/lit/ - Literature

>>17631151
it's exotic

>>17631161
FPBP

>>17631151
>What attracts people to Eastern philosophy?
Monism. Theism and dualism are retarded. The popularity of eastern philosophy wouldn't be as high though, if hermeticim was more known

>>17631161
This. Also due to the watered-down Christianity most people grow up with.

It provides a deeper explanation to consciousness and existence then Christianity does.

>>17631151
being identified with satan or lucifer in some aspects. If you feel like this in abrahamism you're out

>>17631151
>I feel like they overcomplicate the less interesting aspects of humanity
Is there something that you find more interesting than the actual true nature of your soul and the meaning of your existence here as a living human being?

>>17631184
>Theism and dualism are retarded.
Why

>>17631151
I like eastern philosophy and its for none of the shallow reasons in this thread. I've read Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc. I enjoy their work, but the only philosophy that struck a chord with me was the Buddha's.

I have always felt the inherent unsatisfactoriness and suffering of conditioned existence. Even in my most joyous moments, there was a pang of immanent existential suffering. The Buddha was the first philosopher I read who was able to put this into words for me.

>>17631281
>Even in my most joyous moments, there was a pang of immanent existential suffering
But Christianity encapsulates this as well

>>17631151
Generally because when you go to church you get completely retarded biblical interpretations. If church had better biblical readings I would absolutely go.

>>17631272
Because they're false.
>>17631231
Not really.

>>17631151
>Why Protestants in general
Because they are spiritually starving, thanks to their watered-down religion.
>Why Americans
Achieving Salvation on their own, is in tune with the Independent American mentality.
>Why Europeans
They are secular and think Christianity is boring. Eastern philosophy is exotic.

>>17631151
>Specifically I'm interested in why a westerner or a Christian might be attracted to eastern philosophy
Semitism and atheism never made people better. DO you know why?

>>17631281
>I have always felt the inherent unsatisfactoriness and suffering of conditioned existence
That is very well explained and expanded upon in the Christian tradition, so you must not be very familiar with western phil.
>>17631151
The actual reason is orientalism.
99% percent of the people who blabber about Buddhism would dismiss Christianity as retrograde and dogmatic, without realising that the philosophical and mystical western tradition is incredibly complex, varied and extremly solid philosophically speaking.

>>17631151
Because you western folk are losing your ground and culture. So you seek something outside of your own culture. Yet, you westerners are used to a specific type of religious practice: that of clinical-logical self-denial. Buddhism seems to do this too. So you gravitate towards it.

>>17631269
There is no satan in Indian philosophies, what do you mean?

Start with the Indo-Greeks.

>>17631373
>the philosophical and mystical western tradition is incredibly complex, varied and extremly solid philosophically speaking.
Do you mean neoplatonism or hermeticism? Both of those are beyond east/western directionbrained thinking, in any event, owing a great deal to Egypt, and having more in common with Indian systems than they do with "Western" Christianity.

>>17631305
Yes really

>>17631396
Brainlets itt fail to realise that Indian and Buddisht tradition is extremely complex, when someone thinks about Hinduism they think about deep spirituality and meditation, without looking at all the multiitude of sects and school of though, some of them being materialist too.
It's the same with western tradition. What do Meister Eckhart and Origen have in common? That's without talking about the islamic and prechristian traditions like judaism.
So Eastern phil is only interesting because of aesthetic reasons, exotic and misterious. Much like hermeticism.
It's much more socially acceptable to say you are interested in Mahayana than in Aquinas.

>>17631381
read again

what is life vs how to live. westerners only see the surface details of alien traditions and so take from them just the lessons of how to live and how to improve their lives. autists seethe about this.

>>17631448
>So Eastern phil is only interesting because of aesthetic reasons, exotic and misterious. Much like hermeticism.
Throwing around a lot of words just to say you personally think something is stinky. There are perfectly good reasons to be interested in something beyond empty posturing. Assuming everyone you disagree with is just shallow is a ridiculous cope.
>It's much more socially acceptable to say you are interested in Mahayana than in Aquinas.
Acceptable to who? I'm sure the average person does not know the major divisions of Buddhism are Theravada and Mahayana. But let's assume a better educated person; probably they would find Mahayana more acceptable than creationist, prime-mover theology. Then again, on paper most Westerners are Christian, so in theory they should accept Aquinas before Buddha. Do you havr a point in all this or you just think Christianity is the new contrarianism?

>>17631305
>Because they're false.
Great explanation retard.

>>17631161
This. Most who westerners take Buddhism as just philosophy, and say stuff like ''its just meditation, you need to understand there are no truths bruh.'' Not to mention there really isn't sangha in the west, and most western Buddhists wouldn't even be part of it if there were.

>>17631396
>having more in common with Indian systems than they do with "Western" Christianity.
Explain.

>>17631151
Eastern teachign are not for entertainment, contrary to the western ones. Western intellectuals are just part of the entertainment industry and their speculations are not improving people lives.

All the christian rationalists don't talk seriously about anything and they have no goal at all. It's jsut speculation about god. Zero praxis.
You seek entertainment you dont find this in eastern teachings, it's just a fact.

>>17631627
kek
sedating yourself isn't praxis

Eastern teachings are goal driven, its 1% memorizing the scripture, 99% of practice.

Western teaching is just going to academia and intellectualism everything, 1% practice, 99% ramblings. Zero goal behind this, beyond having a career.

>>17631648
Both of your statements are wrong
As always, the "people" interested in eastern philosophy never bothered looking into the western tradition, and don't even understand eastern philosophy either

Long-term meditators have high-amplitude gamma synchrony associated with high alertness and greater capacity for insight. Your understanding here is an ill-informed caricature, probably motivated by your own laziness or inability to meditate

>>17631741
>>>/x/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534199/

>>17631690
The "western tradition" is sitting in a musty library reading stale tomes until you eventually die of dust-induced pulmonary fibrosis. That's why all representatives of the "western tradition" are overweight intellectuals who can't put down the hamburger.

>>17631383
kek

>>17631498
>There are perfectly good reasons to be interested in something beyond empty posturing
There are, once you are familiar with Western philosophy, it's very eye opening to see the different approaches in Eastern phil and how it contradicts or supports western assertions.
We both know this is not what most people are after when they engage with Buddhism. It's an empty negation of their shallow Christian upbringing, rejecting their spiritual tradition to find meaning elsewhere.
In university, especially the humanities, it's more accepted to say you are 'interested in Buddhism' than in Christian theology or scholastics.
>Assuming everyone you disagree with is just shallow is a ridiculous cope.
I have talked with enough of this types to know that they are the epitome of shallowness. Rejecting western thought without delving deep into it and adopting a shallow mockery of eastern thought, without bothering to look into it's more dubious aspects.
>creationist, prime-mover theology
You have not read Aquinas.

>>17631775
The "eastern tradition" is sitting in a run-down temple thinking about nothing until you eventually become a vegetable. That's why all representatives of the "eastern tradition" are underweight retards who can't form a coherent sentence.

>>17631796
>rejecting their spiritual tradition to find meaning elsewhere.
Buddhism attracts people because it doesn't contradict science; case in point >>17631770
>it's more dubious aspects.
Like what?

>>17631805
The difference, of course, being that one was responsible for the destruction of the planet, the industrial revolution, and the breakdown of all morals, and the other was peacefully content with itself.

>>17631820
>the other was peacefully content
Being in a coma will have you be peacefully content, but it's not a worthwhile existence.
Not that a buddhist would understand since you guys think obliteration is a worthwhile goal lmao

>>17631820
>peacefully content with itself
Lmao

>>17631812
If you were interested in Eastern thought beyond an aesthetic posturing you would know that it's incredibly more complex than 'meditation good for your brain bro'.
Do you accept Anatta? How do you reconcile it with the concept of Atman?
Do you know that Kanada's Vaisheshika directly contradicts every other interpretation of Eastern phil, being closer to to Democritus' atomism than anything else coming from the Indian subcontinent?
How do you reconcile Mahayana with Vajrayana?
If you were actually well versed in any of those schools you would know that Eastern philosophy is a vague and meaningless term that comprises many contradictory schools of thought, like Western thought encompasses both Foucault and Ireaneus, thus being completely inoperative and meaningless.
So saying you are interested in Eastern phil is like saying you like food, like okay, but what food?
The only thing those schools have in common is the aesthetics, so defending the broad term of Eastern philosophy is the same as outing yourself as a posturing pseud.

>>17631876
I'm talking about Buddhism though, not eastern philosophy.
>How do you reconcile it with the concept of Atman?
...You don't?

>>17631831
>>17631838
Cope harder. Thank you for destroying the world though, western philosophy is totally not a demonic force of inversion which destroyed itself (and the rest of the world) through ceaseless rational dialectic, which could never stop until it had devoured all values and meaning, leaving only materialism and scientific progressivism in its wake.

>>17631831
>>Being in a coma will have you be peacefully content
doesnt prevent rebirth, atheists seethe at this fact

>>17631888
Rebirth doesn't exist
>>17631887
Seethe, numale

>>17631882
You failed to answer and changed the topic when we were clearly talking about people drawn towards Eastern phil, not Buddhism, because you don't want to admit that for 99% of those people including yourself the actual reason is orientalism, plain and simple.

>>17631271
Buddhism addresses neither of those. It denies the first one by telling you you're a soulless mass of aggregates, and tells you the second one is irrelevant because if you don't follow its teachings you're going to suffer forever.
Buddhism is a virus; it's mind rape. It's a system where the highest possible goal is becoming a vegetable through spiritual suicide. Mindless, sedated, neither happy nor unhappy. It boils everything down to suffering, discards everything good about the world and tells you nothing is worth it except the aforementioned annihilation.

Buddhism works more or less like a cult. It draws you in with statements that make sense because they're more or less tautological ("suffering exists", "things don't last"), and tells you to disregard the more outlandish claims for now.
It then tells you to meditate, so that you can realize the alleged truth in these claims for yourself. Your reason is imperfect, peripheral; the truths of existence have to be experienced directly.
Doesn't work? Meditate more, it'll happen eventually. The goal here is to enter the stream, i.e. brainwash yourself through specific meditation practices so that you think you're realized something important.
From there, it's just a matter of further grinding your mind to dust. Once you've broken yourself into accepting you're a soulless mass of aggregates and that suffering is the highest truth of existence, Buddhism has you refine those realizations and get even deeper into them. Eventually it works, and you become a zombie.

Two types of people call Buddhism nihilistic: those who understand nothing about it, and those who've understood it yet managed not to get roped into the death cult.

>>17632060
>Two types of people call Buddhism nihilistic: those who understand nothing about it, and those who've understood it yet managed not to get roped into the death cult.
You belong to the first group, the latter does not exist.

>>17632080
Cope harder, nihilist, I've most likely read more Buddhist scripture and commentaries than you. Managed to destroy your soul yet?

>>17632081
No, you haven't. You're like the Richard Dawkins of Buddhism, whether you admit it or not.

>>17632091
>No, you haven't.
Not an argument, nihilist.
Keep annihilating yourself for all I care. But don't peddle your disgusting death cult to people who might fall for it.

>>17632092
A few posts ago you claimed that Buddhism contradicted itself through both the atman and anatta. This is clear evidence you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
> But don't peddle your disgusting death cult to people who might fall for it.
Likewise for your Jewish death cult.

>>17631272
because he says so like when the Buddah says that reincarnation is fact but you know Buddhism is rstionalmnot like other religions KEK.

>>17632099
I'm not that other poster, learn to follow a reply chain.
>Jewish
I'm not an Abrahamist. The cope is unreal with you nihilists.

Buddhism says meaning is unimportant (or that there is none, depending on the interpretation). That's nihilism.
It tells you you have no soul, that "you" don't even really exist, you're just a bundle of different things that get destroyed or rearranged after you die. Rebirth isn't even reincarnation, there's no soul to reincarnate, just a bunch of stuff that moves on, changes and transforms. What's Nirvana then? The complete destruction of that stuff.

No matter how you want to spin it with your retarded sophistry, Buddhism absolutely is a death cult. Its goal is annihilation; its methods involve the rejection of all things and the destruction of what makes you a human being.
You fell for the meme.

>>17632110
>Buddhism says meaning is unimportant
What a fucking retard.

>>17632114
Seethe harder, nihilist. The Buddha says you "shouldn't concern yourself with those things", they're unimportant questions, they don't lead to enlightenment (annihilation). Shut up and keep meditating, you'll get it eventually!

>>17632110
>Buddhism says meaning is unimportant (or that there is none, depending on the interpretation).
Not even close lol.

>>17632131
In Buddhism, there is no purpose to life, but a truth: that everything in it leads to suffering, and that this should motivate you to end life itself.
Now suicide should be a good method for this, but since the death cult couldn't be too obvious, Siddhartha put rebirth in there so scare people into thinking that if they didn't follow his system, they'd suffer forever.
>Not even close
You keep saying "no" but you're not actually proving me wrong, nihilist. Typical Buddhist, all slippery and devious because deep down he knows he's being called out.

>>17632110
>What's Nirvana then?
Destruction of greed, hatred and aversion. It is described as pure bliss. Beyond existence and non existence. Ineffible. Neti Neti.

>>17632099
I'm that poster you faggot. Atman is not a buddhist concept, I was pointing out to the incompatibility between two different Easter philosophical traditions wich retards like you love to conflate because 'muh meditation'.

>>17632110
>Buddhism absolutely is a death cult.
Yet they don't kill themselves nor deprive themselves, ergo there is a fault with your knowledge of Buddhism. The only question is where the fault lay.
>>17632119
>The Buddha says you "shouldn't concern yourself with those things", they're unimportant questions
Because they are. They are illusions of reason and dialectic. The fact that over the entirety of human history no one has been able to discover this mysterious "meaning", which apparently exists yet cannot be proven to exist, should tip you off to just this fact.

>Its goal is annihilation
Wait, so you're saying that Buddhism professes that there is no meaning, yet that annihilation is meaning? This is how I know for certain that you have no real knowledge about it. Buddha specifically states that craving for annihilation is just as problematic as craving for existence, yet you seem to have "conveniently" ignored this part of his teaching, because it suits your slander of Buddhism.

>>17632140
Nirvana is the destruction of all aggregates. You're spinning it to make it seem like a worthwhile goal, but thinking about it for two seconds shows you are absolutely full of shit.
The aggregates include consciousness, awareness and sentience. Without those, there is no bliss.
>Beyond existence and non existence
How convenient! It can't be explained, you have to experience it. Imagine falling for that shit.

>>17632138
>You keep saying "no" but you're not actually proving me wrong, nihilist
A basic reading proves you wrong. There is meaning in that religion, the end of suffering through the noble eightfold path. I’m not even Buddhist and I know this.

>>17632144
>Yet they don't kill themselves
Yes, because >>17632138.
>nor deprive themselves
Wrong.

>Because they are.
Nope, you're dodging because you know you're full of shit. Every time he was asked an important question, Siddhartha went "uh that's not important, just meditate". Things are not an illusion just because you say so.
>Buddhism professes that there is no meaning, yet that annihilation is meaning?
I know, Buddhism makes no sense. Not my fault.
Siddhartha claims he doesn't preach annihilation, but his teachings show this is wrong.

>>17632153
Wrong.

>>17632146
>Nirvana is the destruction of all aggregates
No. Aggregates are not destroyed.

> How convenient! It can't be explained, you have to experience it.
It’s far too sublime for words, yes.

>>17632119
>"shouldn't concern yourself with those things",
What "things" are you talking about? You're incapable of providing a single exact argument because you have never in your life read a page of buddhist thought. You're just a retarder shitposter, lacking any critical capacity, regurgitating whatever talkpoints you heard in other threads.
I dare you find one concrete example from buddhist philosophy to support your faggot arguments.

>>17632157
>Wrong
Actually I’m right.

>>17632161
>Aggregates are not destroyed.
They are at death for someone who has achieved Nirvana.
I suppose I wasn't being completely accurate: parinirvana is complete annihilation.
>It’s far too sublime for words
No, that's God. Nirvana is just spiritual prozac.

>>17632162
I've read the Majjhima Nikaya. You are absolutely SEETHING in rage because you know I'm right and there's nothing you can do about it.
Keep killing yourself.
Look up noble silence and the unanswered questions starting with the Sabbasava sutta, this should help you.

I'm convinced you have to be a literal NPC to unironically be a buddhist. The existence of the soul is so obvious that there's no way a being with genuine self-awareness can claim something as outlandish as there being no soul

>>17632171
>They are at death for someone who has achieved Nirvana.
>I suppose I wasn't being completely accurate: parinirvana is complete annihilation.
That isn’t what the Buddha described it as. Surely you could provide a source?

>>17632157
>still no actual argument
>still conveniently ignoring what Gautama explicitly stated about craving for annihilation

>>nor deprive themselves
>Wrong.
Do I need to show you the Buddhist who took cocaine and went on orgies? (Chogyam Trungpa). The point of Buddhism in this respect is not deprivation, but self-control and discipline. There is no need to deprive oneself, so long as the urges are not put in control. Do you believe the Japanese samurai class, which was largely Buddhist rather than Shinto, were death cults? Sure, they had ritual suicide if they shamed themselves, but this was simply a matter of honour rather than mass-suicide or deprivation. Apart from this, they were largely "cults of power", if anything.
>>17632180
>The existence of the soul is so obvious
Strange, if it were so obvious, you'd think someone would've been able to show it by now.

>>17632180
Where is the evidence of a soul?

>>17632187
>>17632191
Case in point, buddhists really are crypto-materialists
"If I can't see it, it doesn't exist!"
literal npcs

>>17632171
>Look up noble silence and the unanswered questions starting with the Sabbasava sutta, this should help you.
Nice one, wikipedia reader, but had you engaded with the actual texts, you would have known the Buddha discourages dialectics overs subjects that are beyond the capacity of human reason, similarly to Kant's critique. But you haven't done that, and are just some angry neckbeard in front of a keyboard

>>17632193
>"If I can't see it, it doesn't exist!"
That's not what I was asking. I was asking whether you could irrefutably prove the existence of a soul by any means, which has never been satisfactorily accomplished. Kant absolutely demolished the last possibility of such a feat.

>>17632184
A quick google search gives me
> the five “aggregates” which are the basis of its identity have then passed away without any possibility of recurrence in a further life. These five are material form, feeling, ideation, mental forces, and consciousness.
Keep dodging.

>>17632187
>Siddhartha said he wasn't a nihilist so that means he wasn't!
So you believe everything people tell you?
>Do I need to show you the Buddhist who took cocaine and went on orgies?
Do you seriously think this constitutes an argument? Look up nekkhamma. Renunciation of the world is the cornerstone of Buddhism. "Self-control" is just the pop buddhist western dilution of it.
>you'd think someone would've been able to show it by now.
What about rebirth, karma, deva realms, hell realms, Nirvana, samsara, or the Buddha's existence? No proof of those either, how curious.

>>17632193
>dodging question

>>17632194
>m-muh kesamutti sutta
Keep seething in rage, nihilist. Even your own kind (Thanissaro) thinks you're retarded.

>>17632197
>you can't prove anything
Sure, I can't. So?
Can you irrefutably prove Buddhism is true?
>uh yeah just become a stream enterer
You are full of shit.

>>17632203
>A quick google search gives me
> the five “aggregates” which are the basis of its identity have then passed away without any possibility of recurrence in a further life. These five are material form, feeling, ideation, mental forces, and consciousness.
Yes and where does it say it gets destroyed upon nirvana? Quite telling that you had to 'search' basic buddhist ideas, I thought you read buddhism?

>nirvana = non-existence
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "How is it, Master Gotama, does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is eternal: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is not eternal: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is finite: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The cosmos is infinite: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul & the body are the same: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata exists: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"

"...no..."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?"

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...

"...'the cosmos is finite'...

"...'the cosmos is infinite'...

"...'the soul & the body are the same'...

"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...

"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...

"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...

"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...

>>17631151
A lot of modern westerners are soi and Buddhism is soi: the religion.

>>17632221
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'... does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."

"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."

"...both does & does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"...neither does nor does not reappear."

"...doesn't apply."

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

>>17632219
You think I'm going to look through the suttas to "prove" to you I know about Buddhism? Why do I give a shit if you don't believe me? You're too far gone anyway, you completely drank the kool aid.
>where does it say it gets destroyed upon nirvana?
Parinirvana*

>>17632221
>he says it's not nonexistence so that must be true
Ok retard.

>>17632226
"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

>>17631151

>>17632210
You are mentally challenged, my friend.

>>17632230
"Any feeling... Any perception... Any fabrication...

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, it is as if there were a great sala tree not far from a village or town: From inconstancy, its branches and leaves would wear away, its bark would wear away, its sapwood would wear away, so that on a later occasion — divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood — it would stand as pure heartwood. In the same way, Master Gotama's words are divested of branches, leaves, bark, & sapwood and stand as pure heartwood.

"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or were to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

>>17632235
Coming from the guy who seeks to spiritually kill himself through meditation I'll take it as a compliment.

>>17632227
>You think I'm going to look through the suttas to "prove" to you I know about Buddhism?
You don't have to scramble for something if you've read the Buddhist nikayas, which you said you did. Clearly you're outing yourself after every post.

>Why do I give a shit if you don't believe me? You're too far gone anyway, you completely drank the kool aid.
Just more excuses. Quit deflecting and come up with something already.

>>17632222
that's nu buddhism, something completely different

>>17632227
>he says it's not nonexistence so that must be true
Yes

>>17632222
>Buddhism is soi: the religion.
That would be Protestantism

Buddhists don't believe in a supreme God and they'll tell you things having always existed (but liberation being possible anyway) makes more sense.
Buddhists don't believe in an immortal soul but they'll tell you Nirvana is the goal anyway. The goal for whom? Theravada brushes this under the carpet; Mahayana says "yeah exactly" and leaves it at that.
They'll tell you the soul doesn't exist, but that somehow you should be concerned about "your" future rebirths. Why? It's not me. Why should I care?
This and many more things show how Buddhism, on top of being a death cult, doesn't actually make sense upon scrutiny.

>>17632244
>You don't have to scramble for something if you've read the Buddhist nikayas
Yeah I do because the MN is like 1400 pages and I'm not going to look for a specific sutta from it just for you.
It's fine if you don't believe me, go kill your soul.

>>17632248
Jesus said he was God's son so that must be true. Muhammed said whatever the fuck he said so that must be true. etc

>>17632203
>So you believe everything people tell you?
The word "nihilism" loses all meaning when you realize that "meaning" isn't even important to begin with, and is a fabrication by a deceptive faculty of the imagination and reason. You can call Buddhism nihilistic if you want, but it really doesn't mean anything. Nothing changes whether you pretend meaning exists or you don't, that is really the crux of this teaching, the only meaningful change is you are free from the burden of falsehood and you are free to purely act, free from all deception of "meaning."
>Renunciation of the world is the cornerstone of Buddhism
Nekkhama fundamentally means non-attachment. As I said, detachment does not imply renunciation.
>Zen Buddhists drink tea during their meditation! This is a direct contradiction of renunciation!
No, it isn't. You just didn't understand what nekkhama actually meant because you're reliant on those same faulty western translations that you were previously criticizing.

>>17632257
>Yeah I do because the MN is like 1400 pages and I'm not going to look for a specific sutta from it just for you.
You don't have to post the whole sutta like that anon, just a source. The more excuses you come up with the more you get exposed.

>y-yea I read it so what?
>NOOOOO please dont tell me to actually source it!
lmao fraud

>>17632253
Bible Belt Protestants make soiboys seethe

>>17632261
>your accusations become meaningless if you realize they're meaningless
Great argument.
>detachment does not imply renunciation.
Renunciation is the vector for non-attachment. You're dodging again. Indulging in pleasure is not a good thing according to Siddhartha. And if you're "detached" you won't want pleasure anyway.

>>17632265
>just a source.
Majjhima Nikaya

>>17632257
>Jesus said he was God's son so that must be true. Muhammed said whatever the fuck he said so that must be true. etc
Lmao you don't even know the basic tenets of Islam. Leave Buddhism alone, you are completely normie minded, unaware of general knowledge. Get the fuck out our board you pseud.

>>17632268
>Majjhima Nikaya
Ok where in the Nikaya? You can't just name book titles lol.

>>17632267
those are fake religious people

Buddhists say there is no immortal self, therefore there is nobody to experience Nirvana. This alone makes everything fall apart, although Mahayana manages to be a bit more devious and tells you realizing this is the whole point, thus sticking you in an infinite loop. Buddhism is inherently self-refuting.
>>17632271
Not an argument. I'm sorry I'm making you seethe so much, but it's really your fault for falling for the meme in the first place.

>>17632281
>still no source on his babble
continue posting btw, its amusing af.

>>17632268
>Great argument.
I was never arguing with on that point to begin with. You seem to believe that nihilism is some sort of insult, and I'm simply pointing out that attributing any significance to that word is simply delusion. Whether you consider Buddhism nihilistic or not is thus irrelevant.
>Renunciation is the vector for non-attachment.
No, it isn't. Or at best, only in the early stages of self-discipline, to prove that one is really detached and not simply fooling oneself. The difference between renunciation and detachment is this: When one renounces, it is an implicit negation of what one needs or wants. When one is detached, there is no need or want to begin with, thus one can "do without." Is this clear enough for you?

>b-b-but Buddhism is nihilistic, teaches annihilation!
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time this evil supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: "As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death." A large number of monks heard, "They say that this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'" So they went to Ven. Yamaka and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven. Yamaka, "Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

"Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"

But even though Ven. Yamaka was thus rebuked by those monks, he — from stubbornness & attachment — maintained his adherence to that evil supposition: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

When those monks could not pry Ven. Yamaka loose from his evil supposition, they got up from their seats and went to Ven. Sariputta. On arrival they said to him: "Friend Sariputta, this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.' It would be good if you would go to Ven. Yamaka out of sympathy for his sake."

Ven. Sariputta consented by remaining silent.

>>17632293
Then in the evening Ven. Sariputta left his seclusion, went to Ven. Yamaka, and on arrival exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Yamaka, "Is it true, my friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

"Yes, my friend Sariputta. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"What do you think, my friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, my friend."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, my friend."

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."...

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."...

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, my friend."...

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

"Inconstant, my friend."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, my friend."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, my friend."

"Thus, friend Yamaka, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every form is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Every consciousness is to be seen with right discernment as it has come to be: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

>>17632296
"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is released. With release, there is the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, my friend."

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

>>17632299
"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good. In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further. Suppose there were a householder or householder's son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well-guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: 'It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?'

"So he would go to the householder or householder's son and say, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord.' With that, the householder or householder's son would take the man on as a servant.

"Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder's son would come to regard him as a friend & companion, and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, 'This householder or householder's son trusts me,' then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.

"Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder's son and said, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord': wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

"Yes, my friend."

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

>>17632301
"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant feeling.' He does not discern inconstant perception... He does not discern inconstant fabrications... He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He does not discern stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He does not discern stressful feeling... He does not discern stressful perception... He does not discern stressful fabrications... He does not discern stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He does not discern not-self feeling... He does not discern not-self perception... He does not discern not-self fabrications... He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

"He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He does not discern fabricated feeling... He does not discern fabricated perception... He does not discern fabricated fabrications... He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

"He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He does not discern murderous feeling... He does not discern murderous perception... He does not discern murderous fabrications... He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

"He gets attached to form, clings to form, & determines it to be 'my self.' He gets attached to feeling... He gets attached to perception... He gets attached to fabrications... He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, & determines it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss & suffering.

>>17632288
>I was never arguing with on that point
Cool deflection.
>No, it isn't
Sabbasava sutta, "taints to be abandoned by removing..."
>When one is detached, there is no need or want to begin with
Which is functionally the same thing, except Buddhism goes at the very root to make you numb enough so that you don't even want anything anymore.
If you honestly find this appealing you should seek help.
>>17632293
>>17632296
>>17632299
>>17632301
Didn't read

>>17632306
"Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He discerns inconstant feeling... He discerns inconstant perception... He discerns inconstant fabrications... He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He discerns stressful feeling... He discerns stressful perception... He discerns stressful fabrications... He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'

"He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He discerns not-self feeling... He discerns not-self perception... He discerns not-self fabrications... He discerns not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

"He discerns fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He discerns fabricated feeling... He discerns fabricated perception... He discerns fabricated fabrications... He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

"He discerns murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He discerns murderous feeling... He discerns murderous perception... He discerns murderous fabrications... He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

"He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."

"Even so, my friend Sariputta, are those who have people like you as their fellows in the holy life, teaching them, admonishing them out of sympathy, desiring their welfare. For now that I have heard this explanation of the Dhamma from you, my mind — through lack of clinging/sustenance — has been released from the effluents.

>>17632309
>Didn't read
Well yes you didn't read anything on Buddhism to begin with, we kinda knew that already.

>>17632322
Seethe harder, zombie

>>17632325

>>17632311
>"He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."
Let's drop the irony for a moment, you people seriously find this to be profound and worth looking into? Don't just hit me with a "Yes." meme, explain. How the absolute fuck is this anything else than annihilationist garbage?
Do you really believe there's nothing more to life than seeking to extinguish it by removing suffering? Do you honestly find personal fulfilment in the prospect of rejecting absolutely everything and disappearing from existence?

>>17632221
>>17632226
>>17632227
>>17632230
>>17632236
In case I forgot to mention, this is MN 72

>>17632293
>>17632296
>>17632299
>>17632301
>>17632306
>>17632311
and this is SN 22.85

>>17632309
>Sabbasava sutta, "taints to be abandoned by removing..."
Taken out of context and misunderstood. First of all, look at the fact that is states "to be abandoned", and then "by removing." Thus, the "taints" themselves are not removed, but something else is removed. What is that that is actually removed, care to continue quoting, or will you conveniently ignore that which doesn't suit your slander again?
>Which is functionally the same thing,
No, no it isn't, as I've previously demonstrated through at least 3 examples. You're purposely fudging important, yet subtle, lines here to suit your slander, anyone with a keen mind can see that. An actual example of renunciation would be the Christian monk who renounces the "pleasures of the flesh", and desperately struggle because there is no negation.

>>17632331
>How the absolute fuck is this anything else than annihilationist garbage?
nothing is being annihilated. You won't disappear from existence.

>>17632350
>What is that that is actually removed
Desire for these things, i.e. you become a zombie. No will, no desire, no enjoyment of anything. A literal vegetable, merely existing.
>anyone with a keen mind
...Would not get into Buddhism in the first place.
Again what's the appeal? Are you a third-worlder, suffering so much that you need the buddha-anesthetic? Otherwise, why?
>>17632353
>You won't disappear from existence.
"Because there is no you to disappear" yeah I know the drill. This doesn't answer anything.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either there's a soul and rebirth and nirvana actually mean something, or there's no soul, I don't exist, and everything is meaningless.

Also going to post SN 44.10 in which the Buddha was asked point blank his stance on the self/soul.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

>the west isn't monistic

>>17632363
>"Because there is no you to disappear" yeah I know the drill. This doesn't answer anything.
No that isn't what I was going to say. You sound like you googled questions about buddhist metaphysics and clicked on reddit threads thinking you got the 'gist' of it. Read more.

>>17632329
The worst thing about all this is, I actually did waste 40 bucks on the pile of garbage that is the majjhima nikaya
>>17632367
Refusing to answer because it's more convenient isn't an argument. Why can't you people see this? Buddhism is not consistent. When you ask important questions, you get the "there is no answer" answer.
>>17632376
What were you going to say? And stop projecting.
My consciousness, awareness, sentience will disappear from existence after death according to Buddhism. Spin it however you want, that's the teaching. Rebirth either makes a completely different person, or Nirvana erases the aggregates entirely
In both cases, I don't exist anymore.

>>17632363
>Desire for these things
The desire for those things is the "taint", which was not being removed, but abandoned (detachment). Again, you'd know these things if you had actually read the works you were quoting. Not much point engaging with you further if you haven't even read the works you claim to have read.

>>17632389
So if I don't agree with your book I must not have read it. You're starting to sound very christian. Buddhism isn't magical, sorry bud. Reading scriptures doesn't automatically make people convert.

>>17632383
>My consciousness, awareness, sentience will disappear from existence after death according to Buddhism
Can you show me where this is said? This is actually the opposite of the doctrine of rebirth.

>>17632383
>My consciousness, awareness, sentience will disappear from existence after death according to Buddhism. Spin it however you want, that's the teaching. Rebirth either makes a completely different person, or Nirvana erases the aggregates entirely
>In both cases, I don't exist anymore.
I've already posted several sources refuting this. You on the other hand can't even cite your own claims despite allegedly having a physical copy of the Nikaya. Amazing. No point being a parrot and repeating yourself, I'll wait until you come up with something of substance.

>>17632391
No, you haven't read the book because you don't have a basic comprehension of the words used in it.

>>17632393
>This is actually the opposite of the doctrine of rebirth.
No it's not. "They arise and pass away" etc.
Even if it were, the fact that I have no memories of my previous lifes means I have no reason to give the slightest shit about rebirth.
>>17632400
Again, it's a 1400 page book so you can go fuck yourself. I haven't posted anything that refuted this, what are you talking about?
>>17632405
>you're not allowed to disagree with buddhism, you just don't understand it
ok

>its another anti-buddhist schizo getting outed as a fraud after peddling inconsistent lies episode
Why are BHVDDIST bulls so good at this?

Nobody has managed to explain the appeal of Buddhism by the way. Keep taking that prozac.

>>17632408
>ok
If you read the Bible and thought Eve gave birth to God, I'd say you quite obviously did not comprehend the basic meaning of the text.

>>17632414
Arguing around the point, demanding citations for every single little thing and getting angry when citations are actually given, deflecting by saying shit like "you just don't get it", "you didn't read it", and basically relying entirely on sophistry - these aren't actual arguments.
>>17632420
>you didn't understand it!
ok

>>17632408
>Again, it's a 1400 page book so you can go fuck yourself
You act like 1400 pages is a lot. Utter pseud lol. I'm not even asking you to post the text, just the page number yet you still are unable to.

Bottom line: Buddhism is nihilistic garbage, as has been demonstrated. Keep sedating yourselves, though I hope for your sake you'll realize your mistake before death and manage to at least get a glimpse of the beauty of existence, instead of wallowing in how bad everything is because muh suffering, muh impermanence.

>>17632424
You haven't cited anything that actually supports your point. We are still waiting.

>>17632431
ok fraud

>>17632414
What can we say, we are absolute CHADS, wikipedia skimmers need not apply.

>>17631448
>some of them being materialist too.
Vaisheshika isnt fully materialist since they admit the existence of the supersensuous force Adṛṣṭa which is not made of atoms

>>17632444
>supersensuous force Adṛṣṭa which is not made of atoms
Gravitational force, electromagnetic or what?

>>17632060
Well said, as the person who you replied to in that post I agree with your analysis of Buddhism, I was speaking more about Hinduism in that post.

>Become Buddha
>Rebirth ceases
>Die
>Body disintegrates and part of the body are still reborn elsewhere
Nice nirvana you got there, faggot

>>17632140
>Neti Neti.
That’s actually a quote from the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which Buddha ripped ideas and metaphors from, which people cite when they want to make Buddhism seem less nihilistic and pretend it agrees with Hinduism

Buddhism literally mindbreaks people, there's actually a thread about this on the catalog right now lmao

>>17632180
>I'm convinced you have to be a literal NPC to unironically be a buddhist. The existence of the soul is so obvious that there's no way a being with genuine self-awareness can claim something as outlandish as there being no soul
Maybe reading the arguments of Vedanta versus Buddhism concerning the soul will one day function as a kind of gom jabbar instituted by society that detects whether people are NPCs or not

>>17632504
>the arguments of Vedanta versus Buddhism concerning the soul
Could you give me a link?

>>17632219
>Yes and where does it say it gets destroyed upon nirvana?
He is not talking about Nirvana but Parinirvana, it’s well known that Buddha said that the aggregates dont continue into Parinirvana when the body of an Arahant or Buddha dies, but Buddhists cant explain how Parinirvana would be experienced or how it would be different from an annihilation if one loses all of ones sentience, consciousness, awareness etc

>>17632504
You can just cure buddhism by reading phaedo
But orientalists don't care about the western tradition

>>17632444
Adṛṣṭa is a direct parallel to the concept of energy, which is fully materialistic.

>>17632232
>Buddhism is based on peace and kindness

>>17632376
>No that isn't what I was going to say
I’m not that guy, but what he guessed you would say is the standard answer the other Buddhists on /lit/ give when confronted with the same question, unless they are Ken Wheeler acolytes saying “bruh Buddhism actually teaches the Atman is absolutely real even though like 95+% of Buddhist teachers, schools and texts disagree.”

>>17632498
>mind broken by Buddhism
lol weak faggot

>>17632400
>I've already posted several sources refuting this.
That’s wrong, all you did was post quotes of Buddha denying that it’s an annihilation, but in none of the Pali Canon passages you quoted does Buddha provide a logical explanation for why it’s not an annihilation, instead he just denies it without rescuing himself from the contradiction that he is in, he is basically just asking Buddhists to have faith.

the more i learn what buddhist larpers online are like, the more i appreciate the normies who just download mindfulness apps and call it buddhism

>>17632558
Same, I almost feel like it proves Zen right, that cutting away the shit and focusing on practice is the way to go

>>17632554
It's understandable though. Westerner from a theist background gets into buddhism, gets hit with anatman, asceticism and dukkha, becomes depressed. Many such cases!

>>17632562
Zen is the only based branch of buddhism

>>17632490
Scholars, notably Hajime Nakamura, refute that point. The upanishads were just the Vedas in certain parts in the oral record. It is likely that those ideas existed in the wider milieu of Indian thought, the Buddha himself didn’t know of the Upanishads in themelves.

>>17632451
Its described as some sort of invisible force thats involved in causation and which interacts with karma (which is not held to be physical) which Vaisheshika also accepts the existence of

>>17632562
The only problem with that is we end up with the "muh western tradition" rationalists shitting on Zen for not proposing any arguments that they can then debate about. I sorely hate the incessant need for debates on behalf of those intellectuals. All so pointless.

>>17631151
Because the West is bloodthirsty militarized empires believeing in a bloodthirsty Jewish sky wizard, with stupid philosophy based on playing with empty words and vulgar cultures. Everything good they've done is science, and still it was developed for violence and world domination

>>17632505
This page discusses some of the arguments

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

>>17632566
Increasingly seems so

>>17632572
Why care about them in the first place?

>>17632562
Thing is, when most religions focus on practice, they don't come to the same conclusions as buddhism, but they come to similar conclusions as each other. So is everyone else wrong, or is buddhism an oddity?

>>17632526
what about karma existing as a unmanifest force which manifests its results later and not simply through immediate causative chains involving objects, which Vaisheshika also accepts?

>>17632592
Most religions don't focus on practice though. Zen is one of the very few. The majority engage in endless rationalistic debates which go nowhere.

>>17632596
>Most religions don't focus on practice
I said "when they do"
See mystics

>>17632568
>Scholars, notably Hajime Nakamura, refute that point.
No they didn’t

>>17632584
Thanks.

>>17632592
>So is everyone else wrong, or is buddhism an oddity?
for me is its probably the latter, but oddity is a good choice of word because it doesnt meant wrong, but unique

>>17632592
>So is everyone else wrong, or is buddhism an oddity?
both and buddhism is true as well

>>17632608
>it doesnt meant wrong, but unique
Well anatta is either right or wrong, there either is a God or no God, etc
Unless you see Buddhism as a mere system with all of its teachings being upaya for people who just want to avoid suffering at all costs

>>17632140
>. Neti Neti.
Neti neti is part of jainism, hindsuim and mahayana, not in buddhism. That's because neti neti is too intellectual so it can't be used to see the truth.

>>17632617
You're very unlikely to be right. When all mystics from all religions of the world come to the same ineffable truth and you're the only odd one out with some weirdly different conclusions from everyone else, you're probably the one who's doing things wrong.

>>17632599
They did.

>>17632619
>Unless you see Buddhism as a mere system with all of its teachings being upaya for people who just want to avoid suffering at all costs.
Yes, and for me, at least, this is much more what the Buddha wanted. He hoped people would focus less on petty debates and details, and more on actual practice.

>>17632627
>mahayana
So Buddhism then.

>>17632643
not same anon, but from my time here, I feel many therevada larpers here might disagree

>>17632627
Buddha’s analysis of Anatta is a neti neti approach. Read the suttas posted itt.

>>17632628
No, that’s just argumentum ad populum, a fallacy.

>>17632619
A) Buddha never claimed there was no God (Brahma actually features in his teachings);
B) anatta is highly misinterpreted, and is essentially a doctrine, not a truth, to aide with rising above samsara.

>>17632651
Regardless, Mahayana Buddhism is a branch of Buddhism and works within the Buddhist tools even if some of it appears to parallel other religions.

>>17632663
The word Brahma is normally used in Buddhist suttras to mean "best", or "supreme". It isn’t exactly the Brahman of Hinduism.
As for anatta, it is one of the most widely held tenets of Buddhism. The 3 marks of existence are truths.

>>17632660
Nope, nice try. If everyone gets the same results except you, it's likely you fucked up.

>>17632197
Soul is pure subject, it cannot be objectively proven save through the fact the object can only exist because subject perceives it

>>17632663
He claimed there was no omniscient creator God, which is what matters.
Anatta might be misinterpreted but pretty much all buddhists believe it means no-self and not some weird expedient means stuff.

It basically boils down to if you think breathing, sitting, standing, thinking or 'being' can be artforms and disciplines in and of themselves, with experts in each akin to martial arts masters of old inheriting and shaping ancient 'styles'. If you think breathing is just in and out and you're doing it just fine, while you sit here hunched, fingers curled, if you think sleeping and drinking water are transparent activities, then stay right where you are, safe and masked. If you long for more, search. Nietzsche laid it out in 'western' terms plainly enough, and Bataille lived and wrote the contradiction. Stop stabbing at straw men and craft consciousness. Conceptual cadence confuses, corrodes, and corrupts precisely because it is a temporary solution. It is an agitation meant to return you to silence, to breath, to the underlying always-already. Your girlfriend knows this if you don't, but it is your nature to deny her devotions, to force your own eyes open and see that which you would kill to forget. Why are westerners seeking the east with growing interest? Because they realize that they've been thinking too small and living too large, and five hundred years of life alongside the wiser peoples they've enslaved is rubbing some of that color off both ways. Your eyes are adjusting to the light, white boi, that's all it is. You can ramble in the dark all you want, but until you can sit still with your eyes closed, you can't do a fucking thing worthwhile except by accident. That's all fine if you like to gamble, but we can't got all day to toss dice (we being human beings and individuals). Anyway, herp derp, hope you feel better.

>>17632594
That is what I would call a cultural artifact, they don't abandon completely the religious principles, even if it contradicts their previous postulates.
If anything that weakens the philosophy, making it more of an intuition, rather than a full-fledged doctrine like in Democritus

>>17632687
Unless everyone else is just genuinely stupid. I'd put my trust in a prince of a successful kingdom over some defeated and cynical mystics who can't even speak clearly.

>>17632705
So this is the level of buddhist delusion...

>>17632687
>if every student gets the answer wrong, they are actually right
Again you are arguing a fallacy, nope point trying to escape it by denying it.

>>17632637
No, Hajime just speculates that Buddha didnt know about the Upanishads, meanwhile almost all Indologists and linguists date the earliest Upanishads as a century or two before Buddha, and the influence of Brahmanical literature is evident in the Pali Canon because Buddha copied a bunch of stuff from the earlier Upanishads and Vedas

> The EBT (early Buddhist Texts) frequently bear the stamp of influence from Brahmanical literature in their literary style. The most obvious is the poetry, where we find that the metres are developed from Vedic precedent [6,15–16]. Likewise, the characteristic feature of framing narratives is derived from the Vedas [5]. In the Vedas we also find the models for such organising principles as the Saṁyutta principle of grouping texts by topic,3 and the Aṅguttara principle of grouping them according to number [2, 23–24] [3, 101]. The EBT frequently share metaphors and imagery with the Vedic literature. Indeed, we can point to several shared similes in just one Upaniṣadic passage, the dialogue between Yājñavalkya and his wife Maitreyī: the origin of the sound of the conch or the lute, (DN 23.19/DĀ 7/MĀ 71/T 45 vs. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.7–9), the rivers that merge in the ocean (AN 8:19 vs. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.11), and the ocean that every- where has one taste, the taste of salt (AN 8.157 vs. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.4.11)

>>17632710
On matters of supreme importance, it's generally the common answers that are incorrect. That is why one goes to a specialist.

>>17632705
>he actually thinks a nobody like Siddhartha is more intelligent than the entirety of western philosophers put together
>>17632718
Why do you pull things out of your ass?

>>17632704
>Vaisheshika is materialism because all the non-materialist doctrines they accept are just cultural artifacts
these levels of cope always make me crack up

>>17632711
You sound really soulless. Though I guess that's what you believe so it's not an insult to you lmao
Your prophet was right about one thing, that direct experience is required. This is what neoplatonists, hermetists, christian mystics, sufis, vedantins and many others also agreed upon. However, your prophet failed and came to the wrong conclusions about reality.

>>17632140
Pure bliss is the acceptance of those things as good and not evil.

Once you do that every waking moment is nirvana.

But to not strive towards a better version of this is death.

>>17632710
It's really just western buddhists that behave like this. They think their religion is somehow demonstrably an objective truth, even though it's not and relies on faith-based statements. They're not too different from obnoxious tradcaths in that regard.
>>17632498
The guy in that thread doesn't seem to realize that Buddhism is a religion like any other religion. It makes sense within its own framework, just like other religions make sense when you consider their axioms as truth.
It's because of the autistic advaita vs. buddhism arguments on this board that people tend to think the buddhist religion is somehow the only religion that's perfectly logical and doesn't require any faith or make any unverifiable statements. This is stupid, many things about buddhism are unverifiable

>>17632060
And this is why you move on to Taoism.

>>17632724
Nigga every single hindu scholar will tell you Vaisheshika is a materialist philosophy.
If anything it dignifies Indian thought and can draw it away from this 'muh meditation' and 'muh spirituality' mockery that hippies think about when dealing with Hindu philosophy.

>>17632746
Based

>>17632060
Yep, normies hate buddhism.

>>17632746
>>17632760
taoism is the pinnacle of neet philosophy
"take it easy, do whatever the fuck you want as long as you go with the flow so that you're ready when death comes"
i'm surprised it's not talked about more on here

Why would you talk about taoism?

>>17632764
>normies
Yep, /lit/ buddhists are redditors.

>>17632717
No, Hajime just speculates that Buddha didnt know about the Upanishads,
Which is what I argued, correct.

meanwhile almost all Indologists and linguists date the earliest Upanishads as a century or two before Buddha
Yes true, all 4 or 5 out of the 108 upanishads are pre Buddhist, that wasn’t my point.

>and the influence of Brahmanical literature is evident in the Pali Canon because Buddha copied a bunch of stuff from the earlier Upanishads and Vedas.
This is where you’re wrong, the Buddha can’t have copied something he wasn’t aware existed outside the old Vedas. There are obviously going to be similarities since he was living in the milieu of ancient Indian culture, they don’t actually prove that Buddha stole ideas from it, those ideas and metaphors can be found in the Jainism, Samkhya, etc

> Too little, perhaps, has been said about this aspect of the Buddha. It is hard to exaggerate how amazingly different the suttas are from most early Indian religious texts. (And it is hardly less amazing that their distinctive character has survived the adulation that followed
their composition.) The style of the bulk of Vedic literature is declaratory; statements ascribed to gods or to primeval sages are made ex cathedra, and there is hardly a trace of an audience or a context. This remains the style until the early Upanisads. Here styles
begin to vary: there are a couple of formal debates, including a few
rebuttals of opponents’ arguments, and a few charming passages give us glimpses of some rather eccentric teachers of wisdom. But soon a didactic solemnity returns as the norm, and remains dominant for centuries.

>>17632748
>Nigga every single hindu scholar will tell you Vaisheshika is a materialist philosophy.
That’s because the same superficial generalizations and comparisons that the first generation of orientalists made became fossilized memes and passed down and repeated uncritically without people looking for details that would contradict them. Academia is inherently conformist and people who go against conventional wisdom and positions do so at their own risk. You can’t reconcile karma with materialism though unless you take it as a metaphor for your actions have consequences in this life which is not how any school of Hinduism interprets it.

>>17632779
fair point

>>17632725
>No argument
Concession accepted.

>>17632795
Ok retard

>>17632736
>Buddhism is a religion like any other religion.
This kills the orientalist

>>17632748
It's incredible there are people who think physicalism is the truth. At any rate, (not him) Vaisheshika is regarded as a subordinate school, not equal to the others, precisely because of its focus on the physical.

>>17632091
Lol you're not replying to him with arguments just digging deeper with generalised dismissal. shameful

>>17632764
normies love buddhism you fungus

>>17632825
He's gonna tell you "that's not real buddhism"
Buddhists are the marxists of religion

>>17632783
>Which is what I argued, correct
You said he refuted what I said, but speculating about hypothetical possibilities is not what ‘refutation’ means
> Yes true, all 4 or 5 out of the 108 upanishads are pre Buddhist
That’s a little less than half of the primary Upanishads considered to be revealed, the remaining number aside from the primary Upanishads that help to make them 108 are seen as fallible and created by humans, so that they are post-Buddhist is of little consequence. The post-Buddhist primary Upanishads speak about the same topics in the same way as the pre-Buddhist Upanishads anyway.
> Buddha can’t have copied something he wasn’t aware existed outside the old Vedas.
You don’t know for a fact that he was unaware of them but you are just assuming that it’s true without any proof.
>There are obviously going to be similarities since he was living in the milieu of ancient Indian culture,
So he had to take the metre and the grouping principles from the Vedas and 3 different metaphors from one chapter of the Brihadaranyaka alone? kek
>they don’t actually prove that Buddha stole ideas from it, those ideas and metaphors can be found in the Jainism, Samkhya, etc
The literature of these schools emerges after Buddha though, the only textual source of these ideas before Buddha’s time was the Upanishads, for all we know these metaphors entered into Jain and Samkhya literature from the Upanishads just as they entered into Buddhism from the Upanishads

>>17632703
>starts off with wise claptrap and reveals himself to be leftie racist who just wants to hate the West

Why does it have to be EVERY time with these people?

Why should we bother for 'these' people who don't expect any substance to come in through their eyeballs? Straw
man.

>>17632582
Europeans are aesthetes and romantics and classicists and composers and you are jealous

>>17632746
I got completely filtered by Zhuangzi.

>>17632847
This is why Buddhism is incompatible with european culture. Western men yearn for the sublime, they don't see suffering as something to be eliminated but rather as something to be overcome to reach greater heights, to know the goodness and beauty of the divine.

>>17632331
Its really the only alternative you can possibly make to the (superior) Christian idea that suffering needs to be voluntarily embraced as a loving sacrifice for the good and redemption of our fellow human beings, all made, as we are, in the image of God. There's no real surprise that the SECOND best meaning of life happens to be fairly shitty because its only second best.

>>17632862
All religions have the same shortcomings
>Buddhism: don't worry about it it's all upaya, you'll get your answers with direct experience
>Christianity: don't worry about it the lord works in mysterious ways, you'll get your answers once you join the kingdom of heaven

>>17632862
>Its really the only alternative you can possibly make to the (superior) Christian idea
false dichotomy

>>17632862
>>17632871
The true endgame was platonic idealism all along. RETVRN TO FORMS

>>17632838
>You said he refuted what I said
Yes I did, the Buddha can't have possible stolen ideas if he wasn't aware of existed somewhere else.
>but speculating about hypothetical possibilities is not what ‘refutation’ means
This isn't speculation, its the record we currently have at the moment. Scholars don't project things out of thin air like you do.
>That’s a little less than half of the primary Upanishads considered to be revealed, the remaining number aside from the primary Upanishads that help to make them 108 are seen as fallible and created by humans, so that they are post-Buddhist is of little consequence. The post-Buddhist primary Upanishads speak about the same topics in the same way as the pre-Buddhist Upanishads anyway.
ok half, good enough. Shall we bring up the primary Upanishads that were Buddhist?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandukya_Upanishad
"Scholars contest whether Mandukya Upanishad was influenced by Buddhist theories along with the similarities and differences between Buddhism and Hinduism in light of the text. According to Hajime Nakamura, the Mandukya Upanishad was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism and its concept of śūnyatā.[5] Nakamura states, "many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it",[37][note 1] such as adrsta, avyavaharya, agrahya, alaksana, acintya, prapancopasama.[39] According to Randall Collins the Mandukya Upanishad "includes phrases found in the Prajnaparamitrasutras of Mahayana Buddhism."[40]"

In the case of the Mandukya, the Upanishad sages WERE aware of Buddhism ie it would indicate an actual appropriation.

>So he had to take the metre and the grouping principles from the Vedas and 3 different metaphors from one chapter of the Brihadaranyaka alone? kek
Speaking the common verbiage and employing common themes is nothing spectacular. This is like saying the Bible stole from Zoroastrian texts because it contains similar metaphors, or from Sumerian religion because they both contain flood stories. Absurd really.
>The literature of these schools emerges after Buddha though
Its a leap of faith saying one come before therefore the other stole. We already know that the Buddha wasn't aware of the Upanishads, so it is impossible that he looked at them and thought 'I could use that'. The upanishadic tradition was only transmitted in a single tradition, so that other Hindus wouldn't interpolate their own stuff into it. Therefore it is highly unlikely anyone else, Jain or Samkhya yoga, took directly from them since it was tight nit.

>>17632703
Kek, pajeets and chinks still seething over the West assblasting them non stop for 200 years.
'But muh ancient culture' literally everything done in the East has been done better and perfected to new heights in Europe. Science, literature, art, music, architecture, sculpture, philosophy, poetry, theology.
Only gullible retards and people bored with everything flock to Eastern thought in search of meaning or whatever, without realizing everything Shankara said is better expressed in Parmenides, Plotinus, Spinoza or even Schelling.

>>17632964
And yet a nepalese prince refuted the entirety of western philosophy 2600 years ago.
You literally cannot prove him wrong.

>>17632180
>souls obviously exist

>>17632281
>Buddhists say there is no immortal self, therefore there is nobody to experience Nirvana. This alone makes everything fall apart, although Mahayana
Why would you have an immortal self? You ever meet an immortal? In the absence of your present body you wouldn't even know you were you, let alone know you were immortal.

>>17633047
>I can only believe what I can see with my own two eyes
ok physicalist

>>17632767
>"take it easy, do whatever the fuck you want as long as you go with the flow so that you're ready when death comes"
t. hasn't read a single page of Taoism

>>17633071
What's your take then?
Taoism is very much about accepting things as they come and go

>>17631151
Well, I haven't read this whole thread but I would assume that some people who want to find spiritual or philosophical system for themselves but don't believe in personal God would find Indian or Oriental religions more easier to approach since they don't necessarily depend on personal God like Christianity or most of the Western philosophy.

>>17632860
>Western men yearn for the sublime, they don't see suffering as something to be eliminated but rather as something to be overcome to reach greater heights, to know the goodness and beauty of the divine.
Lmao.

>>17633082
Bugman.

>>17633081
>since they don't necessarily depend on personal God
Like 2 or 3 sub-schools out of the dozens of them that exist.

>>17633086
/pol/tard. Your overgeneralisation of Western culture shows how severely you lack any knowledge about the subject.

>>17633097
Never been on /pol/ in my life, cry more. It is obvious that the greatest western philosophers have alluded to striving towards the sublime.

>>17633081
There is plenty of pantheism, panentheism and mystical traditions in the west. It's just a mix of aesthetic value, postcolonial though and being drawn towards the mysterious.

what's the nirmanakaya, is that like a fuckin hologram or some shit? can a buddhism expert plz explain

>>17632767
It's a little esoteric

>>17633108
>greatest western philosophers
>sublime
would you care to elaborate on those vague terms that you like to throw around?

>>17633114
No western religion or philosophy has an equivalent to the four noble truths and other fundamental buddhist concepts

real buddhists and taoists are the ones who get assmad on the computer

>>17633120
It should stay so it doesnt get flooded with larpers

>>17633121
Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinas, Hegel, Nietzsche, Spinoza. There are exceptions. inb4 namedropping, you asked for it
>>sublime
The One, the Good, God, ultimate reality, the Absolute, call it whatever you want

>>17632940
>the Buddha can't have possible stolen ideas if he wasn't aware of existed somewhere else.
You taking that on faith
>"Scholars contest whether Mandukya Upanishad was influenced by Buddhist theories
Yes, they contest it, it's not in any sense a widely accepted position among scholars. It's not even agreed upon that the Prajnaparamita Sutras predate the Mandukya Upanishad but some scholars date the Mandukya as predating it. The Prajnaparamita Sutras are usually dated as being from the 1st century BC, while Mahony, Philips and Ranade all date the Mandukya as dating from before the 100 BC of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, if anything this would indicate that the Prajnaparamita Sutras were based on the Mandukya Upanishad.

>Mahony, on the other hand, states that Mandukya Upanishad probably emerged in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BCE, along with Prashna and Maitri Upanishads.[17] Phillips lists Mandukya Upanishad before and about the time the Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the Maitri Upanishad, as well as the first Buddhist Pali and Jaina canonical texts were composed.[12] Ranade[18] posits a view similar to Phillips, placing Mandukya's chronological composition in the fifth, that is the last group of ancient Principal Upanishads.

>Mandukya Upanishad was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism and its concept of śūnyatā.[5]
The Mandukya Upanishad doesn't talk about sunyata or emptiness at all, the Upanishad talks about Brahman and OM and the Self.
>"many particular Buddhist terms or uniquely Buddhist modes of expression may be found in it", such as adrsta, avyavaharya, agrahya, alaksana, acintya, prapancopasama.
Adrsta is not a unique Buddhist term but just it refers to the unseen and it also is found in the Bhagavad-Gita and Vaisheshika Sutra (which is also dated as at least a century before the Prajnaparamita Sutra). Avyavaharya simply means unrelated and occurs not in any Buddhist context but is used in verses 7 and 12 when talking about how the Atman is not an object of thought which the pre-Buddhist Upanishads already talk about. Agrahya occurs in the Mahābhārata (12.325.1-4) and just means beyond normal comprehension, it's used in the same sense as Avyavaharya above in the Upanishad and not in any Buddhist sense. Acintya is used more or less as a synonym of Agrahya and avyavharta and is also used in the Brahmanda, Skanda and Shiva Puranas. Alaksana is again used just as the previous words are to explain how the Atman is without any visible sign, Prapancopasama is used in the Upanishad to refer to the Atman existing as non-dual, without any association with any phenomenon. None of these uses point to any connection to Buddhist doctrine, but they continue speaking about the Atman as non-dual and transcendent just like the pre-Buddhist Upanishads do. And from the fact that the Mandukya has been dated as predating the Prajnaparamita Sutras, we can also infer that the Buddhists acquired these terms from the Mandukya Upanishad.

>>17633050
You have no means of demonstrating the immortality of the soul, and having an immortal soul does not solve any particular problem related to the cessation of suffering. You can cling to it if you like but since it is something either indefensible or made up, what's the point?

>>17633130
Nietzsche and Aquinas are the only ones to deal with suffering as a way to reaching the Overman / closeness to God (not the "sublime" sophistry you love to abuse)
The rest of them developed completely different ways for different goals.

>>17633153
>solve any particular problem related to the cessation of suffering.
So what? Why should I give a shit about your religion's claims?

>>17633126
There is no greater feeling than watching people get filtered in real-time. It's one of the oldest traditions of this website. Non-mystics are ngmi.

>>17633161
Help me anon I didn't get Zhuangzi but I tried

>>17633161
Based and mystic-pilled

>>17633130
Don't drag Spinoza into your "sublime" spook nonsense. Deus sive natura is a non-dualism.

>>17633159
You don't have to. Buddhism doesn't have the concept you are demanding from it anyhow.

>>17633157
>>17633172
>seething this hard at a word
Cool your autism, folks.
>suffering as a way to reaching the Overman / closeness to God
Shifting goalposts now? Whatever.
The original point was that Buddhism is not for the western mindset, and that remains true.

>>17633183
>Shifting goalposts now
>"Western men yearn for the sublime, they don't see suffering as something to be eliminated but rather as something to be overcome to reach greater heights"
lmao, you pretend to don't even remember your own words now.

>>17633167
Study the Sneedposters. They will instruct you.
>>17633169
Blessed post

>>17633192
Yes, and western philosophers overwhelmingly consider suffering to be something you need to face rather than escape. Again, there are exceptions.

>>17633193
What do sneedposters have to do with mysticism

>>17633197
I just showed you that was not the case and then started seething about goalposts.

>>17633183
>The original point was that Buddhism is not for the western mindset
Uhh, isn't the Western mindset nihilism/pomo and don't the anti-Buddhists of /lit/ believe Buddhism is nihilism? Unless you are referring to a fever dream of Christendom and yourself orientalizing Buddhism as to preclude yourself from engaging with it. But if you start with the Indo-Greeks you'll see the very people you'd claim were "Western" in any other thread not only adopted Buddhism but attempted to read it through Western aesthetics, e.g. the Buddha as an Apollonian figyre, Vajrapana as Herakles, etc.

>>17633205
Sneed is the answer to all questions, formerly Chuck.

>>17633209
>isn't the Western mindset nihilism/pomo
No.
>adopted Buddhism
lol

>>17633209
>read it through Western aesthetics,
This isn't an adoption, no platonist in their right mind would agree with the buddhist take on existence/suffering or buddhist metaphysics

>>17633216
Oh it's not nihilism? Then what is it? Are your churches full? Are people filled with the spirit of something other than materialism, consumption, transforming themselves through purchases? Please, do show me the great and noble pursuit of the sublime that precludes a "Western" mind from grasping the death cult

>>17633153
Read the Phaedus, retard.

>>17633227
>all the Greeks were Platonists
Even if that were true, the Platonic soul is just considered the connection between body and mind, and there is still metempsychosis. It's not a great leap to Buddhism. It's a far greater leap to Christianity's bodily resurrection, for instance, or to actual nihilism.

>>17633228
>your
Stop larping as an oriental, I'm cringing physically.
>Are people filled with the spirit of something other than materialism
>implying this phenomenon isn't happening everywhere on the planet
A trend isn't a historical mindset, dumbass.
>grasping the death cult
You're the one calling it a death cult, why are you so insecure? It does deny life, God, goodness and truth though

>>17633240
I didn't say they were, but platonism is the bedrock of western philosophy and you'd have to be a huge hypocrite to deny this.
>the Platonic soul
There are many platonic concepts that are incompatible with buddhist metaphysics, starting with the Forms themselves

>>17633243
A historical mindset isn't present. So again, if westerners are presently something else, i.e. nihilists, and Buddhism as you quite clearly think is life-denying (more directionbrain shit), what exactly precludes a westerner from understanding it?

>>17633228
Have you travelled to Asia recently? Do you know any country in the planet that is not exactly what you described? Bitches in Nepal will suck you dry for 20 dollars.
You are deluded if you think those problems are a direct result of Western spirituality, they come from it's abandonment.

>>17633254
>A historical mindset isn't present
No, but it's a foundation
>what exactly precludes a westerner from understanding it?
Why are you being disingenuous? You obviously don't think buddhism is life-denying
But actually I concede, you're right and I'm wrong. The current turn the west (well, the world in general) has taken makes it easier for people to accept buddhism whereas it would've been incompatible with their values previously. I suppose the fact that interest is growing in the USA and Europe proves it.
>directionbrain
Not sure what your meme words mean but it is what it is and comparing buddhism with some western philosophies will make it glaringly obvious

Eastern philosophy and religion is incredibly large and diverse. It spans a history of 3,000 years in what was for most of that time the most advanced and literate part of the world. Many of its approaches are completely contradictory, if you only look at Buddhism try reconciling say Dzogchen and Jodo Shinshu. They're wildly different. Never mind looking at things like all the different Hindu sects or Taoism or Confucianism.

It's very short sighted to think Eastern tradition has a kind of universal character that fits all of it. There's something in it for every taste.

>>17633278
>There's something in it for every taste.
Spirituality isn't a buffet. Eastern philosophy is interesting if it provides something new, not if you look at things that have western equivalents but with different aesthetics.

>>17633074
It's very much a complete school of thought, which, besides it's philosophy of spontaneous and natural action and thought, also has a critical part, attacking its over-rationalist rivals, and an esoteric side, with rituals and divination practices meant to prolong the lifespan and determine the course of the world to better act according to it.

>>17633287
When people talk about taoist philosophy they usually aren't referring to the religious part

>>17633290
How distinct are the philosophical and religous parts of taoism?

>>17633296
Laozi and Zhuangzi cover all the philosophy but don't get into the religion at all, or barely

>>17633250
Platonism is foundational sure but that doesn't mean you can't entertain or understand other systems. If someone really wanted to they could produce a Buddhist reading of Plato. It would be much harder to do so for say, Neoplatonism, which is far more theological and robustly metaphysical.

>>17633290
Well, they should. Cause "just go with the flow" won't cut it when it comes to being serious about it.

>>17633257
>You are deluded if you think those problems are a direct result of Western spirituality, they come from it's abandonment.
Right, and since Buddhism is abandonment of that, shouldn't it be compatible? I am trying to understand your critique here but you are making no sense

>>17633286
>Spirituality isn't a buffet.
Why not?

>>17633148
>You taking that on faith
I'm not, Its based on analysis of texts.
>Yes, they contest it, it's not in any sense a widely accepted position among scholars. It's not even agreed upon that the Prajnaparamita Sutras predate the Mandukya Upanishad but some scholars date the Mandukya as predating it. The Prajnaparamita Sutras are usually dated as being from the 1st century BC, while Mahony, Philips and Ranade all date the Mandukya as dating from before the 100 BC of the Prajnaparamita Sutras, if anything this would indicate that the Prajnaparamita Sutras were based on the Mandukya Upanishad.

>Nakamura dates the Mandukya Upanishad to "about the first or second centuries A.D."[14] Richard King too dates the Mandukya Upanishad at the first two centuries of the Common Era.[15] Olivelle states, "we have the two late prose Upanisads, the Prasna and the Mandukya, which cannot be much older than the beginning of the common era".[16]

>Adrsta is not a unique Buddhist term but just it refers to the unseen and it also is found in the Bhagavad-Gita and Vaisheshika Sutra (which is also dated as at least a century before the Prajnaparamita Sutra). Avyavaharya simply means unrelated and occurs not in any Buddhist context but is used in verses 7 and 12 when talking about how the Atman is not an object of thought which the pre-Buddhist Upanishads already talk about. Agrahya occurs in the Mahābhārata (12.325.1-4) and just means beyond normal comprehension, it's used in the same sense as Avyavaharya above in the Upanishad and not in any Buddhist sense. Acintya is used more or less as a synonym of Agrahya and avyavharta and is also used in the Brahmanda, Skanda and Shiva Puranas. Alaksana is again used just as the previous words are to explain how the Atman is without any visible sign, Prapancopasama is used in the Upanishad to refer to the Atman existing as non-dual, without any association with any phenomenon
Oh are you saying these are just words common to a shared culture of thought? So now 'x isn't uniquely Buddhist' when it suits your argument? lol

>we can also infer that the Buddhists acquired these terms from the Mandukya Upanishad.
Mandukya is post-Buddhist, it ripped from Buddhism. Get over it.

>>17633299
>If someone really wanted to they could produce a Buddhist reading of Plato.
How? A "buddhist reading" of other philosophies usually boils down to rejecting everything about the religion and saying their claims are nonessential, unskillful, misled and that they don't lead to the end of suffering.
>Neoplatonism
Same here, Buddhism would just reject the entire metaphysics and theology
The opposite would most likely happen too but it's much easier to consider Buddhism as a standalone system when you're looking at it from afar (i.e. a system to avoid suffering as opposed to an all-encompassing metaphysical model) and thus syncretize some of its tenets while discarding its metaphysical claims

>>17633313
>I'm not, Its based on analysis of texts.
You have no idea if Buddha was lying though, in fact it wouldn't even be lying since he never explicitly denied hearing and taking ideas from them, he actually said that he rediscovered teachings that existed already, and the Upanishads had been around for at least 5-6 generations of men before Buddha lived.

>Mandukya is post-Buddhist, it ripped from Buddhism. Get over it.
Those terms don't show up in the Pali Canon, they occur in the Mandukya Upanishad before their occurrence centuries later in the PP sutras. The Mahayana Sutras are most likely based on taking ideas and words from the Upanishads and reading them in accordance with Buddhism. Buddha ripped from the Upanishads, and so did the composers of the Mahayana Sutras.

>>17633263
>Why are you being disingenuous?
Rhetoric
>You obviously don't think buddhism is life-denying
There's an often repeated notion in Madhyamaka that emptiness is what makes all phenomena possible, so I do not consider it some sort of life denial. You can't fully live life weighed down by affects anyway.
>But actually I concede, you're right and I'm wrong.
See now we're getting somewhere
>The current turn the west (well, the world in general) has taken makes it easier for people to accept buddhism whereas it would've been incompatible with their values previously. I suppose the fact that interest is growing in the USA and Europe proves it.
The Buddhism that is popular with these people in many cases is also highly watered down because they are not capable of reading any wisdom literature, not because they are western or not, but because they are effectively nihilists. Buddhism has a long history of being interpreted as nihilism whereas this is a much newer reading of Christianity. The common views of it today are rejection as le skydaddy spaghetti monster etc., or embraced as moral therapeutic deism (god loves me he is my special friend I can just do whatever). These people, yes, are ready for a bullshit version of Buddhism since they already have a bullshit Christianity, whose own leaders routinely fail to defend it.

>>17633303
the go with the flow part is the only aspect that instantly appeals to and is immediately applicable to the lives of western non-larpers, the fact that the tradition extends beyond the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi into alien realms of medieval folklore and practices is quite irrelevant unless it can be shown that these practices are also useful, maybe they are idk, are they?

>>17633314
>"buddhist reading" of other philosophies usually boils down to rejecting everything about the religion and saying their claims are nonessential, unskillful, misled and that they don't lead to the end of suffering
That's pretty much exactly how you'd teach Buddhism to a Platonist—what if you could go beyond One? For a Neoplatonist that's trickier; some sort of tantric/Vajrayana route would be more accomodating

>>17631812
>Buddhism attracts people because it doesn't contradict science
Stop peddling this meme

There was this big bitch I met in rehab who read all these Dan Brown books, god she must've been one of the dumbest people I ever met. She was talking about this guy Martin Armstrong or whatever his name was, this guy who says economic downturn is caused by lunar cycles like we were all fucking Aztecs or something I swear to god she believed this. Then she was talking my ear off, saying how she doesn't get christianity but buddhism makes a lot of sense to her, like she's read anything about either, or no, she's reading the Upanishads in between her fucking Da Vinci code who knows. So I decide to be nice and play along, say how an error of christian belief is thinking that we live in the best of possible worlds, while buddhism rightfully acknowledges that life is suffering. Then she called me Mr. Big Brain, then just "Brainer", gee you're a real big "brainer" anon goddamn. I swear this pissed me off almost as much as the crack addict who wore her new white shoes to a hike in the forest after it had rained, then made a fit that her shoes were getting dirty so we had to turn back around and leave. But anyways she snuck some booze in and gets real chatty with me cause she's wasted and loves everyone and we get to talking about politics (which she says is all bullshit) and I accidentally describe a politician as "close to the ground" instead of what I wanted to say, "down to Earth". She catches me on this and in nearly every other conversation she manages to work it in, oh this guy was "close to the ground" and all, it made me want to start drinking again as soon as I got out I swear. I think I got my comeuppance however, there was this toothless crackhead who was fucking all the nurses who I talked a bit to, and when this bitch brought up Dan Brown he said something along the lines of, "oh Dan Brown? With one of those books you turn to the last page and you know the whole story". This was right after I finished describing Death in Venice to one of the nurses earlier so if I had to guess this comment was aimed at me as a kind of indirect approval of the nerd books I read, while being a put-down to the aforementioned big bitch
Anyone else have any funny Buddhism stories?

>>17633336
>You have no idea if Buddha was lying though, in fact it wouldn't even be lying since he never explicitly denied hearing and taking ideas from them, he actually said that he rediscovered teachings that existed already, and the Upanishads had been around for at least 5-6 generations of men before Buddha lived.
Pointless argument, neither you nor me could know what he 'really' said, what if he was lying that he didn't discovering ancient teachings? Again we can only deal with what is handed down to us and it appears that he wasn't aware of the Upanishads, much less rediscovering it since he repeatedly argued against eternalism.

>Those terms don't show up in the Pali Canon, they occur in the Mandukya Upanishad before their occurrence centuries later in the PP sutras. The Mahayana Sutras are most likely based on taking ideas and words from the Upanishads and reading them in accordance with Buddhism. Buddha ripped from the Upanishads, and so did the composers of the Mahayana Sutras.
Prajnaparamita (100 BCE) pre-dates Mandukya (1-100 CE according to Olivelle)

>The "Split" manuscript is evidently a copy of an earlier text, confirming that the text may date before the 1st century CE.
>Edward Conze estimates that this sūtra originated around 100 BCE.[8]

>>17633336
>Buddha ripped from the Upanishads, and so did the composers of the Mahayana Sutras
I don't know why anyone outside of India would care about this. Either the doctrines are true or not. If the original Buddhists were trying to streamline the Upanishads to get around brahmins or whatever the theory is, their successors have evidently failed spectacularly; the Buddhist canons(plural!) are enormous, and some individual scriptures are themselves doorstops, and often require priestly exegesis .

>>17633383
sorry meant to say *that he did discover

>>17633343
>are they?
I dunno, I'm not into sex magic.
And the go with the flow part is different than getting hammered at Burning Man and dropping acid, as most "Eastern passionates" these days imagine it.

>>17633385
only Vajrayana maintained the Guru-Student dynamic

>>17633379
I know a western theravada nun who says it's okay for western kids to be trannies if they want to, because before they see there is no self, they must build a notion of self and identity beforehand in order to get rid of them.

>>17633379
Women are whores and know nothing about Buddhism. Their lack of critical thinking drives them way more towards Vajrayana, Zen and Vishnu worshiping than towards Buddhism.

>>17633397
I meant priestly exegesis more in the sense that you probably can't read the text and understand it without commentarial literature, even if that amounts to a 50 page introduction to a nikaya and a thousand endnotes, or if it is a full blown line by line explanation.

>lives rent free in everyone's mind, Hindus, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.
How can one man be so based?

>>17633383
>Prajnaparamita (100 BCE) pre-dates Mandukya (1-100 CE according to Olivelle)
Olivelle's estimation of Mandukya's date is disagreed with by Phillips, Ranade, and Mahony.

>>17633421
>when you tell people to just stfu breathe

>>17633365
>what if you could go beyond One?
But that makes no sense in the Platonist framework. How does a Buddhist go above Nirvana?

>>17633459
Like I said, you can make it work if you have to (but since no one really has felt the need there is little more than analogy to make here). The One or the forms or any other backstop of Plato's would be read as a high achievement but not the total realization of non-conceptual wisdom. The practitioner would still need to overcome them. Sort of how mainline Tibetan Madhyamikas view Yogacarins.

>>17633421
This didn't happen
Nobody gives a shit about refuting buddhism outside of /lit/, in europe at least I don't know about the poos

>>17633488
>high achievement but not the total realization
Yeah that's what I said, a buddhist reading of any other philosophy ends like this. It's not very interesting. Whereas the opposite would at least have buddhism be considered a system of its own, not necessarily an incomplete misunderstanding of reality.

>>17633488
>Sort of how mainline Tibetan Madhyamikas view Yogachara
The major reason they are considered 'mainstream' Tibetan Buddhism in the modern era is because once the Gelugpas gained temporal power they spend centuries trying hard to censor the works of and close down schools and temples belonging to other sects of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tsongkapa and the Gelug were getting BTFO in their writings so hard

>>17633556
Yup, they also imported the texts from India out of order and spent the next few hundred years trying to figure out how to arrange them scholastically. The entire prasangika/svatantrika bit misses the point of upaya

Buddhism will always be preferable to Hiduism even if only for the abolition of the caste system. A religion that relegates a significant part of humanity to worthless servants is cool for the ancient ages, but it really stings as wrong nowadays, no matter if you are Christian, Buddhist or atheist.

they're idiots basically and they're afraid to go to church

>>17631876
>"bro supercategories like eastern/western phil are like... food, bro!"
Funny that you speak of "ousting oneself as a posturing pseud" lol. What a premium grade moron.

>>17632060
I think buddhism is more for people who don't like life or have had enough of their own life, obviously if you like life then it's not for you because the teachings are useless.

>>17632110
>thinks nihilists are the ones who are coping

Oh am I laughing

>>17631184
>The popularity of eastern philosophy wouldn't be as high though, if hermeticim was more known

care to elaborate on this?

>>17631292
>>17631373


guys for real, you need to come up with better answers than just, muh christiantity!

because its oriental and foreign despite buddhism being the same thing as stoicism rofl