[ 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: 20 KB, 800x480, Spurdo peaks.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17392880 No.17392880 [Reply] [Original]

In buddhism, the idea of an omnipotent God exists, but apparently this God only thinks he's the creator out of delusion, and he didnt actually create the world.
How do Buddhists explain this? It seems like a bit of a cop-out to say "yeah God is real but he's not actually God"

>> No.17392888

>>17392880
Sounds like the demiurge. Any tradition that takes the position that the being traditionally associated with omnipresence didn't actually create reality, they implicitly claim that there is a greater presence that existed before representation and symbolic association.

>> No.17392898

>>17392880
It sounds like they're acknowledging that that mentality exists and it's best not to pay it too much attention

>> No.17392907

>>17392880
I believe Buddhism teaches that Brahmā is not omnipotent or omniscient

>> No.17393263

>>17392880
>How do Buddhists explain this?
They just did and you even typed it out. That "creator god" only believes he is the creator god out of delusion.

>> No.17394581

>>17393263
so who is real creator god

>> No.17394632

>>17394581
Buddhists don't believe in a supreme creator god.

>> No.17394683

>>17394632
well how does creation exist then?

>> No.17394702

>>17394683
In Buddhism everything arises from something else; there was no single beginning of the universe.

>> No.17394726

>>17394702
but according to this there must have been a first something from which the other thing can arise from

>> No.17394784

>>17394726
Why?

>> No.17394789

>>17394726
No, because in Buddhist belief that "first something" would also necessarily arise from something else, meaning it couldn't be first.

>> No.17394792

>>17394784
because you just said "everything arises from something else", what is that "something else" at the very beginning of that chain?

>> No.17394795

>>17394789
uh-hu right, great self refuting system you got there

>> No.17394812

>>17394792
There is no beginning of the chain. Buddhism differs from Abrahamic thought in this regard.

>>17394795
>self refuting
How?

>> No.17394826

>>17394812
>How?
because if the first something is replaced by another first something you just end up with another first something, this is dodging the question and don't pretend it is not

>> No.17394835

>>17394792
Why should there be a beginning?

>> No.17394840

>>17394826
There is no "first" something.

>> No.17394842

>>17394826
>because if the first something is replaced by another first something you just end up with another first something, this is dodging the question and don't pretend it is not

Turtles all the way down, my man.

>> No.17394843

>"Buddha, by propounding the three mutually contradicting systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness, has himself made it clear that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused"
buddhism is built on contradiction, you will find no answers

>> No.17394853

>>17394835
>>17394840
ok retards you are just outing yourselves

>> No.17394871

>>17394853
You still didn't explain why there had to be a first thing. Why are you getting mad at this?

>> No.17394875

>>17394843
>teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only and general nothingness
This is one of the dumbest misunderstandings of Buddhism I've read so far, definitely on par with the average /lit/ strawman

>> No.17394914

>>17394871
I know you can hear me, you are somewhere in there, you can drop the facade

>> No.17394929

>>17394914
There's no need for passive-aggressive posturing. I just want to know why it is necessary for there to be a first mover. Since you immediately dismissed dependent origination as retarded, I assumed you had solid arguments for the opposing view.

>> No.17395139

>>17394929
this is not passive aggressive, I did not talk about a "mover" and I did not immediately dismiss it, I clearly stated the issue and you just ignore it to eternally prolong the argument through evasion, if you are too dense to speak to me on a human level I will not bother doing the same any longer

>> No.17395168
File: 58 KB, 640x960, AF5446DA224D441297FA447E9DA18C9C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17395168

>>17394875
>even among the Zen masters themselves there is a great deal of discrepancy, which is quite disconcerting. What one asserts another flatly denies or makes a sarcastic remark about it, so that the uninitiated are at a loss what to make out of all these everlasting and hopeless entanglements.
Buddhism mandates a law of noncontradiction, making it esoteric by nature and devoid of any exoteric value. It lacks truth and therefore I seek nothing from it. That's not to posit that buddhism is an anti-truth, but rather that, because it emphasizes truth as illusory, I seek nothing from it.

>> No.17395206

>>17394826
There is nothing wrong with an infinite regress

>> No.17395385

>>17395206
Yes, there is. If each thing that exists only has its existence dependently, then, no matter how many entities you posit going backwards in time, you still have not explained why anything exists. As an example, imagine you wanted to power your computer, but instead of plugging it into the socket in the wall, you plug it into a power strip. Then, you plug that power strip into another power strip, and that power strip into another, and so on ad infinitum. Even if you did this infinitely your computer would never get powered on. You'd have to plug it into the wall eventually because a power strip can only channel electricity derivatively; it has no power in and of itself. It's the same with things that exist in the world. Even if you have an infinite set of contingent things, nothing can exist unless there's a necessary existent to ground it all.

>> No.17395497
File: 55 KB, 500x505, 1585596875199.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17395497

>>17395385
To be fair, eternal recurrence is not unique to buddhism. Roman Catholicism has the notion of divine simplicity; if Creation is an emination of the essence of God, then the process of henosis is doomed to be cyclical. In other words, if Creation is a product of distance from God, then that "distance" will always exist regardless of Creation's creation and eventual destruction/renewal. I can't speak to the other facets of abarahmism (I only know how Orthodoxy differs), but buddhism only differs in the notion that truth is illusory and not in the belief of eternal recurrence.

>> No.17395620

>>17394726
>>17394792
>>17394826
>>17395385
Based godlet sticking to his hyper-despotic originator like a battered wife

>> No.17395791

>>17395620
seethe

>> No.17395819

>>17395497
>if Creation is an emination of the essence of God
Catholicism rejects emanationism (CCC 285).
>if Creation is a product of distance from God, then that "distance" will always exist
Yes, this is just orthodox Christian theology.

>> No.17395896

>>17395819
Orthodxy believes in the separation of Creation and the the energies of God, and deals with it differently than emination. This is what's meant by the difference between henosis and theosis in Orthodox theology. I'd love some more sources/quotes (I don't have a copy of the catechism) because I've always understood divine simplicity as on par with emination in Roman theology.
t. ortho

>> No.17395915

Where is Aubrey and what happened to her?

>> No.17395936

>>17395139
>there must be a first thing if all things come from the influence of other things
Then what does that first thing come from?

>> No.17396520

The Buddhist's pregnosis ends where the wall of plasma begins.

>> No.17396524

>>17396520
What the fuck does that mean

>> No.17396602

>>17396524
The Buddhist's spiritual deficiency precludes him from seeing beyond the domain of the Demiourgos, stunting him at the level of pregnostic meditation, rather than propelling him at the rate of gnostic mediation.

>> No.17396607

>>17396602
This makes absolutely no sense. Care to substantiate what you're saying with anything less vague?

>> No.17396632

>>17396602
>precludes him from seeing beyond the domain of the Demiourgos
>what are the formless jhanas
>what is Nibbana itself

>> No.17396681

>>17396632
Do you have a "point"?

>> No.17396688

If the wakes of karma are suprapersonal ("there is no self") yet dependent on the chaos of what most people see as willed being, then how could the Buddha achieve enlightenment if he had a child? How does karma get zapped out of the metaphysical chaos of "reality" if there exists another being that acknowledges "his" contribution to its own existence? How can the individual's experience be negated if it's still experiencing itself suprapersonally (i.e by his child and anyone who ever learned from him)?
t. ignorant fuckwit

>> No.17396691

>>17396681
Yeah, I just made it. Do you?

>> No.17396716

>>17396691
"Feel good" nihilism is not a "point"; it is hardly anything at all.

>> No.17396724

>>17396688
>"there is no self"
That's not it. The Buddha never said that there was no self, but that things we identify as our selves we, in fact, not self.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Your child isn't "you" any more that your neighbor or your dog is "you".

>> No.17396730

>>17396716
>you're not making a point because I said so
>nihilism
Okay, so you're just attention whoring as always, got it.

>> No.17396750

>>17396681
>>17396691
Why do you refuse to back up your vague statements with actual arguments?

>> No.17396762

>paying any attention to an unironic tripfag's delusions
retards

>> No.17396767

>>17392880
How come Spurdo remains such a great and exploitable meme after all these years?

>> No.17396772

>In buddhism, the idea of an omnipotent God exists, but apparently this God only thinks he's the creator out of delusion, and he didnt actually create the world.

Isn't this basically Buddhist gnosticism, which was BTFO by Nagarjuna's non-dualism?

>> No.17396784

>>17396772
In gnosticism, the creator deity does exist but is evil. In buddhism, Brahmin does exist, but he is not the creator deity, he merely believes he is out of ignorance.

>> No.17396788

>>17396724
Of course it is, a child is willed into being is it not? Your as much of an actor in your child's existence as it is in it of itself, or is that not the buddhist take?

>> No.17396793

>>17396772
It has nothing to do with either gnosticism or dualism. OP's just referring to a parable where the Buddha enters Brahma's realm, thought by the Hindus to be the highest form of existence, and basically tells him arhats are above him. Brahma isn't wrong or ignorant, the entirety of creation below his realm is indeed under his control, but Nirvana is above that.

>> No.17396800

>>17396788
>a child is willed into being
And? The Buddha wasn't enlightened yet when he conceived Rahula, who was around two or three when his father left and seven when he came back.

>> No.17396804

>>17396800
RRRRRAAAAAAAAAHHHUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.17396808

>>17396804
I don't get this reference

>> No.17396817

>>17396808
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNDOQOsNcTs
>inb4 zoomer
i wish i was

>> No.17396820

>>17396817
Isn't that the
>mister fontaine, you got a son
guy?

>> No.17396826

>>17396820
no

>> No.17396835

>>17396826
Yeah apparently not.
They look a bit alike though.

>> No.17396839

>>17396835
yeah, they sound alike too

>> No.17396973
File: 4 KB, 920x920, electricross.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17396973

>>17396750
Which of the posters that you quoted in your post are you addressing?

Regardless of that, the argument has already been made —I reiterate: Buddhism/"feel good" nihilism/pseudomysticism does not free one from anything, but, rather, due to its practicioner's ignorance —whether voluntary, or involuntary— it merely leads him/her, either: to the Demiourgos, which recycles him/her via reincarnation, or: to Purgatory, where he/she can choose, either: to remain, and await to be judged with Justice by Jesus Christ at the end of the world, or: to reincarnate in order to redeem & fulfill him-/herself.

Incidentally: the association of Buddhism with the Swastika is ironical.

>> No.17396976

>>17392880
There's some miscoonceptios in this thread. Dependant arising says that anything that depends on something else to exist has no permanent existence. "God" is eternal and does not depend on anything else for its existence.

>> No.17397007

>>17396973
Source for any of these claims?
>Buddhism/"feel good" nihilism/pseudomysticism
You are fucking retarded. Read more books and less /lit/ shitposts, moron.

>> No.17397024

>>17396973
Ok schizo so how do we get out since Nirvana is apparently ignorance (lmao)?

>> No.17397027
File: 77 KB, 1280x720, 64cf9c2e6e4f02e8421d0fb70744af93.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397027

>Source for any of these claims?

>> No.17397031

>>17396793
What flavour of Buddhism are you referring to though? Early Buddhism was a pure causal-level,"ascending" endeavor: flee the Many, hold only to the Unmanifest; samsara, the world of illusion, was to be altogether transcended in nirvana (and the pure cessation of nirodh), and the two (samsara and nirvana) are diametrically opposed; it was, in all essential respects, a pure Gnosticism.

Nagarjuna’s Mahayana (Madhyamika) revolution, on the other hand, was Non-dual (advaya) to the core, seeing that nirvana and samsara are “not two,” which also gave rise to tantric or Vajrayana Buddhism, where even the lowest defilements were seen to be perfect expressions of primordial wakefulness (rigpa).

>> No.17397037

>>17397027
kek yeah I'm really wasting my time responding to your braindead ass
Fuck off back to /x/ you unhinged faggot

>> No.17397053

>>17397031
>the two (samsara and nirvana) are diametrically opposed
Not really, since Nibbana is above all qualification and is not a strict opposition to samsara, it's just outside of it.

>> No.17397068

>>17397027
>nooooo you can't ask me to substantiate my outlandish and baseless claims that's not fair

>> No.17397086

>>17397031
I really don't get why people suck off Nagarjuna so much. Doesn't his great philosophizing go against the very principle of Buddhism laid out by Shakyamuni of direct experience being primordial, and reasoning being nothing compared to it?
Also, this "you were always in Nirvana, you just didn't realize it" thing sounds like a cop out to me.

>> No.17397092

>>17394581
There is no 'I' of any kind. Only Law or and law-adhereingness or Dharma.

>> No.17397113
File: 101 KB, 490x627, 1584381193580.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397113

>>17397031
>>17397053
It's fascinating the degree to which English speaking people immediately try to figure out and interpret 'Early Buddhism' as the default or real Buddhism, like they can't stop themselves from being Protestants and think they are better at playing telephone than the followers of any living variety of Buddhism. Doxography is philosophy for people who can't feel.

>> No.17397146

>>17397086
Madhyamaka is foundational to Mahayana Buddhism, it is basically a refounding of Buddhism hundreds of years after Gotama Buddha that systematizes the teachings on metaphysical questions into a doctrine of emptiness. But in the same sense the compiling of the Pali Canon favored by Theravada also postdates whatever historical or Early Buddhism there was by centuries.

>> No.17397171

>>17395168
This is a good comment. Hermeneutics drive me insane

>> No.17397172

>>17397113
You need to stop sperging out about Protestantism in every Buddhism thread, man.
People want to know what Siddhartha originally taught, that's all.

>> No.17397182

>>17397113
ESL tier. My post does the opposite of endorsing "early Buddhism".

>> No.17397184

>>17395168
Nibbana is truth
Stop getting so worked up over words

>> No.17397190

>>17397146
>systematizes the teachings on metaphysical questions into a doctrine of emptiness
How does Nagarjuna go from the Buddha's sayings to the doctrine of sunyata?

>> No.17397210

>>17397184
>Stop getting so worked up over words
/lit/ pseuds are obsessed with over-intellectualizing every single detail of a doctrine.
This is why nobody here understands buddhism. Stop reading and meditate, nigger

>> No.17397214

>>17394871
>>17394812
>How?
Pratityasamutpada is self-refuting because there is no cause admitted which is responsible for the aggregation of the 12 links into the relationship that allows them to impart causal efficiency to one another in an orderly manner. But as this is an action it has to have a cause, but Buddhists wont admit God or Brahman as its cause which leaves only pratityasamutpada, but it cannot do that unless already existing in the aggregation that allows it to function, so it’s like a daughter giving birth to her own mother.
>>17395206
Lol

>> No.17397218

>>17397214
Fuck off guenonfag, your arguments get btfo every single time. You are utterly pathetic

>> No.17397222

>>17397210
>Stop reading and meditate, nigger

b-but I can totally become enlightened by sperging out over philosophical and linguistical differences!

>> No.17397224

>>17397172
>>17397182
There's actually a couple of people who sperg about it—I've seen one that wasn't me. Not accusing you of anything I'm just pointing that out since it's a matter of time before someone goes a durr that's not real Buddhism it's Mahayana

>> No.17397231

>>17397190
Sunyata is just Dependent Origination from a different angle. It's literally the same thing. It's not the same thing if you go balls deep into Vajrayana autism, but yes in Nagarjuna Sunyata = Dependent Origination.

>>17397214
>cause
>he didn't read anything before having an opinion
lol

>> No.17397247

>>17397190
It's not a very long read. Short answer is that the different answers Buddha gave different audiences were just that, different due to the conditioned nature of teaching others. The absolute teaching is that whatever is discussed is empty of an own self-nature. Nagarjuna goes through a list of different metaphysical questions arguing we cannot affirm, negate, have both, or have neither, a radical skeptic methodology. May not necessarily be convincing outside of Buddhist context.

>> No.17397248

>>17397224
It's a common point in these threads because it happens all the time. It happens in academia too, humorously.

>> No.17397272
File: 460 KB, 1280x720, Elephant hmm.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397272

Whenever i enter these threads, i always feel like i learn less about Buddhism. It's like my knowledge gets disintegrated and cast into the void.

>> No.17397283

>>17395168
>>17392907
>>17392888

After years of studying buddhism I've conceded that a lot of it gets lost into translation.

The mindsets, idea-forms and general dynamics of epistemology are so much different in the East that adapting them to our own words brutalizes them beyond recognition.

Tme and space in the ancient oriental mind are not the same as they our today in our minds and languages. Westerners are so keen on dissecting and isolating concepts that they see irony and contradiction as tools of evasion rather than what they actually are: instruments of humility.

>> No.17397289

>>17397272
I've never learned more about Buddhism than when I stopped coming to these garbage threads and read suttas/listened to dhammatalks. I suggest you do the same if you want to get useful information.

>> No.17397318
File: 42 KB, 406x500, The Mind illuminated.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397318

>>17397289
Some anon recommended this book to learn about meditation, but then another anon said it was shit
i dont fucking know anymore man. Doesnt help that im a schizo with a horrible attention span and the suttas arent exactly made for people with a short attention span.

>> No.17397327

>>17397318
There's an infographic on the /lit/ wiki, just read the introductory books it mentions
Or listen to dhammatalks

>> No.17397336

>>17397318
You know how Buddhanons in these threads are always sperging out at people for not reading? Literally just read. Go listen to Thanissaro Bhikku if you want a boomer to softly serenade you with Dharma, he's great.

>> No.17397377
File: 623 KB, 960x960, 033DCF3D-E8B0-49EA-8D74-9214E5F11C3B.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397377

a basic primer of dependent origination, for the lazy and retarded (likely you)
>1. the first mode of thinking that goes into dependent origination is cause and effect (when this exists or happens, something else happens, in a constant loop of happenings)
>2. the second mode of dependent origination is an attempt to look for the essence of things. it may be the opinion of a biologist that the essence of a man is his dna, a religious man may say god is his essence, and so on
>3. the third mode of dependent origination is an attempt to find what has an independent existence from this cause and effect
>4. the fourth mode is time. we live in the present, remember the past, and speculate on the future. but because we only live in the present, the present is ontologically the only thing that exists. whatever memories that you think of or imagined speculations are just a mental machination to navigate the world
>everything that we interact with is the result of this dependent origination process, which is essentially cause and effect. logically, one thing begets another thing, which begets another thing, and it keeps going
>one cannot find the essence of things because nothing has an independent existence. when the biologist cuts open a man, the man’s existence depends on the collection of cells, the collection of cells depends on dna, the dna depends on the way it is sequenced and whatever molecules that consist of it’s makeup, the molecules consist of atoms, and so forth until you have an infinite regression of causes and effects with no independent essence of the man to be found anywhere
>whatever causes and effects that you attribute to a particular thing are primarily a creation of your own mind, which also lacks any independence from the rest of the world, as your mind is contained as a subset dependent on the rest of the world at all times
>whatever natural laws that make up the world are within the bounds of dependent origination, so there is no first cause for the natural laws that scientists and metaphysicians discover. since we always live in the present, it is acceptable to say that the world has not changed, the same amount of material at the “start” of the world is the same amount of material in it right NOW. whatever multiplicity that we engage with in the world is essenceless because it is within the bounds of dependent origination and has no independent existence from the whole
>so while cause and effect may be useful to go through the world, ontologically there is no first cause
>the “god” in the OP basically functions the same as the gnostic demiurge, if this god is the first cause of the material world, then something created that god, otherwise you have the infinite regression from above. whatever you attribute to a true god is objectively unknowable. whatever true god that exists is outside cause and effect, and doesn’t change
source: nagarjuna and various huayan/mahayana Buddhists, which you won’t read anyway

>> No.17397385
File: 64 KB, 719x688, 1590833827901.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397385

>>17397214
12 is a good number. I suppose you are looking to make it 13 by adding god.

>> No.17397393

>>17397224
Is that such an unreasonable statement since the Pali canon was compiled from word of mouth regarding the Buddha's own sayings while Nagarjuna lived hundreds of years after?

>> No.17397403
File: 202 KB, 606x731, 1609949155409.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397403

>>17397377
Based huayen poster it's my favorite reading of sunyata

>> No.17397405

>>17397336
Ajahn Thanissaro is great, I'd probably ordain if I was guaranteed he'd be my teacher as a monk

>> No.17397414

>>17397393
The word of mouth guys and my boy Dragon Man had the same level of connection effectively speaking. Except instead of saying he heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy who heard it from Buddha, his legend is he heard it from a dragon who heard it from Buddha.

>> No.17397426

>>17397414
Not really. Monks did a lot of cross-checking to make sure that the word of mouth they got from the Buddha didn't get altered, that's why the suttas are written in such a repetitive way.

>> No.17397441

>>17397426
Yes I am aware the oral tradition contains mnemonics and the compilers of the canon sought to cross-reference things. That's still mediation. Even if you preserve the exact words of a speaker that does not preserve the understanding of them.

>> No.17397448
File: 454 KB, 1100x1423, f2845-7311-gal-imag_prensa-04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397448

>>17397024
...how do we get out since Nirvana is apparently ignorance (lmao)?

1. By following Jesus Christ.

2. Buddhism remains an ignorant doctrine insofar as its vision is obscured at the level of ("feel good") pregnosis, rather than clarified at that of prognosis, and actualized via gnostic —Christian— mediation.

>> No.17397463

>>17394792
Everything arises from something else just leads to infinity. There is no beginning or end.

>> No.17397468

>>17397448
>tfw all the billions of people who weren't born in time for Jesus or weren't told about him by missionaries are roasting in hell and their cries delight the heavenly host
Yikes

>> No.17397476

>>17397468
worse; theyre being raped by lucifer's massive dong
https://youtu.be/TV287zv5JhQ?t=204

>> No.17397486

>>17397448
>1. By following Jesus Christ.
Stopped reading there
The extremely small doubt I had about whether or not you were worth listening to has now disappeared

>> No.17397499

>>17397441
>Even if you preserve the exact words of a speaker that does not preserve the understanding of them.
I'm aware. I'm not talking about the theravadin commentaries, I'm talking about the discourses themselves. Why shouldn't they be taken as the closest thing to "original Buddhism" we have?

>> No.17397508

>>17397468
None of the orthodox Christian churches teach that. It's a giant strawman.

>> No.17397520
File: 1.14 MB, 1969x3000, SM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17397520

>>17397468
You seem to underestimate the mercy of God, and to believe that divinity is unaware of the history of this kosmos, and of the difficulty of the human experience —if so, you are in error; only those who wilfully refuse to follow the Son of God after learning regarding Him in the Christian era will be sent to the Abyss.

>> No.17397536

>>17397218
>your arguments get btfo every single time
and yet none of the buddhists or those who simp for it on /lit/ have been able to refute this one (not mine but it's actually Shankara's), how amusing
>>17397231
not an argument

>> No.17397537

>>17397403

blessed pepe

>> No.17397557

>>17397508
What is their cop-out, that the unsaved are stuck in bureaucratic limbo like something out of Beetlejuice?

>> No.17397566

>>17397520
Can't wait to be damned by the cosmic jailer for taking issue with the hamster cage he built

>> No.17397581

>>17397448
>1. By following Jesus Christ, [with all that that entails].

>> No.17397610

>>17397499
I'm not saying there is no value in having the verbatim discourses of the Buddha. But if we are willing to split hairs here, just having the canon does not instantly give us 'original Buddhism.' It gives us a massive anthology of things he probably said. That sort of corpus demands interpretation and we cannot really get at the original interpretation. And even if we could, the original was not taught to us, which probably would impact our understanding of it as such. Hence multiple vehicles are always necessary, at least from my point of view.

>> No.17397625

>>17397283
>tools of humility
Are they just saying in a roundabout way 'we don't and cannot know'?

>> No.17397935

>>17395385
Yeah but where's the power station getting power from? And where did the chemical energy stored in it's fuel supply come from? And where did the sun get it's energy from?

>> No.17398067

>>17397318
>Doesnt help that im a schizo with a horrible attention span
Man, if you are really schizo then meditation might not work or might be worse than a bad trip for you. Not trying to spook you but consider getting better first.

>> No.17398092

>>17395206
There is. If we've been around samsara an infinite number of times and there have been infinite Buddhas, then we should have all been liberated already and the conditioned world shouldn't even exist without beings to support its collective delusion. This works even with no-self, as with a closed cyclical universe the number of possible sentient beings must be very large, but still finite.
>But anon you're already enlightened, you just need to realize it
Come on, you know what I mean. We should have all realized it already an infinite amount of times.

>> No.17398136 [DELETED] 

>>17397377
>you attribute to a true god is objectively unknowable. whatever true god that exists is outside cause and effect, and doesn’t change
Well yes, that's what serious theologians say about God.

>> No.17398146

>>17397377
>you attribute to a true god is objectively unknowable. whatever true god that exists is outside cause and effect, and doesn’t change
Well yes, that's what serious theologians say about God. I don't understand why many Buddhists see so hung up on assuming theists' God can only be the despotic tyrant with all the vices of humanity Evangelicals and the bottom of the barrel cults insist he is, when most serious traditions speak of a transcendent principle that is literally ineffable and thus don't try to really talk about outside of how we should live in relation to it. If you want to see how a Buddhist God with a capital G would work, I suggest you read Whitehead.

>> No.17398173

>>17398146

>I don't understand why many Buddhists see so hung up on assuming theists' God can only be the despotic tyrant with all the vices of humanity
my intention wasn't really to insult the christian god or christians, that post was just a defense of buddhist metaphysics
>read whitehead
i'm at least ten years away from that

>> No.17398255

>>17398092
Then this is just infinity+1. Just because you have an infinite range of some thing (space, time, whatever) doesn't mean that you move through it infinitely fast.

It also assumes a finite universe, which the Mahayana reject. There's infinite multiverses. So, yes, there are infinite beings in Samsara, and infinite beings in Nirvana, but again, that doesn't mean that the list of all of them is iterated through infinitely.

>> No.17398293

>>17398255
>Then this is just infinity+1. Just because you have an infinite range of some thing (space, time, whatever) doesn't mean that you move through it infinitely fast.
Doesn't matter how fast with infinite time behind us. What is there to be done should all have been done already.
>There's infinite multiverses
That doesn't really change anything. If they're all beginningless and under the 3 marks of existence, then no matter how different from one another, then they all should be done with existence already, even if sentient beings can be reborn across universes. Unless completely new beings can be generated independent of past karma of others, which would run counter to the entire metaphysics.

>> No.17399213

>>17395936
clearly it is always there, a god type situation perhaps, Schopenhauer discusses this in his fourfoold root and claims matter and, essentially, the laws of physics have always existed (as manifestions of the creative will, I am thinking spinozaist god=nature) because they constitute the playground of causality to begin with
even if there is no proper explanation, admitting that there must be something at the beginning instead of an infinite chain of sophisms is a good start

>> No.17399264

>>17397210
>just meditate
ok in that case we can just get rid of all metaphysical esotericism like nirvana or dependent origination because buddhism is simply sitting still and breathing,every single buddhist thinker has just been refuted by you and should no longer be paid attention, all the contradictions and opposing views between schools can simply be ignored, but not the practice that's still valid somehow
if this isn't dogmatism at it's purest I don't know what is

>> No.17399564

>>17399213
Schopenhauer's Will is the thing-in-itself, it is outside time and causality, and therefore it can not be the prime mover of the causal realm. Read Kant's antinomies and then Schopenhauer's critique of Kant's solution to them, to better understand his position.

>> No.17399584

>>17399564
I did not talk about the will but it's objectification

>> No.17399594

>>17399584
It's objectification is an infinite regress of causes.

>> No.17399606

>>17399594
>the will exists
>it's nature is creative
>thusly it objectifies itself in matter and the rules that govern how that matter interacts (gravity and such)
this is where "time" begins and the chain of dependant origination is set in motion. However, this is far from an infinite regression as there is a clear prerequisite.

>> No.17399610

>>17399606
You clearly haven't read neither Kant nor Schopenhauer.

>> No.17399621

>>17399610
I have. Now will you actually start saying something or just continue to make wild claims?

>> No.17399630

>>17397610
>That sort of corpus demands interpretation
During the Buddha's time, a lot of people became enlightened just by listening to him.
It is my impression that seeking precise and complex interpretations of his sayings is beside the point.

>> No.17399637

>>17398092
The Buddha never said samsara had been going on for an infinite amount of time, when asked questions about the beginning of the universe and related matters, he refused to answer and said the answers to those questions did not lead to liberation.
>no-self
This is also not a Buddhist teaching, you're thinking of not self, which is different

>> No.17399644

>>17398255
>which the Mahayana reject
The Theravada too as far as I know

>> No.17399645

>>17399637
Not him, but not-self pretty much leads to an atman by any other name. You're the one who is confused.

>> No.17399647

>>17399645
I'm not confused. I'm just telling you what the Buddha taught. It happens to be he taught things are not self, but never said there was no self.

>> No.17399648

>>17399610
Man, there are tons of /lit/izens who know Schopenhaurian metaphysics to talk to, I won't waste my time with the one anon that hasn't even touched it.

>> No.17399651

>>17399647
>I'm just telling you what the Buddha taught
Impossible to know or even reliably approximate to. Namu amida butsu.

>> No.17399659

>>17399647
>Anon: It happens to be he taught things are not self, but never said there was no self
>Nagarjua: i'm about to end this nigga's whole career

>> No.17399674

>>17397283
How did you manage to write all that without actually saying anything?

>> No.17399712

>>17399606
>>the will exists
>>it's nature is creative
what the fuck are you talking about? Refer to me the exact paragraph in which Schopenhauer calls the nature of the Will creative.

>> No.17399771

>>17399651
>>17399659
This is why Buddhists don't take Mahayanists seriously. You can't pick from the teachings and choose what you like and dislike.

>> No.17399778

>>17399264
Way to miss the point
The only thing that matters is direct experience, all this obsession over words and terms goes against the whole point of the dharma

>> No.17399783

>>17399771
Without no-self Buddhism has no reason to exist, there is literally no reason to not be a Hindu or Jain without it. It is THE Buddhist teaching.

>> No.17399794

>>17399783
You clearly don't know much about Buddhism. The current largest theravadin order rejects the idea of "no self" as an interpretation of anatta.

>> No.17399799

>>17399771
>This is why Buddhists don't take Mahayanists
Man, most of the Buddhists on Earth are Mahayana one way or another, deal with it.

>> No.17399800

>>17399712
lol why do you think he calls it the will to life? the entire point of the will is to exist and manifest itself, existence=creation, I just used a different word

>> No.17399807

>>17399799
Mahayana is not really Buddhism. It's inspired from it, but that's about it.
Reminder that Gautama himself warned that false dharma would become more popular a couple millenia after his death.

>> No.17399813

>>17399771
>You can't pick
you can and you should, you forget that people created all those systems and you are a person too. there are infinite variations in interpreting the world so why shouldn't you make up your own shit?

>> No.17399820

>>17398067
Dont listen to this CIA glownigger, anon. He wants you to stop communicating with God.

>> No.17399823

>>17399794
how do they interpret anatta instead

>> No.17399826

>>17399606
>However, this is far from an infinite regression as there is a clear prerequisite.
I'll be the one to clear this up then I guess. The prerequisite is not tied into the causal chain itself, the prerequisite is OUTSIDE of the chain of causality (which is infinite), which is what allows causation, as a representation, to exist. This does not mean the thing-in-itself is tied into the causal chain (which Schopenhauer explicitly argues is infinite when he refutes Kant's theses in Antinomies).

>> No.17399827

>>17399807
Neither is Theravada by your logic. The Pali canon was complied centuries after Gautama's death, at a point in time where the dharma was in danger of disappearing and we have no idea how much of it is really buddhavacana. However, by its own admission the age of the true dharma ended 500 years after the Buddha, so it's no more or less valid than even the most schizo tibetan interpretations.

>> No.17399828

>>17399820
>mental illness is a super power!

>> No.17399830

>>17399813
Then why call yourself a buddhist and not an anon-ist or whatever else?
The fundamental teachings of the eightfold path make enough sense to me that I don't feel the need to add unnecessary shit on top of them.
>>17399823
The things you think are self (aggregates, sense perception and everything else) are not self. That's it.
They specifically tell laymen that the concept of anatta is, like all other concepts, something you eventually abandon on the path to Nibbana.

>> No.17399838

>>17399830
Not that guy but I'm curious about what your opinion of the idea of the bodhisattvas is.

>> No.17399845

>>17399813
There's a difference between picking and choosing on an individual basis, and dogmatizing an arbitrary selection of teachings.

>> No.17399847

>>17399826
yea but LOGICALLY speaking we have the "power socket" as one anon earlier in the thread calls it, thats the entire point here, its NOT turtles all the way down

>> No.17399848

>>17399838
The Bodhisattva vow is not a Mahayana invention, although it was Mahayana that insisted on making it somehow superior to the ideal of arahantship. Some bhikkus vow to become Bodhisattvas, most don't since it's not necessary.

>> No.17399852

>>17399830
so if they only offer what is not self but also deny that there is no self, what is the self?

>> No.17399854

>>17399771
The only things that were certainly taught by Buddha are the 4 noble truths and the noble eightfold path. The Pali Canon is not some word-for-word perfect text like muslims think the qu'ran is.

>> No.17399862

>>17399847
>but LOGICALLY speaking
Dude, you haven't even read Kant, stop pushing this refuted dogmatic arguments. If you don't read (or at least understand) Kant, then you're not going to get Schopenhauer's points.

>> No.17399866

>>17399845
>dogmatizing an arbitrary selection of teachings.
Mahayana buddhists don't do this. Buddhism is properly non-dogmatic.

>> No.17399867

>>17399830
>Then why call yourself a buddhist
because thats what all the buddhist people try to emulate now did too

>> No.17399869

>>17399852
>what is the self?
This question is considered "unwise reflection" in the Nikayas since it leads to attachment to an idea of self.
Buddhism is not about getting answers to existential questions, if that's what you want, Buddhism is not for you. The point of the doctrine is to make suffering cease by reaching Nirvana. Reaching Nirvana is made more difficult by clinging to ideas of self, this is the point of anatta.

>> No.17399876

>>17399869
By the way, "is the world finite or infinite" is also one of those questions, so the people arguing about dependent origination vs. a prime mover are missing the point as well.
Buddhism is profoundly anti-/lit/.

>> No.17399877

>>17399869
I understand that, what I am curious about is simply to what parameters of reality the term is attributed to. For completion's sake.

>> No.17399878

>>17399866
Does Mahayana not have certain teachings which it claims are the truth in opposition to other Buddhist branches? Anatta?

>> No.17399880

>>17399877
>what parameters of reality the term is attributed to
What do you mean?
Anything that is conditioned is not the self.
There was a big controversy (I think it was in Thailand, I'm not sure) some time ago about a monk having claimed that Nibbana was the true self, but that idea was also shut down.

>> No.17399883

>>17399862
>dogmatic
you seem to be straw manning me which influences how you read my posts. What exactly do you think I am?

>> No.17399889

Is this dude right >>17398825? Is being a western buddhist inherently a larp even if you ordain?

>> No.17399891

>>17399878
No because mahayana is an umbrella term for basically all schools of buddhism that aren't Theravada, and the different mahayana branches disagree with each other about different things

>> No.17399892

>>17399880
i mean if the teachings do have a version of self even if it is unwise to ask for and not taught for that sake, if they deny that there is no self do they, just for the sake of having a comprehensive system, a defined self in the hidden catacombs

>> No.17399897

>>17399876
>By the way, "is the world finite or infinite" is also one of those questions, so the people arguing about dependent origination vs. a prime mover are missing the point as well.
That's the whole point of the thing-in-itself in Schopenhauer. It's unexplainable and not understandable, and it turns out that "causation" is actually just a construct of the mind which allows us to represent that thing as being causally determined, which is still an illusion.

>> No.17399898

>>17399892
>if the teachings do have a version of self
No, they don't. Not as far as I know, but I doubt the monks are taught there is a "secret self" either. The idea of self is not conducive to liberation.
As I said, Buddhism isn't about providing a perfect metaphysical system, it has lots of unanswered questions.

>> No.17399904

>>17399897
I've never read Schopenhauer, but that idea is interesting. Where should I start with him?

>> No.17399908

>>17399883
In Kant, dogmatism refers to dogmatically asserting that pure logic/reason is capable of drawing transcendent conclusions from mere representations, which is asserted "dogmatically" by the arguer, without investigating what grounds reason has to make such assertions about the objects of experience. Schopenhauer extends this same general concept.

>> No.17399913

>>17399898
thanks for not being a dickhole, you did help me

>> No.17399924

>>17399913
Glad to hear that. I think what westerners struggle with the most when it comes to Buddhism is the idea that it clearly says some questions will just not be answered.

>> No.17399931

>>17399904
The World as Will and Representation, maybe with an academic secondary source to guide you. Ideally, you want an understanding of Kant too. I can't remember if Kant is 100% necessary, but Schopenhauer definitely draws upon him, while rejecting certain aspects. Nietzsche then goes on to build on Schopenhauer, but personally Schopenhauer is more interesting to me, or at least they're both interesting in totally different ways.

>> No.17399940

>>17399931
Thank you.
I thought Schopenhauer was sympathetic to eastern philosophy while Nietzsche disliked it.

>> No.17399950

>>17399940
He was more sympathetic than Nietzsche, because Nietzsche had the impression that Buddhists (and Hindu ascetics) were all self-mortifying and thus "life-denying", which Schopenhauer was more favorable of. This perception of Easterners conflicted with Nietzsche's pathos, who basically assumed they were fundamentally equivalent to Christian monks and thus despised them.

>> No.17399957

>>17399889
Not if you have education in an asian language like Sanskrit or Mandarin Chinese and read texts in one of those languages. Then you're pretty much an asian practitioner who happens to live in the west

>> No.17399959

>>17399950
I see. It's strange that Nietzsche would put ascetics and Buddhists in the same bag.

>> No.17399969

>>17399957
What if you don't know those languages?
There are westerners who end up learning the local language after ordaining in an asian temple
And there are also people who just ordain at a western temple, some of them are well regarded

>> No.17399971

>>17399959
Nietzche is often said to have misunderstood Buddhism, but I think he gets it even better than the average western devotee. He just rejects the idea that the only way to win the game is not to play.

>> No.17399974

>>17399971
>I think he gets it even better than the average western devotee.
What makes you say that?

>> No.17399979

>>17399974
He understands the logical conclusion og the ideology. That it's better to not engage with anything or pursue anything except as means to further detach from oneself and life.

>> No.17399982

>>17399959
I'm not entirely sure, but I think it may have been because information about the East was only just starting to circulate in academia at the time. Schopenhauer also perceived the Buddhists in a similar way, but he was not hostile to them regardless. I mean, there is still a lot of misunderstanding about Buddhism even today so it's quite understandable.

>> No.17399984

>>17399969
The thing is a proper ordained monk would know the Tripitaka, and the tripitaka is not in english

>> No.17399985

>>17399979
I'd say this conclusion is understood by anyone who is sincere about pursuing Buddhism, no? People who say Buddhism is compatible with the pursuit of sensual pleasure are deluding themselves.

>> No.17399993

>>17399984
Most of it has been translated
Are all monks supposed to know it by heart? I thought there were two "types" of monks, those focusing on meditation and those focusing on the study of the texts

>> No.17399994

>>17399971
I think Nietzsche didn't even understand himself. He talks about how sad it is that people always make themselves busy to escape themselves, and then criticizes Buddhism for focusing on action and self-knowledge rather than busy-bodying. What does Nietzsche want, busy-bodying or contemplation and action? Nietzsche was probably more of a Buddhist than he even realized, even though he still seemed very mentally disturbed and "busy-bodied" himself.

>> No.17400003

>>17399985
Well, most western buddhists aren't sincere at all with what being a buddhist means to begin with. They do all sorts of mental acrobatics just to dance around the first noble truth and rebirth.

>> No.17400009

>>17399994
I'm not sure he said it in a literal way, but he mentioned thatt he could become the buddha of europe if he wanted to.

>> No.17400010

>>17400003
I don't consider these people to be actual Buddhists, as pretentious as that may sound. They're generally materialist reductionists who feel attracted to the exotic eastern aesthetic.

>> No.17400121

>>17400009
He kind of is the Buddha of Europe, only more of a failed Buddha that ended up in an asylum. It's symbolic of Western civilization as a whole really, which is funny to think about

>> No.17400130

>>17400121
im thinking about it but i dont think it's funny
maybe i need to think about it a bit harder

>> No.17400153

>>17400130
Learn to see tragedy as it is: comedy

>> No.17400158
File: 386 KB, 971x1490, 1580856284996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17400158

>>17400153

>> No.17400310

>>17399674
>How did you manage to write all that without actually saying anything?
he's been studying buddhism

>> No.17400312

>>17400310
This, studying buddhism is useless, you need to experience it

>> No.17400341

>>17400312
>you need to experience it
it's just like opium bruh. good shit

>> No.17400344

>>17400341
No, it's not a sensual thing

>> No.17400361

>>17397283
Book recs that help transcend this translation loss? Or should i just learn sanskrit or tibetan?

>> No.17400363

>>17400361
I don't think books will help. I suggest listening to talks by actual monks.

>> No.17400379

>>17400363
Monk recs?

>> No.17400394

>>17400379
For mahayana, Sheng Yen since I find a lot of western zen teachers take too much liberty adapting the teachings to their sensibilities and biases. For theravada, Thanissaro is good if you're coming from a western background, and Bhikku Bodhi has good introductory talks to the doctrine.

>> No.17400400

>>17400394
Ah thanks, know any good tibetans too?

>> No.17400404

>>17400400
No, sorry. Vajrayana isn't my cup of tea.

>> No.17400410

>>17400404
Fair, thanks for recs. Tashi deleg.

>> No.17401567

>>17399993
No, monks don't need to learn the Tripitaka by heart, but there shouldn't be any part of the Tripitaka that is unaccessible to any given monk due to a language barrier

There are plenty of untranslated texts,
here's a catalogue of Taishou tripitaka with links to the translations (tons of things don't have any).

https://buddha-kanon.de/list-of-taisho-tripitaka-titles/

The Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai organization is working to translate the tripitaka into english, I thought it was expected to take many more years.

>> No.17401584
File: 26 KB, 713x611, 1565976016897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17401584

>Tripitaka
lmao is this crash bandicoot or something

>> No.17401614

>>17401567
Aren't all the most important suttas and commentaries translated? Even if monks should theoretically have access to the entirety of the Tripitaka, are they expected to read all of it? If not, I would assume that since Buddhist scripture is so repetitive by design, the translated suttas/commentaries would provide most if not all of the information they'd get from the untranslated ones.

>> No.17401663

>>17394871
Supposing there is no first thing then there is nothing for anything to arise from, therefore nothing would have arisen. Its pretty simple. An infinite loop breaks the Law of Causality.

>> No.17401668

>>17396767
because, unlike fagjaks and frogs, it's actually a good format to manipulate

>> No.17401696

>>17397318
get into taoism instead

>> No.17401719

>>17395497
>buddhism only differs in the notion that truth is illusory and not in the belief of eternal recurrence

Catholicism absolutely rejects the idea of eternal recurrence.

>> No.17401750

>>17397566
Read Matthew 25, and apply it to your behavior.

>> No.17401763

>>17401750
Not him but I can't bring myself to see the bible as anything else than a collection of good stories at best. But to believe any of it? Fuck no.

>> No.17401767

>>17397935
The uncreated Creator.

You see, there wouldn't *be* any creation in the absence of an uncreated Creator.

>> No.17401775

>>17394683
such speculations are irrelevant to the training of the mind

>> No.17401781

>>17401663
>>17401767
Christcucks lack imagination to a laughable extent

>> No.17401789

>>17401767
Right, and the uncreated Creator^2 made that one. And the uncreated Creator^3 made that one, and so on, going on for infinity.

>> No.17401809

>>17401789
Nooo don't you get it he made himself

>> No.17401873

>>17394726
>>17394789
>>17394792
>>17394795
>>17394812
>>17394826

>abrahamic religion
>god is infinite
>azn religion
>creation is infinite

it's not that fucking hard to understand, and I'm an atheist

>> No.17401889

>>17401809
I'm sorry anon, but things can't create themselves.

>> No.17401899

>>17401889
H-he was always there then

>> No.17401902

>>17397557
yeah bro moses and king david and abraham and noah totally went to hell you retard

>> No.17401954

>>17401902
hey bro it's not our fault if your book makes no sense

>> No.17402106

>>17401781
>>17401789
If you want an eternal recurrence, you'll have to shop elsewhere than the Catholic Church. Simple as that, anons.

>> No.17402125

>>17402106
>eternal recurrence
Are you being retarded on purpose?

>> No.17402132

>>17394581
the logos (dao) dumbass

>> No.17403355

>>17401614
>suttas
Since you use the Pali word, I assume you are talking about Theravada? The Theravada sutta pitaka I believe is available in English (and is included in the Mahayana canon but the names are changed e.g. the Nikayas are called Agamas) but since I had recommended "sanskrit or mandarin" I had assumed you understood I was talking about Mahayana sutras

>> No.17403367

>>17402132
The Logos and the Dao are not the same thing, anon. They, by their definitions, cannot be.

>> No.17403402

>>17401614
Also, the problem with using translations it that they're not traditional compared to the versions used by east Asian countries where they're basically classical literature (people read the texts verbatim the same was as people from centuries ago did).

Basically all religions consider it superior to learn the texts of the religion using the language the texts were composed in. English is definitely not one of those languages when it comes to Buddhist texts.

That's the reason it comes across as LARP-y to use the English, even if the English translations are good.

>> No.17403442

>>17403355
Yeah my bad I misread, since few people become monks in the mahayana tradition I assumed you were talking about theravada. So the whole theravadin canon is translated?
>>17403402
>it comes across as LARP-y
To whom?
I mean, the theravadin texts were composed in pali, but I don't think a lot of thai or burmese people know pali, do they? And this surely applies for, say, vietnamese or japanese mahayana monks who might not know either mandarin or sanskrit.

>> No.17404064

>>17403402
How do you learn Pali?

>> No.17404210

>>17401696
based. Mindfulness meditation + taoism is all you need really

>> No.17404357

Its Gnosticism like everything else

>> No.17405322

>>17403367
I'm not that guy but what's stopping me for reinterpreting them as the same thing?

>> No.17405396

>>17404357
Doesn't surprise me and my Mystery Babylon bros.

>> No.17406510
File: 108 KB, 1080x1440, 1611336115023.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17406510

so many deaf experts in music. when you gonna kill each other?

>> No.17406867

>>17403442
Japanese people do all their Buddhist text reading in Chinese, When they chant sutra they go Hanzi-by-Hanzi and pronounce each one the Japanese way, which is completely unintelligible gibberish in normal Japanese but it makes sense once they've studied it (because their language is in effect a derivative of Chinese). I believe in Vietnam they do the same thing (Vietnamese has a system for pronouncing Hanzi). Those guys don't often learn sanskrit but it is obviously respected and considered necessary to be an expert

>> No.17407157

>>17394792
unironically do dmt

>> No.17407235
File: 11 KB, 259x194, 1611762172402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17407235

>>17395620
Seethe and cope
That which is cannot come from that which is not. There must be a necessary being from which all came from.

>> No.17407252

>>17407235
>There must be a necessary being from which all came from.
Where did he come from?

>> No.17407256

>>17407235
Why

>> No.17407274

>>17407235
>for the laws of physics to work there has to be a completeley antithesis of all these laws in the beginning

Or substitute physics with logic, w/e

>> No.17407278

>>17407252
He did not come from anywhere, he always was. He didn't just appear at any point in time because he created the very concepts of time and space itself. It is he who is.

>> No.17407281

>>17392880
Is that from Twin Peaks?

>> No.17407282

>>17407278
The universe didn't come from anywhere, it always was. It didn't just appear at any point in time because the very concepts of time and space have always existed. It is it that is.

>> No.17407311

>>17396767
Because it hasn't been memed to death by the normalfags and politcal retards.

>> No.17407376

>>17397318
Jeff Warren has ADHD and is a meditation teacher. He tries to develop strategies for those who have difficulties meditating. He has some free guided meditations here:
https://jeffwarren.org/explore/meditations/

The Mind Illuminated has 1068 reviews on Amazon. Maybe check some of those out instead of just relying on the opinions of two anons on a Sub-Saharan Africa basket weaving forum.

>> No.17407434

>>17407376
Schizophrenia is a shitload worse than ADHD

>> No.17407531

>>17403367
I'm not sure, but I've heard that in Chinese bible they use the word dao instead of terms like the word or logos.

>> No.17407538

>>17392880
Brahma is not omnipotent in Buddhism, he the creator god. Westerners often have trouble with this idea because they are used to believing that a creator god and omnipotent God are synonynous as that is the Christian view.

>> No.17407543

the Gods are more like spirit bros that have mystical attributes.
If I am a very good boy in this life, I could be reincarnated as a God.

>> No.17408633

>>17394812
Can you cite this

>> No.17409311

How would Buddhists even come to have knowledge of something beyond a creator god if even the creator god itself doesn't interact in any form.

>> No.17409313

>>17409311
Because it builds upon hinduism
As said before in this thread, buddhism admits the existence of brahma, and goes one step further by saying the buddha realized brahma was not the ultimate reality

>> No.17409686
File: 186 KB, 1024x1024, 56.-shiva-nataraja-rijksmuseum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17409686

>>17409313
>and goes one step further by saying the buddha realized brahma was not the ultimate reality
This is not even going one step further but even this is also a repetition of Hinduism since even in the pre-Buddhist Upanishads from centuries before Buddha like the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad, it's made clear that Brahman is the ultimate reality and is different from the god Brahmā. When the neutral 'brahma' occurs in Sanskrit, it's a different word from the masculine brahmā. The former is rendered commonly in English translation as 'Brahman' and the latter Brahmā is rendered as 'Brahma'.

स वा अयमात्मा ब्रह्म
sa vā ayamātmā brahma
That self is indeed Brahman
- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Verse 4.4.5

Notice from this text above how there is no diacritical mark.

ākāśo vai nāma nāmarūpayornirvahitā te yadantarā tadbrahma tadamṛtaṃ sa ātmā
Ākāśaḥ vai nāma, that which is described as ‘space’; nāmarūpayoḥ nirvahitā, is manifest through names and forms; te, those [names and forms]; yat antarā, are within that; tat brahma, that is Brahman; tat amṛtam, that [Brahman] is immortal; saḥ ātmā, it is the Self
- Chandogya Upanishad Verse 8.14.1

Similarly to the first verse, in this above verse near the end of the Chandogya Upanishad, it refers to the absolute reality Brahma (Brahman) as the Atman. Shortly afterwards, the same Upanishad in a different verse uses a different word and says that Brahmā taught knowledge of the Atman to Prajapati.

tadhaitadbrahmā prajāpatayai uvāca prajāpatirmanave manuḥ prajābhyaḥ ācāryakulādvedamadhītya
Brahmā taught this knowledge of the Self to Prajāpati, and Prajāpati taught it to Manu
- Chandogya Upanishad 8.15.1.

In his bhasya on the above verse Śaṅkarācārya correctly interprets the text as saying that the 'teaching of the Self' ... 'Brahmā, Hiraṇyagarbha, or the Supreme God Himself through Hiraṇyagarbha, expounded to Prajapati'

>> No.17409694

>>17409686
Yeah my bad. My point still stands, the suttas more or less say that the buddha basically got to whatever hindus believed to be the "highest point" and said that wasn't actually it.

>> No.17409905

>>17394792
it's actually the logical conclusion of causality. it requires less elements to admit your animal intuition is flawed.

>> No.17409992
File: 447 KB, 1630x1328, 1597669988526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17409992

>>17409686
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.17410047

>>17405322
The 道 that can be named is not the 道. To name it would be to limit it, to bind it, to curtail it. By definition, the 道 is infinite, boundless, eternal, everywhere, subtle and grand, hidden and blatant, powerful and weak. It is that from which all comes. One gave birth to two, two gave birth to three, and three gave birth to the Ten-Thousand Things.

The Logos, meanwhile (in the Christian sense, ignore the Stoic sense, or the Heraclitean sense, as in the Heraclitean sense yes Logos = Tao) is by definition limit. It is the word, it is Judaism, it is Jews, it is God. Yeshua's statement that he was the Logos means that he was Judaism. It's the entire point of his incarnation as God the Son, to limit the Word into one single person.

Ignoring the fact that the two things (alimit vs limit) just don't agree, at a broader metaphysical point, reality just can't work if they're the same thing. If Yeshua is the tao, then that means that literally nothing except him exists, even God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and by association the Triune Godhead, and LITERALLY EVERYTHING ELSE. There could be nowhere or nowhen but Yeshua. In certain radical Sufi doctrines, this sort of works, but it's just a complete shitting of the bed under Western metaphysical schemas. This would mean that nothing since Yeshua's conception actually exists except Yeshua. Not in a "woaahhhh dude... that's deep man..." sense, but in an actual literal sense. Again, remember that time and space are not containers that the Dao is in, they too come from the Dao.

>> No.17410559 [DELETED] 

>>17407434
IAgreed, but is that anon really schizophrenic? As in psychiatrist diagnosed?

>> No.17410593

>>17407434
Agreed, but is that anon really schizophrenic or just "hur dur, I'm a schizo"?

>> No.17411119
File: 122 KB, 640x480, Terry.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17411119

>>17410593
real schizo
Terry Davis tier, except medicated

>> No.17411784

>>17397377
thank you anon this is interesting

>for the lazy and retarded
oh good!
>(likely you)
it is!!!

>> No.17411836

>>17411119
Get well soon, anon.

>> No.17411846

>>17410047
The Logos is just the experiential knowledge of the Ineffable which is God, the Tao, the Dharmakaya, etc. I hate to sound like Guenonfag but after reading a lot it sounds like all mytsical experiences are basically the same thing just interpreted trough the cultural lens of the practitioners.