Buddhist metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14800091]

>"Void > Atman."
> t. Gautama Buddha

Why though?

[Anonymous No.14800101]

>>14800091
Apophaticism > Cataphaticism

[Anonymous No.14800113]

>>14800091
Synchronicity>quintessentiality

[Anonymous No.14800117]

>>14800091
Hyperbole>Homogenization

[Anonymous No.14800118]

Gay > straight

[Anonymous No.14800168]

>>14800091
Being straight > being OP

[Anonymous No.14800191]

>>14800113
Are those two somehow opposed? If so, I’m very interested to hear how

[Anonymous No.14800465]

>>14800091
cringe > based

[Anonymous No.14801472]

>>14800091
Void and Atman are the same thing retard. Read Theory

[Anonymous No.14801583]

>>14800191
I just wrote two semi-related abstract qualities to parrot, lol. Though I could probably argue the fact if you like, since its not necessarily wrong when we get to concepts like these.

[Anonymous No.14801625]

>>14800091
Buddhist metaphysics doesn’t exist. Just learn about hibduism instead, the one that wasn’t created for atheists.

[Anonymous No.14801941]

>>14801625
But buddhism isn't atheist they pray to a statue?

[Anonymous No.14802032]

>>14801472
>Void and Atman are the same
lmfao. no?

[Anonymous No.14802787]

>>14801941
Buddhism manages to impressive feat of being fedoraic atheist and idolater polytheist at the same time.

[Anonymous No.14802953]

>>14801941
Popular Buddhism is just the people's native religion overlayed with a thin and superficial dress of Buddhism, like Catholicism in the West.

[Anonymous No.14802959]

>Emptiness = Void

[Anonymous No.14803008]

>>14802787
>Buddhism manages to impressive feat of being fedoraic atheist
Nope, it rejects materialism and annihilationism via its dismissal of the Carvaka school

>idolater polytheist at the same time.
deity worship is only prevalent in LARPy chink sects, most buddhists just prostrate to Buddha the same way Christians prostrate to the cross

[Anonymous No.14803013]

>>14801625
>Hindu metaphysics

[Anonymous No.14803026]

>>14803013
idolatry truly damages the brain...

[Anonymous No.14803038]

>>14803013
MILKY MILKY WARM AND TASTY!

MOMMY! MILKY! PLEASE BE HASTY!

REFRESHING DRINK FROM MOMMY'S UDDERS!

I WANT MOMMY'S AND NO OTHER'S!

GIVE IT! GIVE IT! GIVE IT NOW!

GIVE ME MILKY, LAZY SOW!

UNTIL YOU DO I'LL SCREAM I'LL SHOUT!

I'M CRY I'LL WHINE AND STOMP ABOUT!

UNTIL MY BELLY IS FULL AND HAPPY!

I REFUSE TO TAKE A NAPPY!

[Anonymous No.14803051]

>>14803013
>>14803026
Based raised Protestant Western Buddhists (aka atheist LARPers).
True religions give rise to authentic art and symbolism, if nothing else, unlike false religions like Protestantism and Western Buddhism (atheism), which despise images and worship only concepts.

[Anonymous No.14803211]

>>14800091
You need realization to know there's nothing wrong and undesirable about extinction, void, non-perception etc.

>>14803051
>theist larper encouraging people to go back to bronze age of understanding of the world

[Anonymous No.14804123]

>>14800101
The Upanishads from both before and after Buddha make use of apophatism extensively
>>14800091
Buddha never said Nirvana was a void, that's an interpretation that latter Buddhists invented which has become popular with modern western buddhists who are often nilihist and/or materialist.
>>14803211
>You need realization to know there's nothing wrong and undesirable about extinction, void, non-perception etc.
Can you please stop projecting your nihilist beliefs onto Buddhism please? The Buddha rebuked the claim that he taught an extinction or annihilation of the self or of everything. Buddha never denied that there was a self and he described Nirvana as an unborn and eternal state of bliss, not as emptiness.

[Anonymous No.14804830]

>>14804123
>The Buddha rebuked the claim that he taught an extinction or annihilation of the self or of everything.
True. It was assertion born out of usefulness, not metaphysical correctness.
>Those recluses and divines who make known the annihilation, perishing, and un-being, of the existing creature,—they, through fear of perssonality, through loathing of personality, are simply running and circling around personality. Just, indeed, as a dog, tied with a leash to a firm post or stake, runs and circles around that same post or stake, so these recluses and divines, through fear of personality, through loathing of personality, are simply running and circling around personality.
Majjhima xi,2 <M.ii,232>

>state of bliss
Nibbana is not a bliss and has nothing to do with 'self':
>he recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.
>What is the reason for this?
>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1

>The venerable Sāriputta said this:—It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! When this was said, the venerable Udāyi said to the venerable Sāriputta,—But what herein is pleasant, friend Sāriputta, since herein there is nothing felt?—Just this is pleasant, friend, that herein there is nothing felt.
Anguttara IX,iv,3 <A.iv,414>

[Anonymous No.14805792]

>>14804123
>Buddha never said Nirvana was a void
neither did latter Buddhists. Emptiness =! Nothingness.

[Anonymous No.14805800]

>>14805792
fuck off

[Anonymous No.14805806]

>fuck off

[Anonymous No.14805847]

>>14800465
very bold

[Anonymous No.14806629]

>>14804830
>Nibbana is not a bliss and has nothing to do with 'self':

I didn't say Nirvana was "a bliss" I said it was a state of bliss. Buddha describes Nirvana as a base in this Sutta below although I have seen the word base here translated elsewhere as a state

>There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air;
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.irel.html

and this state or base of Nirvana he describes elsewhere with a list of adjectives, beginning with calm and permanent and ending with bliss. I never said that Nirvana was had anything to do with self.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-043

[Anonymous No.14806640]

>>14805792
> Emptiness =! Nothingness.
Buddha never used emptiness in relation to Nirvana in the way that Nagarjuna did, never in the PC does Buddha say that Nirvana itself is empty of existence/reality

[Anonymous No.14806861]

>>14806640
yes I agree, I was just pointed out that later buddhists never meant 'Void' in itself when explaining Emptiness, which means just empty of own-being (svabhava).

[Anonymous No.14806934]

>>14800101
thread should have ended here

[Anonymous No.14806958]

>>14803013
Kek

[Anonymous No.14806973]

>>14801472
>"Void and Atman are the same thing"
>anatman and atman are the same thing
People like you shouldn't be allowed to own property

[Anonymous No.14806980]

What’s a very accessible intro to Nagarjuna’s philosophy? Even if it oversimplifies things, that’s ok. I just want something basic.

[Anonymous No.14807018]

>>14806980
>I just want something basic.
Well, that's Nagarjuna and all of Buddhism for you. An oversimplified basic reading of the Advaitic Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.14807035]

>>14807018
>Advaitic Upanishads.
no such thing.

All principle upanishads promote a variety of positions since they were authored by different sages.

[Anonymous No.14807042]

>>14806980
Read Shankara's wiki, remove Atman and replace Brahman with Emptiness.

[Anonymous No.14807048]

>>14807018
>what's an intro to x?
>well ive never read x but it's very important for you to know that i don't like it and instead prefer y

[Anonymous No.14807050]

>>14807042
kek

[Anonymous No.14807082]

>>14807035
>authored by different sages
Non-dually speaking, they were all written down by Shankaracharya who later merely explicated them to defeat the Buddhist perversion of them.

[Anonymous No.14807127]

>>14806980
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.14807146]

I liked the Lotus Sutra

That's Mahayana though

[Anonymous No.14807159]

>>14800091
https://discord.gg/E22wu2Y

[Anonymous No.14807231]

>>14807082
cringe...

[Anonymous No.14807265]

>>14800091
>Buddhist metaphysics
that's not buddhism though

[Anonymous No.14808435]

>>14806980
I'd highly recommend "Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction" by Jan Westerhoff.

[Anonymous No.14809401]

>>14807042
see >>14807048