conditioning?
There is always a "self" so long as there is always a body. The ego and identity slip away. There is no floor to this stuff, so there is no limit on how deep you can chase it.

>>16760620
>The more verbal convolution, the further from "truth"
I want to underscore this for anyone who is wrapped up in the gross world.
The more convoluted, the further from truth.
Convolution is hypnosis, which can have its utility, but anything true to you or nature does not require neither convolution nor hypnosis.

>>16760497
>entirely the same, but for all intents and purposes they can be assumed to be in this context) explicitly negate the current experience by likening individuals to drops of water that fuse into the same ocean.
Wrong, In Advaita Vedanta Hinduism the drop is the entire ocean already, it merely wakes up to this fact without its sentience being destroyed or interrupted, there is no negation of the consciousness of the drop

>Neither Hinduism nor Buddhism entertain the idea of the self being a continuity like I described in >>16759882 # rather than a purely illusory state that necessarily erases itself.
Wrong, in many schools of Hinduism including Advaita Vedanta they posit that there is an soul or inner self known as Atman which is the continuum of consciousness through which everything else including waking life and dreams are experienced. Advaita says that consciousness or the self cannot be an illusion because illusions do not have self-awareness or sentience like we do, that if it was an illusion it wouldn’t be experienced.

You can read this chapter online for a more extensive comparison of the different explanations offered by Buddhism and Hinduism for consciousness.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/a-history-of-indian-philosophy-volume-2/d/doc209866.html

>>16760561
>a fire consuming fuel,
Does this imply that the soul is a limited quantity, or that it is somehow altered by the cycle of rebirth?
>nor is there a permanent self identified with a One, Absolute, God
Sorry, I didn't understand that part. Do you mean that Buddhism and Hinduism deny the permanence of the self? When I use the term permanence, I think of a continuous, flowing existence rather than a strict immutability, since another anon (or maybe it was you) adequately pointed out that the conscious experience that constitutes the Self is everchanging and malleable.
Or do you just mean that Buddhism/Hinduism deny the existence of a monistic "One" in the Neoplatonist sense, from which all emanates? If it's the latter, where do souls come from?
>cancelled from without by external stimuli, such as a loud noise or sudden motion.
How would that translate in our current experience of reality? Sudden transcendence?
>Just so death is certain but one may get there in different ways and with different preparations, and these influence the favorability of one's return if one is still to return.
Yes, that's it. In the end, it's a succession of stirrings that punctuate a temporary slumber-like experience, but no matter the process, the end would be the same.

>>16760562
>If that process is halted instead of expanded, then that is destruction,

If it is the same entity which itself cycles between waking, dream and dreamless sleep, continuing from one state to another, is there ever really a destruction of it?

This channel attempts to discuss nihilism in art... what do you guys think?
https://youtu.be/wjtSUpbrTZw

>>16753148
This is explicitly rebuked as false view in Buddhist scripture. For Buddhism to preach the obliteration of the self there would have to be an essential, perservering self in the first place that can get obliterated. No such self exists.

>>16760620
>The more verbal convolution, the further from "truth"
Then I guess discussing this serves no purpose?
If so, why have so many books been written on the subject, by the very initiators of this system?
>The semantics of "identity" "ego" and "self" are not absolutely defined.
Yes, which is why I attempted to at least provide a rough explanation of what I meant in my earlier posts.
In the end, what I think has value is the continuous experience of consciousness which allows me to say "this is me, I am observing myself". This state is temporarily altered by sleep, but it is never destroyed; when I experience a more narrow state of awareness while sleeping and dreaming, this is still me, because it is later integrated into the stream of consciousness that constitutes myself.
Similarly, it could be assumed that this experience I'm talking about is itself a temporary alteration of a greater stream that I am not currently aware of, a sort of "dream of life". But this is fine, because, following the previous logic, this greater stream would integrate my current experience in a similar manner, ensuring that that which I call "myself" is preserved, and not grossly assimilated into some kind of monistic entity that is neither myself nor someone else.
What I just described can be labeled as the identity or the self, it doesn't really matter to me what it's called, what does matter is that this process, in my opinion, is valuable, and should not be negated or destroyed.
>A tibetan buddhist experiencing the bardo will have a pulse that is different from another buddhist. Thus, their experience will differ to some degree.
Sorry, I reread it several times but I fail to grasp what you meant by this.
>but the self will still have a different experience with that ocean by virtue of having its own composite.
If the drop penetrates the ocean, how is it not entirely dissipated by it? How does the drop not become an undifferentiated part of the ocean?

>>16760643
>the drop is the entire ocean already, it merely wakes up to this fact without its sentience being destroyed
So Advaita Vedanta is more or less what I described in >>16760714?
How does it account for the existence of multiple drops, that is, for the existence of many different individuals, if the drops do not become confounded with each other but instead individuate even further by integrating the whole into themselves?

>consciousness or the self cannot be an illusion because illusions do not have self-awareness or sentience like we do
Then Advaita Vedanta is very different from other branches of Hinduism and Buddhism, is it not?

>>16760669
>is there ever really a destruction of it?
Well, no. The waking state, despite being interrupted, is still somewhat continuous by virtue of integrating dream and sleep into itself in a way that does not shatter its experience of itself.

>>16760714
>Then I guess discussing this serves no purpose?
All things serve "a purpose"
Are current methods of communication allow us to do certain things that being in a wordless place does not. Language biases us, all the way down to the tone, but in that bias, we are allowed to explore, discover, and create reality and ourselves in a unique way that being "the ocean" does not.
Discussing it through our language has merit to it, but there's only so far you can describe such a thing.
Go into nature and remove all thought from your mind. Be "naked", as literal as as figurative as you wish. Exist as pure sensory. You will be closer.
>this is me
And thus you make it so
I would say sleeping is a "less narrow state", but again, semantics and relative comparison.
This particular part of the discussion is semantical about "me". It's the belief in what you constitute as "me" that begins to shape your perception on reality.
>it could be assumed that this experience I'm talking about is itself a temporary alteration of a greater stream that I am not currently aware of
Could be
>not grossly assimilated into some kind of monistic entity that is neither myself nor someone else.
All is connected and continually sundered from a single point at some point.
We are all given an individual experience by virtue of having a body. You can opt in or out of this as much as you like.
>Sorry, I reread it several times but I fail to grasp what you meant by this.
Even the most extremely dissociated and meditative of any humans, even if they are extremely similar in their genetic and body compositions, will still have some unique properties about them. Thus, their experiences with consciousness, meditative states, and the like, will all vary to at least some degree.
The "feeling" of enlightenment is, essentially, the same for everyone, but since the body is unique, the approach is unique, and the resultant "knowledge" gained is more like a relationship with the body and the state.
>If the drop penetrates the ocean, how is it not entirely dissipated by it? How does the drop not become an undifferentiated part of the ocean?
As someone else said, you are already the ocean. What changes is the perception that you are not. This individual perception is what affords you your individuality to permeate reality with, and experience reality through, but at some point it is all part of the same thing.
When the molecules enter the ocean, they still form H2O bonds, don't they?

This channel attempts to discuss nihilism in art... what do you guys think?
https://youtu.be/wjtSUpbrTZw

>>16760648
>Does this imply that the soul is a limited quantity, or that it is somehow altered by the cycle of rebirth?
Platonic philosophers saw the soul as becoming containminated with matter leading it to be born again rather than ascend towards the One. Views vary in different systems, but just as the Buddhist absence of a permanent self makes critics question who experiences karma, one could just as soon question how an immortal soul/self changes.
>Do you mean that Buddhism and Hinduism deny the permanence of the self?
Most Buddhists, some Hindus
>When I use the term permanence, I think of a continuous, flowing existence rather than a strict immutability, since another anon (or maybe it was you) adequately pointed out that the conscious experience that constitutes the Self is everchanging and malleable.
You can call impermanence permanence but that will confuse most other people. I would suggest there are internally 'stable' fictions which the mind creates from externally 'unstable' phenomena
>Or do you just mean that Buddhism/Hinduism deny the existence of a monistic "One" in the Neoplatonist sense, from which all emanates?
Most Buddhist philosophers/ scholastics would deny there is a god as first principle while most Hindus would affirm there is such
>If it's the latter, where do souls come from?
For a full explanation of the platonist view look into the Timaeus and the Enneads, but the short answer is a hiearchy of descent from the One
>How would that translate in our current experience of reality? Sudden transcendence?
At least according to some Zen or Tantric perspectives

>>16759226
>state of delusion
not really. see, this is why most buddhists here in 4chan never add anything worth and simply repeat the same shit and misinterpret buddhism heavily because of their own western mentality (be it for pessimism, materialism, atheism, nominalism).
it is not necessarily delusion, awareness of samsara will lead you to the awareness behind it, what supports it. repeating to yourself this is not real this is not real is just escapism without any intellectual or spiritual rigour.

>who knows? does it matter?
yeah it does matter if a tradition can have a comprehensive account and doesnt dismiss question with ''dunno it just is bro''.

>The Buddha was a practical man.
yes and we are not worried with practice here. we need the fundaments of these practices. i havent studied buddhism deeply enough but im sure madhyamaka, yogachara and other buddhist schools have actually a metaphysical explanation.

>>16753110
>>16753086
I think the point is that you already are one with everything, but we live as if this is not the case and that causes suffering.

>>16760702
>there would have to be an essential, perservering self
My criticism remains the same: denial of the self.

>He doesn't know that the self is indestructible

>>16754310
That's the point, you ae the buddha, the hidden buddha, you can only be present, just aknowledge it.

>>16760156
Who said you should only read bible? I just said that the fucking vatican declaring something heretical is no reason to discard it.

>>16760775
>Exist as pure sensory. You will be closer.
Does intellectualizing or philosophizing get you farther from the truth than striving to just exist, then?
>And thus you make it so
What are "you" according to you?
How is sleep a less narrow state of awareness when consciousness is noticeably impaired during the process?
>semantical about "me"
Yes, you're right. I gave a definition of the Self which I believe to be the right one, but that's not really the point; my concern isn't about this definition being true or untrue, I simply want to know how the specific process that I'm referring to as the Self is affected by death according to Buddhist and Hinduist philosophy.
>It's the belief in what you constitute as "me" that begins to shape your perception on reality.
Should I hold such a belief in the first place?
The tricky thing about those debates is that as soon as I attempt to define why there is value in my perception of the Self, I am immediately confronted by the validity of my perception, so it's a never-ending loop. Is there an answer?
The more I discuss it, the farther I get from what matters, that's a fact. However, if Buddhism and Hinduism do not negate the concept of value, which they should not if they aren't nihilistic, then I'll simply state that I believe there is value in the aforementioned experience described as "me". This experience may ripple, flow and change, but its primary essence is that it recognizes itself. If it ceases to recognize itself, then it has been destroyed, because it will have been replaced by a void: the experience of self-awareness will have ceased. There are two possibilities: either this is unavoidable, or it is impossible. Which do you think it is?
>connected and continually sundered from a single point at some point.
All things being connected does not imply the surrender of these things' individual properties, is what I'm saying. It does not require an all-consuming monism.
>their experiences with consciousness, meditative states, and the like, will all vary to at least some degree.
There's a deeply personal quality to enlightenment is what you mean. Then doesn't this imply that those individualities cannot merge? If enlightenment differs depending on who experiences it, those unique experiences aren't simply cast into a void afterwards.
>you are already the ocean
In that I am connected to all other drops?
Is it the same thing to say that the ocean is already me?

>>16761180
Elaborate

>>16760803
>one could just as soon question how an immortal soul/self changes.
I thought the waking/sleep analogy was appropriate from start to finish. The self changing, expanding, narrowing, interrupting its perception of itself then resuming it, do not preclude it from being a continuous process. It changes like the flow of a body of water can change, but in the end it flows all the same, doesn't it? I don't think this question is as legitimate as the former ("who experiences karma if there is no permanent self").
>Most Buddhists, some Hindus
Hindus that do not come from the Advaita Vedanta school, but what are the Buddhists that do not?
>You can call impermanence permanence
I think we're not agreeing on the semantics. Do you think the river comparison I made above describes impermanence? If so, why?
>internally 'stable' fictions which the mind creates from externally 'unstable' phenomena
Yes, but there is always the stability inherent in the experience of oneself, consciousness observing itself. It is independent from the phenomenal.

>>16761338
>Does intellectualizing or philosophizing get you farther from the truth than striving to just exist, then?
I suppose we arrive at semantics of "truth", but I made the assertion so I'll take fault for that.
When you hit that state, you get undeniable wisdom. It's relational to you and the times you find yourself in.
Doctrines of old are no longer applicable to the modern context. SOME aspects may be, but knowing which is nigh impossible.
Nature is not a static thing, therefore static doctrines don't work.
Entering the state will give you "truth" so much as "truth" can be claimed.
There are some immutable truths, at least relative to all our experience will ever be.

Segueing into your point, philosophy is really no different from the deities that the ancient Indians and Tibetans were using. They viewed all of these deities as illusions and culturally relative.
Thus, they were tools for them to assume, to identify with, as a means to facilitate whatever experience with reality they wished to have.
So too is philosophy at best a tool in this way. Oftentimes it gets boiled down to verbal semantics (ship of theseus).
People "argue philosophy", I think, because rhetoric is so closely tied to law and the written morals we've conditioned under. Our laws are relative to our ancestral and personal conditioning. They are just the same, illusions that house an identity that give us a certain experience, to explore in certain ways.

Illusions are not without merit. Without them, we could not make unique explorations, discoveries, and creations. Just the same as the "self" or "identity"/"ego" as I would prefer to say.

Philosophies all have merit. All has merit. They are simply different tools.
Your perception of this or that as the right one is down to your conditioning and preconditioning.
So what does your philosophy allow you to do?
The only innate property that I will really advocate for is "stretch" or "expand". Even self-destruction can be an expansion.
What does your philosophy allow you to do?

If you want to return to the place where all is all, then yes, philosophy, words, language, it's something you must dissociate with.
Cultural expectations, opinions, objectives.
It's the ultimate surrender.

>>16761338
>What are "you" according to you?
These are words
I am a set of conditioning one way or another
My identity is only ever a temporary tool to traverse my environment. Generally for expansion purposes.
At times I am empty, water, no borders, and I enter my environment. I add to whatever is happening without judgement or opinion. If I can't add, then I know that I have something I should develop.
Other times, I am like bordered water. I still have no boundaries, per se, but I have a filter on what I am focusing on. My goal is to push the boundaries of this direction in terms of the conditioned self that I "occupy".
And then I have a "self" that you could say is relative to the family. I think this is why the bible goes on about the importance of family. When you completely lose identity...idk...you can do anything, and anything can be done to you. It gets pretty out there.

>How is sleep a less narrow state of awareness when consciousness is noticeably impaired during the process?
Your feeling of control over your consciousness is, I think, the distinction you make here.
You are a set of responses relative to a set of pre-conditioning along with a hierarchy of values that determine your actions.
It "feels" like you're in control, but it's conditioning. In awareness, you are free to choose any conditioning you wish, albeit it will be relational to self unless chosen completely arbitrarily. It's okay to accept self in the acting-world. Life is a drama. You pick, and perhaps have already picked prior to birth, a character to play in it as.
When you are sleeping, who knows what happens. I catch traces of "more" going on. I feel a lot more open and attuned. Maybe that's just me. The gross reality feels more narrow, but these are words and feelings and perceptions.

>I gave a definition of the Self which I believe to be the right one
It's an arbitrary expression of language. Categorization for the sake of communication.
I take self as the body, identity as the set of values and things that I pay attention to, and the ego as acknowledgement of my place within hierarchies. At the end of the day, there is no separation between these things, only perception.
Defining it gives shape to reality lol. It's just language.

> Self is affected by death according to Buddhist and Hinduist philosophy.
Do you mean the death of "illusion" or physical death?
Deaths can "vary in size", if this makes sense.
You know how they say the sky is the limit? There is no ceiling? Like I said earlier, there is no floor either. It's an outward expansion.

>It's the belief in what you constitute as "me" that begins to shape your perception on reality.
>Should I hold such a belief in the first place?
Would you like me to define your perception? lol
What you believe should be looked at as a tool for whatever you're on about in life. Believe or don't believe, they do different things. The rest is opinion, you can choose what you wish.

>>16753086
The fact that you consider Nirvana a Buddhist end state is your biggest misunderstanding of it. It's an aim but it's not often what Buddhists strive for in the real world. Buddhists can only be taught to their capacity, which means for most people the end goal for a master would be to teach them to realize and appreciate their own buddha-nature of their own volition which is a subtle yet personality altering experience. And people, by default, are flawed. So even a person who realizes their buddha-nature must strive to stay close to it by managing the illusions and misconceptions that can distance them from it. That being said, there's a balance to be had in the process and going too far in either direction (apathy or deep fervor) can delude a person.

>>16761338
There is "value" in illusion so much as an illusion is generative, potent, fruitful.
It is fruitless dogma that should, imo, catch the axe, and nature tends to reflect as much in terms of the tides of change.

Understand that a lot of what you're discussing here comes from groups that either totally dissociate, or tend to associate in small ways that offer love and empathy to others in all their actions.
This is a completely different cultural mindset than what we experience in the west.
The west is more like fight club and tyler durden, make sense? Just my personal expression, relative to my understandings with respect to the environment I find myself in in the west, that the illusion you pick up should be that which expands you as much as you can muster.

"self" has merit. Why would it exist otherwise? All people have a purpose, and all people can also define their purpose, especially in knowing "self". Self being the conditioning up unto this point.

We are given an individual person. A bodily composite. You can denounce and dissociate from the game and choose to explore other aspects of consciousness. You can engage and play boldly, imposing this "composite" unto the world, curiously explore reality, whatever you wish. All has merit.

Value, again, becomes this semantical thing. It requires a self to define it hahaha.
It's okay to have a self, you know. I personally view enlightenment as a temporary thing to engage in, and then to act in the drama yet again.
Though some people will never come close to it, and some people will be deeply entrenched in it.

What constitutes self-recognition? The continual stream of thoughts? Routines? Looking in the mirror? Maintaining the same environment or friend group?

Void as you discuss it is not so much void, but an absence of the previous self. "Emptiness" is a path to nirvana. You won't feel void here, you will probably feel more full than ever. It feels like we "fall" from this state, if anything.
When you achieve this, it is not "self" awareness, as I said, you BECOME awareness. You are pure awareness, and yet "you" still exist because of all your preconditioning up unto this point, and your bodies relationship with reality. You can FEEL, physically and consciously as if they are one, FEEL your environment, rooms you are in, you can FEEL people, its unexplainable, but you ARE awareness here. There is just "less" gross world and "more" truth world.

>>16761338
>All things being connected does not imply the surrender of these things' individual properties, is what I'm saying. It does not require an all-consuming monism.
I said sundered, different from surrendered.
Our experience is an interplay between you and something beyond you if we are perceiving in duality, and yet at the same time they are both the same thing. The perception of the difference between these things sunders us from our connection with this thing.
One of the worst things, imo, christianity ever did, was teach people they are separate from god.
God is nature, nature is god, you are nature, or a "part" of it, anyway.
In awareness you receive more agency.
Awareness can be handed out in a flash if ...enlightenment decides to find you.
You can make incredible leaps in understandings in a flash. Things that would have taken you decades otherwise.

>There's a deeply personal quality to enlightenment is what you mean.
Yes
But more to my point is that even a specific body composite will have a different experience than another. What I mean to say is, even the tiniest variation in differences between us will result in somewhat different experiences, even approaching the same thing.
If you and I eat an apple, and my body is allergic, I have a fundamentally different relationship with the apple than you do.

>Then doesn't this imply that those individualities cannot merge?
I think you can go VERY, VERY far into merging with others, but no one will truly know you as you know you.
Though I think it is possible to essentially become so entwined and akin to someone that you "become them", but by virtue of them even having, say, a different height from you, your experiences will differ.

It's tough to say. We know consciousness through the body. You can step away from the body quite a bit to explore consciousness, but to some degree, it is always present.

>you are already the ocean
>In that I am connected to all other drops?
>Is it the same thing to say that the ocean is already me?
Same thing

>>16761346
Bhagavad Gita

>>16761412
>When you hit that state, you get undeniable wisdom
>Entering the state will give you "truth" so much as "truth" can be claimed
You are talking about enlightenment here, not just stream entry, yes?
How does it translate after the death of the body has occurred?

>philosophy is really no different from the deities
>tools for them to assume, to identify with, as a means to facilitate
Deities are the symbolic vectors of certain ideas, as you said they are cultural and identification to specific deities depends on conditioning and personal "affinity" for lack of a better word.
I am assuming that by saying this, you are more or less stating that deities are the cultural tools from which specific populations can grasp "truth" as a form of perennial wisdom.
But philosophy is not perennial. Yes, subscribing to a certain ideology gives you an identity, but different philosophies lead to different conclusions that they all respectively parade as truths. Are all systems of thought illusory, then? What of the one you are explaining to me right now?

>What does your philosophy allow you to do?
I've never seen the end of philosophy as that of mere expansion, I've always viewed philosophy through the lens of the individual search for absolute immutable truth.
>the place where all is all
>the ultimate surrender
But that in itself is a philosophical stance which you cannot dissociate from, lest your point lose its meaning.

>>16761497
>My identity is only ever a temporary tool to traverse my environment.
Then how do you envision the end of your physical existence? Once you die, what will happen to the set of conditioning to which you identify right now?

>It "feels" like you're in control,
Is perception control?
Because once you get to the bare bones of what I'm describing, it boils down to being aware of being aware, continuously. That is all there is to it.
The only requirement of awareness is being able to observe itself. Add in the passage of time, and an identity is formed.
>Life is a drama
Then there is an underlying pure consciousness that "plays" various characters.

>Do you mean the death of "illusion" or physical death?
I mean physical death.
Are you referring to physical death as an outward expansion?

>Believe or don't believe
We haven't been talking about nothing: the meaning conveyed by your words is that of a belief that you hold, it isn't transcendent or else (since as you said yourself, definition gives shape to things) you wouldn't have responded.
There exists incompatibilities between sets of beliefs; it's not infinitely malleable. From the things you're telling me right now, it would make no sense for you to also preach the truths of the bible. If there is an underlying transcendence to some of your experiences, it does not encompass the entirety of the principles we are discussing right now.

>>16761412
>>16761964
>Value, again, becomes this semantical thing.
Yes, it was poor wording on my part. But no matter how I put it, it's still going to be a subpar way of expressing things.
It's just that, at some point, you need to declare something as being important. If there is no relative importance of anything, all is meaningless. It isn't a matter of purpose. This is getting too semantical and I'm having trouble defining my thoughts properly.

You define awareness in a way that is very physical (feeling the environment and so on), but what if you detach it from the physical? How does this awareness translate to the nonphysical i.e. to existence after death?
You say the void I describe is the absence of the previous self, while also being a path to Nirvana. But if awareness is the expansion of the truth into the illusion (shattering it), shouldn't the previous self be "zooming out" into this greater awareness?

>I said sundered, different from surrendered.
Yes, I understood, sorry for the confusion.
About this sundering or separation from God, there is a qualitative difference between being God and God being you, but (reading the end of your post) this is the same thing. I still fail to understand how.
If God is me, this "me" is inconsequential, it just fuses into this oneness which is the real me, the essential me.
If I am God, the process reverses. There is no oneness above, because the oneness originates from me.
How can these two things be identical if they do not lead to the same result and are not actualized identically?

>>16760920
>i havent studied buddhism
it shows.

>>16753148
1. Buddhism explicitly rejects soul theory. There is no self to obliterate.
2. Nirvana can be attained in this very life.

>>16762020
If there's no soul, who attains nirvana

>>16761964
>You are talking about enlightenment here, not just stream entry, yes?
Different levels of the same thing

>How does it translate after the death of the body has occurred?
No one knows

>But philosophy is not perennial.
Neither are deities. They still exist in their same form as they did ages ago, they were just cultural reflections, just as philosophy is.
To even express philosophy through language and not paintings, for example, is cultural.

>parade as truths.
Don't get hung up on this word truth, which is why I added so much precursor to my comment.
All is truth as all has merit. You can just "see more going on" once you achieve awareness.

>absolute immutable truth.
I don't believe in any such thing, other than perhaps simple ideas of balance and change.
I don't believe there is any aspect of reality, be it through our understanding or otherwise, that cannot be changed.

>the ultimate surrender
>But that in itself is a philosophical stance which you cannot dissociate from, lest your point lose its meaning.
Letting go isn't a stance, it's an existential action that results in a change in perception.
It's not an opinion.

>Then how do you envision the end of your physical existence?
Who knows
Though in my own play with manipulating my own behavior (which is my primary lifes expression), I notice that my "deaths" and my previous "identities" are baked into my next ones.
For example, if I envision one character in which I was, and I imagine a new character I want to be, and the new one kills the old one, then HOW the deed is done reflects on this new character and new becoming.
Just the same, the conditioning of the previous character is still in the new character somewhere, even if it is largely stepped away from.

>Is perception control?
It's more agency. It's tough to say
Free will in life is more like freedom to choice of what is established. Perhaps some being could create something fundamentally new in the universe, but it's probably just like a new combination of things. I'm not sure.
The more awareness you have, it seems, the more choice you may have, as you now have a broader experience of what is at play.
But the forces present in the universe, I believe, act -through- you, so what is control?
I do know that my conditioning reflects a lot of me, but I can change that conditioning. Why I felt I needed to change that conditioning also comes down to conditioning lol.

>Then there is an underlying pure consciousness that "plays" various characters.
Seems so. I hold this belief. Something that came to me.

>I mean physical death.
I can't comment on what happens after physical death.
I don't believe death and birth actually happen, just changes in states. Could be that the changes even come down to perception.

>>16761964
>for you to also preach the truths of the bible.
There's a lot of "stable truths" in the bible, but I don't need to read old doctrines anymore. I look to the current context of my environment to define these things.
We make it up...more than we realize. In holding on to the old world, we repeat it and make it so.
In reading history, we repeat it and make it so.

>There exists incompatibilities between sets of beliefs
Useful for drama lol

What we believe propagates into reality more than we realize.
You are part of the creation process

>>16756218
The Kabbalah answers this

>>16762028
Exactly. Coming to grips with how this works is the point of Buddhism.

More technically, Buddhism doesn't reject the idea of "a soul". Rather, the soul would be composite, like all things. Your soul, like your body, and your mind, is made up of parts. People often paint Buddism as some kind of materialist physicalism, and while it's true that it agrees with Western physicalist theories of the mind that the mind is composite, it rejects the idea that the brain is the ONLY thing that contributes to this. There is no "you" to attain Nirvana. But, Nirvana isn't something attained, it's a state that you, and all things, are in. Leaving (the state of) Samsara is the goal. Buddhism is thus, in truth, about stopping Samsara, rather than attaining Nirvana. "Going to Nirvana" as if it were a place that you made progress towards physically moving, is just a linguistic shorthand.

So, the question should be: when the cycle of Samsara stops, what is left to be in the state of Nirvana? You, without ignorance and delusion.

>>16762069
How

>>16761970
>you need to declare something as being important
Do you?

>If there is no relative importance of anything, all is meaningless
Perhaps all becomes beautiful as it is when we are absent preference

>You define awareness in a way that is very physical
The material and immaterial are one. Is feeling a room a physical thing? Is there perhaps more at play than we are able to communicate or understand thus far? Yet we can feel it.

>detach from the physical
I don't yet know this. This is out of my personal realm. I can change my interpretation on physical sensations, but I have not entirely physically dissociated. I would need to see someone who could do such a thing, because I imagine if I kick them in the head, the wouldn't be so detached.
I can imagine detachment in a sort of "If I die, I die" sort of way.
I can't comment on existence after death in a physical sense.

>But if awareness is the expansion of the truth into the illusion (shattering it), shouldn't the previous self be "zooming out" into this greater awareness?
Awareness is understanding what is at play, through your "self" and your "self" as all. There's interplay.
The state of enlightenment is an infinite thing, there is no limit on how much this state can be grown.
You can be associated in reality while experiencing this awareness. But yes, I suppose to your point, you are "zoomed out" into "more" "all"

>being God and God being you
Same thing. Cultural perception tends to take the former as a blasphemous ego statement. It doesn't have to be the case.
>If God is me, this "me" is inconsequential
I suppose. This is perception and opinon.
You have unique properties, perception, feelings, you can do unique things. Thus, "God", or forces that have too sundered from "God" can act through you. God, Satan, etc, there is no difference between these things.
A balance is kept.

"essential you" if this is a comment on soul or something, I really cannot say.
My personal distinction is that I am who I am up unto this point based on conditioning, and in awareness of that conditioning, I am free to walk any path I wish.
There are "unique properties" at play in the universe that act in their own unique way. Just as humans do. Reality is entirely a metaphor, figurative, symbolic, a riddle. Understand nature, you will understand more of reality.
"origin" I can't comment on. Perhaps. Perhaps its a matter of perception. Perhaps in believing "god originates with me", I am given more agency over the world. Reality is experienced through the self.
This thing is just "happening", and you have agency as a part of it.


Words my friend
Seek to find "that place" and you will know what you want and need to know. Truth to you, at the least, maybe more broader truths, or ones that are more stable during your lifetime.

>>16762088
Doesn't this differ quite significantly from hinduism

>>16762137
>I can't comment on existence after death in a physical sense.
I can comment that death isn't something to fear. That is something made known to me
Take what implications you will from that

>>16762161
I find there's a sense of urgency to death in buddhism since an unenlightened man will be forced to remain inside the cycle of rebirth, which may be cause for fear

>>16762137
>Seek to find "that place" and you will know what you want and need to know
This is something that resonates with me, thank you.
How did you reach that place? I imagine the process is individualized, but I also suppose that it wasn't a spontaneous play of chance in your case.

>>16759337
It's easy, get a dissociative disorder and it all makes sense

I have DPDR and buddhism makes complete sense to me, I already exist in a state of "non-self" so it's not hard to see everything else it says

>>16762183
>I find there's a sense of urgency to death in buddhism since an unenlightened man will be forced to remain inside the cycle of rebirth, which may be cause for fear
Before you grapple with these ideas in a literal way, consider them in a figurative way.
The "cycle of rebirth" being you picking up a new hierarchy of values, new identity, new goal, new thing you must "go and do".
Death is the absence of these things. You will find much life here.
You don't see buddhists commiting suicide, do you?

I don't know if these ideas are literal or not. Are they representations of more literal things? I don't know.
First understand them as figurative, and consider the death of your identity.

>>16762221
It's impossible for me to lock down exactly how I got there. It's probably a combination of my entire life, really. The stage was set, lets say.

I had an agonizing 8 months.
I tried to understand someone radically different from me, and their actions that caused me a lot of pain.
I had to face a lot of myself in the process.
In the end I let go and understood. And with great sacrifice of "self" in order to do so, as I had to deconstruct basically everything I thought to be "true" or "right". I ended up seeing them all as just "different ways", all having merit. That all perspectives have merit, meaning, reason for being.
I saw the bias of words in my head and they all just shattered. I became pure sensory. From there it feels like commune.

The... say...Direction that I sacrificed in, I believe, is part of what gave me the certain knowledge that it did (coupled with my own personal self, and self relationship with it).

There are likely infinite paths. As many as there are people as there are events in time.

Naked into nature is the best overall advice I can give you.

wow, Buddhism is fucking gay.

>>16762156
Yes, the Buddha's philosophical differences with mainstream Hindus at the time are one of the main reasons it's considered a separate religion.

>>16754034
What wakes up?

>>16760744
>So Advaita Vedanta is more or less what I described in
Yes, they say that our true self and our eternal soul (Atman) is the unchanging and attributeless continuum of consciousness through which everything else takes place, and that this unwavering consciousness persisting from moment from moment is the thing which allows us to observe change and recognize the identity of things from moment to moment.

>How does it account for the existence of multiple drops, that is, for the existence of many different individuals, if the drops do not become confounded with each other but instead individuate even further by integrating the whole into themselves?
Because according to them there is only one infinite droplet using its powers to create a vast panoramic universe inhabited by insentient bodies, the sentience of the one droplet is the same sentience in all droplets animating them like wind rustling the leaves, but in people the spiritual ignorance which makes them falsely perceive themselves to be the insentient body instead of the unlimited droplet of awareness observing it obscures the fact that they are this one omnipresent droplet instead of a delimited individual. You never actually directly experience as a tangible object the consciousness of others but everyone is forced to infer that others have one which is different their own. The drop was already the ocean the whole time and does not have to reach the ocean as something which is different from the droplet. Enlightenment in Advaita in a way is the total cessation of perceiving oneself to be an individual soul instead of the one unlimited infinite consciousness which is God. When the bonds of spiritual ignorance are shattered this reality that one was actually always the ocean from the beginning directly manifests itself without requiring any further action by the droplet to "dissolve into" or "integrate into" anything.

>>consciousness or the self cannot be an illusion because illusions do not have self-awareness or sentience like we do
>Then Advaita Vedanta is very different from other branches of Hinduism and Buddhism, is it not?
Buddhism yes, Hinduism sometimes but most major types of Hindu theology/philosophy still agree on the logical necessity of an existing non-illusory consciousness in order to explain why we have sentient experience.

>>16756469
>lives relatively comfortably in a relatively peaceful place
>doesn't starve
>likely hasn't felt extreme loss
>likely isn't afflicted with a terrible illness
>"You're weak if you want to escape suffering haha!"
This is your brain on /pol/

>>16758427
This is such a poor misunderstanding of Dharmic religion it hurts

>>16753086
Why is the “self” such a necessary thing? Why is it nihilistic to obliterate it?

>>16762240
>DPDR and Buddhism
This.
I've had dpdr for years, it used to suck. Thought I was going crazy with all the existential thoughts/weird experiences. The I found Buddhism and it described everything I had been thinking and feeling for years.
I could never explain this stuff to someone else, I just come across as half-insane, but I feel more sane now than at any point in my life.
>inb4 how do I unsubscribe from your blog

>>16764279
This is why Hinduism makes more sense

Does that mean Buddhism is the equivalent of Zero Sum?

>>16764570
People confuse the ego with the self, telling people that it's okay to not have a 'self', is a manipulation and gaslighting tactic

>>16765459
find out where the word ego comes from, instead of exposing philistinery

>>16762302
You're still not enlightened in a buddhist sense.

>>16765454
Which religions or philosophies are closer to the left hand path?

>>16760314
>Is the transmigration of the soul simply the transcendent consciousness (we could call it the "true identity") shifting from one transient dream to another?
no, buddha debunked it

"As you say, friend," the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, even warm in this Dhamma & Vinaya?"

"How could he be, lord? No, lord."

When this was said, the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.

Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless man, you will be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will cross-question the monks on this matter."

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the root] and produces much demerit for himself?"

"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"

"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's long-term harm & suffering.

>>16765572
Consciousness Classified by Requisite Condition

"Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
On Becoming

"Monks, do you see, 'This has come to be'?" [3]

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, do you see, 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, do you see, 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'Has this come to be?' — does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'Does it come into play from that nutriment?' — does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'From the cessation of that nutriment, is what has come to be subject to cessation?' — does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, for one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'This has come to be,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

>>16765578
On Becoming

"Monks, do you see, 'This has come to be'?" [3]

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, do you see, 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, do you see, 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'Has this come to be?' — does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'Does it come into play from that nutriment?' — does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'From the cessation of that nutriment, is what has come to be subject to cessation?' — does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, for one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'This has come to be,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

"For one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'It comes into play from that nutriment,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

"For one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, are you thus free from uncertainty here that 'This has come to be'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Are you thus free from uncertainty here that 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Are you thus free from uncertainty here that 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, is it well seen (by you) that 'This has come to be'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Is it well seen (by you) that 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Is it well seen (by you) that 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, if you were to adhere to this view — so pure, so bright — if you were to cherish it, treasure it, regard it as 'mine,' would you understand the Dhamma taught as analogous to a raft,[4] for crossing over, not for holding on to?"

"No, lord."

"If you were not to adhere to this view — so pure, so bright — if you were to not to cherish it, not to treasure it, not to regard it as 'mine,' would you understand the Dhamma taught as analogous to a raft, for crossing over, not for holding on to?"

"Yes, lord."

>>16765582
Nutriment & Dependent Co-Arising

"Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.

"Now, these four nutriments have what as their cause, what as their origination, through what are they born, through what are they brought into being? These four nutriments have craving as their cause, craving as their origination, are born from craving, are brought into being from craving.

"And this craving has what as its cause, what as its origination, through what is it born, through what is it brought into being?

"Craving has feeling as its cause... is brought into being through feeling.

"And this feeling has what as its cause... through what is it brought into being?

"Feeling has contact as its cause...

"And this contact has what as its cause... through what is it brought into being?

"Contact has the six sense-media as its cause...

"And these six sense-media have what as their cause... through what are they brought into being?

"The six sense-media have name-&-form as their cause...

"And this name-&-form has what as its cause... through what is it brought into being?

"Name-&-form has consciousness as its cause...

"And this consciousness has what as its cause... through what is it brought into being?

"Consciousness has fabrications as its cause...

"And these fabrications have what as their cause... through what are they brought into being?

"Fabrications have ignorance as their cause, ignorance as their origination, are born from ignorance, are brought into being from ignorance.
The Arising of Stress & Suffering

"Thus:

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

>>16765586
The Cessation of Stress & Suffering

"Now from the remainderless fading and cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.
From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.
From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.
From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

>>16765572
>DEBOONKED
The wall of text you pasted debunks nothing
It just confirms that buddhism is a literal death cult

>>16765586
>>16765589
I don't get it.

>>16765518
not an argument

>>16765518
Retard
Do you also think self-concept and self are the same thing?
You =/= The Idea You Have of Yourself

>>16764570
Buddhists are so fucking intellectually dishonest.

https://archive.org/details/moksha_video_20190830
Hinduism is gnostic

>>16765975
Is remote viewing real though?

>>16758406
>t. hylic

>>16766511
Seething gnostic larper spotted

>>16765676
When delusion stops suffering stops.

>>16766593
What delusion?

>>16766613
Exactly.

>>16767098
You were the one who brought it up, the fuck are you talking about m8

>>16765459
>it’s manipulation and gaslighting!
holy fuck you are an actual idiot

>>16767381
Not very enlightened of you

>>16767394
Even the Buddha told idiots to fuck off. He did so repeatedly. Siddhartha Gautama's androgynous and passive appearance in the West is a conflation of him with Jesus, who in the Protestant tradition is passive and feminine. This is not so, and in Indian society he was considered a virile manly man. Now, of course, this is India we're talking about, but still.

>>16767374
The body is the bodhi tree.
The mind is like a bright mirror's stand.
At all times we must strive to polish it
and must not let dust collect.

Even better, however:

The mind is the bodhi tree.
The body is the bright mirror's stand.
The bright mirror is
originally clear and pure.
Where could there be any dust?

>>16767444
>Even the Buddha told idiots to fuck off.
What of compassion?

>>16767454
Compassion does not necessarily mean "being nice". You can compassionately slap someone to make them snap out of something, or compassionately tackle someone to the ground to stop them from walking into traffic. You can compassionately tell someone to shut the fuck up to stop them from spreading falsehoods, both for their sake and for that of others. You can also compassionately tell people to shut up and listen and stop spinning their wheels in the mud.

>>16767478
This is a satisfactory answer

Why be a buddhist or a hinduist instead of a christian?
I'm not memeing.

>>16767491
being a hindu is like being a christian, muh god, muh rituals, muh symbolism with lots of non-canonical crap added centuries after centuries

being a buddhist is just doing mediation 10 minutes per week

>>16767522
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about do you?

>>16767491
Because I can't believe in a religion who says that the transcendent unmoved mover picked a special tribe in Palestine and commanded them to genocide all the other opposing tribes in the immediate region

>>16760702
Exactly. Though I guess this is still nihilist according to OP.

>>16753086
How does no self = nihilism?

>>16767878
That's not christianity though.
Also, do all hinduists literally believe in their pantheon of 30 000 gods? All religions have cultural "flavor" added to them but that should not detract from their fundamental message

>>16760702

>Nirvana is not an annihilation
>also, you and your consciousness are just constituted by a series of transient aggregates which come to an end and which don't continue in nirvana
>yea bro you aren't conscious of anything whatsoever in Parinirvana and Buddhists can't explain how its different in practice from nothingness or deep sleep but just trust me bro, it's not annihilation
was he trolling or just retarded?

>>16767893
>That's not christianity though.
The mainstream Christian position is that Jesus and the Yahweh of the OT (who did that) are both the same triune God

>Also, do all hinduists literally believe in their pantheon of 30 000 gods?
Perhaps some do, but at least they have explanations where the Supreme God gives rise to all of them through His powers without dispensing special favors or telling tribes to slaughter other tribes

>>16767921
The mainstream christian position is that of the OT being metaphorical

>>16767909
I don't understand shit to all these branches of eastern philosophy, some people say buddhism is annihilation but then others come out of the woodwork to go "well actually hinduism/mahayana/vedanta/whatever the fuck says that this is not quite the case..."
Someone please explain. Abrahamists may have their own issues but at least their beliefs aren't so fucking convoluted and confusing from one branch to another

>>16767955
>Someone please explain.
I see Buddhist claims about Nirvana not being an annihilation as false, because according to the standard Buddhist explanation consciousness is only one of the aggregates which are extinguished and don't continue into Parinirvana (i.e. what happens when someone who has become enlightened has their physical body die). So if your body dies and your consciousness comes to an end, then you will have no sensations or sentience whatsoever, in that sense it is completely indistinguishable from nothingness. All the Buddhist responses to this point all seem like cope and wistful thinking,

The normal responses I see to this are

1) Well you never had an independent totally real consciousness to begin with! Therefor it's not a real annihilation of that which never had any reality.
This is just sophistry and it ignores that fact that the reality of our conscious existence is the thing we have immediate access to and can be absolutely sure of. And that no amount of verbal definitions or proclamations of the unreality of our consciousness can change the fact that if our consciousness ends permanently, then the conscious entity which we are which experiences things through consciousness is indeed annihilated

2) Well Nirvana is beyond existence and non-existence and so whether consciousness continues is an irrelevant/dumb question
This is simply something which they have to take on faith, which cannot be logically substantiated or defended with good reasoning.

>>16768013
>2) Well Nirvana is beyond existence and non-existence and so whether consciousness continues is an irrelevant/dumb question
I don't get this, if nirvana/parinirvana are beyond existence and nonexistence (what does this even mean) then where does the entire buddhist cosmology come from?

Are there actual differences between branches that don't come down to sophistry and word games or is it all the same?

>>16768065
>then where does the entire buddhist cosmology come from?
They don't have any good explanations, Buddha didn't say in the Pali Canon, although under some interpretations it is dependent origination which is supposed to be the cause of the cosmology. But this is impossible since when you analyze the details of how it works it involves the logical same contradiction as saying the daughter gives birth to her mother, it falls apart in the face of the classical cosmological arguments.

>Are there actual differences between branches that don't come down to sophistry and word games or is it all the same?
Yes, but in spite of these differences sophistry and word games remain a common theme in Buddhist philosophy and discourse. There are branches of it though which mostly abandon philosophy/metaphysics and just focus on immediate meditation/spiritual experiences (i.e. some Zen) or some of the minor Tibetan Buddhsit schools which basically come around full swing to the position of Hinduism (i.e. Jonang)

>>16768119
>dependent origination
I don't think that accounts for the specificity of the cosmology though, but you say it makes no sense anyway

>come around full swing to the position of Hinduism
Is that better? I thought the differences between the two were mostly in theogony, not in metaphysics

>>16753086

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUsQTaiZqY

>>16768246
>the monk doesn't answer his questions
Of course.
Is it a good movie?

>>16768219
>I don't think that accounts for the specificity of the cosmology though, but you say it makes no sense anyway
Buddha never said what causes the universe/samsara to exist, but he said that a beginningless relationship involving a causal loop with 12 links is what is responsible for the arising of our mental states etc, Some Buddhist schools interpret this causal chain as being the cause of the universe as well but others don't.

>Is that better? I thought the differences between the two were mostly in theogony, not in metaphysics
In the position of Jonang yes because their explanation of Nirvana doesn't involve any sort of extinction of consciousness. Hinduism and Buddhism have some very significant differences in metaphysics as well and not just the theogony. Buddhist philosophy/metaphysics are typically anti-foundationalist while Hindu philosophy/metaphysics typically involving understandings of causation etc which are often approximate to Aristotelianism and the rest of the western classical theist tradition.

>>16767098
I didn't claim I experienced anything in a "Buddhist sense", dogmatist
I had an experience that led me to everything those canons talk about, but in a way specific to me. It was completely spontaneous, I wasn't chasing it, I was trying to understand something, and eventually I had to let go.

I'm definitely not in that state now. You really can't speak on it from outside it. You really can't "speak on it" from inside it either.

People call my experience "once returner", or something.
That state is "infinite" though. There is no limit. Probably a beyond buddhahood.

Anyway don't project onto me, I never made that claim
Also I find whenever I talk about this, guys who spend so much time chasing this stuff come out in droves to take jabs at me, and it just strikes me as projection.

>>16765552
http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm

>>16768013
Your problem is that you're using "Consciousness" in the Western sense, when Buddhists don't. "Consciousness" AKA Vijñāna is essentially the mental phenomena of recognition. You have multiple Vijñāna at any given time, one for each of the six sense (sight, smell, taste touch, hearing, and mind, with "mind" being "the sense you use to talk to yourself in your head and visualize stuff"). When Buddhists say "there is no Self", you can sort of loosely map this onto the physicalism that neuroscience posits: the Pineal Gland is not the seat of the tiny man piloting your brain, there IS no tiny man. Only, Buddhists say that the brain is not the only part of you involved in mental phenomena blah blah blah, so Buddhism isn't physicalism.

The Five Aggregates AKA the Skandhas are not extinguished, or destroyed, or annihilated. Rather, the goal is to end attachment to them. Enlightened beings who have extinguished the ATTACHMENT still see things, they still have Vijñāna, they're just no longer attached to them. One of the Skandhas is form, AKA rupa; how would you destroy all form ever? One of them is sankhara, perceptions, how do you do that other than by killing yourself? If it were that simple, why did the the Buddha teach all this meditation shit?

>>16768065
I guess I have to ask what you mean. "A Buddha" is a being that achieves supreme wisdom and instead of peacing out to Nirvana, comes back to teach. These are very rare. A Bodhisattva, and an Asura/Deva are two totally different things, neither of which are in Nirvana (blah blah bigbrain mahayana you're already in nirvana blah blah). To put it another way, a Bodhisattva has achieved enlightenment, and used it to get superpowers, but they're still in Samsara. Devas and Asuras are just classes of beings, like animals or humans. They leave powerful and pleasurable, but still Samsaric, lives.

>>16768497
What's this

>>16768626
Insight into some aspects of LHP

>>16768599
You are purposely avoiding addressing the issue I am speaking about and are trying to obfuscate

>The Five Aggregates AKA the Skandhas are not extinguished, or destroyed, or annihilated. Rather, the goal is to end attachment to them.
Yes, but I am not talking about someone who has attained Nirvana while still living in a human body. I am specifically talking about Parinirvana, what happens after someone who has attained Nirvana while living dies. The aggregates don't continue into or exist in Parinirvana, you don't have consciousness of eye-sensations etc in Parinirvana according to Buddhism. There being no sensations or consciousness of anything it is indistinguishable from nothingness.

So when you say:
>Enlightened beings who have extinguished the ATTACHMENT still see things, they still have Vijñāna, they're just no longer attached to them
You are just obfuscating or are confused because I'm not talking about living human beings who are enlightened but who just extinguish the attachment to the aggregates, I'm only talking about Parinirvana where the aggregates don't continue to exist.

>>16768429
>12 links
Is there a reason for that number or is it arbitrary?

>Buddhist philosophy/metaphysics are typically anti-foundationalist while Hindu philosophy/metaphysics typically involving understandings of causation
Then hinduism is dogmatically compatible with all platonist or platonism-derived schools of thought, and buddhism is its standalone thing mainly because of anatta?

>>16758319
whatever helps you sleep at night

>>16768882
Some schools of Hinduism are compatible with Platonism, yes. Others would reject Platonism as on its face absurd. There's a joke that Buddhism is eight literary traditions with a meditation practice on top, if that's the case then Hinduism is eighty literary traditions with eighty meditation practices on top.

>>16768881
So then what you're actually asking is "If there's no Self, then what goes to Nirvana?". This is, at its root, one of the Buddha's Unanswerable Questions: questions that cannot be answered by conceptuality because they involved things that conceptuality axiomatically cannot handle. If you want a text by a monk going over this, look into The Mind Like Fire Unbound. You can get it free off accesstoinsight.

If you want the Buddha to explain it to you: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
The Nirvana Sutra also covers this: https://www.nirvanasutra.net/stephenhodgetrans4.htm

This is like the eighth time this has been covered in the thread, which is why I'm just giving you books, because I know you won't accept "Nirvana is a state of limitless freedom beyond all restraint and binding" and "Buddhists reject physicalism so the idea that everything stops when the brain goes squish is outright rejected". Nirvana isn't nothingess because Buddhism rejects the very idea of "nothing".

>>16768882
>Is there a reason for that number or is it arbitrary?
I don't know, I think it is the number which Buddha gives in the Pali Canon, it has to do with 12 psychological/mental/dependent factors which condition things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

Although when Buddhists cite it as an explanation for the universe they don't mean that the individual's mental factors cause the universe but more so in a general way that there is a beginningless series of cause and effects which has existed eternally and which has caused the universe instead of an uncaused cause like God etc

>Then hinduism is dogmatically compatible with all platonist or platonism-derived schools of thought, and buddhism is its standalone thing mainly because of anatta?
I would say so yes, that's true generally

>>16768977
>So then what you're actually asking is "If there's no Self, then what goes to Nirvana?".
This is completely false, without me committing myself in this conversation to the position of what is or what is not the self, I am just pointing out the fact the Buddhism openly admits that consciousness of things does not continue into Parinirvana, and that this permanent ending of us having consciousness of things after formerly having it constitutes an annihilation of consciousness.

>questions that cannot be answered by conceptuality because they involved things that conceptuality axiomatically cannot handle.
This is the Buddhist equivalent of "Heaven is real because the bible says so, you just have to believe"

>If you want a text by a monk going over this, look into The Mind Like Fire Unbound. You can get it free off accesstoinsight.
No it doesn't, we have been over this already in other threads.

>If you want the Buddha to explain it to you:
Buddha did not explain an answer to the contradiction I am speaking about here

>The Nirvana Sutra also covers this: https://www.nirvanasutra.net/stephenhodgetrans4.htm
No it doesn't

>This is like the eighth time this has been covered in the thread
No it hasn't

>>16768977
>Some schools of Hinduism are compatible with Platonism, yes. Others would reject Platonism as on its face absurd.
Could you point me towards them?

>eighty literary traditions with eighty meditation practices on top.
Is this another way to say that meditation is much more important in hinduism than in buddhism?

>>16769034
>Could you point me towards them?
Not him but the Hindu schools which are closest to or most compatible with Platonism would probably be Advaita Vedanta, Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism

>>16768989
>a beginningless series of cause and effects which has existed eternally and which has caused the universe
I mean, a beginingless series of cause and effects just sounds like a way of describing a transcendent entity without calling it that

>>16769056
Thanks
Are the critics of Shankara's nondualism accurate or is it just bickering?

>>16769034
>Is this another way to say that meditation is much more important in hinduism than in buddhism?
Hinduism and Buddhism each have parallel meditative and yogic traditions, with the specific sub-schools of each religion have differing opinions on their purpose and efficiency. It seems to be somewhat more important in Buddhism than in Hinduism, but not by a large measure and this is a generalization which obscures that a good amount of what might be termed meditation in Buddhism may end up being classified as a type of non-physical yoga or introspective yogic practice in Hinduism.

>>16769071
If an entity is the uncaused, transcendent, beginningless and eternal prior to everything else, then it exists outside the causal framework which only pertains to things within the contingent universe of form, the latter being contingent upon the entity who is outside it.

>>16769082
I don't believe so. I have searched hard for one and have yet to find a substantive criticism or refutation of the internal/logical consistency of Shankara's Advaita. The vast majority of critiques seem to be written by people who have not even read his works, even the critiques written by other Indian philosophers. Ramanuja for example in his writings attributes positions to Shankara (or rather to the anonymous purvapaksin who is supposed to represent the view of the rival Advaita sect) and then attacks them when Shankara never held those positions to begin with.

>>16754245
imagine being the last one to get out of samsara and everyone looks at you like

To the people who know what they're talking about ITT: I have a question about some of my own experiences and insights. Most of what I read and think about is the stuff between Bodhidharma and Huineng. I've found that they seem to be saying that there's no need for enlightenment. If you are already the Buddha, all your efforts to try to become a Buddha are in vain. If I spend all my time worrying and trying to become a Buddha, that is dukkha. However, if I just stop caring so much about whether or not I am a Buddha, then I see that everything is naturally "peaceful." A similar thing comes about when talking about seeing your true nature. The eye cannot see itself. There is just sight. In the same way, the mind cannot know itself. If I try to see my true nature, all the ideas I come up with are false because they are ideas. Am I on the right track? Is this line of thinking what is typically found from these books, or have I missed the point entirely? I realize that by asking this question, I'm just appealing to your authority to get rid of the desire to "see my true nature." if I stopped worrying about it, there would be peace.

>>16769126
>have yet to find a substantive criticism or refutation of the internal/logical consistency of Shankara's Advaita
Are the people who call it a reformulation of buddhist thought wrong?

>>16769281
Yes I believe so, that trend may have started within Hinduism by people who read later post-Shankarite Advaitins who held positions that Shankara disagreed with, but which people falsely assumed were the views of Advaita. Like the view that objects don't exist outside of us perceiving them, which was a theory attacked by Shankara but which a few later post-Shankara Advaitins held to.

It is my firm belief, based upon the clear evidence for it being true, that the major doctrines of Advaita can all be traced to very earliest Upanishads, like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which predates Buddha by centuries, and that in the subsequent Upanishads these doctrines all appear as well. This is what Chandradhar Sharma also concludes in his book "The Advaita Traditon in Philosophy" and of course it is the position of the actual surviving Advaita tradition in India and the monks who run their temples etc.

If you have questions about specific doctrines of Advaita which some accuse of being Buddhist-derived and where are the scriptural source for those doctrines in the Upanishads I can answer those questions.

>>16769215
>However, if I just stop caring so much about whether or not I am a Buddha, then I see that everything is naturally "peaceful."
Balanced, id say. Perception defines peace and chaos.

>A similar thing comes about when talking about seeing your true nature. The eye cannot see itself.
You see your conditioning up unto this point.
Or
Could be that the specific stream of entry you take takes a look at your life, and you see a certain pattern through this filter that determines "you".
This filter is much more aware than the mundane ones we look around with, but in existing, you have some sort of filter some way.

I had a spontaneous event that just let me know myself. This place felt fingerless, but thinking about it retroactively it still had a type of filter. It's different, though.
It's like specific conditioning stood out to me. Things that felt like they aligned.
I didn't focus on achieving this nor try to understand myself. It just happened.

Imo, you aren't objectively trying to do anything. Youre... agitating the disobjectification of your experience, and then it seems to me that some... more root nature's? Become known to you.

And yeah, you shouldn't worry about it.
The stage is beautiful, but it's no "better" and shouldn't be viewed as such.
Enlightenment finds you.
The easiest way to flirt with it, if you want to agitate it, I suppose, is to just let go, which is where your "stop worrying" comes into play.

>>16769375
>This place felt fingerless
Filterless*

>>16769034
Not at all, meditation is important in both. But "meditation" is a vast subject. Some Buddhist schools consider watching the dissection of corpses to be meditation; some Hindu schools consider smearing cow shit on your face meditation. There are schools of both that would reject both. Buddhism has a founder, Siddhartha Gautama, so (in theory) everything flows out of him. In practice, this isn't the case and Buddhism borrows meditation practices from Hinduism and Taoism freely (ignore Vajrayana here for a minute), but the point still remains.

In Hinduism, however, you don't have a single "start point", you've just got a vague starting mass, so you have far more meditation traditions than in Buddhism. Hinduism has far more internal diversity than Buddhism does.

>>16769215
Yes, absolutely. The trouble you're seeing with conceptualizing this is a thorn used against Zen, and the more mystical Mahayana sects. This is a criticism that Theravada levies at Mahayana, in particular Zen, in that while everything you've said is true "LMFAO JUST WALK THROUGH THE GATELESS GATE BRO" isn't really helpful. The rebuttal would be that you shouldn't be trying to conceptualize it, that's the entire point. There's a Koan or two about not thinking, doing. Don't think about enlightenment, simply be enlightened.

>>16769335
There's definitely similarities, but yeah there are pretty key differences when you actually start looking at doctrine. I think it's just that anything that holds a non-dual framework will tend to adopt certain similarities. I will say, that there seems to be a trend of people on /lit/ who only really view Advaita Vedanta as being useful for its theories of the mind, and ditch the monism/non-dualism, misconstruing it as some kind of weird Pajeet Gnosticism used to buttress Neoplatonism against materialism and physicalist theories of the mind.

>>16769335
I don't have such specific questions but what is the required reading to become more familiar with Advaita aside from the Bhagavad Gita, and hinduism (specifically the platonist-compatible ones we were talking about)? Do you need a guru to truly understand the philosophy?
Is there an equivalent for the bardo thodol in hinduism, by the way? I remember reading it a long time ago and it made quite an impression on me

>>16769375
>Imo, you aren't objectively trying to do anything. Youre... agitating the disobjectification of your experience, and then it seems to me that some... more root nature's? Become known to you.

That's part of what I've been noticing. If the thinking calms down because there is no need for it (desire). Then there's just the raw sensations/qualia. The filter on it starts to "fall away", not entirely though, there will always be some sort of filter unless you just get blasted on mushrooms or dmt. However, losing the filter isn't the purpose of it. There is no "true purpose."

>>16769417
>Pajeet Gnosticism
What? How is advaita similar to gnosticism?

>>16769470
It isn't, that's the problem. It's just morons on /lit/ mashing shit together.

>>16769478
I mean surely they draw parallels if they compare the two, I'm just curious as to what they could possibly be

>>16769442
Yeah man it's just a change in state.
Different states have different uses
We glorify the enlightened state because we are often so disconnected from it
But you know, perhaps at some point somewhere, they wanted an environment that could take them away from this awareness in order to engage in another state. Imagine all that can happen in the absence of awareness and enlightenment.
Who knows

I can flirt with disobjectification pretty fast and easy. "I" just quickly "die". All that stuff going on inside me just stops.
Oftentimes I can feel more "alive" doing this.

>>16769470
>What? How is advaita similar to gnosticism?
pic related

This is my personal take on the matter. I am not super knowledgeable about Buddhism so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm not really speaking about Buddhism specifically anyway and more on what I think how reality works, it is only tangentially related.
>>16756218 got me thinking.
>For all I can tell, I placed myself in Samsara through my unlimited freedom because it was more interesting to me
I think we "choose" to be in Samsara or material existence as much as a ball "chooses" to roll downhill. Inanimate objects at any give altitude are driven to the bottom most altitude as it is the most stable, souls are driven towards matter for the same reason. At a high altitude, a ball has so many forces acting on it to fall down hill, the winds, gravity, etc. There are so many ways for the potential energy of the ball to be expelled and for it to reach equilibrium at the ground. Same for a soul in an immaterial existence. In immaterial existence there is freedom and unlimited potential, but that can go both ways. Go to sleep right now and have a dream. Dreams are essentially a demo for what immateriality is like, and you can have either the most wonderful dreams or the most horrible nightmares. Material existence, for all that is worth, is stable and predictable, which is why so many souls find solace in it. It is the metaphorical bottom of the hill.

>>16769549
That's a pretty specific example. Gnostic cosmology and philosophy, as a whole, is not nondualist.

>>16769417
>I will say, that there seems to be a trend of people on /lit/ who only really view Advaita Vedanta as being useful for its theories of the mind,
It gets brought up in theory of mind threads threads because it has one of the more well-developed articulations of consciousness in philosophy. And people can find this interesting without being fully committed to Advaita's metaphysics. The debates about consciousness which Advaita engaged in with other Hindu and non-Hindu schools have a lot of relevance for current debates in theories of mind.

>and ditch the monism/non-dualism, misconstruing it as some kind of weird Pajeet Gnosticism used to buttress Neoplatonism against materialism and physicalist theories of the mind.
What do you mean as construing it as Gnosticism? Advaita while being non-dualist in its ontology aligns with certain dualist theories of mind insofar as it holds to the position that consciousness is fundamentally non-physical and qualitatively different from and not
a product of insentient physical matter. But this partial alignment with mind-body dualism doesn't bring Advaita any closer to the ontological dualism of (some) gnostics.

>>16769435
> but what is the required reading to become more familiar with Advaita aside from the Bhagavad Gita, and hinduism (specifically the platonist-compatible ones we were talking about)?
The main Advaita writings are Adi Shankara's works, his writings are essential to deeply understanding Advaita, but they require some knowledge of Hindu philosophical terminology etc and other background knowledge. Here below are links to 8 out of the 10 Upanishad commentaries he wrote, I recommend people begin with these if they want to read his works, although in order to make sense of what he is saying you'll probably need to first read a book on Hindu philosophy/Vedanta like "Essentials of Indian Philosophy" by Hiriyanna, or "Man and His Becoming According to the Vedanta" by Guenon, or "Advaita Vedanta a Philosophical Reconstruction" by Deutsch, or Sharma's aforementioned book.

https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-Vol-1.pdf
https://estudantedavedanta.net/Eight-Upanisads-vol2.pdf

To get a quick TLDR of what Advaita is about you can also read this short text online without any preparation first.

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>Do you need a guru to truly understand the philosophy?
To understand theoretically how it all works and how it is consistent as a philosophy or metaphysics, no, to become fully enlightened and attain liberation according to how this works in Advaita, yes.

>>16769583
>to become fully enlightened and attain liberation according to how this works in Advaita, yes.
Considering there are no real western gurus, then Asia has a monopoly on enlightenment?

>>16769594
>Considering there are no real western gurus, then Asia has a monopoly on enlightenment?
More or less, yes, or really just India. According to Advaita you cannot reach liberation (i.e. enlightenment) while on earth without being initiated into ascetic monkhood (sannyasa) by someone already in that status who was conferred it by a qualified person, which is really just a fellow monk belonging to one of the Indian ascetic orders which teaches Advaita doctrine and traces their founding and history to the Advaita tradition (i.e. the Dashnami Sampradaya). There may be ascetic Advaita orders in Nepal or Bali too but I'm not aware of any

However, Advaita also says that you can achieve liberation while in Brahmaloka if you devote yourself to spiritual realization while there, which is a temporary but long-lasting heaven-like realm which beings can ascend to (even non-monks) after death if they are a serious practitioner of meditation/yoga and make progress on the spiritual path, but without attaining liberation. So there is still an indirect back-door for spiritual people who don't take up monkhood while as a human, but it's not guaranteed by any means for them.

I just want to add as a supplementary resource that Francis Lucille is a decent teacher. He does live meetings regularly. https://www.meetup.com/Advaita/

>>16769688
I'm always wary of philosophies that require initiation by a specific member of the sect, but there's merit in looking into it anyway. Are most nondualist traditions like this, be they buddhist or hinduist?

>>16769478
>>16765975

>>16769786
>Are most nondualist traditions like this, be they buddhist or hinduist?
Yes, not all but many. Many also have "householder initiations" though which can be undertaken by people who have homes, jobs, wives etc, not all of them require you to become a monk and so on.

>I'm always wary of philosophies that require initiation by a specific member of the sect, but there's merit in looking into it anyway.
Advaita is not a "philosophy" which aims to proselytize or popularize itself in the public realm on the basis of teachings reached from human reasoning alone, but is based on a hermeneutic exegesis of texts considered by Hindus to be infallible and revealed by God, the Upanishads, which themselves contain passages stressing the need for secrecy and the non-revealing of truth to people not qualified to understand it. In the Katha Upanishad Yama tries to tempt Naciketa first with offers of riches of all sorts, but only imparts the immortality-conferring knowledge once Naciketa displays that he is qualified to grasp it. Like Aquinas though, in the process of interpreting their scriptures they engage in elaborate logical arguments in order to defend and show the logical consistency of the principles contained in these scriptures.

You can still appreciate its philosophy and have the studying of it impact one's own spiritual life without being initiated into it though.

>>16767939
>The mainstream christian position is that of the OT being metaphorical
this is not true

>>16753086
Looking at it like an archetypal hylic. Its the same as Plato (and really all esoteric understandings worth their salt). Its not:
>many become one
Its:
>Ignorance becomes knowledge.
whats life-denying is falsely thinking "you" are separate from (the source of) all life. That said I can see what you mean about buddhism having a tendency towards nihilism. Funnily enough though I think the bodhisattva ideal cancels out that tendency.
>>16758336
Cynical hylicism: the post.

>>16758272
Its like opening the prison cell and telling the prisoner they're free and having them throw piss on you and then telling you its raining inside.