[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 131 KB, 723x1000, 7b8f9a167ffbde9b31b9a0d74be9ad8e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17285294 No.17285294 [Reply] [Original]

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthi in the Jeta Forest in the private park owned by Anāthapiṇḍika. There the Blessed one addressed the monks thus: ‘Monks!’ Those monks responded thus: ‘Blessed One!’ The Blessed One said this:

"Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you."

"And what is dependent co-arising? 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."

At this time, a Brahmin named Sugatasūdana who had joined the audience of monks stood up and said to the Blessed One:

"Oh venerable sir, you proclaim that from ignorance as a requisite condition comes fabrications, but I ask you, from whence arose this ignorance?"

The Blessed One replied to Sugatasūdana:

"Oh Brahmin, a first point of ignorance, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it came into being"

Sugatasūdana pressed the Blessed One further:

"Venerable sir, if there is no first point of ignorance, does that mean the causal chain of dependent co-arising has been active continuously without any beginning?"

The Blessed One replied:

"That is correct, oh Brahmin"

>> No.17285295

Sugatasūdana pressed the Blessed One still further:

"Oh, Blessed One, but what is the cause of the mutual aggregation of the 12 links into such an arrangement which allows them to impart casual efficiency to the next link in the chain in an orderly manner? For the aggregation of things into specific arrangements is an activity, and as activities are effects, a cause for them must necessarily be presumed. For, in the world we see that threads do not form an aggregation of threads in the form of a cloth unless they are acted upon by the spinner at his loom."

The Blessed One replied to the Brahmin:

"Oh Brahmin, do not think that you can fool the Tathāgata, from dependent co-arising springs all causal relations, Brahmā and the rest of the gods are subject to its sway, there is no Deva who is the cause of the aggregation of the links of dependent co-arising. All is dependently co-arisen, including the relationship of the links to one another."

Sugatasūdana smiled and replied for the last time:

"Oh Blessed One, but how can dependent co-arising be the cause of the aggregation of the 12 links of co-arising when it depends on the aggregation of its links for its own existence and orderly functioning? For a daughter is never seen to give birth to her own mother, and smoke is never seen to give rise to fire. But when the Blessed One says that dependent co-arising is the cause of the aggregation of the links of dependent co-arising on which dependent co-arising relies for its functioning, that is no different from saying a daughter gives birth to her own mother, whom that daughter depends upon for her existence to begin with".

The Blessed One frowned and paused for several moments, then he opened his mouth as if he were about to speak, but then he closed his mouth and remained silent. After a length of time, the Blessed One said:

"Oh Brahmin, you have bested me, I do not know how dependent co-arising can be the cause of its own aggregation when it depends on aggregation to function, as you say it is a paradox."

At this moment a murmur of voices started up among the monks surrounding the Blessed One, the voices quickly grew louder and some of the monks began to display anger. At this moment the Blessed One's attendant Ānanda stood up and shouted to the monks:

"Oh monks, this devious demon in human form has dared to show the Blessed One's doctrine to contain contradictions, how dare he! We must stop him from further questioning the Blessed One's doctrine."

Then all the monks gathered up sticks and rocks and began to menace Sugatasūdana, who taking notice of the situation stood up and quickly left the Jeta Forest before the enraged monks could do him harm.

>> No.17285325

>no sourve
idiot

>> No.17285449

fake

>> No.17285586

Not sure what's going on this thread, but it reminded me of how in a few of the suttas, things like this really happen. monks disagree with the buddha, attendess leave disatisfied, etc. it proves to me we are descriving a real historical person. this is the exact kind of thing that happens in religious discussion.

also I think you're trying to disprove dependent origination but basically all explanatinos of things at some point just find a bedrock of "it just is". even in a science view of the world, we have the forces etc, no reac explanation of how and we. I think with buddhism it's basically dependent origination 'just is', there's no real explanation it's just a brute fact

also buddhism is gay, life denying, and is essentially a suicide method.

>> No.17285626

>>17285586
Last sentence is retarded, otherwise you got it

>> No.17285676

>>17285626
It's true. Buddhist strive for escaoe from this world. All else is larp

>> No.17285721

>>17285676
Isn't that all spirituality though? The assertion this world is not all there is, and further, is actually unimportant in true reality, being a training ground at best?

>> No.17285740

>>17285721
buddha makes no claim about true reality.
Daoism (some) is life affirming (not in the Nietzschean sense) I'd say

>> No.17285815

>"Oh monks, this devious demon in human form has dared to show the Blessed One's doctrine to contain contradictions, how dare he! We must stop him from further questioning the Blessed One's doctrine."
When has someone ever needed to do this to defend atheism? Go get in the Atmangelion, Brahman.

>> No.17285832

>>17285586
>also buddhism is gay, life denying, and is essentially a suicide method.
Literally every single action you take will bring you closer to death. Wouldn't matter if you were Buddhist or Christian or Pseud

>> No.17286007

>>17285832
>Literally every single action you take will bring you closer to death
No? Drink some water buddy. It prolongs your life

>> No.17286268

>>17285449
It's real, it's from a passage of the Pali Canon that was suppressed by Buddhists out of embarrassment, but which was rediscovered in the 19th century by western scholars.

>> No.17286354

>>17285676
>Buddhist strive for escaoe from this world
And that's a good thing

>> No.17286367

>>17285815
>Go get in the Atmangelion, Brahman.
kek

>> No.17286396

>>17286007
Your body has to consume fuel even taking in more fuel. Think about how that water gets cycled through your system, all the different organs and membranes and muscles and pipes that are getting worn out in the distribution process.

>> No.17286567

>>17285295
>>17285294
how will buddhists ever recover?

>> No.17286936

>>17285586
>I think with buddhism it's basically dependent origination 'just is', there's no real explanation it's just a brute fact
And I suppose a daughter giving birth to her own mother ‘just is’, huh?

>> No.17287023

>>17286936
Isn't the Atmangelion that you (Brahman) are piloting also your mother (who is also Brahman)?

>> No.17287064

>>17287023
No no, Atman doesn't do anything, its existence is identical to its non-existence, because it is luminous, but also does not emit light, as it is transparent.

You're thinking of the Jivas, who are composed of parts despite being wholly uniform and do not change as they are altered by Brahman, who made them eternally ignorant.

>> No.17287112

>>17287064
And being uniform with unchanging parts how is it that a daughter couldn't give birth to her mother? Because the daughter already is her mother?

>> No.17287557

>>17287023
No, the Atman and Brahman are the same thing, one does not pilot the other. Advaita doesn’t contain the same contradiction/paradox which Buddhism does with regard to dependent origination.
>>17287064
>Atman doesn't do anything, its existence is identical to its non-existence, because it is luminous
Nice attempt at imitating an Advaitin but this is false, the Atmans existence is not identical to its non-existence, this is a false claim about the Atman typically made by Buddhists. Things are illuminated by the light of the Atman, without the light of the Atman, consciousness does not illumine things, so no, it’s existence and non-existence are not identical.
> You're thinking of the Jivas, who are composed of parts despite being wholly uniform and do not change as they are altered by Brahman, who made them eternally ignorant.
Advaita doesn’t claim that jivas are uniform and unchanging

>> No.17288040

bump

>> No.17289375

>>17285325
but can you refute Sugatasūdana though?

>> No.17289379

Philosophy threads belong on >>>/his/

>> No.17289700
File: 351 KB, 974x502, 1606542956912.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17289700

>>17285815
>>"Oh monks, this devious demon in human form
>When has someone ever needed to do this to defend atheism?

Buddha himself uses it as a tactic in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta, when instead of explaining why the positions espoused by Brahma-baka in a debate are wrong he instead uses his superpowers to create a supernatural display for the audience and then says that Brahma-baka is actually a demon Mara, or is possessed by Mara, but he never actually addresses what Brahma-baka says.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

it speaks to the oft-observed nature of buddhists from buddha onwards to attack and try to deconstruct the messenger instead of responding to their arguments when those messengers point out the fundamental contradictions in buddhist doctrine or otherwise challenge it. The influential Japanese Indologist and Buddhism scholar Hajime Nakamura wrote the following in an article about the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta:

>In early Buddhist literature there is no reference to Brahman (neuter) as absolute, but only to Brahmā (masculine) the creator God. The principle of absolute consciousness is however mentioned in a debate between the Buddha and Brahmā. The Buddha does not defeat this view by polemics but by supernatural powers. 86

86) Majjhima Nikaya I.329 - Sutta, No. 49. Cited in H. Nakamura, " Upaniṣadic Tradition and the Early School of Vedānta as Noticed in Buddhist Scripture, "Harvard Journal of Asian Studies, 18 June 1955, pp.78-79

https://pdfslide.net/documents/upanisadic-tradition-and-the-early-school-of-vedanta-as-noticed-in-buddhist-scripture-nakamura-hajime.html

>> No.17289756

>>17285586
Why is life denying bad? why is suicide bad?

>> No.17289793

It took me 15 minutes to read this and then this fucking happens

>> No.17289800 [DELETED] 

I aint gonna let an incel called sugmadicc question my dogma, so Ill just mog him with my buddhapowers. Anyone would do the same in buddhas place

>> No.17289820

Doesn’t this just pinpoint the ultimate contradiction of existence itself? Why throw rocks?

>> No.17289853

>>17289820
>Doesn’t this just pinpoint the ultimate contradiction of existence itself?
no, it only contradicts the buddhist explanation of it

>> No.17289887 [DELETED] 

has an incel on lit deboonk buddhism? How will buddha ever recover? Can someone bring him from his tagatha state to undeboonk himself?

>> No.17289911

>>17285586
One day Tan-hsia went again to visit the Layman. As he reached the gate they met. Tan-hsia asked: "Is the Layman here?"

"A starving man doesn't choose his food," returned the Layman.

"Is old P'ang here?" asked Tan-hsia.

"Heavens, heavens!" sighed the Layman and entered the house.

"Heavens, heavens!" sighed Tan-hsia; then [he turned and] went back.

>> No.17289921 [DELETED] 

Remember that time a liberal muslim homosexual ACLU lawyer professor and abortion doctor was teaching a class on Karl Marx, known atheist

”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Marx and accept that he was the most highly-evolved being the world has ever known, even greater than Jesus Christ!”

At this moment, a brave, patriotic, pro-life Navy SEAL champion who had served 1500 tours of duty and understood the necessity of war and fully supported all military decision made by the United States stood up and held up a rock.

”How old is this rock, pinhead?”

The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “4.6 billion years, you stupid Christian”

”Wrong. It’s been 5,000 years since God created it. If it was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now”

The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Origin of the Species. He stormed out of the room crying those liberal crocodile tears. The same tears liberals cry for the “poor” (who today live in such luxury that most own refrigerators) when they jealously try to claw justly earned wealth from the deserving job creators. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, DeShawn Washington, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than a sophist liberal professor. He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself from embarrassment, but he himself had petitioned against them!

The students applauded and all registered Republican that day and accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. An eagle named “Small Government” flew into the room and perched atop the American Flag and shed a tear on the chalk. The pledge of allegiance was read several times, and God himself showed up and enacted a flat tax rate across the country.

The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and was tossed into the lake of fire for all eternity.

>> No.17289937

>>17285294
>>17285586
>>17285721
Anytime I hear or see the word "spirituality" I mentally check out. It's such a meaningless thing. No adult should believe in made-up paranormal drivel. However, Buddhism does have a point regarding ego death and the non-existence of the self. Everything else, though, is religious codswallop. There's no such thing as reincarnation; you're not gonna come back as a crab just because you masturbate etc.

>> No.17289945

>>17289700
Out of curiosity, what are some (or all) examples of fundamental contradictions in buddhist doctrine, or arguments against it? Not trolling just curious.

>> No.17289960 [DELETED] 

>>17289937
seems I've been masturbating for nothing then!

>> No.17289999

>>17289937
Spirituality is dumb because it can only refer to that which is not real, since if it was real it wouldn't be called spiritual.

>> No.17290016

>>17289937
>I mentally check out
That just means you aren't willing to engage with new ideas. There is nothing wrong with ignorance, but you should never enable it. Your definition of what "spirituality" even is must be incomplete, unless you truly engage with "spiritual" works.
>There's no such thing as reincarnation; you're not gonna come back as a crab just because you masturbate etc.
Here too your opinions must be, by your own admission, based on an incomplete, or at the very least lacking base of knowledge. I am not disagreeing with your statements, but to be so bold as to state that you KNOW for a fact what the afterlife is or isn't is a bit silly. Also here you display your ignorance of the concept of karma.
>Everything else, though, is religious codswallop
I wouldn't use such harsh teams for MOST of the Buddhist schools, but there is a lot of extraneous pageantry and outright misinterpretation out there. I think most Pure Land dweebs are just lost little sheep, though there method of mediation is interesting. I think they get too hung up on the cosmology and fantasy of the sutras. A lot of "buddhism" is really more like culturally appropriated local religions with sprinklings of Dharma; for extra flavor!

>> No.17290030
File: 135 KB, 720x720, 1600527034915.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17290030

>>17289700
>it's not fair for the Buddha to use superpowers during his debate with God and call God out for being an illusion of permanency
I have the MN five feet away from me and just skimmed 49 over; it is a very short sutta in which Brahma is called delusional for holding the view of permanence, a view challenged in all over the place in other parts of the canon anyway. That this particular sutta pays lip service to it but then also assimilates Brahma to Mara is the main point here, not to offer the six hundredth argument for impermanence. If the best argument against Buddhism you can come up with is a sectarian sutta in the MN making a mockery of God by giving Buddha more powers than him, the only reason to be upset would be that you actually believe in the omniscient creator God, which makes this supernatural fairy tale somehow logically wrong and your supernatural fairy tale logically correct.

>> No.17290033

>>17290016
Feel free to give your definition for spirituality and to say what you actually believe. Otherwise there's no point in the discussion. I don't say that to be mean though.

The crab thing was an obvious joke, but karma isn't something that can really be proven and I don't have much interest in it. Even if true that I'm ignorant on the concept of karma, I consider it on the same level of importance as being ignorant on the lore of some side character in a TV show. It's fiction; doesn't matter.

>> No.17290054

one day i'll learn these languages so I can read these texts not in english that probably butchers everything

>> No.17290075

>>17290033
Of all the fictions to believe in, that present actions will bear fruit in the future for people and things other than the current person is a pretty solid idea. Whether this is a mechanism for rebirth is another story. Physically speaking all the forms we see around us are from recycled matter in the first place; you are made up of food your mother ate. It's all stored energy. Energy leads to action. Is our consciousness just as recycled as the body? Buddhists would say yes, hence rebirth as a result of karma.

>> No.17290089
File: 3.29 MB, 3166x1198, 1606686017361.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17290089

>>17289945
>what are some (or all) examples of fundamental contradictions in buddhist doctrine, or arguments against it?

Various Hindu philosophers wrote criticisms of Buddhist doctrine, wherein they said that Buddhist doctrine was illogical and contained internal contradictions, the most extensive and thorough of these criticisms were made in my opinion by Adi Shankara. His arguments against Buddhism are found scattered throughout his works, the lion's share of them are contained in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya. Gambhirananda and Vasudeo have unabridged translations of that entire text which contain all the criticisms. AJ Alston also has a translation of those criticisms contained in his published selection of translated passages from Shankara's works arranged by topic. AJ Alson's translations are smoother reading, although they don't contain the text being commented on by Shankara, but this isn't important if you just want to read his arguments against Buddhism.

This thread linked below is a thread where AJ Alston's translation of most or all of Shankara's criticisms of Sarvastivada Buddhism in the Brahma Sutra Bhasya were posted, although it doesn't include his criticisms of Yogachara Buddhism. Pic related is part 1 of Gambhirananda's translation of the entire section of the Brahma Sutra Bhasya dealing with Buddhism. Part 2 which I will post after contains Shankara's criticisms of Yogachara Buddhism, although a little dealing with Yogachara is also contained near the end of the first picture.

>>/lit/thread/S16946558#p16951710

>> No.17290094
File: 1.19 MB, 1981x1205, 1606686149460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17290094

>>17290089
part 2

>> No.17290152
File: 1.54 MB, 2113x1885, 1586705475613.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17290152

>>17290089
>>17290094
Pic related is also a lengthy section (translated by Madhavananda) from Adi Shankara's commentary on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad wherein he explains how Buddhist theory of mind fails to align with how we actually experience our consciousness and perception, and he explains why the denial of the Atman (Self) made by Buddhist schools is incorrect.

>> No.17290163

>>17285294
bullshit

>> No.17290174

>>17290033
>Feel free to give your definition for spirituality
I would say two things on this. 1. I don't know that spirituality is a great word in the first place. It is very broad and can or has come to encompass a lot. If you want me to define it I'd say that someone who is interested in spirituality is interested in streams of thought that deal that attempt to explain, understand, come to grips with the eternal, and addressing the basic human condition in the process; whatever that society thinks the remedy to that is. 2. I would not call Buddhism spiritual. Well, I would, but I would also call it philosophical. I would also tell you that intellectualizing about it at all is already way off the mark, and I have doomed us both to the 1000 levels of the 10 hells for kalpas upon kalpas. I'm sorry.
> It's fiction; doesn't matter
Again, though I agree that many people do take the fiction that's present in it too seriously, I would want to say 2 things. 1. You are classifying systems of thought as fiction. Is philosophy fiction? 2. You're belief that the ideas on fiction are, again I say, based on bad intel if you don't know the territory. Look wada talk wada talk wada talk wada talk wada talk where ya get it? You either got it from your preexisting prejudices and inclinations, or from the zeitgeist around you. Imagine a historical book that was placed on the fiction shelf by mistake. You will pick it up assuming it to be fiction and only upon investigation can you come to your conclusion.

>> No.17290193

>>17290030
> If the best argument against Buddhism you can come up with is a sectarian sutta in the MN making a mockery of God
The best arguments against Buddhism that I've found are the dozens of arguments against Buddhism made by Adi Shankara in his writings as detailed in these pictures >>17290089 >>17290094 >>17290152

Also, nobody in this thread has even been able to explain why the argument made by the OP is wrong and through that explain how dependent origination is not illogical.

>> No.17290253

>>17290193
>cosmic indo-thomism is the logical counter-argument to all phenomena being dependently originated without any permanent essence or first cause
Is it really through?

>> No.17290274

>>17290253
Advaita often aligns with Thomism, but it still differs from Thomism in some important regards. But, with regard to your question, yes; as the argument made in this thread shows, among other reasons.

>> No.17290370

>>17290274
It really takes you thirty pages of Sanskrit translations to "prove" that there is a first cause?

>> No.17290442

>>17289960
kek

>> No.17290469

>>17290370
The argument made in the long-long Sutta from the Pali Canon posted here by OP proves by itself that the Buddhist explanation of dependent co-arising as an alternative answer to that is logically untenable.

>> No.17290474

>>17290469
*long lost

>> No.17290502
File: 81 KB, 1024x891, 1610226479103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17290502

>>17290469
>a long lost Buddhist sutra refutes Buddhism

>> No.17290575

>>17290502
Yes, hence why it was long lost until being discovered in the 1890's in Ceylon. Because it undermined Buddhism it was excised from the Pali Canon. Adi Shankara was also able to adduce the same argument independently in his writings.

>> No.17290968
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1600231356504.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17290968

>>17289700
>>17290089
>>17290094
>>17290152
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>> No.17290979

>>17290968
Thanks I thought something seemed fishy about that guy, figures he's a cryptobuddhist

>> No.17291024

>>17285294
Guenonfag actually copied this thread from me
>>14429065
>>14628470

>> No.17291040
File: 1.94 MB, 230x175, download.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17291040

>>17291024
>>/lit/thread/14429065
>>/lit/thread/14628470

>guenonfag literally plumbs the fucking archives for old buddhist threads to repost just so he can argue against "buddhists" (his own OP) at 2AM
HOLY SHIT how does he always find some new way to get even funnier, just when you think he couldn't possibly get any weirder

>> No.17291088

>>17291024
why do Advaitins have to plagiarize everything from Buddhists and others? They literally have no organic memes for themselves, no unique thought, just endless amounts of ideological appropriation.

You'd think with the walls of text this guy posts, he would at least come up with something interesting for once that isn't shitposting or forced memes. What a snoozefest.

>> No.17291404

>>17291088
Guenonfag is an anti-Advaita falseflagger

>> No.17292243

>>17291024
Your thread didnt refute Buddha though like mine did but was propagating his tripe, hence the need for this one

>> No.17292263

>>17291088
see: >>17289700
>it speaks to the oft-observed nature of buddhists from buddha onwards to attack and try to deconstruct the messenger instead of responding to their arguments when those messengers point out the fundamental contradictions in buddhist doctrine or otherwise challenge it

>> No.17292285

>>17291040
I genuinely hope guenonfag finds peace. This man is deeply troubled

>> No.17292731

>>17292285
buddha is in deep trouble after being retroactively refuted

>> No.17292754
File: 108 KB, 223x300, 1610207475256.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17292754

>>17292731

>> No.17292776

>>17292731
I wish you happiness

>> No.17292813

>>17292776
It is precisely because of the abundance of happiness and fulfillment which I posses that I am inspired to be creative, as for example when I came up with the dialogue posted at the start of this thread. I also have other outlets for my creativity and am an artist with framed works of mine hanging around my home.

>> No.17292857

>>17292813
>am an artist with framed works of mine hanging around my home.
What do you draw/paint?

>> No.17292868

>>17289945
The Vedas says that the universe operates according to Sanskrit grammar, ergo, it is true. The Buddha denies that the universe operates according to Sanskrit grammar, despite it being in the Vedas. There, case closed, because 99.99% of the trouble guenonfag has with Buddhism comes down to believing that subject-object duality is ontologically real (despite, ironically, Shankara's system being completely incoherent and unable to defend this view).

>> No.17292882

>>17291024
based expose

>> No.17292891
File: 320 KB, 800x800, O1CN01pIPx421MK71AaneGj_!!2091051415.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17292891

>>17292857
Large landscape drawings in black ink, using this brand of Japanese art pens of varying widths.

>> No.17292910

>>17292891
Have you ever posted any of your art?

>> No.17292924

>>17289379
/his/ is horrible

>> No.17292935
File: 1.54 MB, 2231x2759, IMG(5)-GuenonArt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17292935

>>17292910
here's a pic of Guenon I drew awhile ago, not too shabby don't ya think?

>> No.17292955

>>17292935
He looks like the protagonist of a comedy manga about a middle-aged man who stalks high school girls

>> No.17292956

>>17292910
No, and I never will. One day when I have more completed I will be submitting them to art shows and possibly maintaining a website/instagram for them, and I don't want that linked to my 4chan posting.

>> No.17292960

>>17292935
Don't quit your day job.

>> No.17293135

>>17290174
Your definition of spirituality is overally broad I think, and designed to encompass secular lines of thinking. You are doing this on purpose to try and legitimize these ways of thinking. Hopefully it's as transparent for any lurkers as it was for me.
You are also too cowardly to say what you truly believe, it seems.
>You are classifying systems of thought as fiction. Is philosophy fiction?
No, you are either strawmanning or mistaken. If you think there is no ego that's fine. If you believe in reincarnation, kalpa, karma or whatever THEN I think that's a problem and a sign of unintellectualism.
Does one's philosophy suppose the existence of supernatural phenomena or beings? Then it is fiction.
Don't play semantics there either, you know exactly what I mean.

Rest of the post is frankly gibberish. I can tell by the contents of a book if it's fiction provided I have a good enough background, and every functioning adult on planet Earth should have the background needed to realize that saying souls or spirits or gods exist means a work is fantasy.

State your personal beliefs if you'd like to continue the discussion so I can be sure the biases you have.

>> No.17293194

>>17292935
I like it