/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21673413]

if theres no self then what reincarnates or enlightened?

if everything is illusory and theres no value judgement then whats the point of distinguishing between nirvana and samsara?

is the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?

[Anonymous No.21673446]

>>21673413
>the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?

The final redpill is: Atman = Brahman

[Anonymous No.21673661]

>>21673413
You need to collect more HOTWHEELS[tm] motor models to advance in your practice. Because collecting HOTWHEELS[tm] is more beneficial than your attempts to babble ontological arguments.

[Anonymous No.21673732]

>>21673413
The anatta doctrine is a dud. Sophisticated as arguments in favor of Buddhism and their adherents and philosophers can be, it still does not seem to answer these basic dilemmas constantly posed to it. However, there is still much of worth in Buddhism that can be profitably employed and that one can learn from. However, in my opinion, it makes more sense if taken with belief in a self, or, specifically, levels of selfhood, from the grosser/more unenlightened, to the finer, more transcendental, and enlightened. This basically can be reconciled with a Hindu yogic framework, which is itself the larger ur-source much of Buddhism derived from. A similar development is found in Ch’an and Zen Buddhism with its teachings of the recursive levels of selfhood known as “guest” and “host” to each other, analogously.

The unenlightened mind, the personality, beliefs, historically manifested, causally-and-karmically-bound human personal individuality, is symbolically a “guest” to the “host” of the more encompassing, inclusive and embracing enlightened-mind, Buddha-nature, or Dharmakaya, from which it originated. The higher level of selfhood wakes up from the lower level of selfhood and is now the watcher relative to the lower aspects of selfhood it is observing and viewing analogously as “void,” “insubstantial,” “illusory,” “mirage-like” or “dream-like” from its standpoint, as, when waking from a dream, we realize the ethereal of these dreams, and that our selfhood was in a lower, less conscious and collected level. This is basically also Gurdjieff’s teaching. It is also almost identical to the Indian philosophical school of Samkhya’s distinction between Purusha, higher spirit-nature or transcendental witness, and Prakriti, matter, materiality, the matrix of the universe and lower, sensate, gross aspects of the body, and even subtler aspects on the psychic and the mind level.

[Anonymous No.21673741]

>>21673413
Really sick of these metaphysical systems always contradicting themselves. Just like science or physics when they try to pass time off as an 'illusion'. But that's just sophistry and contradiction, it adds nothing to the explanation

Anyway, there is no-self and that's correct. There may be past lives (supposedly I had a 'past life' and learned the full name through a dream + found their writing from 30 years ago)
I'm not a buddhist but this is what I experienced. No-self is Anatta I think

[Anonymous No.21673747]

>>21673413
>is the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?
Nah the final redpill is that Christ is King

[Anonymous No.21673753]

>>21673741
Also I wouldn't bet on karma or some grand universal justice meta-narrative.
If anything rebirth probably loops into eternity or doesn't exist at all. Anatta is a void

[Anonymous No.21673816]

>>21673413
>if theres no self then what reincarnates or enlightened?
The illusory self
>if everything is illusory and theres no value judgement then whats the point of distinguishing between nirvana and samsara?
Samsara is illusory, nirvana isn't, according to Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.21673823]

>>21673741
how did you think that it was your past life? did you just agree with them a lot?

[Anonymous No.21673838]

>>21673823
Basically he had some unmistakable marks, so you just "know". Like he looked like a chud, he was gobbling cocks, and he was a bit of an incel.

[Anonymous No.21673851]

>>21673823
I dreamt of their full name, an image of a book, then coincidentally came across the name of the book while studying (obscure logics stuff)
It led me to a blog from 30 years ago and it was the guy's dream journal. Also from his dream, he said he saw "himself" from the future

Anyway, neither of us wrote the book. I'm busy with my own life at the moment, can't be bothered over some dead guy and buddhist paradigm

[Anonymous No.21673871]

And for all we know, past lives could easily be a delusion anyway. The whole idea behind Anatta is emptiness or sameness. None of what we say here or theorize has any relevance in Anatta because it doesn't contain time or meaning

[Anonymous No.21673889]

>>21673871
Don't be daft.

[Anonymous No.21673915]

>>21673889
Not a physicalist or materialist, maybe I would say I believe ur-consciousness or ur-quales exist

As for transmigration or karmic rebirth, not sure. That remains to be seen

[Anonymous No.21674153]

>>21673413
>if theres no self then what reincarnates or enlightened?
Precisely. Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, they believe in rebirth.

>if everything is illusory and theres no value judgement then whats the point of distinguishing between nirvana and samsara?
Precisely. Nirvana is just realizing Samsara, and no longer performing samsara.

>is the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?
Wu.

[Anonymous No.21674202]

>>21673915
What are your thoughts on the transgenderation?

[Anonymous No.21674207]

>>21674153
>Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, they believe in rebirth.
So what's the difference between simply birth and rebirth. What is "re-birth"?
>Precisely. Nirvana is just realizing Samsara, and no longer performing samsara.
You're still distinguishing, so your "precisely" makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.21674208]

>>21673413
Start with the 'Jeets, not wiki. Nagarjuna covers all of those questions, the nikayas will give you an understand of the terms being asked about. Read those first.

[Anonymous No.21674214]

>>21673446
FPBP
/thread

[Anonymous No.21674222]

>>21674208
I only read the Dhammapada. I liked it because it was short and easy. I disagreed with much of everything because I'm a Christian, but I want to read more about other religions. Should I read Digha Nikaya or Majjhima Nikaha next?

[Anonymous No.21674248]

>>21674222
DN has longer sermons and the MN has shorter ones. You might be better off reading secondary literature about Buddhism than Buddhist texts themselves if you are just going to get "i disagree with this" out of it.

[Anonymous No.21674254]

>>21674248
What's wrong with disagreeing with it? I don't like secondary literature unless it's canonical rather than moden.

[Anonymous No.21674273]

>>21674254
I mean since you don't agree with the beliefs you'd get more out of reading the history of Buddhism or about what forms of it still exist today etc. Why would you want to pour over scriptures you reflexively disagree with? Wouldn't it be more valuable to read something else which doesn't require you self-affirm to yourself "this is wrong because I am Christian" every few minutes?

[Anonymous No.21674279]

>>21674207
>So what's the difference between simply birth and rebirth.
Exactly, there isn't one.

>You're still distinguishing, so your "precisely" makes no sense.
Right, because you're still doing samsara. Stop doing that, and it all works out.

[Anonymous No.21674284]

>>21674273
>Why would you want to pour over scriptures you reflexively disagree with?
I don't reflexively disagree with it. I read it, consider it, analyse it, and then I disagree.
>Wouldn't it be more valuable to read something else which doesn't require you self-affirm to yourself "this is wrong because I am Christian" every few minutes?
Valuable for what? I'm trying to understand Buddhism. If I read secondary texts there's always the chance that I'm only understanding someone's else's understanding rather than what the texts themselves say.

[Anonymous No.21674287]

>>21674222
This is why you shouldn't read the Dhammapada
Jesus I don't know why people recommend it
People who tell you to read the sutta pitaka are retarded as well

[Anonymous No.21674313]

>>21674287
... then what should I read?

[Anonymous No.21674365]

>>21673413
>if theres no self then what reincarnates or enlightened?
wrong question to ask - it is not 'what' reincarnates or gets enlightened, it is "with what basis is their self?". "with what basis is their reincarnation?", "with what basis is this enlightenment?".

""By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view."

>if everything is illusory and theres no value judgement then whats the point of distinguishing between nirvana and samsara?
the buddha never says either of these things - things aren't illusory, just dependently arisen. as the previous sutta excerpt states, the ordinary worldling can only think in terms of existence or non-existence, but the buddha teaches down the middle. value judgements are good - they just need to be in regards to what is wholesome and unwholesome and not in regard to what is merely pleasant or unpleasant. one certainly should not accept any unwholesome states and should be unforgiving in regards to them.

>is the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?
no

i knw this is all bait but maybe some lost minds would benefit from it ;) just read the suttas and you'll quickly realise most of these 'contradictions' are non-existent or simple misinterpretations

[Anonymous No.21674368]

>>21674284
>only understanding someone's else's understanding rather than what the texts themselves say.
yeah but they might have a better knowledge of Buddhism and its context than you do with your "just read the texts" approach, and again if you are reading the demonic heathen babble for the sake of disagreeing with it as a kind of spiritual exercise that's really a waste of time and the secondary literature would at least teach you something factual which does not require an internal objection

[Anonymous No.21674385]

>>21674284
>I don't reflexively disagree with it. I read it, consider it, analyse it, and then I disagree.
NOOOOO!!! That's impossible!!! In order that my worldview stay intact I have to believe that people can disagree with Buddhism only if they misunderstand it instead of carefully considering it!!

[Anonymous No.21674386]

>>21674368
If you don't want to help, you can just say so, no need to keep on ranting.

[Anonymous No.21674395]

>>21674313

[Anonymous No.21674408]

>>21674386
I am just telling you what I would do if I shared your assumptions. Reading about say, Japanese or Tibetan Buddhism as a topic would be more informative than reading their scriptures, as I would already know I reject their beliefs—what I would not already know are the histories behind them, various practices, important figures and movements, artists, philosophers and so forth. Such information I could then consume without becoming spiritually anxious.

[Anonymous No.21674415]

>>21674408
Reading other religious texts doesn't make me anxious, so I guess we're different then.

[Anonymous No.21674430]

>>21674386
Buddhism doesn't assume "the reader" as an ontological subject, nor secondary texts as necessarily "secondary." The metaphor I'd give to a well read Christian is that revelation is continuous and experiential, equivalent to the way the "spirit of the Lord" hijacks judges, prophets and kings in Joshua => 2 Chronicles. Insight doesn't appear in the text, it appears during the act of reading. And this may appear in apparent secondary readings which are then read again.

A state of continuous revelation is not subject to a primacy of first texts from a theological (bad word here) or ontological (better word here) standpoint. Only if you're interested in the history of Buddhism is it worth giving early texts primacy, and then in relation to historiography not to ontological studies.

Get it? The fictional fat bastard of BCE500 doesn't matter, because a transvestite Japanese television show mangle-translated by British people can provide direct access to enlightened buddha nature.

It is canon, in Cha'an, that some dude stared at a wall for years—here is the textless text.

[Anonymous No.21674449]

>>21674430
>Insight doesn't appear in the text, it appears during the act of reading. And this may appear in apparent secondary readings which are then read again.
Like I said above, I don't mind secondary texts if they're canonical (>>21674254). Anyway, I'll just read some Suttas and perhaps this one >>21674395

[Anonymous No.21674467]

>>21674365
>) just read the suttas
Which are the most metaphysically-heavy? e.g. discusses the nature of the soul and of reality

[Anonymous No.21674474]

>>21674365
>. value judgements are good - they just need to be in regards to what is wholesome and unwholesome and not in regard to what is merely pleasant or unpleasant.
Not really, he says to cease all desires

[Anonymous No.21674496]

>>21674415
Why did you feel compelled to testify to me, a complete stranger, that as a Christian you disagreed with most of the Dhammapada? And you want to read onward more and more of this disagreeable literature? Hmmm

[Anonymous No.21674519]

>>21674496
Because I was asking for a recomendation, and giving more details about my experience so far can help the other person provide better suited recommendations. Why are you still replying given you have no intention to help?

[Anonymous No.21674538]

>>21674467
DN1
DN2
DN13
DN23
DN27
MN1
MN9
MN38
MN41
MN43
MN44
MN49
MN63
MN72
SN12,15
SN56.11

you can start with those, for metaphysically heavy ones.

>>21674474
yes, and that is a value judgement.

[Anonymous No.21674555]

>>21674538
Thanks anon

[Anonymous No.21674640]

can anyone explain pratityasamutpada?

[Anonymous No.21674652]

>>21673413
>if theres no self then what reincarnates or enlightened?
"Self" is ego, not soul. You (soul) are not your "self" (ego). Existence is impersonal, and the ego is a fabrication of the brain that compels the soul to identify with material phenomena and take them personally, keeping it trapped in the cycle.
>if everything is illusory and theres no value judgement then whats the point of distinguishing between nirvana and samsara?
>is the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?
Samsara is the shared dream/nightmare we find ourselves (notice) stuck in. Nirvana is the release from it. A buddha is someone who has woken up from the dream. A bodhisattva is someone who knows he's dreaming.

[Anonymous No.21674680]

>>21673413
>Are you telling me I can reincarnate?
>I'm telling you when we're finished... you won't have to

[Anonymous No.21674714]

It's simple. Start with the yoga sutras

[Anonymous No.21674730]

>>21674640
It is a structural principle concerning the way your experience is organised.

""And which is the noble method that he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out through discernment?

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones notices: When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that."

The particular elements of the chain don't fully matter (the 12 link one is the most famous example), just the bare fact that you see a relationship of dependence within your experience.

So you can use any element of your experience to ferret it out - the body, the breath, feelings, intentions, whatever. For example. you can discern right now that you are breathing, that you cannot but breathe, and that your whole experience and existence is dependent on these lungs and respiratory system that you do not have access to. Don't merely think about it, but see that even your thoughts exist because the breath is there FIRST, inaccessible. Even if you try to ignore it, you can only ignore it because you are already BREATHING. If you do this every day all day ALONGSIDE the other steps of the gradual training, i.e. virtue, sense restraint, watchfulness, seclusion etc., then your sense of self will slowly fade because you will realise that your experience is fundamentally built upon that which you cannot control, and the sense of ownership is correlated with the sense of control.

So then seeing that with breathing, there is existence, you will then come to see that with the cessation of breathing (which WILL happen, because you have realised you cant control it) will come the cessation of existence, So you see impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, not-self. With the fading of ignorance (regarding this structural principle) and these three marks comes the fading of self, of craving, of suffering, and of everything else.

[Anonymous No.21674768]

>>21673741
Time is not even fundamental. Bro it's 2023.

[Anonymous No.21674778]

>>21673446
Fpbp. Santana Dharma for life.

[Anonymous No.21674796]

What's the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism on a fundamental level?

[Anonymous No.21674823]

>>21673851
Please tell me the name wasn't some common ass shit like "John Smith" right? Obviously don't reveal the name on 4chan but please tell me you aren't dumb enough to dream of a really common name and assume it was yours in the past life.

[Anonymous No.21674858]

>>21673413
>if theres no self then what reincarnates or enlightened?
the mental compositions and karma that form the karmic formations, nirvana is not something you get but something that happens, a transformation, a caterpillar dont get a butterfly, but becomes a butterfly and the caterpillar cease to exist
>if everything is illusory
that's Vedanta, not Buddhism

>is the final redpill that samsara and nirvana are the same thing?
to soem schools yes

[Anonymous No.21674873]

>>21674652
the ego creates the idea of a soul, transforming yourself into a sottapana means you recognize there's no soul or god

[Anonymous No.21675216]

>>21674796
hindus belive in a god and a soul, buddhist believe that is a delusion of the mind, a trap of language

[Anonymous No.21675399]

The red pill is that monism, or “non-dualism”, makes no sense and you’ve been duped

[Anonymous No.21675410]

>>21674652
If existence is impersonal how can you know it’s impersonal? You’re just making inherently illusory observations about an inherently illusory reality. It makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.21675646]

>>21673446
Based UpaniChad

[Anonymous No.21675683]

>>21674640
Other reply is good but this slightly later development of pratityasamutpada and sunyata is worth considering too.
Look at your computer monitor for example, consider the processes that occurred before it was in this particular state right now, at what point did it become a monitor? At what point (say when it's thrown out and destroyed) will it cease to be a monitor? Where does your monitor physically begin and end in space? At the edges? Isn't the space and other things that are "not-this-monitor" required to delineate this monitor, and as such not really discrete from it?

Where in space or time is there any real non-conceptual distinction or delineation? That it seems like a solid delineated unchanging thing/object that exists by itself called "a monitor" is conceptual, a mental projection, and with these projections arises the illusory sense/experience of being a "thing back here" that experiences other separate "things over there".

[Anonymous No.21675765]

>>21673413
What is it that perceives a continuity of self within this life?

[Anonymous No.21675804]

>>21673446
Isn't that pretty much saying the same thing?

[Anonymous No.21676280]

>>21675216
Doessn't sound very fundamental

[Anonymous No.21676493]

>>21674796
Buddhist's attempt to become NPC's with a blank mind, AdvaitaChad's become one with the unmanifest substratum of reality.

[Anonymous No.21676671]

>>21674796

[Anonymous No.21676807]

>>21676671
>COOOMara