/lit/ - Literature

>>7980887
/lit/ - literature

>>7980900
Yes, I'm asking the lads here who've read sutras and the like. I know they're around from previous threads.

>>7980887

Here's your answer - your questions are invalid.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

>>7980943

in addition you may read the Buddha's sermons to Vacchagotta, where he dismantles the views behind your questions.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html


Critically:

>"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.

>>7980951
further reading

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.008.than.html

>>7980887
the flame and candle stuff

>>7980955
if you prefer to listen rather than read then here is a good, entertaining talk from Leigh Brasington on the topic you are discussing.

http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/594.html

>>7980887
Dunno about the second one, OP. I've wondered that myself. However, as to the first one:

It is precisely the atman who reincarnated. The word reincarnate literally means something like become physical again. The atman is the ground of being, and we are each but an incarnation of this ground of being. Thus there are not individual selves who reincarnate, but one self incarnated in many forms.

As to the third one:

When one becomes enlightened, what is really happening is the atman comes to know itself.

>>7980887
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of reincarnation? If there is no self, who is it that reincarnates?
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of enlightenment? If there is no self, who is there to enlighten

Doctrine of the two truths

>>7980973
this is Hinduism, not Buddhism

>>7980978
That sounds pretty Parmenidesque

>>7980887
I've not read a lot of buddhist literature yet but it does seem to have some fairly fundamental flaws but you don't understand the idea of self I don't think. I'll answer what I can.

The part of you that reincarnates is not your self you have layers of self. The gross self, subtle self and then another I dont rememeber the name of. It is the most subtle one that is reborn it doesnt contain your memories but certain attributes of a living being I think it means like how easy to anger etc. How prone you are to good and bad, innate nature etc.

We commit deeds and they can be good or bad. Just because a being is stuck in sansara doesn't mean it's okay to hurt it or encourage it deeper into sanara.

Enlightenment is achieved roughly by purifying all the layers of self until there is only the most subtle one or indeed something else which only a buddha or bodhisattva would understand. You have dispelled all illusion and achieved unlimited patience, understanding and compassion. Even if you had no self then there would be other selfs to help along the way.

What I want to know is where are all the Buddhas? Who/what is keeping score of karma? Is it possible to stop the wheel? If Buddhas were capable of all they were supposed to be why do they leave, why don't they stay and guide all life away from sansara and towards enlightenment. And others but I can't remember them right now.

>>7980981
Oops, you're right. My apologies OP.

>>7980982
I don't know much about Parmenides, but I'd be interested if you wanted to elaborate a bit.

>>7981009
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides#Perception_vs._Logos

>>7980887
Now you're starting to get it!

>>7981015
yeah there are definitely some parallels that can be drawn there

Thanks for the helpful posts so far lads

>>7980989
Mahayana a shit.
Heretical views desu

reincarnation takes place in samsara. once nirvana is realized, which includes no self, you are no longer affected by samsaric elements.

>>7980887
you speak like a good hedonist

>>7980989
>If Buddhas were capable of all they were supposed to be why do they leave, why don't they stay and guide all life away from sansara and towards enlightenment.
because hedonists who love hedonism will do anything to stay as hedonist as they can, in compromising the dhamma with hedonism until they no longer can.

>>7980887
there is no self, there is no reincarnation, there is no enlightenment

>>7981189
there is no spoon XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

>>7980887>>7980973
>Dunno about the second one, OP. I've wondered that myself. However, as to the first one:

>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
there is no morality as you think of it in the dhamma.
in the dhamma, there is a polarization of thoughts, speech, act:
-you have the pole of the material hedonist
-you have the pole of the spiritual hedonist
-you have the pole of nibanna

the goal is to understand
-that you begin as material hedonist
-that material hedonism is just here to support spiritual hedonism [=the jhanas, samatha]
-the jhanas are here to support the vision of the dhamma
-so far you have pure faith and you try to understand the dhamma (and fail)
-once you see the dhamma, you lose faith to gain certainty, you stop reflecting on all the dhamma and start practicing the dhamma
you go deeper into tranquility and paramitas, precisely because you know that what you feel and think is rubbish to be happy (and that rituals will never get you anything by themselves, that you must do the work yourself]
-then you have nibanna

what people call morality is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is not* their self'' and what people call meditation is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is* their self''.

>>7981193
keep your illusions.

"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.' When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

>>7980966
>skellies from the 4th edition monster manuel

interesting choice of image

bump

>escape reincarnation and achieve the nothingness of nirvana
why?
infinitely reincarnating sounds better to me

>>7980989
>Who/what is keeping score of karma?
I'unno, who makes sure the laws of nature are followed?

>If Buddhas were capable of all they were supposed to be why do they leave, why don't they stay and guide all life away from sansara and towards enlightenment.
A Buddha is only one man, he can't live your life for you.

>>7982347
well how can you tell if you havent tried?

>>7980943
>>>7980887 (OP)
>Here's your answer - your questions are invalid.
>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
>>7981048
>>>7980989
>Mahayana a shit.
>Heretical views desu

In reference to this comment: does anyone else have a hard time differentiating which views in buddhism are considered doctrine? I still can't seem to determine what is widely believed and what is a fringe heretical viewpoint.

>>7982548
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_points_unifying_Therav%C4%81da_and_Mah%C4%81y%C4%81na

>>7982548
>does anyone else have a hard time differentiating which views in buddhism are considered doctrine?

Mahayana is confusing because it is so internally diverse itself. This is pretty clear on the parallel Buddhist forums dharmawheel.net (Mahayana) and dhammawheel.net (Theravada).

On the Theravada forum you get quite in depth philosophical discussions because almost everyone on the forum is working from the same basis - the Pali canon.

On the Mahayana forum discussions often dissolve into mystical bullshit or total impasse because the discussants dont hold the same assumptions, don't hold the same texts as authoritative - eg. Zen guys talking with Tibetan guys talking with Japanese Pure Land guys talking with oldschool ethnic Chinese eclectics - their differences are just as big as those between Theravada and Mahayana.

So before you get on to which school is 'truest' or most useful, just from an intellectual point of view discussions within the Theravada tradition are more interesting because they are easier to follow.

>>7980887
All of your questions are flawed. It's not that there is no self. It's that there is one transpersonal self that includes us all.

Your question, OP, was always thorny issue. There's no single answer, because there's also no single Buddhism. However the most sophisticated answer comes from Yogacara philosophy.

In the Theravada there are a number of replies. One of the most prominent would be the candle and flame metaphor from the Milinda Panha. That is, consciousness is like a flame - it can spread into multiple reincarnations just like a candle can light other candles. It's simultaneously singular and multiple. That's a pretty ingenious way around the problem.

Mahayana Buddhism has two quite opposite philosophical schools within it. The Madhyamakins did not answer this question - their system is no holds barred logical deconstruction and never ventured into metaphysics. The Yogacarin's, however, did answer the question with the doctrine of Alyavijnana, often translated as "storehouse consciousness."

In the alya consciousness theory, all phenomena (dharmas) are "seeds" (bijas) which are planted in the storehouse consciousness. Depending on which seeds one waters, some will manifest while others will stay latent. If we manifest the seeds which tie us to samsara, we will be reincarnated.

Now the "we" doing the "watering" are actually just karmic assemblages of these seeds, so it's not a "self" which reincarnates, so to speak.

The alaya consciousness was thought of as a super subtle level of consciousness which persists through reincarnation. So, to critique the yocarins, it's basically just moving the problem of the atman up another level. The alaya persists no matter what, it is the yogacarin's job to let the seeds of samsara wither away and lie latent, however, while watering the seeds of liberation.

In China there was no concept of an atman in the first place, so things got really whacky there when they were trying to bring in yogacara. Basically, Buddhism imported the idea of atman into China so that they could refute it. It never made sense to the Chinese though, which is part of why the Indian divisions of Buddhist philosophy didn't persist in China past the Tang dynasty.

>>7980887
Void is form and form is void.

It's a hard concept to intellectualize and yields no spiritual benefits once intellectualized/conceptualized.

Buddha tried avoiding questions such as is there a self... because he will inevtiably lead to both extremes (there is no self; there is a self). What he taught was "non-self".

I like Thanissaro Bikkhu's explanation of it. Again, it yields no spiritual fruits through by reading alone, without application or through realization, its almost useless.

>>7982851
Forgot my link:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

Some noteworthy clips:

> instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress

>If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?"

Buddhism doesn't need to be made complex, the initial frameworks are ENOUGH to bring you to liberation (Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path). The rest, "non-self", dependent origination naturally stems from increased spiritual accomplishments and should be discussed with a teacher in relation to a meditation practice.

Otherwise, its like being a Buddhist scholar; you may have read all of the Dhamma and understand its intricacies but that doesn't make you enlightened.

>>7982831
I knew chinese people didn't have souls

bimp

>>7982831

Not OP, but thank you for sharing. Good post.

>>7980998
Hence why I feel Hinduism makes more sense than what I've seen of Buddhism.

>>7982347
Are you an ubermensch?

>>7982432
But the laws of nature can be revealed to some extent. I know it's all supposed to be delusion etc. but what stops karma from being a delusion especially when it is so wishy washy and impossible to trace. Where does a river begin/end where is it not a river metaphor etc.. At what point does karma mature into cosmic benevolence or downfall. If I poison a stream and kill a village of people but in time that village would have become a warmongering nation if they were left to survive for 200 years but I robbed those people of 199 years of peace and prosperity where some of them may have learned and spread dharma and achieved good in the world what did my action ultimately achieve.

To my understanding a Buddha is more than a man even if that is the vessel which he is in at that time. If he truly attained Buddhahood he may well have been able to live my life for me. He may already have been me at some point in the cycle and seen it.

>>7982347

Because life is ultimately suffering (everything you love will fade/rot/die etc.) and the more compassionate you become the more aware of that you are supposed to become and the more you would wish to see an end to suffering. When it all comes crumbling down you start to let in more of the bad stuff like fear/anger/greed and this affects your rebirth so become something which is scared and hungry like a gazelle and get you and your kids' asses ripped off by a lion and so spiral lower on the rebirth scale until you become a vile bacteria that produces an enormous fatal wart on the bellend of some child molestor and then you might get to be human again and have another shot at Buddhism and escaping because you have gone through this cycle forever as it has no beginning or end. I like the idea of being compassionate and simply learning to weather the storm of decay better. Learn to suffer for each other. I think buddhism needs to be missing something simply because there seem to be no Buddhas. If there was one he got there without Buddhism. Maybe I'm talking nonsense and too fond of Hesse's Siddartha.

Why is mastering the art of rolling over and taking it with a smile on your face the way out, surely if we truly master acceptance, then nirvana becomes less appealling? Are we letting go of Sansara or is it letting go of us (I guess it might not matter but the bond that apparantly keeps us is interesting)? Where does delusion start and end?

In all the possible ways we could exist does the path stay the same? If we consider the wheel to turn before and after the death and rebirth of our universe at which point the laws of nature as we know them may change all progress is lost. The wheel can't be stopped, someone will always be left behind which begs the question if we can truly leave it even attaining enlightenment. Could you really go and get your lotus on in nirvana when there are other's stuck in sansara, is that compassion?

Think it might be bedtime. Apologies for the great jumbled word vomit.

Phrased in terms of kama, The whole purpose of the dhamma is to stop caring about the kamma.
Only followers of other sects care about the kamma.

>>7984539
To my understandment, karma comes from your intentions, not from the actions' results. Also, your actions don't achieve anything.

>If he truly attained Buddhahood he may well have been able to live my life for me.
He can't make you do things you don't want to do, nothing can.

>Because life is ultimately suffering (everything you love will fade/rot/die etc.)
To say life is purely suffering doesn't paint the whole picture. For things to exist it means they must have come into being, and so there is transcience, and so they will stop being some time. For suffering to exist means there is pleasure, because neither of them stand, nor can stand, on their own. For any process to take place means there must be time passing. Things don't exist in isolation. The realized exist because there are those that aren't realized--if those didn't exist, how could you call them realized?

Do you get it? If, for example, you wanted to stop time (i.e. the absolute sum of all activity) in order to have enough time to do the actions you think imperative to do, that is like trying to bath in a frozen river.

>If there was one he got there without Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

>Why is mastering the art of rolling over and taking it with a smile on your face the way out, surely if we truly master acceptance, then nirvana becomes less appealling?
What makes you think those need be different?

>Are we letting go of Sansara or is it letting go of us (I guess it might not matter but the bond that apparantly keeps us is interesting)? Where does delusion start and end?
It's called the Middle Way for a reason, see >>7980943

>>7980887
your perspective is not limited to the character you have created in this life. you have forgotten most of the things that have happened in your life. you are a different person than your 15 year old self.

>>7980887
1. Put it this way. You get reincarnated but as another person. The new 'You' has no memory of the old 'You'. It's all still you though, so if you hate another you are hating yourself etc..

To quote Schopenhauer on the indestructibility of being:
"Death announces itself frankly as the end of the individual, but in this individual there lies as the germ of a new being. Thus nothing that dies dies for ever; but nothing that is born receives a fundamentally new existence"

Also: it was said that the Buddha when he reached enlightenment was able to commune with the past and future Buddhas.

2. Karma. You can take selves out of the equation and you still have 'positive/negative' karma. That's why they say past events can affect you now. I.e. a person in the past has created such a state of karma that you're now feeling the effects of it. But always remember point 1. when thinking about karma. The West is quite bad at comprehending why 'bad things happen to good people' because they dont realise "cosmic karma" (as I call it) doesnt strictly operate within the bounds of individuality. You hate another you hate yourself, but it could be a past, present of future self. Why act morally? Because 'moral actions' bring cessation of suffering and enlightenment.

3. Enlightenment doesnt require a self, in fact once you're enlightened you realise there is no self. One could say it's a state in which you've fully relinquished the hold of the ego. This can be described as a 'stillness' or 'tranquility', but a lot of these words fall short because of their emotional connotations. Emotions and 'normal' mental states you experience in your non enlightened state give you no real preparation for what you become. But dont forget you never get 'there' because it's not a point.

Enlightenment is more a note in a song, but then again no one note makes a song does it?

Hope that answers your questions, I can go into more detail but I'm trying to keep it brief for people who havent studied buddhism.

>>7980887
does /lit/ enjoy eating meat? what's /lit/'s views on veganism?

Serious question guys

>>7984867
I'm a vegetarian. I worked in a slaughterhouse for three years before I ducked up my back, never could eat meat again after seeing all that shit. I don't really care what people do, vegetarianism is probably morally and ethically Right but for me it's just because I have meat-PTSD

>>7980887

A lot of excellent answers here.

Beforehand, I apologize for this barbaric rendition of a process that has been better described in a lot of other places (and in more poetic ways).

Here's one train of thought:

1. One could view "Reincarnation" as a metaphor for the transition between objects of perception.

2. Being mindful of such a transition brings the realization that the transition itself can be an object of perception.

3. If one observes mindfully these transitions, one realizes that there is no object of perception that does not interact with another object of perception.

4. Being mindful of the interaction brings the realization that the interaction itself can be an object of perception.

5. Transition as an object of perception and Interaction as an object of perception tie together every other object of perception in a net. This net is the self.

6. Being mindful of this net brings the realization that the net itself can be an object of perception.

7. So, the self reincarnates by "becoming" all these other objects of perception. The net "catches" more things (maybe even creating bigger nets by catching "nets").

8. On a day to day basis this happens to everyone. The difference is that most of us are not conscious of this happening most of the time.

9. If you are capable of staying in a (more or less) constant mindful perception of the net and the things that the net "catches," the difference between what the net is and what the net isn't begins to dissolve, since there is no net without all these other threads and nodes constituting it.

10. Then, at a certain point, if even for an instant, the net will vanish.

Now, after the fact, at least two ways to see this "vanishing" arise:

a) You are "reincarnated" into everything.
b) The "self" is gone.

Both things are the same thing.

And this how I would reconcile the doctrine of reincarnation and the doctrine of anatta.

I recently heard a relatively unusual interpretation of Karma somewhere which explained that the dichotomy of actions within the system isn't between Good or Bad acts but between acts of Attachment or Detachment. It basically said that behaving selflessly wasn't rewarded by the universe or by any deity who wanted to see more good things done (as I've basically heard) but simply because such actions brought about positive mental states. Is this interpretation more accurate than the common western ideas on karma being basically an arbitrary carrot and stick system of the cosmos? I assume there will be divergences between the different traditions so that this answer may not be completely yes or no, but it wouldn't surprise me if everything I've heard on this subject so far has been wrong (I live in America, specifically) because many of the other things I've heard have also been false.

>>7985068
Sorry if that comment seemed incoherent. It's like four thirty where I live and I just left /v/.

>>7985068
do you mean like here? >>7981203

>>7981203
Yeah, pretty much exactly. Actually reading a thread before asking questions in it is a good idea that I keep forgetting.

Anatman means 'not self' not "no self". The Pali canon never states "there is no self", it simply says that form is not self, feeling is not self, perception, volition, consciousness etc. are each "not self", implying that the self has no essential core.

But the word "self" atman is used repeatedly. It's just the name of a process, not a substance.

"Irrigators regulate the rivers; fletchers straighten the arrow shaft; carpenters shape the wood; the wise control themselves." Dhp80

Seeing the self as a process does not undermine rebirth. The weak point in rebirth is explaining why we should assume that the causal chain of one life should hop from a dead body to a fertilised embryo in a different place. I mean anything's possible, but I don't see any reason to think that it is likely.

Of course, every action we take has causes that ripple out after our deaths. But rebirth implies that your particular process-identity will maintain a certain amount of its individual strength upon your death and hop intact into a dog embryo in China or something, and in some meaningful sense the dog has inherited your individual karma. HIGHLY DUBIOUS.

>>7984901
damn man

>>7980887
You all motherfuckers need U.G. Krishnamurti.

>>7985124
do not forget that this business of the kamma as doing good will bring you good, doing bad will bring you bad, is always
- tied to the good and bad things that happens to you in material hedonism [riches, health, looks], the hedonism tied to the five senses
-is exactly what you must NOT care for, as things in themselves, if you wish to be happy, if you wish to live your life (according to the dhamma), but, if you have them, only as supporting your drive for nibanna.
[health, as in avoiding direct harm, **but without fear*** (always with plenty of tranquility), is the typical thing that you must care for]

>>7985290
>U.G. Krishnamurti.
Tell them that there is nothing to understand.

>>7985290
>>7985301
remember that chuang tzu tale where a guy asks for the way, the one who knows it cant answer, the one close can but doesnt, and the one who doesnt know it does answer.

well that ugk guy has all the right words for it... but this very fact is already a bad sign.

>>7984673
We would still be tied into a form of fate by karma though. If actions don't achieve anything why be Buddhist?

>He can't make you do things you don't want to do, nothing can.

Firstly you need to make a large assumption on what I want/don't want and I wouldn't say we always have free will or at least free choice. We can control our body and mind but there are always limits and pitfalls.

>To say life is purely suffering doesn't paint the whole picture. For things to exist it means they must have come into being, and so there is transcience, and so they will stop being some time...

I'm pretty sure I understand this quite well though probably less often than I'd like. I was being intentionally a little heavy handed in my description but as time passes pleasure ebbs away and suffering takes it's place. I didn't mean that there is only suffering but that anything that brings pleasure will likely lead to suffering as all things come to an end. This is also why I don't really know if I want to escape sansara, maybe there is a good balance of pleasure and deattachment.

Again there are many assumptions made on what happens between death and rebirth. Impossibly known 'truths' seemingly brandished as fact.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha

Again impossibly known assumptions that Buddhism should reappear everytime. The claims of knowledge of past lives and clairvoyance etc. have disappeared in the modern world.

>What makes you think those need be different?

It's like a slow, spiritual form of suicide numbed by something between compassion and apathy. It becomes this loop of everything's just fine because everything's just the way it is but if you're bored of it you can go checkout over here but maybe not and that's just fine. Stoic, smiling defeatism I don't know if that really seems all that valuable to me.

>It's called the Middle Way for a reason

So we if we spend our lives well and nobly we get to spend some of our existence on the zero line of the waveform of existence? That really does not link up to compassion or patience to me. Regardless if we are all one or not having the most educated sit on the sidelines or move to some other realm (again something which I don't find impossible just not something to be passed round as fact) does not seem like an act of love or selfless even if you have conquered your self. Even with all the assumptions and ignorance of alternatives there seems only transience not transcendence in which case does anything ever matter? I believe there are a lot of very wise lessons in Buddhism but I can't reconcile it as the way to go.


>>7984867
I like meat and have killed and eaten animals, over time think I will probably reduce my consumption and/or at least try stick to better treated animals mainly due to ethical concerns but the long term health benefits are a nice bonus too. Veganism seems unnecessary, confused and convoluted.

Who /meditation/ here?

>>7985797
no one. everyone is in the quest of a wiki-elightenment that will provide them with an emotional auto rationalization and auto justification of their current lives as they are. if it demanded actual change and action it would defeat its own purpose.

>>7985797
I do a little and have gone to a few guided ones, I think I did it somewhat unintentionally as a child as well. Mainly just breathing meditation and sometimes I reach a few 'layers' under it but results vary, I find it generally a positive thing to do but not always or even in a particularly discernable way. I haven't done very much with mantras etc. as I'm yet to find a a suitable mantra though I haven't tried that hard to find one. It can be enjoyable but sometimes frustrating. I would like to go live in a cave for a while and see if that's what it's cracked up to be.

>>7985716
>If actions don't achieve anything why be Buddhist?
To obtain nothing.

>I wouldn't say we always have free will or at least free choice. We can control our body and mind but there are always limits and pitfalls.
Physical and mental coercion are both coercion. Eating because you're hungry isn't different from being convinced by words, being sick isn't different to being controlled by ideology.

>as time passes pleasure ebbs away and suffering takes it's place.
Is that a truth or an assumption? How do you know in ten years scientist won't make great discoveries that would alleviate all your pains, for example. How do you even know you're going to die?

>I didn't mean that there is only suffering but that anything that brings pleasure will likely lead to suffering as all things come to an end.
Again, it's a two way track.

>This is also why I don't really know if I want to escape sansara
Well there you have it, no more assumptions about you on my part.

>Impossibly known 'truths' seemingly brandished as fact.
And why does that bother you? Where are the facts you seem to look for? Give me one that can't be contested by anything. You seek security--meaning you don't have it, exactly because you seek it.

>It's like a slow, spiritual form of suicide numbed by something between compassion and apathy.
Do you know a better way to die? One that doesn't imply living in some other way, but really disappearing completely.

>Stoic, smiling defeatism I don't know if that really seems all that valuable to me.
You're absolutely correct, there's nothing to be gained.

>Regardless if we are all one or not having the most educated sit on the sidelines or move to some other realm (again something which I don't find impossible just not something to be passed round as fact) does not seem like an act of love or selfless even if you have conquered your self.
Well to begin with, iirc that's not the case with Buddhism. You're mistaking being a monk with being ascetic, something the Buddha considered not good enough.

There will always be people that don't listen to whatever wise words there are, or listen to them halfly. The point isn't for everyone to become a monk, because 1) that is impossible, 2) the result would mean a paradigm change. You can't make the whole world a temple, like you can't make it a hospital. If you're not becoming a monk, take whatever you can from it and keep going with your life--the monks are there so you can do that.

And you are correct that it is a self-centered point of view. That you think being self-centered is necessarily a bad thing to others, that's another thing.

>does anything ever matter?
No. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter either.

>I believe there are a lot of very wise lessons in Buddhism but I can't reconcile it as the way to go.
Nobody is asking you to, and there's no need for you to. I'm not trying to convert you. You seem to be the one that wants to be convinced, not sure what for.

>>7984867
I believe so long as you treat the animals well, there's nothing wrong with eating them. This applies to plants as well. And if we treat our food brutally, that is only a reflection of how we treat ourselves; we are how we eat.

>>7985836
If you don't belong to a particular tradition, just use whatever. Pizza-pizza, Coca-Cola; shouldn't matter too much unless you believe mantras draw upon energetic sources or deities or whatever.

>>7985840
>To obtain nothing.
Fair enough but again that doesn't link up to selflessness in my mind, which seems central. Why focus on selflessness for so long only to run/be pushed out the back door as soon as it opens?

>Physical and mental coercion are both coercion. Eating because you're hungry isn't different from being convinced by words, being sick isn't different to being controlled by ideology.

Then we are all just pawns and if the universe happens to blow in the right direction you might fall out of it and no longer have to experience it. Buddhism can be made somewhat defunct by it's own rules, no?

>Is that a truth or an assumption? How do you know in ten years scientist won't make great discoveries that would alleviate all your pains, for example. How do you even know you're going to die?

I understood that belief in death is a crucial understanding for Buddhist progression. Not just knowing it will happen but believing in it. As long as there is desire there will be suffering and life without desire would die.

>And why does that bother you? Where are the facts you seem to look for? Give me one that can't be contested by anything. You seek security--meaning you don't have it, exactly because you seek it.

The fundamental forces of the universe can be misunderstood but not contested but if that is delusion why isn't dharma delusion. I don't necessarily need security, I don't feel scared by making choices or indeed not I just like to make the best one I can especially when it comes to the essence of my being. If Buddhism was the path for me I would prefer knowledge be the driving factor not hope or fear.

>Do you know a better way to die? One that doesn't imply living in some other way, but really disappearing completely.

Having brought more love and less fear into the world, help others to do the same and with all intention of doing it again if you could. If I could do that why would I want to die?

>Well to begin with, iirc that's not the case with Buddhism. You're mistaking being a monk with being ascetic, something the Buddha considered not good enough...
>No. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't matter either.

I know they can't all be monks but I don't see an end at which point it seems more of a coping strategy until the cosmic joojoo puts you in a life that leads to an exit. I think there are systems of thought that allow for meaning and given the choice I would rather that. I don't think self-centredness is inherently bad but upon having achieved enlightenment I could find more use for myself than just dying. I know I'm making assumptions on enlightenment but if it were to be my goal I would need some expectation of it.
cont.

>>7986069

>Nobody is asking you to, and there's no need for you to. I'm not trying to convert you. You seem to be the one that wants to be convinced, not sure what for.

If enlightenment is possible then I would like to attain it. I hope I'm not coming across antagonistically I find it interesting and don't get much of a chance to ask questions that will be answered. Not trying to upset or irritate and fully appreciate I could be making huge errors so I apologise for that I just want to learn. I would happily be converted if it seemed worthwhile but just as my life is valuable in the sense I can learn and spread dharma if such things were meaningless then I'd rather spend my time well but differently. I would like to find my way and will take my lessons where I can.

These things you speak of are all symbols and abstractions and buddhism is the most redpilled path w/r/t this

>>7985959
I might be confusing it a bit but should it not ideally have some degree of significance to the topic of your meditation or something in it that might encourage your mind down certain avenues? Do you mean using anything just as a vehicle for focus/clarity but not actually the point of focus similar to breathing meditation? I really don't know a lot about it

going to meditate in my bed

>>7986116
mantra without much sense will serve to focus you mind

mantra with sense, like for metta, will serve to focus your mind and develop the feeling that you seek

>>7984867

Animals eat animals. I, an animal, occasionally eat animals.

>>7986116
A lot of traditions operate under the principle that when you repeat a certain mantra you're drawing upon an energy sphere that has built up from use over a period of time by several people, or it almost serves as an incantation for a deity or god.

However, all that spiritual stuff aside, any 'mantra' can serve as a meditation object. Like I said, you can use Coca-Cola and it'll have the same effects - practically speaking.

http://bookfi.net/md5/317D2401FDAC2A6F3760BD8A3DE22A2F <- this is a short booklet on meditation where the mantra 'I am' is used; the mantra has no further significance in this case. It's just phonetic sound.

>Do you mean using anything just as a vehicle for focus/clarity but not actually the point of focus similar to breathing meditation

That's not necessarily what I was talking about, but good that you bring it up, because that is in fact the case.
You can use anything as a meditation object. The more important thing is your approach, and mindset in meditation. Not so much the mediation object itself.

>>7985836
a good mantra could be "rama, rama, rama," or if you want somthing more congenial, you can use alternativly, "allah,allah, allah," or "jesus, jesus, jesus", speaking nonsence syllobals like "coco cola, or pizza pizza as that one fellow suggested, will give the same results as the ecoh of those words have no relivence and are just silly somthing with substanial meaning that can burrow into your conscious

>>7986365
"will not" give the same results sorry

>>7986069
>Why focus on selflessness for so long only to run/be pushed out the back door as soon as it opens?
What do you mean by this?

>Then we are all just pawns
Pawns to what/who? You say "the universe", what is "the universe"? Does it have plans?

>As long as there is desire there will be suffering and life without desire would die.
What makes you think desirelessness equals inexistence? Do rocks not exist?

>if that is delusion why isn't dharma delusion.
Indeed.

>I don't feel scared by making choices or indeed not I just like to make the best one I can
You're kind of contradicting yourself. You don't mind making choices, *but* you would always choose the "best" choice if you could; meaning you're not neutral to choices, but subject to them.

>I would prefer knowledge be the driving factor not hope or fear.
And if you could go on without a drive at all?

>If I could do that why would I want to die?
Because to dispell fear means there's always fear to be dispelled. The question isn't why you would want to die, but why would you want to go on living?

>I think there are systems of thought that allow for meaning and given the choice I would rather that.
Then do that.

>upon having achieved enlightenment I could find more use for myself than just dying.
Can't you find use for yourself without enlightenment?

>I know I'm making assumptions on enlightenment but if it were to be my goal I would need some expectation of it.
>If enlightenment is possible then I would like to attain it.
You're thinking of it in the wrong terms. Reflect on the first sentence of my post, and what you could do to others with it.

>I hope I'm not coming across antagonistically I find it interesting and don't get much of a chance to ask questions that will be answered.
Not at all, talking to you is a pleasure to me.

>I could be making huge errors
Don't worry about the words, words ain't shit but hoes and tricks. I don't care about teaching you Buddhism nor think of myself as enough of an authority to, anyway. I'm only interested in seeing how you can solve your problems.

>I can learn and spread dharma if such things were meaningless
What do you mean by meaning? What is or would be meaningful?

>I would like to find my way
You're already on it.

>>7980887
Don't worry about it. Just chop wood and carry water.

>>7984867
I'm a vegan but only because its been shown that when its done properly its way healthier and reduces the risk of developing serious health conditions including cancer. I agree that its right morally but that wouldn't be enough to get me to do it on its own probably.

>>7985290
He had some interesting views and he is worth looking into but its silly to imply that he is an authority on Buddhism or that he refuted it or even that someone who wants to understand Buddhism should read him.

>>7985797
I used to be way into it but its been years since I did it often. I plan on starting to get back into it though. Retreats at S.N. Goenka Vipassana centers are free and are good stuff, you don't need to take it too seriously for it to be good, part of why its great is that 99.9% of people would never be able to do that much meditation of their volition.

>>7985068
I can't speak for other religions/traditions but within Buddhism that is a relatively correct description. The common western idea of there being a force that rewards good deeds and punishes bad ones within the lifetime of the person who commits them has nothing to do with Buddhism as Buddha taught it. According to how he taught it, Karma has to do with the two directions of attachment to existence/false sense of self and the detachment and liberation from it. One of the major parts of trying to attain enlightenment in the Buddhist sense is to cease taking any actions or thoughts that generate karmic effects - with that in this case meaning something where you start to have cravings/desire or something that attaches you to the sense of self/existence.

An example would be walking and it starts to rain heavily and one generates karmic effects by thinking "uh-oh I dislike rain, I don't want myself to get wet and cold because its not pleasurable and now I want to be dry". That generates karma because it involves you thinking in terms of your self and desire/dislike/fear. The way to not generate any karma would be to simply accept that its now raining without having anxious thoughts or cravings of dryness.

This is largely where the common misconception comes from of Buddhism being nihilist, about denying/killing the self, or being about no action and not doing anything at all. People who haven't taken the time to read about and understand it don't get that you can still have an active lifestyle and participate in many different sorts of activities while following Buddhist precepts to the letter as long as you go about them and everything else in a way that does not generate karma, and that doing this can be be blissful and liberating rather being miserable and self-denying.

>>7986860
>What do you mean by this?
Having learned and become the embodiment of selflessness it seems odd or counterintuitive to leave everything else behind in sansara. Not to stay in some way and help. A Buddha shouldn't fear sansara and should have immeasurable patience so why go when there is so much to be done? Does nirvana become a desire which is given into and undo a Buddha's efforts?

>Pawns to what/who? You say "the universe", what is "the universe"? Does it have plans?
Pawns was a poor choice of word sorry. I don't mean we are being played or used to some end but that we are somewhat helpless to our fate which is brought about by the machinations of karma, which when factored in across the universe would be highly chaotic and random. By the universe I mean everything that exists. I wouldn't say it has plans but it has more than enough order to it that will heavily dictate and weigh upon an individual's thoughts and actions.

>What makes you think desirelessness equals inexistence? Do rocks not exist?
I mean that life without desire would die as it would have no reason live. It wouldn't eat, drink, breathe to fulfil it's requirements for life never mind more advanced ones. A rock exists but I would say it has perhaps less depth or potential to it's existence than a living being. It can be many things to many people but a person even more so.

>Indeed.
If the truth comes from delusion then everything is delusion. There would be no enlightenment or if so it could come from any source but does that not mean most, or even all, Buddhists could be following the wrong path?

>You're kind of contradicting yourself. You don't mind making choices, *but* you would always choose the "best" choice if you could; meaning you're not neutral to choices, but subject to them.
If I cook too much food for myself that will spoil I could bin it or share it. Whilst there are circumstances that could make sharing it have negative consequences with appropriate consideration I could share it and help people. This seems to me the better choice in most scenarios which doesn't make binning the food wrong but still an inferior choice. To be neutral in all choices seems potentially ignorant, lazy and cruel. Is it not a central idea in Buddhism to make the better choices until they simply become your behaviour? To spend time learning, meditating and helping others.

Cont.

>>7987483
>And if you could go on without a drive at all?
I suppose I would continue on the same but unquestioningly, though to do so seems irresponsible.

>Because to dispell fear means there's always fear to be dispelled. The question isn't why you would want to die, but why would you want to go on living?
To help people find their way. If everyone were fearless and full of love then fear would quickly be extinguished upon it's resurfacing. As the world grew more understanding and less fearful higher rebirth could become increasingly common. There are many things to enjoy in life and more than can be enjoyed in any one lifetime.

>Can't you find use for yourself without enlightenment?
Of course, what I mean is with enlightenment would come a level of understanding that would allow for better choices.

>You're thinking of it in the wrong terms. Reflect on the first sentence of my post, and what you could do to others with it.
Well there are mentions of omniscience and such and with that maybe it all becomes clear but a Buddha would surely have characteristics that would be beneficial to someone or thing.

>What do you mean by meaning? What is or would be meaningful?
Helpful, I suppose. Acts of kindness and those that lead myself and others to higher levels of perception and thinking

>>7987483
>A Buddha shouldn't fear sansara and should have immeasurable patience so why go when there is so much to be done?
The Buddha didn't just go, so again, you're asking him to be more than he was, even though what he was was what you wanted him to be. Your problem is a difference of grade and not kind.

>By the universe I mean everything that exists.
Does that not include you?

>I wouldn't say it has plans but it has more than enough order to it that will heavily dictate and weigh upon an individual's thoughts and actions.
And yet you can still easily subvert those "dictates". You can go hungry if you want, and you can't break the law if you want--that there are consequences to that is another thing, and those consequences are also subject to being changed or stopped.

>It wouldn't eat, drink, breathe to fulfil it's requirements for life never mind more advanced ones.
Requirements and desire needn't be the same thing. A machine does not desire to be plugged, yet it needs it to function. Desire is not a physical thing.

>If the truth comes from delusion then everything is delusion.
>Buddhists could be following the wrong path?
(See pic.)

>To be neutral in all choices seems potentially ignorant, lazy and cruel.
You're again confusing neutrality with aversion and apathy. Your actions in the scenario, though, were perfectly deattached.

>to do so seems irresponsible
How so? Because you lack a justification?

>If everyone were fearless and full of love then fear would quickly be extinguished upon it's resurfacing. As the world grew more understanding and less fearful higher rebirth could become increasingly common.
You are warring for peace, then, thinking that it being for peace makes it not warring.

>what I mean is with enlightenment would come a level of understanding that would allow for better choices.
Better choices for what? There's no absolute "better". Breathing inside water will only kill you faster.

>a Buddha would surely have characteristics that would be beneficial to someone or thing.
Generalities, assumptions, expectations.

How is attaining nothing useful? Think of it. Think, if a man has nothing, and it makes him content, what is happening?

>Acts of kindness and those that lead myself and others to higher levels of perception and thinking
And why would you want to be on a higher level? What do you think is there that you want? Think of it in physical terms first. Don't think "this is necessary", nothing is just necessary (on its own).

>>7980887
1. The "soul" is a stream of karmic consciousness. This carries over between lives, where our false-self dies and we are reborn.
2. You need good karma to achieve enlightenment. Doing bad things gets you sent to hell or reincarnated as shit
3. Your stream of karma becomes free of the reincarnation cycle. This is enlightenment.

Your questions have a very hinayana slant to them so I tried to answer them with that system. I am more experienced with Mahayana theology.

The Buddha said not to bother with metaphysics. What are you newbies arguing about?

>>7987625
>The Buddha didn't just go, so again, you're asking him to be more than he was, even though what he was was what you wanted him to be. Your problem is a difference of grade and not kind.
He died of old age and left sansara and those in it, supposedly he said he could have lived 1000 years if asked to. I had to google difference of grade and it took me to stuff about devas I'm not sure if that's the direction you're pointing?

>Does that not include you?
Of course, I'm not really sure where you're going with that though.

>And yet you can still easily subvert those "dictates". You can go hungry if you want, and you can't break the law if you want--that there are consequences to that is another thing, and those consequences are also subject to being changed or stopped.
>Requirements and desire needn't be the same thing. A machine does not desire to be plugged, yet it needs it to function. Desire is not a physical thing.

How easy it would depend entirely upon my current life and the beings around me and the karma of everything at that moment, which could make things impossible for countless rebirths.

>(See pic.)
I think I understand the concept I just find it unfulfilling and unfounded.

>>7988312
>You're again confusing neutrality with aversion and apathy. Your actions in the scenario, though, were perfectly deattached.
To be completely neutral of all options in all situations could not be functional within the rules of Buddhism. To make a baby stop crying someone could comfort it, feed it, smother it in blankets, shut it in a cupboard or throw it out the window. There are several choices for any situation in which you are a part of and there is a degree of appropriateness to the response. To be completely neutral to any of the options for countless situations suggests a lack of compassion.

>to do so seems irresponsible
>How so? Because you lack a justification?
Yes. To walk the wrong path and lead others down it is no act of kindness. It would be a cult. Questions are probably more important than answers.

>You are warring for peace, then, thinking that it being for peace makes it not warring.
If making effort is warring then even meditation becomes warring.

>Better choices for what? There's no absolute "better". Breathing inside water will only kill you faster.
Better choices of action and as you progress along the path I would say your interpretation of what to do in a situation would improve. There is perhaps no absolute best but there is often a better option.

>a Buddha would surely have characteristics that would be beneficial to someone or thing.
>Generalities, assumptions, expectations.
Upon which Buddhism is built, no?

>How is attaining nothing useful? Think of it. Think, if a man has nothing, and it makes him content, what is happening?
I don't think it is particularly useful. If nothing is a better place for him to be then good for him but him sitting in his nothing does not seem to me to be the point. It might protect him from suffering but it shows no care for others suffering past that which immediately concerns him.

>And why would you want to be on a higher level? What do you think is there that you want? >Think of it in physical terms first. Don't think "this is necessary", nothing is just necessary (on its own).
To put or see an end to sansara or at least achieve more towards that end and the occasional person popping off to nirvana at the end of their life wouldn't change this. Alternatively as I said earlier to bring more love and take some fear from the world. Imagine you were staying a 6* hotel room in Guantanamo bay, could you sleep well if the guy next door was being waterboarded every 15 minutes because he got a shitty rebirth? If nirvana is nothing then it seems a little like just putting in ear plugs and going to sleep which seems a strange way to finish a life that would lead to nirvana or enlightenment. To go from mindfulness and selflessness to what could be construed as reward or ignorance. Then perhaps it's unavoidable.

Idk, I need to read more and think about it but I have more pressing delusions to attend to just now. Thanks for the replies.

>>7986076
then reflect on you life so far: when were you happy? were you thoughts, speeches and actions worth taken seriously back then, just as you take them seriously today?
what fruits do your thoughts, speeches, actions have today?
what fruits do the what fruits do your thoughts, speeches, actions of other people have today, compared to the goals set by these same people?
are your thoughts, speeches, actions today the same as decades ago?
are your likes and dislikes the same as decades ago?
is it worth it to act on these thoughts, speeches, actions ?

it is better to strive to stay equanimous towards your thoughts, speeches, actions ?

>>7988523
Grasshopper ask too many questions. Sit and be still.

>this thread

Can women be buddhist?

>>7988312
>I'm not sure if that's the direction you're pointing?
No. What you're saying is that the Buddha wasn't "good", but that he wasn't "good enough", and by this you're saying he was "good" but not "truly good", which makes no sense.

To echo Max Stirner: you're spooked;
to quote Parmenides: "either it is or it is not";
and if you asked Zhuangzi: "The wise man looks into space and does not regard the small as too little, nor the great as too big, for he knows that, there is no limit to dimensions."

>I'm not really sure where you're going with that though.
You and your physical self aren't separate, and you can choose not to be coerced by it, no? Then you and your physical universe aren't separate, and you can choose not to be coerced by it, no?

>which could make things impossible for countless rebirths.
Well yes. You can't teach a grasshopper to meditate. And again, how to save those that don't want to be saved?

>I just find it unfulfilling and unfounded.
That's because you're trying to fulfill and found something with it (it being NOTHING)! The point is for you to understand that you're doing this even on things which could never do it!

>To walk the wrong path and lead others down it is no act of kindness.
How do you go from no justification to a lack of kindness? Do you consider evil to be justified? What would you do if you found reality to be a lie?

>If making effort is warring then even meditation becomes warring.
It can be. But you're confusing effort with action.

>There is perhaps no absolute best but there is often a better option.
And if for reaching for the best option, you avoided the easy second best, failed, and got the worst? Knowing isn't always better.

>Upon which Buddhism is built, no?
Yes. Which is why the Buddha stressed that people should see for themselves.

>It might protect him from suffering but it shows no care for others suffering past that which immediately concerns him.
Again, a man has limits. You can't reach those people that are at the other side of the universe. Concentrate on what you can do, not on what-ifs. And second, a man does not exist in isolation. If one man stops suffering then that is still one man less, and the world is holistically change--this is a difference of kind, as any real difference is.

>could you sleep well if the guy next door was being waterboarded every 15 minutes because he got a shitty rebirth?
I would help him if it was in my power; otherwise, nobody is helped by me feeling bad about it--asking the impossible of myself would be like asking it of anybody else, and that would be prejudice, because my person is a person just like any other.

>If nirvana is nothing then it seems a little like just putting in ear plugs and going to sleep which seems a strange way to finish a life that would lead to nirvana or enlightenment. To go from mindfulness and selflessness to what could be construed as reward or ignorance. Then perhaps it's unavoidable.
Not sure what you mean by this.

>>7988318
>I need to read more and think about it
You don't need to do anything! Stop. thinking. like. that. Just try it.

>Thanks for the replies.
Thanks for the questions.

>>7988753
That is one adorable cat. Looks a lot like mine.

>>7988802
Not with that attitude!

>>7988982
>You can't teach a grasshopper to meditate

If you are interested in more than just a popular viewpoint on Buddhist ethics, I'd suggest checking out the Journal of Buddhist Ethics:
http://www.globethics.net/web/journal-of-buddhist-ethics/journal-overview

Note that it is an open access journal, which means that the articles are free and online, though they are typically somewhat scholarly. I read some papers from it back in the '90's when I was in Zen priest training and interested in the topic. As I recall, at a very high level, one difference between Buddhist ethics and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethics is that Buddhist ethics is situational while JCI ethics is very much normative.

>>7988753
nah, its more like this

>>7988312
>>7988318
>>7988982

When people get into these long and drawn out arguments/debates where you greentext every sentence the other person makes and try to take it apart instead of addressing the whole post and then do it back and forth a bunch of times it really shits up the thread.

>>7989812
Interesting, any suggestable starting point?

>>7989831
Indiana Jones?

bump

>>7980887
Since this is a buddhism thread, let me ask this. As far as I understand, with the meditational practice one gradually comes to a state of mind where nothing (pleasure, pain, etc) particularly matters, apart from the core values of Buddha's teachings, whatever they are.

The question is, what would be the result for the very same meditational techniques applied by someone who has different religious beliefs, or no beliefs at all? Let's assume the person succeeds in his practices.

>>7991263
Prayer can be a form of meditation. Calm, deep thought and promote feelings of openness and contentedness.

Depends on what you mean by succeeds though. In terms of Buddhism the meditation would be beneficial to the person and they may start coming to similar conclusions and question and perhaps reject their faith in that life or another as the meditation would influence a positive rebirth.

Buddhism politely rejects all other beliefs but I think everyone can benefit from meditation.

>>7988982

I think we make and have to make assumptions of Buddhas, Nirvana and Enlightenment or they wouldn't help and if they don't help then the Buddha himself has hobbled the Buddhist faith into sansara. If there were only one Buddha then he says no human can understand nirvana, I'm well familiar with ideas of infinity, zero and dimensions but I will not know nirvana unless I achieve it. I think the Buddha's apparant actions fail to live up to some expectations. From brief overview it would seem I would be pushed more to the Mahayana side of things and yourself Theravada but I don't make either as firm claims.

I would consider myself and my body to be both joined and seperate and what is the difference between being content with nothing and being content by helping others find nothing/nirvana/enlightenment? It doesn't fit that deattachment comes at the cost of compassion. Again it comes back to the well none of it really matters anyway because nothing is nothing is nothing argument in which case why not just leave the thing alone and let the pratyebuddhas roll through?

If you can't verify or justify your path then it could be wrong and leading yourself or others down the wrong path could forsake their own chances of progress which is not a compassionate or considerate act. I don't think I am confusing effort and action, to try and fail isn't wrong but to be enlightened would, under my assumptions and readings, make the better choice the natural choice. My body might be a man but I am not and should I become enlightened then some of my limits should change though not necessarily physically.

I currently place a larger degree of value in compassion and positive action than in a contentedly empty mind. I would face sansara again to help others. The motivation in leaving doesn't seem patient, selfless or mindful but perhaps it is not a choice. The Buddha and Sangha go off to nirvana and leave the suffering behind along with all those in it.

>>7990319
Happy?

>>7984867
I'm a carnivore, and a carnivore that doesn't give a shit about non-sentient beings' suffering at that.

That said, growing plants is a great amount more efficient by-the-pound than growing animals, and overpopulation could be curbed by switching to a diet that leads to more-efficient agriculture. Vegetarianism is ultimately better for all of us, but it certainly doesn't satisfy my hedonistic cravings for USDA-prime steak or sushi, so I don't give a shit.

>>7984867
Veganism for personal reasons I can understand, but thinking it will save the world is polishing the brass on the Titanic tier.

>>7990319
You better not complain there is no in depth discussion on this site later on.

>>7991857
I think you're focusing too much on the words. You're trying to reach a reality that is faithful to ideas or concepts (or viceversa), but don't see that there is a fundamental mistake in that--because the two types of information, abstracted and raw, aren't supposed to be the same thing, and so lonc as the can be recognized as different, they will remain separate. See, the use of words is that they AREN'T what they describe; to ask of them to be otherwise is not only unwarranted, but also placing enterily too much blind belief on them.

Words aren't right or wrong.

>>7992105
I understand that words are limited in expression. I sometimes try to coax the silences that operate behind my conscious and more communicable inner voice into revealing something or communicating in a more intelligible way; I've felt things but even if I have made inroads my inner voice certainly doesn't yet know how to describe it and might never.

Entering deeper into our own stream of thought and consciousness might be a seemingly Sissyphian task and even mundane thoughts can be difficult to explain or comprehend entirely or partially. I am reliant upon words and actions to communicate with others and much of myself there is no way around it as of yet.

>>7985797

10 years.

Hated it for the first two, but I used it to better my concentration (undiagnosed ADD), it worked in that sense, and I learn a lot of things from it to this day.

It's tricky, not always "fun," and at least one of my friends had to give it up out of some hardships after the first few years.

You get to understand some things that are not that easy to digest, but if you keep mindfulness and equanimity with that part of the process, a lot if things become better in your life.

>>7992412
Again, you're thinking there's a better word to describe it, my point is that your words are going to fail no matter what. There's no correct or incorrect way of expression. That they fell better, does not make them reality.

>>7991263
In the dhamma, the jhanas are here to make you understand that your mind and you wish to take it seriously is a drag to your happiness, far before your body and your five senses (before you react to their input, to speak as a realist).

Plenty of people good at jhanas refuse to go on the side of the dhamma, and choose to remain on the side of hedonism.

The good news is that hedonism through the jhanas is far better than the hedonism through the body; and that once you get good at the jhanas, it is easier for you to swap to the dhamma, if you know what to look for. Once you are good at the jhanas, Knowing what to look for is not easy, when you never heard of the dhamma, but it is easy once you heard of it, because you need to reflect less about it, and when you indeed want to see it.

Now, regarding the other doctrines. Plenty of people love to claim that they are not hedonist, through the body, or even claim that they are religious.
It appears that once you refuse to indulge into hedonism of the body, there remains only the hedonism of the mind, spirit, soul, consciousness, the jhanas.

then once you see that the jahanas are not the end of the story, you seek a way to get rid of them.

>>7992775
Ah, yeah, this is the book I've been using. It's good. From the description of the latest meditational stages, I can see that it leads to realisation of emptiness of any external stimuli, be they positive or negative. Since one perceives them as such, one may then choose to ignore them if he wishes so. That's great.

The problem is with my philosophical alignment, which is, more or less, materialism leading to absurdism. In this framework said external stimuli are, essentially, everything a person has, so getting rid of them will be just a really fancy method of a suicide. Of course, I may (and probably will) not choose to go this far in the practices, but these thoughts confuse me anyway.

>>7993328
>so getting rid of them will be just a really fancy method of a suicide.
indeed, but any terror stems from you taking seriously what you must not: your mental proliferation, your views, your deliriums.

>>7993372
That's not about terror, that's about a decision of whether one should commit suicide or not. Terror is another story. Do you mean that whatever reasons one has to live, apart from emotional attachment and fears, will still be there after the enlightenment? And if one had none, than nothing of value will be lost, so to speak?

>>7980981
Buddhism emerged from the same fold. There wasn't such a hard distinction as seen in the West. Buddhism was one of many heterodox (non-Vedic) sects operating in India.

As for OP's question: look into the doctrine of Advaita, from which Buddhism has extracted a lot. The tldr is that the universe and the soul are non-dual (in Sanskrit you'll find this a lot- positive words are presented in terms of their negatives, non-violence, non-duality, non-attachment).

My advise to anyone reading into Buddhism though, is to go to the fountainhead: the sayings of the Buddha. If you want to practise it, there is nothing more than wholly imbibing the Ashtangika Marg (eight-fold path) and Arya Satya (four truths). Good luck!

>>7992775
>>7993328
What book?

>>7993500
The Mind Illuminated

>>7993596
Thanks.

>>7992760
I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe there has to be a word nor did I say what I felt or that it was necessarily real or valuable; but I, and to my understanding the Buddha's teachings, assume or believe that progress or change of some form is possible, that we are able to walk the path, and if it occurs it must do so in some way, even if it's largely or entirely indiscernable/incommunicable to my current consciousness. In time that knowledge might appear to me it might not but effort to search for it seems to me to be part of the very essence of enlightenment and Buddhism.

>>7994010
I'm honestly lost. What do you want?

>>7993629
once more

>>7994224

>>7994048
My immediate response was "I don't know" and then "enlightenment". I'm just exploring and cultivating my thoughts in a suitable place. I'm thinking and learning as I go.

>>7987408
With regards to the last part od your post, where would the impetus for enganging in those activities come from? I could understand things like excercise that would do well for your body, but what about outside that? Wouldnt you need to desire an activity?

>>7994251
But why would you want enlightenment? What do you think it entails that is lacking in your life? (I know we're retreading ground, but it seems the only way to move on.)

>>7980887
There only is self and the extension of the self.

>>7981623
3.5 for life.

>>7996295
I don't have currently have the time to retrace those steps in detail here but I think you should find much of my reasoning above. People here are suggesting the path I am drawn to is strange or wrong but it seems quite like the boddhisattva path.

If given the choice why wouldn't you seek enlightenment?

>>7996544
>If given the choice why wouldn't you seek enlightenment?
It's a moot point, in my opinion. People alawys seek to do good, by its definition; it's what good means that is important, because it's different to everyone.

>>7996608
If it's a moot point then so is yours, our dialogue and Buddhism. I have reasons for wanting to seek it you don't give any for not. People do not always seek to do good. People commit bad thoughts and actions everyday of varying severity for a variety of reasons and it can be intentional or not. I either don't understand your last sentence or you contradict yourself by defining good then saying it is entirely subjective/relative. Enlightenment should bring truth and clarity to see through clouded judgement. In the light of truth you would see things as they really are and act in accordance.

>>7996802
>I have reasons for wanting to seek it you don't give any for not.
But you haven't given me any, it feels like. You're just talking about doing good metaphysically, generally. I want to know your concrete reasons, they seem necessary to me, even if there's no reason for it to end at that.

>People do not always seek to do good.
I disagree. People want to be pleased, that that can mean a lot of things does not change what it is. Some might find pleasure in pain, some in a bodily or a mental pleasure, some might want stillness, but they always follow what they think they should have.

bvokmp

>>7997249
Bring more love into the world and reduce fear. If the concept of helping people confuses you perhaps you should try it or at least consider the differences you could make or have made in someone elses life or vice versa. With the right insight into the situation it should be possible to do this better and more often. Seeking enlightenment is a way of coming closer to truth. I don't think I can help everyone but I can try to make the best of my abilities.

People universally want to be happy but that doesn't mean they are or know how. Many don't find pleasure in pain and can feel their only options are painful or undesirable. Fear controls their actions; it drives them to anger, hatred, greed, confusion etc. and further loss of control. Have you never lost your temper or seen someone else do so? Have you ever seen someone have a breakdown? Do you think the victimised and exploited are happy? I know I have intentionally committed acts I thought/knew were wrong and I doubt I know anyone who hasn't. While the outcome of my wrong action could very well have turned out okay my thoughts and actions were still wrong. Bad habits can be hard to see especially in terms of thoughts. There is right and wrong and even amidst the turmoil of everyones subjective experience, perception and reaction there is always truth no matter how impossible it might be to see or understand. I've said in earlier posts how I can see that truth can ultimately be a delusion but until we walk the path and know it I doubt we can dispel it.

As an incredibly mundane and trivial example; today on the the way to an exam I was reading notes on the bus and there was a can rolling very noisily about the floor. I got really quite annoyed by the noise and the fact that something as simple as not littering or at least wedging it somewhere had been too much effort for the owner. I noticed my annoyance and knew how silly it was and it passed and when the annoyance had passed I could think of several reasons why someone might've left the can by accident or otherwise. Still though I could've picked up the can or wedged it between the 2 empty seats in front of me and binned it when I got off but I didn't. It doesn't bother me that I didn't but on reflection I know I could have done a little better.

>>7998684
>If the concept of helping people confuses you perhaps you should try it or at least consider the differences you could make or have made in someone elses life or vice versa.
I'm not a robot Anon, please!

>People universally want to be happy but that doesn't mean they are or know how.
I'm not so sure about that, at least not today.

>Many don't find pleasure in pain and can feel their only options are painful or undesirable.
Masochism is more common than you think. Our society seems at times seems to me like it is built on interchanging effort, stress and pain.

>Fear controls their actions; it drives them to anger, hatred, greed, confusion etc. and further loss of control.
I'd say fear makes those emotions accumulate; out of fear of a little anger or confusion people save those things until they explode (or implode).

Have you ever listened to Jiddu Krishnamurti btw? He talks about fear quite powerfully.

>Have you ever seen someone have a breakdown?
I think so, at least first hand.

>Do you think the victimised and exploited are happy?
They're not sad at all times.

>There is right and wrong and even amidst the turmoil of everyones subjective experience, perception and reaction there is always truth no matter how impossible it might be to see or understand.
See, you're going to drive yourself crazy like that, because you're aiming for what you know is impossible.

>until we walk the path and know it I doubt we can dispel it.
"A path is made by walking it."

>It doesn't bother me that I didn't but on reflection I know I could have done a little better.
See you knew exactly what you should have done! As for reasons, you've gathered them for years and trained your mind accordingly, and our society gives you a wealth of them, so use reason as you go.

See, the whole thing about Buddhism, to my knowledge, is that you can't hold on to things--not to the body, not to the mind. The path you seek you won't find, not there not anywhere. Nothing can be attained or lost. There's no way for you to win or lose the game, so don't hold on to anything because it won't save you, it will only make you suffer and drag you down. One might get the idea that life then will pass on like it's nothing, but not only that isn't exactly true, but what is the problem? Would you not like to find yourself tomorrow on your death bed, like you had just woked up, and start reminiscing all the good and bad times? At my worst time always seemed to come to a complete stop; it was only on those interminable moments that life didn't seem enough, in contrast. I'd rather live my life fastly but swiftly and delicate, than tumbling down at every step; how about you?

>>7998684
As an addendum:

I've often wondered how it is that animals specially little ones, manage to live in the wild. Small birds more than anything. And yesterday, while looking at a little green parrot on a flexible branch it came to me: the bird does not trust nor mistrust the branch (to hold its weight), but is only concerned with itself, and would move instantly if it breaks, or reamin there if it doesn't. The (matter of the) branch's resistance it leaves to the branch.