Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 122 KB, 444x500, wombrealmmandala.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14966389 No.14966389 [Reply] [Original]

What are the most widespread/most severe misconceptions deracinated westerners have about buddhism?

>> No.14966405
File: 354 KB, 900x601, E398E091-35A5-46F9-92B3-BBC21379D898.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14966405

that the buddah is a god you worship, wonder how they got that dumb idea

>> No.14966477

>>14966389
that buddhism has no gods at all and is more of a "Philosophy"

>> No.14966484

>>14966389
that it is not a heterodox sect of hinduism with revolutionary intentions

>> No.14966486

>>14966405
By applying western-centric strata of categorizing the concept of religion onto unrelated "religions".

>> No.14966489

>>14966405
Kek

>> No.14966524

>>14966389
read 'MahaPrajnaParamita-Sastra' by Nagarjuna to gain in-depth knowledge about Buddhism

>> No.14966652

>>14966389
That it’s an exotic form of protestantism

>> No.14966674

>>14966389
>it's just a philosophy bro

>> No.14966724
File: 4 KB, 227x222, Evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14966724

>>14966389
That Buddha denied that there was an Atman

>By denying outright the soul, by default, the Theravadins, western ‘scholars’ examining Buddhism, and modern "buddhists" imply that the five aggregates are ultimate. This of course is absurd. They have merely shifted Buddhism to an empiricism by ignoring pro-atman statements. According to them, what is real is what makes sensory knowledge possible, namely, the five aggregates which, ironically, according to the canon, are = Mara, or evil (papa); [SN 3.195] “Mara = five khandhas (empirical self)”. It begs the question to assume that the no-soul doctrine had been established at the beginning of the Buddha’s ministry and that the atman (soul) was, in every respect, an abhorrent term. Still, for such a supposedly abhorrent term, there are innumerable, are countless positive instances of atman used throughout the Nikayas, especially used in compounds which are easily glossed over by a prejudicial commentator and nominalist translators. In meeting these instances, not surprisingly, these same prejudicial translators have erected a theory that the atman is purely a reflexive pronoun.

>The lexical rule that atman (Pali: attan) is to be used strictly in a pronominal fashion, or simply should be used as a signifier for the finite body, is unwarranted. Scholars like C.A.F. Davids, Conze, Humphrey, Schrader, Horner, Pande, Coomarswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sogen, Suzuki, Julius Evola, and Nakamura, just to name some important scholars, disagree with the claim that Buddha categorically denied an eternal (nicca) soul, whose teachings then, would be classified as Annihilationist and Materialist. In fact there are utterly none living or dead who have examined the original texts in detail whilst refraining from sectarian and commentarial explanations and concluded Buddhism has in any way denied the atman thru and by means of the usage of the term anatta or otherwise.

>Modern Buddhism (so-called, not that it is Buddhism in any way) labors under the heinous delusion that from the outset there is no immaterial and ontological soul, or atman in the system of Buddhism and therefore the only logical conclusion from this false premise is that Buddhism is merely a profane moral Humanism based in compassionate empirical idealism, ‘liberation but no Liberant’, and this is palpably false.

http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

>> No.14966771 [DELETED] 

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

>> No.14967113

>>14966724
So much this. When I was first getting into Buddhism I was confused by the idea of anatman and sunyata in the way that westerners describe it, until learning that it more had to do with the egoic self and the interrelated nature of the world.

>> No.14967130 [DELETED] 

>>14966389
That there are no Gods or spirits in Buddhism.

>> No.14967190

>>14966389
>What are the most widespread/most severe misconceptions deracinated westerners have about buddhism?

That it constitutes a "middle path" free from the extremes of asceticism and hedonism, in realty Buddha instructed his followers to abandon all possessions, to remain celibate and to take up a robe and alms bowl and live as a traveling homeless monk only eating two meals a day obtained through begging and not eating after the mid-day meal. In the instructions for monks recorded in the Pali Canon it says that the monks were supposed to constantly be on the move so as to avoid attachment to any one location. You see all this perfectly fits the definition of asceticism and in many cases would be considered more ascetic than most of the various Christian and other western mystics to whom the label ascetic is also given. It's only not asceticism in the sense that the Buddha advocated against the more harsher and extreme types of asceticism practiced by Jains and others involving fasting for weeks and similar practices.

>> No.14967219

>>14966477
Lol but that's literally true if we're talking about it's origins, the mythology was some post hoc shit that came about way after the Buddha's death to appeal to the public

>> No.14967233

The biggest misconception is to think that Buddhism is one unified system of thought which is either for or against:

1.) asceticism and self-denial
2.) Tantric indulgence in sex, psychoactive drugs such as alcohol, and eating meat
3.) a middle way as an ordinary householder who does not fall into either of these extremes
4.) your pains
5.) your pleasures
6.) you

>> No.14967266

>>14967190
>only eating two meals a day obtained through begging and not eating after the mid-day meal
If everyone listened to Buddha and became monks, who'd feed them?

>> No.14967944

>>14967266
>If everyone listened to Buddha and became monks, who'd feed them?
nobody would, and they would all die and forever sail into the NuOblivion that they all dream about, relativist nihilism, non-essentialist disassociative disorder, macbook extinction, silicon valley castration mindfullness eradiction zen suicide reification of lobotomy

>> No.14968547

>>14967944
Take your meds

>> No.14968679

Nice bunch of Yoga teacher tier hot takes you got there, fellow anons.

>> No.14968753

>>14967233
Buddhists literally pray to a statue. It's a fake religion.

>> No.14968756

>>14966724
>That Buddha denied that there was an Atman
He never asserted it's existence either.
>Scholars like C.A.F. Davids, Conze, Humphrey, Schrader, Horner, Pande, Coomarswamy, Radhakrishnan, Sogen, Suzuki, Julius Evola, and Nakamura, just to name some important scholars
Minority of scholars.
>buttblasted blogpost from chinapropagandaencyclopedia
Stop it already, Ken.

>> No.14968816

>>14966389
That buddhism is just meditation or just a philosophy like stoicism

>> No.14968826

>>14968753
Statues are more real than abstractions

>> No.14969194

>>14968826
Demons are also more real than abstractions. Should one pray to them?

>> No.14969239

That it does not have religious practice and for some reason is the most 'open-minded' belief-system.

Buddhism views women as being inferior. It's the most based and redpilled religion.

>> No.14969355

What about Zen Buddhism?

>> No.14969392

>>14969355
still part of mayahana, so still a commentary to some abidhamma, so still an hinduist interpretation of buddhism with brhaman read as Tathagatagarbha

also, said that they do not value scriptures, but ends up creating lots of scripture and rituals just like the hinds.

>> No.14969531

>>14969239
>Buddhism views women as being inferior.
Based. Source? Converting immediately if true.

>> No.14969544

>>14969531
They didn't exactly see them as inferior, Buddha said that they couldn't reach enlightment and their best hope would have been to be reborn as men

>> No.14969595

>>14969194
Stop being a christcuck. You're making us all cringe.

>> No.14969734

>>14968756
>"You, monks, should not thus cultivate the notion (samjna) of impermanence, suffering and non-Self, the notion of impurity and so forth, deeming them to be the true meaning [of the Dharma], as those people [searching in a pool for a radiant gem but foolishly grabbing hold of useless pebbles, mistaken for priceless treasure] did, each thinking that bits of brick, stones, grass and gravel were the jewel. You should train yourselves well in efficacious means. In every situation, constantly meditate upon [bhavana] the idea [samjna] of the Self, the idea of the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure ... Those who, desirous of attaining Reality [tattva], meditatatively cultivate these ideas, namely, the ideas of the Self [atman], the Eternal, Bliss, and the Pure, will skilfully bring forth the jewel, just like that wise person [who obtained the genuine, priceless gem, rather than worthless detritus misperceived as the real thing.]"

- The Buddha, Chapter Three, "Grief",The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

> "The Tathagata also teaches, for the sake of all beings, that there is, in truth, the Self in all phenomena" (The Buddha in The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Chapter Three).

https://www.nirvanasutra.net/

How will annihilationist non-self fags ever recover? The Buddha himself taught True Self as his final teaching before he achieved Paranirvana, while dismissing annihilationists as deluded fools.

>> No.14969826

>>14969531
The Buddha didn't want nuns and only very reluctantly allowed it. They also have stricter rules than the men and for years and years could not study certain texts. The best they can do is pray to be reborn as a man. It's super redpilled. Gays and trannies are not allowed to be monastics and if you identify as either there's no hope for you.

>> No.14969857

>>14969734
Tathagatagarbha texts are controversial among the broader Buddhist world. Using this esoteric teaching as if it's a universal is careless. Many schools do not agree with it as a canon aspect of the Dharma.

>> No.14969865

>>14968547
Technically he's right though, considering that "existence is pain" is central theme in that system.

>> No.14969874

>>14966389
discord gg /wdQfSq

>> No.14969889

>>14969595
You should be 18+ to visit this site

>> No.14969906

>>14969734
It's Mahayana, and even most of Mahayana schools doesn't agree with this.

>> No.14971061

>Buddhism is purely psychology or philosophy
>No belief in gods, demons, or spirits
>Middle Path = "All things in moderation" *proceeds to drink, do drugs, and have sex but in "moderation"*
>Skips most of the Eightfold Path and go straight to practicing mindfulness meditation
>Thinks reincarnation is a good thing

>> No.14971084

>>14966389
That it is worth a shit.

>> No.14971108

I can't take Madhyamika seriously because what it calls wisdom is the same view every college latte sipping pseud and smelly hippieshit today has, namely woah bro like, you can't have views about anything bro

>> No.14971342

>>14971108

No views in execution is 'peace,' or 'quietude' as the Skeptics called it. Literally Nirvana. Or 'one with God' as some Christians would interpret it. This is the highest teaching.

Just because pseuds speak of it doesn't mean they know it.

>> No.14971360
File: 359 KB, 1297x2377, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14971360

>>14971342
>This is the highest teaching.
or one is just lobotomizing oneself because of a desire to disassociate from existence

>> No.14971391

>>14971360
On the contrary, in that state, reality is more real than ever before.

>> No.14971400
File: 1.07 MB, 1742x2500, 1572224187742.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14971400

>What are the most widespread/most severe misconceptions deracinated westerners have about buddhism?

That it's worth reading about, at all, ever. It's such a shitshow of a religion it's not even funny.
>every sect has their own texts and disagree with the texts of the other sects
>scholars disagree as to what the primary text actually says
>Practicing Buddhist monks are confined away to boring useless and dead traditions that help literally no one and changes nothing
>Because it's such an empty religion it pretty much just conforms to whatever dominant Asiatic culture it finds itself in

While devout Christians gave up everything and moved to Leper colonies to administer to the needs of the poor, Buddhists sit on the sidewalk like a bunch of faggots asking for some fucking rice. While devout Christians wrote symphonies and built churches and painted timeless art, Buddhists just sat there on the sidewalk doing fucking nothing.

It's a shit religion. There's no value in it.

>> No.14971401

>>14971342
>>14971391
Isn’t that view -- a view?

>> No.14971439
File: 107 KB, 500x637, 1553630939555.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14971439

>>14971360
It's actually the desire to completely live with existence as is. Theories and views leads to nothing but antinomies and their entire point lies in trying to explain why reality is something other than what it is experienced as.

The bridge to noumenon is only possible with non-dual knowledge which is necessarily nondiscursive.

>> No.14971452

>>14971439
>Theories and views leads to nothing but antinomies
okay here is my theory, can you show me where the antinomianism is?

1 + 1 = 2

>> No.14971463

>>14971439
>trying to explain why reality is something other than what it is experienced as.
You could say the same about Buddhism.

>> No.14971468

>>14971401
It's not an opinion or position one arrives at with logic (i.e. a view), it's a shift in perception.

>> No.14971485
File: 529 KB, 1800x1117, roerich_buddha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14971485

>>14971401
When one has passed over to the other shore you no longer need the raft that took you there.
It's a tool that aids you in eliminating all views. Once you have done this, that view will also be left behind.

>> No.14971598

>>14971452
That is not a theory.

>> No.14971719

>>14971598
why not?

>> No.14971725

>>14966389
that is is inherently peaceful

>> No.14971770

>>14971598
>all theories end in contradiction and logical antinomianism
>well maybe you could demonstrate that for us skeptics with a little test of this simple proposition and an explanation of how it ends in antinomianism
>uh I actually can't defend such a retarded theory anymore nevermind I'll just move the goal-posts

>> No.14971808
File: 7 KB, 259x194, download (6).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14971808

>>14971485
the symbolism of passing to the other shore beyond darkness pre-dates Buddhism and can be traced to the pre-Buddhist Chandogya Upanishad Verse 7.26.2

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/chandogya-upanishad-english/d/doc239411.html

>> No.14971833

>>14971485
And the 'confusing a rope in a dark room for a snake' appears in the writings of Sextus Empiricus.

What's your point? Samara is an endless cycle.

>> No.14971849

>>14966389
that it is non-violent

>> No.14971898
File: 45 KB, 532x640, GjVEr5il.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14971898

>>14966389
>deracinated
No you must herd yourself into some kind of manufactured mockup of a cultural identity because some heckler began telling you to.

>> No.14971902

>>14971400
>While devout Christians wrote symphonies and built churches and painted timeless art
Well, as a wannabe artist you got me on this, my man. I think I go with cristian misticism.

>> No.14971913

>>14971725
>that is is inherently peaceful
Tell me more. I'm really interested at this.

>> No.14971975

>>14966389
That there is "Buddhism" in the first place. Basically Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana are all different religions.

>> No.14971991

>>14971719
Because Madhyamika admits common sense and consensus as valid enough truths in the Conventional world. 1 + 1 = 2 does not need any further proofs so they wouldn't argue against it. If you wanted to argue for Mathematical Platonism or Mathematical fictionalism etc, or the true existence of the things being summed up, then that would be another thing.

>> No.14972002

>>14971400
>Look, i read an article on Wikipedia! Everyone should see my opinion on things i don't know anything about, because it's so valuable. No, I will not eliminate my ignorance and actually study something.
Go back on /pol/ please.

>> No.14972012
File: 12 KB, 358x410, C174ABEC-5227-4355-B70A-0B481D693E7F.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14972012

>>14971898
t. deracinated

>> No.14972036

>>14971991
>If you wanted to argue for Mathematical Platonism or Mathematical fictionalism etc, or the true existence of the things being summed up, then that would be another thing.
I would argue for the true existence of consciousness

>> No.14972229

>>14972036
>does consciousness exist?
yes.
>does consciousness exist beyond dependence on causes and conditions?
no.

>> No.14972258

>>14972229
Let me ask you something. What happens to a Buddha after they die (paranirvana)?

>> No.14972264

>>14966389
that Mindfulness is all that meditation is, it's only one facet of a much deeper system

>> No.14972287

>>14971400
so much this

>> No.14972297

>>14972229
Here you go again with the moving of the goalposts, the discussion at hand is if something exists or not, and not whether we can possibly ascribe there being causes for the thing in question whereby we can then hypothesis that it is dependent on those causes

>> No.14972383

>>14972229
Also, it cannot be shown that consciousness is dependent on causes and conditions, the immediate fact of consciousness is that it is entirely different from everything else, being so different from any one specific component or causal mechanism it cannot be established that it is in fact dependent on any of them.

"The fact of consciousness is entirely different from everything else. So long as the assemblage of the physical or physiological conditions antecedent to the rise of any cognition, as for instance, the presence of illumination, sense-object contact, etc., is being prepared, there is no knowledge, and it is only at a particular moment that the cognition of an object arises. This cognition is in its nature so much different from each and all the elements constituting the so-called assemblage of conditions, that it cannot in any sense be regarded as the product of any collocation of conditions. Consciousness thus, not being a product of anything and not being further analysable into any constituents, cannot also be regarded as a momentary flashing. Uncaused and unproduced, it is eternal, infinite and unlimited. The main point in which consciousness differs from everything else is the fact of its self-revelation. There is no complexity in consciousness. It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation. The so-called momentary flashing of consciousness is not due to the fact that it is momentary, that it rises into being and is then destroyed the next moment, but to the fact that the objects that are revealed by it are reflected through it from time to time. But the consciousness is always steady and unchangeable in itself. The immediacy of this consciousness is proved by the fact that, though everything else is manifested by coming in touch with it, it itself is never expressed, indicated or manifested by inference or by any other process, but is always self-manifested and self-revealed. All objects become directly revealed to us as soon as they come in touch with it."

>> No.14972521

>>14972258
They die. That's it.
Leaving Samsara refers to their imprint left behind that was entirely free from grasping and ignorance.

If you want to think about the early Buddhist view on the Formless Buddha-Realm there is:
1) Abode of Infinity of Space
2) Abode of Infinity of Consciousness
3) Abode of Nothingness
4) Abode of Thought Nor Non-Thought
Apparently these are the levels a Buddha slowly passes through before reaching Nirvana.

>>14972297
The Twelve Limbs of Dependent Origination clearly refer to Consciousness existing. It is the third limb that comes into existence after Ignorance and Compositional Activity.

>>14972383
Consciousness occurs after compositional activity. Thus it depends on something else. You cannot have consciousness without it.

>> No.14972541

>>14972383
An eye meets an object and thus the eye consciousness come into being (through this interaction) and the object is now viewed. Consciousness is dependent.

>> No.14972542

>>14972521
>Consciousness occurs after compositional activity. Thus it depends on something else.
I disagree, can you elaborate?

>> No.14972559

>>14972541
>An eye meets an object and thus the eye consciousness come into being (through this interaction) and the object is now viewed.
False

Consciousness is one and unchanging; it is only when the objects get associated with it that they appear in consciousness and as identical with it in such a way that the flashing of an object in consciousness appears as the flashing of the consciousness itself. It is through an illusion that the object of consciousness and consciousness appear to be welded together into such an integrated whole, that their mutual difference escapes our notice, and that the object of consciousness, which is only like an extraneous colour applied to consciousness, does not appear different or extraneous to it, but as a specific mode of the consciousness itself. Thus what appear as but different awarenesses, as book-cognition, table-cognition, are not in reality different awarenesses, but one unchangeable consciousness successively associated with ever-changing objects which falsely appear to be integrated with it and give rise to the appearance that qualitatively different kinds of consciousness are flashing forth from moment to moment. Consciousness cannot be regarded as momentary.

For, had it been so, it would have appeared different at every different moment. If it is urged that, though different consciousnesses are arising at each different moment, yet on account of extreme similarity this is not noticed; then it may be replied that, if there is difference between the two consciousnesses of two successive moments, then such difference must be grasped either by a different consciousness or by the same consciousness. In the first alternative the third awareness, which grasps the first two awarenesses and their difference, must either be identical with them, and in that case the difference between the three awarenesses would vanish; or it may be different from them, and in that case, if another awareness be required to comprehend their difference and that requires another and so on, there would be a vicious infinite.

>> No.14972590

>>14972521
>Leaving Samsara refers to their imprint left behind that was entirely free from grasping and ignorance.
Why is that so important? Quite a lot of hassle to be a poor begging celibate monk your entire life for something that will have been for all intents and purposes pointless after you've died since there is nothing beyond it.

>> No.14972596

>>14972559
>Consciousness is one and unchanging
False. Consciousness always has an object, even if this object is consciousness itself.

>> No.14972609

>>14972596
>Consciousness always has an object, even if this object is consciousness itself.
and how would this disprove that Consciousness is one and unchanging instead of confirming it as it does?

>> No.14972636

>>14966389
That western Buddhism, aka being a materialistic cynic piece of shit, is a legitimate form of Buddhism.

>> No.14972652

>>14972636
>That eastern Buddhism, aka being a form of Buddhist piece of shit, is a legitimate materialistic cynic view

>> No.14972668

>>14966405
The Vietnamese are retarded and worship Buddha as a God. In fact, a lot of East Asians do.

>> No.14972673

Pacifism and place of force

>> No.14972681

>>14972668
If he ascended above Gods, as Buddhists of all mainline confessions argue, why would he not be worshipped? I don't mean to say they do - but if they said they did, I wouldn't see the problem.

>> No.14972709

>>14972609
Shape of conscoiusness is dependent on objects and senses. It's oneness and unchanginess is inferred by mind post-factum.

>> No.14972754

>>14972709
>It's oneness and unchanginess is inferred by mind post-factum.
Not him but i'm intrigued. Elaborate further oh wise one

>> No.14972966

>>14972709
so what practically does all this lead to?

>> No.14972981

>>14972709
>Shape of consciousness is dependent on objects and senses
This is wrong for reasons that were already explained in this post >>14972559,
Senses and the sense-objects being changing, to say that the shape of consciousness and that by extension consciousness is dependent on those objects and senses is to presuppose the experience of consciousness as a changing series of consciousnesses dependent on those specific objects and senses involved in the production of each unique flash of consciousness produced by and pertaining to those specific sets of causal circumstances. In such a scenario consciousness would appear to be different at every moment on account of it being produced by the changing series of causal conditions, but this is not the case as consciousness is experienced as a continuum, If you try to claim that this semblance of continuum is false and that there is really a changing series of consciousnesses dependent upon sense-objects falsely appearing to be a continuum, then there must be a difference between the two consciousnesses of two successive moments as each are produced by separate casual conditions, but this difference between them must be grasped either by a different consciousness or by the same consciousness. In the first alternative the third awareness, which grasps the first two awarenesses and their difference, must either be identical with them, and in that case the difference between the three awarenesses would vanish; or it may be different from them, and in that case, if another awareness be required to comprehend their difference and that requires another and so on. The reductio ad absurdum infinite regress arguments that Nagarjuna is himself so fond of show that the idea of consciousness as being dependent on a changing series of objects is wrong.

>> No.14973046

>>14972754
It's oneness and unchanginess is inferred with help of:
1. binding consciousness that compare parts of the same or different senses to each other. Fot example, they can create sensations of seeing whole scenery at once.
2. A man upon experiencing his senses going always inseparably from his body and other sensations appearing and disappearing, infers existence of self (e.g. a body, where his senses make an intersection) and external objects that appear intermittently. He finds quality of consciousness separating him from the world, even though he never experienced world without consciousness, so assertion of this separate quality is redundant.
He then could become a little wiser and discover that nothing exists without consciousness, but assuming both quality of consciousness and self as a-priori, he then declares the world being caused by an consciousness, erroneously separating the two.

>> No.14973062

>>14972981
This assumes that different conditions create the nature of the consciousness. Also, we cannot know if the consciousness is different for that would be like a finger touching itself. How can you posit that the consciousness is actually unchanging?

>> No.14973065

Some people say that Buddhism and Christianity are very different, but my experience (with Mahayana, that is) has been that they have a lot of important points in common that are just explained using different terminology and models.

>> No.14973067

>>14972981
And so what is it to be asleep or unconscious or dead?

>> No.14973076

>>14972981
And so what is it to be asleep/unconscious/dead? Can you explain the practicality of your view, if there is one?

>> No.14973097

>>14973065
Translation: Buddhism and Christianity are very different but I feel like all should get along. Therefore I think a religion that says there is no individual souls, no creator, no creation and no eternal heaven/hell is the same as a religion of which its most core issues are literally the opposite of that.

Thanks for the input.

>> No.14973142
File: 77 KB, 645x729, 1584307690993.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14973142

>>14969734
>The Buddha himself taught True Self as his final teaching before he achieved Paranirvana

>> No.14973154

>>14973142
yes, that's what the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says

>> No.14973169
File: 27 KB, 600x800, 1573351878876.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14973169

>>14973154
>yes, that's what the Mahaparinirvana Sutra says

>> No.14973170

>>14972542
the twelve limbs of dependent origination.

literally the cause of all things starts with ignorance (which could be grasping, the view of having a self, etc..) which leads to the compositional activity of subtle particles, which leads to the arising of consciousness, which leads to the name and form, then six senses (5 + mind), which leads to contact - feeling - craving - grasping - potential/becoming - birth - aging and death.

This occurs with life but also every moment.
they are broken into 4 groups:
projecting
projected
actualizing
actualized.

>>14972590
your karma is both what is completing and projecting. what projects after your death is based on what is greatest, and if nothing, then what is nearest, and if nothing, what is habituated, etc... so any little thing could be cause of rebirth into Samsara.
Only the Buddha was able to sever those ties. That is why monks will spend their lives working on removing any possible seed. That is why in Buddhism a body is left untouched for at least 8 hours after one has passed because if it is touched it could be cause for an unfavorable rebirth.

>> No.14973176

>>14973097
I already said that some people say those sorts of things, and please don't put words in my mouth. Christianity is not merely Catholicism and Buddhism is not merely Theravada. Christ explained the truth in terms familiar to the ancient Jews he was addressing and Shakyamuni explained the truth in terms familiar to the ancient Hindus he was addressing. It doesn't matter whether the figure at the root of the teachings is anointed or enlightened. If you look through and past the superficial characteristics of traditions, you will often find the same truths at the hearts just the same as if you were to look into your own heart.

>> No.14973178
File: 136 KB, 782x894, 1581054899751.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14973178

>>14971360
>or one is just lobotomizing oneself because of a desire to disassociate from existence
says the mayavadist coper...

>> No.14973198

>>14972981
your confusing consciousness with mind.
two different things.

>> No.14973213
File: 159 KB, 369x794, Untitled2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14973213

>>14973178

>> No.14973220
File: 259 KB, 567x881, 1572372460519.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14973220

>>14973213
>Gaudapada
fraud

>> No.14973304

>>14973062
>This assumes that different conditions create the nature of the consciousness.
Proposing that consciousness is not an unchanging continuum but is rather produced by a changing series of causal circumstances and objects and that any imagined or perceived continuum doesn't reflect the unchanging nature of consciousness is also to assume that the different conditions create the nature of consciousness, in this case the proposed objects and their conditions providing bases upon which each sense-dependent consciousness can flash or come into being, thereby resulting in consciousness being changing by nature. But this doesn't accord with our actual experience of consciousness being a continuum and results in the infinite regression of instance-awarenesses.

> Also, we cannot know if the consciousness is different for that would be like a finger touching itself. How can you posit that the consciousness is actually unchanging?
I am not obliged to prove this to you, for the moment it is sufficient to demonstrate the contradictions in the explanation of consciousness you are giving

>>14973198
no, I'm not

>> No.14973338

>>14973304
>no, I'm not
define consciousness.

>> No.14973415

>>14973304
you actually do need to prove this. you are simply poking holes in one view and assuming that your's is the solution. This is fallacious and also assumes that you have even done a good job of poking holes. Your entire argument is just an appeal to intuition, and any study of consciousness in neurology will show you that consciousness does not behave as we think it does.

>> No.14973423

>>14973338
>define consciousness.
already have in this post >>14972383
"It is extremely simple, and its only essence or characteristic is pure self-revelation."

>> No.14973474

>>14973423
good luck with your dogma

>> No.14973478

That it's life denying

>> No.14973489

>>14973415
>you actually do need to prove this. you are simply poking holes in one view and assuming that your's is the solution.
It's amusing to me that you would write this if you are the same person who has been arguing in defense of Madhyamaka that consciousness is dependent on sense-objects as the celebrated subschool of Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka that most sects of Tibetian Buddhism subscribe to and which most Buddhists seem to consider to be the premium interpretation of Nagarjuna is famous for taking the position that it is sufficient merely to demonstrate the contradictions in the opponents view

>Your entire argument is just an appeal to intuition,
I've explained why and how the explanation of consciousness which you gave as being changing and dependent on objects is wrong, it doesn't accord with our actual lived experience and it results in an absurd contradiction involving an infinite regress of instance-awarenesses

>and any study of consciousness in neurology will show you that consciousness does not behave as we think it does.
at last, the crypto-materialist takes off his mask

>> No.14973569

>>14973170
In that post you've only explained why consciousness would be understood as being dependent on something else according to Buddhist cosmology, but you didn't provide any reasoning that would lead anyone to conclude that consciousness is dependent on anything else if they didn't already accept Buddhist cosmology as being true, it's a circular argument.

>> No.14973583

>>14966389
>that there is only one buddha (and he's a fat asian guy XD)
>that there's only one form of buddhism
>that all buddhists are emotionless husks who deprive themselves of all pleasures
>that the "goal" of buddhism is to become a buddha/transcend reality and unreality

>> No.14974491

>>14973489
There you go, you only know ad hominem and appeals to intuition. Nothing you have said here has any solid logic.

>> No.14974520

>>14973176
all religions are the same is midwit cope

>> No.14974535

>>14974520
Then I suppose it's a good thing I didn't say all religions are the same, or even that Buddhism and Christianity are the same! I said they had important truths in common, dude.

>> No.14974590

>>14974491
>Nothing you have said here has any solid logic.
All that meditation must have addled your mind and made you forget how previously in this thread you attempted to substantiate the hypothesis that consciousness is dependent on causal conditions and then I pointed out that such alleged 'produced consciousness' doesn't actually align with how we all experience our consciousness as a continuum of awareness, and I also pointed out that explanations which try to account for how the alleged production of consciousness by changing casual conditions can produce the uninterrupted presence of awareness which is our actual conscious experience only end up resulting in absurd infinite regress contradictions like requiring that the difference between two different awareness-instances be grasped by a different third awareness-instance which then needs to be grasped by another awareness-instance and that by another one ad-infinitum, thereby making awareness of anything at all impossible; hence the hypothesis that consciousness is dependent upon or produced by anything at all is an untenable one.

>> No.14974598

>>14974590
You're lost mate. All you are doing, again, is ad hominem, appeals to intuition, and now a bit of appealing to hypocrisy. None of those make your position correct lol fuck off

>> No.14974613

>>14966389
>What are the most widespread/most severe misconceptions deracinated westerners have about buddhism?

That it has no real dogma or doctrines, it's not a religion like any other, and it's all about your experience and actually quite empirical almost like modern science! Look FMRIs can scan your brain and show you how meditation is useful, and really it's not about faith at all, and there are no rules, for sure you can be a gay or even a pedophile and do buddhism because dogmas are delusions for muslim and christians and rules are authoritarian or something. Shrooms? Yea they facilitate enlightenment, but you shouldn't even seek enlightenment, just expand your consciousness with meditation and lsd.

>> No.14974688

>>14966389
that it is somehow "peaceful" and "spiritual" and is in favour of encouraging people to "just be"
it's bollocks

>>14969531
since you are such a typical "wah wah i hate women but why can't i get a girlfriend" fucknut you might also be interested to know that there are buddhist tracts speaking about the sin of abortion

>> No.14974692

>>14974598
>You're lost mate. All you are doing, again, is ad hominem, appeals to intuition,
I have been making fun of you, but only because I've already logically explained how the explanation of consciousness you gave was untenable because of the contradictions involved and you chose to not provide any response whereby you would save your explanation of consciousness from the fatal holes I just poked in it. If you actually tried to address the points I made earlier about the absurd implications of your hypothesis instead of replying 3 hours later only to tell me that I didn't have logic then I wouldn't have had to make fun of you

>None of those make your position correct lol fuck off
I'm not attempting to argue for any position and am right now only pointing out the absurd contradictions of yours, I'm under no obligation to argue for any one view or another simply because I pointed out that the explanation of consciousness you gave was obviously wrong.

>> No.14975053

>>14974692
But we're still waiting on the refutation. All you said was "B-b-bB-Ut MuH IntuiTION!"

>> No.14975090

>>14974688
Explain how those things don't apply to Buddhism

>> No.14975194

Pretty sure Buddha wasn't a fat guy if he only ate a handful of rice everyday?

>> No.14975218

>>14969194
Demons can't even be shown to exist. Statutes can.

>> No.14975220

that it's worth learning about

>> No.14975259

>>14971400
>While devout Christians wrote symphonies and built churches and painted timeless art
Church didn't like those at all. Even if those art pieces had christian imagery they were seen as worldly and profane. Its now many years after the larpers like you associate christianity and european culture, art and way of life. Almost all you wrote could be said about christianity too.

>> No.14975277

>>14975259

>Even if those art pieces had christian imagery they were seen as worldly and profane.
lol

>> No.14975281

>>14975218
You've never experienced a demon? You must be very blind to your empirical reality. Or maybe you're just lucky as hell.

>> No.14975288

If anything Christianity's flaw is that they were too religious focused on their art. God is the god of everything. Even most of Christianity's music often sacrifices the spirit of music for the sake of religion. Imo We have so few great bands in comparison to the secular world.

>> No.14975373

>>14975281
people who talk about demons are the one who seek to escape respoonsibility and to dumb to understand that their ''demon'' is 100% from their mind due to a lack of training to control their mind.

>> No.14975393

>>14975288
Even that depends on the time you're talking about. Around early medieval ages all art except sacral art lead to damnation. During late medieval age and reneissance you start to see churches funding artists, and non-sacral art as not evil. Also in art was usually guised some clergys dissatisfaction with the church. I think its mainly the statue posters that think christianity=western art/civilization.

>> No.14975401

>>14975281
I've experienced what people might interpret as a demon. But I'm more inclined to think it was just my mind

>> No.14975477

Demons in the mind and in the heart and in the will are a manifestation of the phenomenology of the spiritual world which is not the same thing as the aggregates of this material world. But you Buddhists meditate so much and you don't even notice this world? Let go of your preconceived perceptions and then see how many voices are always trying to lead you one way or another. Because it's the very basis of how our spirit develops. it would be no surprise to me if Buddhist fell for some of the modern materialist metaphysical trappings. You have no reason to automatically assume that what goes on inside of you is only of the material world.

>> No.14975745

>>14966652
Knowledge!

>> No.14975814
File: 23 KB, 600x800, 1575529847253.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14975814

>Did you know Theravāda (Which means Path of the Elders in Pāli) is the true original teaching of the Gotama Buddha (PBUH). All other sects of Buddhist are post hoc tibetan and chinese superstitions.

>> No.14976350

>>14966389
That it's not cringe idolatry.

>> No.14976437

>>14975814
i love how the mayahanists fell for the vedist meme of writing suttas over thousands of verses

>> No.14977247

>>14975053
he didn't have it in him

>> No.14978366

>>14966389
>deracinated

it's a social construct and always has been. Whiteness itself is amorphous. Depending on what decade it is and who you're talking to, slavs, european jews, italians, and spanish people are alternatively considered white or nonwhite. Ben Franklin called Germans "swarthy" and considered them too culturally different for them to coexist with him in 18th century Philadelphia. By all means defend the parts of your culture/ethnicity that you find useful, but those things shouldn't be ends in and of themselves. You're not gonna be around when your great grandkids have children with someone you consider an outsider anyway. You can't hold onto that shit forever, man. Everything is syncretic and in a perpetual state of mixture. Whatever you idealize as the golden age of the past was itself viewed as a perversion when it was the present. And what you view as a perverted and fallen present will be idealized by people in the future who just want to return to it.

be here now

you're just a "deracinated" neanderthal after all

>> No.14978376

The "life denial" meme after people read Nietzsches sparknotes

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action