Buddhist Endgame

[Anonymous No.15990370]

Assuming everyone eventually gets on board with the liberation from suffering, 8 fold path shit, the last living thing (a layperson) on the planet will die and assuming he's lived a virtuous life and his karma sprouts or hatches or whateverthefuck they call it, he'll be reborn as a monk so he can spend all his time meditating and reaching enlightenment. Who supports him at this point? He can't collect alms, so he would have to split his time between subsistence farming and meditation. How the fuck would this work, in the Buddha's vision for the last few years of life on earth.

[Anonymous No.15990396]

We will all become 5-th dimensional beings, stand aside from the flow of 4D space-time, gathering energy from the black hole and live on forever. Helping new aliens species across the universe.

[jesus No.15990521]

>>15990370
and what if meditation is a trap? and what if monks are just deluded faggots, weak pederasts who flee not from suffering, but from responsibility, from challenge, from truth, and waste their life, incarnation absolutely uselessly?

[Anonymous No.15990532]

>>15990370
With every salvation achieved, the world is vanished once again. The past and the future need not concern us.

[Anonymous No.15990550]

>>15990521
You know that this is likely true for some who become monks, but I wouldn't paint all of them with this brush. It's inevitable that some souls are genuinely ready to get off this ride. One of the Buddhist truths is that existence is the result of desire, when all desire is finally extinguished the dream ends.

[jesus No.15990879]

>>15990550
be like children. did you see children meditating? they have life to live, life is interesting, life is a game, world is a toy. if your child starts meditating you know instantly it is a disorder, like ADHD.

dear stupid meditating faggots, thank you for your meditation to kill time instead of blm rioting and sjw activity. you don't bother other people. you decrease suffering in the world, suffering from you and your stupidity!

[Anonymous No.15990976]

>>15990370
>Who supports him at this point?
plants

[Anonymous No.15991044]

>>15990370
>expecting Buddhism to be logical or rational
lmao

[Anonymous No.15991056]

>>15991044
yea religion is pretty wack isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15991066]

>>15991056
No, it's mostly just Buddhism which is

[Anonymous No.15991073]

>>15991066
Seems more logical than other religions like Hinduism

[Anonymous No.15991080]

>>15990370
read MahaPrajnaParamita-Sastra by Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.15991082]

>>15990879
Their brain chemistry is completely different from adults, so no, it's not possible.

[Anonymous No.15991096]

>>15991044
Name a more rational religion

[Anonymous No.15991120]

>>15991073
how so?

[Anonymous No.15991124]

>>15991120
common sense

[Anonymous No.15991128]

>>15991096
Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam,

[Anonymous No.15991177]

>>15991128
>Hinduism
nope

>Sikhism
cringe

>Judeo-Christianity
you're kidding?

>Islam
probably the only based one in the list but still lacking

I don't see how any of these are more 'logical' considering its mostly just theology and 'God said x therefore', at least Buddhism gives explanations and arguments for its doctrines (this arises because of that, here's why so and so exists, etc.)

[Anonymous No.15991524]

>>15991177
>at least Buddhism gives explanations and arguments for its doctrines (this arises because of that, here's why so and so exists, etc.)
You say this but then when you starting looking into it and pulling on the threads the ball of yarn unravels and it turns out that there are a bunch of metaphysical questions Buddhism has no idea what the answer is and that many Buddhist doctrines are asserted without justification. The Pali Canon gives a fameous list of 10 metaphysical questions which Buddha refused to provide answers to, while other religions provide answers to these questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

Even the Buddhist 'explanations' for things upon closer inspection turn out to leave fundamental questions unanswered. For example Buddhism has no idea why does anything or samsara exist at all, why there is beginningless ignorance etc. The non-understanding of what the cause of samsara is means that there is no inherent reason why someone who had attained Nirvana would not fall back into samsara. Some Buddhists try to give dependent-origination as an explanation for why there is samsara but that doesn't really answer anything such as why do these links exist to begin with and what compells them to behave as they do. Also, western, Islamic and Hindu philosophers have all noted the inherently illogical nature of positing a series of beginngless relations as the cause of anything. Al-Ghazali and Aquinas showed the impossibility of such a scenario being true with their respective cosmological arguments. Nor are those to utilize emptiness to solve the contradictions of Buddhism in any better position, there is never a sufficent answer given to the point that if there were no enduring reality which is the cause of illusions than ignorance and illusions could never arise to begin with because they don't cause themselves out of nothing, nor can they be caused by emptiness which does not cause anything, nor can illusions be consciously witnessed by an entity which is itself not real. Buddha said that Parinirvana was not an annihilation, but then said that one's conciousness and mind don't continue after the body dies which makes it indistinguishable from nothingness if there is no conciousness of anything even liberation. According to one poster here this isn't a problem because Buddha meant the soul being unbound and eternal and omnipresent like primordial fire, but this contradicts the position of Nagarjuna and most other Buddhist philosophers and they in their works seem unaware of such a novel interpretation. Every time you ask a Buddhist to explain the contradictions or what Nirvana is they give a different answer. It's just one big jumbled pile of confusion that lures people in with proselytizing moralism and then gaslights them by pretending to have the answers to everything and pretending to have refuted other views but these positions and arguments typically wither in the face of critical scutiny.

[Anonymous No.15991586]

>>15991524
Those other religions aren't any better in themselves, they rely on after-the-fact philosophers to explain why 'God did it so shut up'. At least Buddhism tries to be rational from the get go.

>hurr if I pray to God/Allah/Vishnu my problems will be solved
cringe really

[jesus No.15991588]

>>15990976
of course it is different. adult is disorder. weak pathetic faggots lie, need alcohol to tell what is on their mind, afraid of truth, take meds, nicotine. humans are wery weak. adult monkeys are very strong, don't smoke, don't use chairs, don't spend half life in offices. damn humans are stupid disabled faggots.

[Anonymous No.15991593]

>>15991524
>le metaphysical mumbo jumbo
hello guenonfag, still popping your head in every buddhist thread? I'm glad it still makes you seethe.

[Anonymous No.15991626]

>>15991073
This

I've started reading Buddhism and so far its the most consistent and methodical of the big religions I've read which are mostly invoking superstitious nonsense rather than a philosophical approach that the Buddha puts forth.

[Anonymous No.15991649]

>>15991524
>For example Buddhism has no idea why does anything or samsara exist at all
"Originally craving was considered to be the root cause of samsara,[note 11] which could be stilled by the practice of dhyana, leading to a calm of mind which according to Vetter is the liberation which is being sought.[66][67] The later Buddhist tradition considers ignorance (avidya) to be the root cause of samsara.[63][20][21]"

[Anonymous No.15991662]

>>15991524
hylics seething

[Anonymous No.15991681]

>>15991649
>Originally craving was considered to be the root cause of samsara,
only entities can crave things, non-existence and inert objects dont have cravings, but since the existence of entities is supposed to be caused by samsara then that doesn't actually answer anything, it's like saying the child gives birth to his parent

[Anonymous No.15991771]

>>15991681
rocks are not dukkha, unless you are an hedonist

[Anonymous No.15991783]

>>15991524

>For example Buddhism has no idea why does anything or samsara exist at all

it is retarded question in the first place, not that professional mental masturbators can understand.

[Anonymous No.15991829]

>>15991681
I don't think buddhists accept that there were no entities at some point in time, they believe an infinite amount of previous lives which is in line with certain theories of cosmological cyclical universes (look up roger penrose). In any case, they clearly have some idea as to 'why' the universe exists. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't remove that fact.

[Anonymous No.15991832]

>>15991626
Based

what are you reading brother?

[Anonymous No.15991888]

>>15991832
What the Buddha Taught since it was recommended to me by one anon. For the longest time I thought Buddhism was just some Chinese voodoo religion, I had never been so at awe with how raw and philosophical it really is compared to things like the bible, quran, bhagavadgita, etc.

[Anonymous No.15991896]

>>15991524
The Buddha answers all of these. The point of the questions is that knowing doesn't help your practice.
>Why something, rather than nothing?
The Buddha answers this. He doesn't answer it when asked by someone who only wants to masturbate over rhetorical abstractions, like you're doing here. Why? Because the answer won't make you happy. The fact that you don't even want an answer, you just want to bitch and argue and throw shit, is evidence of this.

>>15990370
That's a sort of two pronged question. Firstly, the goal isn't for everyone to just get together and nirvana out, that would actually be bad. Humans are in a very special place, as we suffer just enough to want out (unlike Gods, who suffer little), but not enough to be unable to even get out (unlike people in Hell, whose great suffering prevents them from doing anything of value), while also being intelligent (animals are dumb, after all). Thus, because of infinite worlds in infinite universes, and because rebirth happens throughout universes, it's actually beneficial to keep humans around so that we can keep a steady supply of humans nirvanaing out. Thus, the Buddhist "end state society" is one of monks and householders, with the householders living happy, healthy, pronatal lives, making plenty of kids.

While practical concerns (such as the death of the sun) obviously put a limit on how long this can be done for, we can presume that humans could pack up and leave for space or whatever and keep this going elsewhere. So, then, because infinite beings on infinite worlds is a long fucking time, but let's scroll on ahead a REALLY FUCKING LONG TIME, what happens? According to the Diamond Sutra, they'll be aided by Bodhisattvas in "the final 500 year epoch". This is also because of the whole "will buddhism be around then?" (it won't, but Dharma will).

[Anonymous No.15991905]

>>15991524
The Buddha didn't answer those questions because there was no satisfactory answer to be found in them.
>Do I have a self? Do I not have a self?
>Do I exist? Do I not exist?
>Is there a god? Or isn't there a god?
>Is body separate from mind? Is mind and body the same thing?
>Do I exist after death? Or do I not exist after death?

It just creates infinite loops in your mind which lead to no satisfying conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15991911]

>>15991888
>Buddhism
>raw
??? It's literally the opposite, out of all scared literature the Buddhist scripture is one of the most polished.

[Anonymous No.15992009]

>>15991911
its raw in the sense that it deals with issues in and of itself, rather than pointing to some grandiose theological paradigm.

[Anonymous No.15992037]

>>15992009
"grandiose theological paradigm" is Buddhism's middle name, Buddhism is so explicitly detached from "deals with issues in and of itself" that western Buddhists basically schismatized themselves from the world wide community to focus on politics.

[Anonymous No.15992067]

>>15992037
Really? What Buddhist literature have you read? Because literally everything I have ever read on Buddhism cannot be described as "detached" in any way, shape or form. Even bigbrain stuff like the Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra deal with the fundamental everyday problems of humanity.

>to focus on politics.
These people are not Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.15992072]

>>15992037
So far what I'm reading about it, the suttas it presents are pretty non-theological and based on rational logic. It's quite like the presocratics, enjoying it so far.

[Anonymous No.15992086]

>>15991888
Based and 8 fold check'd

WtBT was one of my first forays into buddhism too, but I mainly read PC sutras from several html websites back in the day.

[Anonymous No.15992138]

>>15992072
Try reading the Devaduta Sutta, It's pretty wild.

[Anonymous No.15992143]

the major problem with buddhism is that there is no clear threshold of where the hindus and jains started to put their ideas in the sutras

[Anonymous No.15992413]

>>15992143
Sure there is, it's nowhere. The distinctions are pretty clear, namely in that the Buddhist notions of Not-Self and karma are radically different from the Hindu and Jain (and Sikh) notions of the Self and of Karma. Anything more than that, then, is window dressing. Of course there will be linguistic similarities between what the Buddha was talking about and what the Brahmins and Jains were talking about, they all spoke the same language.

[Anonymous No.15992769]

>>15991905
>Do I have a self? Do I not have a self?
Yes I do had a self or atman, it is my witnessing awareness
>Do I exist? Do I not exist?
Yes, my self or awareness exists, as well as the psychophysical aggregate of body and mind, they also exist
>Is there a god? Or isn't there a god?
Yes, there is a God who is the cause of space, time, objects etc, that God is Brahman
>Is body separate from mind? Is mind and body the same thing?
Yes, they are separate, the body is a physical object whereas the activites of the mind like memory etc are experienced in the subtle body which is non-physical
>Do I exist after death? Or do I not exist after death?
Yes, one's self or atman transmigrates after one's current body dies

Wow, I just provided satiafactory answers to all those questions without causing any infinite loops. I am therefore smarter and more wise than Buddha.

[Anonymous No.15992877]

>>15992769
Yeah, but can you prove any of that?

[Anonymous No.15992906]

>>15990521
Kind of mean but yeah I think this is the case for a lot of monks. The whole point of monastic life is to have as little responsibility as possible so you can devote all your time to enlightenment, but in reality I think it's just a form of escapism. That said, it's a pretty horrible lifestyle in terms of what you are allowed to enjoy and do with your life. Escapism or not, I respect the commitment.

[Anonymous No.15992954]

>>15992769
>Yes I do had a self or atman, it is my witnessing awareness
atman isn't the same as sati unfortunately
>Yes, my self or awareness exists, as well as the psychophysical aggregate of body and mind, they also exist
atman isn't the same as sati unfortunately
>Yes, there is a God who is the cause of space, time, objects etc, that God is Brahman
where's the evidence of this?
>Yes, they are separate, the body is a physical object whereas the activites of the mind like memory etc are experienced in the subtle body which is non-physical
where's the evidence of this?
>Yes, one's self or atman transmigrates after one's current body dies
where's the evidence of this?

[Anonymous No.15993009]

>>15990521
>and waste their life
Yeah because fucking sluts in downtown clubs in between your 8-5 job is a considerably more usefull life.

[Anonymous No.15993103]

>>15990370
I don't think that will happen, because at any given time the layman population (who may later go on to reincarnate as monk) will exceed the arhat incarnationists. It's possible that everyone will achieve enlightenment at one point, but I think it's baseless to assume we will all do it at the same time, I think asking that would be like asking "what if we were all in our final incarnation right now?", it's pointless to think about something that simply is not

[Anonymous No.15993219]

>>15992769
>Yes I do had a self or atman, it is my witnessing awareness
No you don't, awareness is composite, so it's not a Self. If your awareness was a Self, not only would it be non-composite, you could never be unaware of something, meaning you would be aware of everything ever at once. The fact that you were unaware of what was going on while you slept last night and are currently unaware of what is going on on Mars is proof that awareness isn't a Self.

Which also brings us to another point, in that if God is the cause of everything, then no, your awareness is ALSO not a Self because not only is it composite and changing, but it was also caused by God, and Selfs can't have causes, because they cannot change. They must always be. But then, if they always are, then they're not a Self, because for a Self to be unchanging, it has be constant at some time t = x, for if it could move through time, it could change. So, you've successfully demonstrated that Selfs don't exist by simply reifiying that the exist. But ignoring that, you've put yourself in a conundrum: you say your awareness is an uncreated Self, but you also say that it was created by God. So, which is it, is your awareness a Self, or are there things that aren't caused by God? Because you can't have both.

This is like, the third thing Nagarjuna covers, dude. C'mon now.

[Anonymous No.15993474]

>>15991896
"I have an answer i just won't tell because you won't like it"
Sure

[Anonymous No.15993529]

>>15993474
>walk into a history class
>prof is discussing WWII
>ask him why Henry VIII had so many wives
>get upset when he tells you to come back later that day when he's teaching a class on Henry VIII

[Anonymous No.15993681]

>>15990370
There's never an actual end game.

Life is the product of the yawning void desiring existence so bad that it wills itself into substance.
Now in Buddhism, that substance wishes to return to the void and release itself from existence but eventually that void will start to desire once more and crawl itself back into being.

[Anonymous No.15993718]

I assume a monk, in that position, is allowed to farm. Monks do work around their temple, for instance; why would it be off-limits, in that situation, for the monk to not find a way to sustain his life? As long as he is not causing suffering unto animals -- though, in the forest sect of Buddhism, I think they can't even cut down plants, if he's in that brand.

[Anonymous No.15993724]

How do Buddhists morally justify their immune system causing constant mass genocide of microscopic life? Surely that generates karma like a mother fucker

[jesus No.15993787]

>>15993724
this fucking microscopic life deserved it and got their karma back.

[Anonymous No.15993817]

>>15993724
You have to will the killing for there to be bad karma. There is no bad karma from ones immune system genociding microscopic life just as there is no bad karma from squashing some worm in the earth as you're walking on it.

[jesus No.15993844]

>>15993817
and if you are compelled to kill? free will is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.15993867]

>>15993844
>free will is an illusion
cringe

[jesus No.15993869]

>>15993867
fact

[Anonymous No.15993881]

>>15993817
If you dont keep yourself in a sanitized bubble and suppress your immune system when you have the ability to do so, then you're making the active choice to kill those microbes.

[Anonymous No.15993885]

>>15990370
Your premise is wrong to begin with, there is no possible answer for the question;
>the last living thing (a layperson)
There will never be an end to sentient beings, they are infinite.

[Anonymous No.15994029]

>>15993724
>>15993881
>>15993724
Samsara is shitty. Why do you think Buddhists want out? The fact that you have to kill at some level in order to survive is just a testament to that fact, and only reinforces the need for Buddhism.

Killing is bad. Not all killings are the same. Yes, that means that some killings are worse than others. Yes, that means that if you have a choice between squishing a bug or not, you shouldn't squish the bug.

>>15993817
You're always "making" karma (karma isn't a "thing" to be added up, but it's a good enough linguistic approximation that English has been saddled with), even when killing unintentionally. An intentional killing just has a different karmic reaction than an unintentional killing. So, yes, unconsciously stepping on a worm, or inhaling and killing a bunch of microorganisms, does generate karma, but it's not the same as taking a gun and shooting someone after weeks of planning or whatever.