/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22045848]

explain how buddhism isn't annihilationism

[Anonymous No.22045862]

In annihilationism annihilation is the punishment, in Buddhism it’s the reward annihilation

[Anonymous No.22045887]

Buddhists are radically diverse regarding what happens after liberation, and there is no historical consensus on it. The only continuity in Buddhism is continuity of praxis.

The same is true for Hinduism, even within the darshan of Vedanta, and even within individual schools of Vedanta. There are diverse interpretations of liberation, of the reality and unreality of samsara, of the reality of the jivas, etc. Some are "nihilistic" in the sense that true liberation is cessation of all determinate being because the only true reality is Atman/Brahman. Others reject this and say that recognition of nondual reality doesn't annul empirical reality or its grades of being, only enhances it.

What all these systems have in common is their focus on practice and direct experience. Everything else is just shorthand that was helpful to someone or some school at some time. This is why the Buddha says to stop asking metaphysical questions, and why Buddhism always has an internal dialectic about returning to practice, and only engaging in speculation (if at all) with a certain ratio of practice to speculation, like 10:1 or 100:1. There are many internal Buddhist critiques of monks who pay lip service to meditative practice while spending all their time having debates about texts, traditions, and metaphysics.

>What is to be said of someone who flings himself into the Ocean and has no aspiration but to drown himself in it?
- Rene Guenon

[Anonymous No.22045895]

>>22045848
Not a buddhist so I'm not suprised there are logical contradictions, but I think what a buddhist would say is:

Annihilationism sort of assumes that there is a 'you' to be annihilated in the first place. In reality, there is no 'you' as you have no self, you are an aggregate of sensations. Liberation comes from recognising this and seeing that all things (including everything you think of as your self) is really united (I guess they'd say everything is Brahman if you had to give it a name? But maybe not).

[Anonymous No.22045931]

>>22045848
Not related to the OP, but there's not a real general about things like this.
What are some books to understand the basics of Buddhism and Daoism? Things like origins, use in daily life, rituals and such. Most of the things that I find are faggy soccer mom self-help type shit. Any good recs?

[Anonymous No.22045939]

>>22045848
Start with the 'Jeets. Addressed thoroughly.
>>22045895
They do not say "everything is brahman" that is hindu orthodoxy not buddhism

[Anonymous No.22045958]

>>22045931
Unironically this. The first few chapters are the only really semi-speculative parts of the book, in which Evola interprets Buddhism's place in Indian history as a renewal movement after brahmanism became stagnant, which isn't a crazy idea by any means, as the Upanishads and Patanjali's Yoga probably also came out of reaction to brahmanical stagnation. In any case, the rest of the book is a really good practice-oriented summary of Theravada Buddhism. You can then go read anything you want. The citations are also good, as most of them are to the Long and Middle Length discourses, and you can just read anything that interests you for yourself.

[Anonymous No.22045976]

>>22045958
You could always try reading actual scholars of Buddhism like Stcherbatsky or Conze instead of relying on the same /pol/ reading list to answer literally everything

[Anonymous No.22045979]

>>22045931

take 1h to read that and you'll be up to date and know more than 99% of the alleged buddhists :

>start
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
>middle
https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
>finish
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html


speed learning about buddhism with videos
-the redpill which is the ajahn brahm teaching for monks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtnuVoJXWhM&list=PLQ_Y6m62B_MVZVGIzfjqrpoUmszVMcxWV
-then work slowly with the soft pill which is the retreat for lay people, so watch the other ones here (watch the QA too)
https://www.youtube.com/c/AjahnBrahmRetreats2011-15BSWAMedia/playlists

[Anonymous No.22045989]

>>22045958
Evola believed in Mahayana, ie Evola is the usual atheis garbage.
Evola is Mysticism lite for people who can't read, Guenon is a Catholic who abandoned his faith for Sufism when he realized the Vatican was a lost cause. Both of them made shit up and basically shilled for political views: Gueon was a Theocratic Monarchist and Evola was a Fascist Neo-Feudalist.

Much like Blavatsky, who was a Theocratic Socialist, and Crowley who was a hedonistic anarchist, they knew quite a deal, spent a good amount of time with primary sources and distilled existing ideas into their own understanding.

I'm going to get a response saying that Crowley and Blavatsky were frauds, but abandoning your faith for Islam, and being a Magical Tantric renegade Fascist ostracized by your own tradition is pretty much the same as saying you're giving birth to the Anti-Christ or in contact with magicians from India. If we view all 4 of them for their works alone, ignoring the personal problems and insanity, they were all quite well spoken, did good work, and had a strong grasp on some of the material they talked about. Blavatsky was intimately familiar with Gnosticism, Vedanta, Hermeticism and Tibetan Buddhism (in fact this has been confirmed by 20th century Tibetan Buddhists, she very clearly did meet Dzogchen and Mahayana adepts). Crowley had a good grasp on Taoism, an incredible understanding of Kabbalah/Qabbala, Tarot, Numerology, Alchemy and other mystical currents. Guenon was an excellent metaphysician echoing the Geometric-Mathematical metaphysics of Volume 1 of Blavatsky's secret doctrine, a sign that he did indeed understand the perrenial wisdom, or the Secret Doctrine as she called it. It seems that Evola had a good grasp on Vedanta, though inserting his own views as well, strong grasp on Tantra, and a strong grasp of initiation and its relationship with esotericism. Actually taking anything the four of them said on faith is extremely stupid.

Read what they read, and come to your own conclusions. Modern spirituality is marred by a few things: the existence of Christian culture and theologians; Atheism and rationalism in academia; Anglos translating Eastern ideas improperly; Jews suppressing ideas; Fascists polluting Eastern and Western Esotericism with anachronistic nonsense racial science and racial teleology; Metaphysics as a talent dying off with the 19th century. It is absolutely best to go to the texts themselves while using these people as biased encyclopedias and as foils to your own understanding. I agree with Evola's Kali Yuga, Crowley's Age of Horus, Blavatsky's universal brotherhood and cosmogenesis and Guenon's ideas about the degeneration of spiritual principles. I reject most of the rest of what they say. Doing that has helped me considerably in my studies.

They all had bad things to say about each other too in the end.

[Anonymous No.22046011]

>>22045989
>Evola believed in Mahayana, ie Evola is the usual atheis garbage.
>Evola is Mysticism lite for people who can't read, Guenon is a Catholic who abandoned his faith for Sufism when he realized the Vatican was a lost cause. Both of them made shit up and basically shilled for political views: Gueon was a Theocratic Monarchist and Evola was a Fascist Neo-Feudalist.
It's the complete opposite way around. Guenon tried to argue that Mahayana was the most authentic and traditional strain of Buddhism. Evola thought it was Theravada because of its emphasis on the Pali Canon.

[Anonymous No.22046060]

>>22045976
Why would I read an academic summary with no deeper insight? These scholars are virtually just compiling information without actually getting at the meaning. That's why we don't read them. They are encyclopedists at heart.

[Anonymous No.22046069]

>>22046060
>proudly anti-intellectual
yeah I figured that; maybe you should return to your actual tradition of protestantism

[Anonymous No.22046125]

IISSSSM IIIIIIIISSSSSM

HURR DUURR ANNIHILATIONISM
EXISTENTIALISM
HUMANISM

OMG OOOMH IM GONNAAA GOONNAA IIIIIIIIIIISSSM

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

[Anonymous No.22046144]

>>22046125
>you're asking whether I have a view?
>sorry I'm not retarded

[Anonymous No.22046227]

>>22045887
Thanks for this post, I've read a handful of books but I'm not an expert on this topic yet from all I've seen this seems to hold true.

[Anonymous No.22046246]

>>22045989
So... what are we to do instead? Where does one start in getting a good grounding in perennial tradition? What does the complete picture look like?

[Anonymous No.22046256]

>>22046246
You go to one of the thirty six other threads about that topic

[Anonymous No.22046290]

>>22045976
Actual scholars of Buddhism like Oldenburg often have their own biases, or conversely they are too hesitant to commit to anything whatsoever and give you a lot of unsynthesized information, often expecting you to know certain things already. But I do recommend reading the good ones. Geoffrey Samuels' Origins of Yoga and Tantra is great.

I always just prioritize recommendations based on what would have been most accessible to me as a beginner. I was surprised at how good Doctrine of Awakening was for someone who just wants a plausible, integral, no-bullshit presentation of Theravada practice. It's good enough that even if you disagree with every single of Evola's takes on the subject, it will still give you a reasonable overview of the topic and you can go read whatever else you want. It covers a lot of things that other books don't cover or don't focus enough on, like the anti-speculative aspects.

One of the biases of modern scholarship is that they want to "debunk" any and all kinds of elitism or exclusivism or evolutionary or "pure vs. vulgar" theses in past scholarship, so they go way too far in the opposite direction and try to show you way too much instead, to prove that historical traditions are messy and "diverse" and so on. This just overwhelms people most of the time. So I value books that give an overall presentation of a topic that the reader can then use as a template.

[Anonymous No.22046298]

>>22046069
I'm not anti-intellectual, I just don't find intellectualism worthwhile. If you're into endless number crunching and debating meaningless chronologies, go right ahead, I have nothing against it, I'd just prefer not to die wishing I'd spent my time on something more worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.22046339]

>>22045848
what's getting annihilated is the illusion of a stable self which is separate from everything else you perceive, which causes suffering.

If you're watching a magician do a trick and you figure out how it works, did anything get annihilated?

[Anonymous No.22046344]

>>22046298
You are attacking a strawman to justify having a surface level knowledge of a field you are purportedly interested in. You might be on the wrong board
>>22046290
You can read him if you want but he does his own editorializing and is obsessed even in that book with his usual dichotomy of whether an idea is proto-based or proto-cringe, an entirely useless discourse unless you are sympathetic to his project

[Anonymous No.22046569]

>>22046344
There's a big difference between surface level knowledge and not knowing countless irrelevant factoids. There is no strawman either, I am just using the typical definition of scholarship.

[Anonymous No.22046591]

>>22045848
Anatta and sunyata are based on annihilationism or no-self, which doesn't really make much sense and it's quite bleak or nihilistic losing your ego distinction that way. Atman and Brahman is more mystical and on par with Hermeticism and union with the all, maybe more similar to Christianity even

[Anonymous No.22046637]

Because it's not. Buddha's thoughts on self are heavily misinterpreted.
https://secularbuddhism.org/gotama-and-parfit-on-the-self/

[Anonymous No.22046712]

>>22045848
Annihilation sees the subject cease to exist after its current life. Reincarnation sees the subject live again and again after its current life. Buddhism supposes that the subject is reincarnated for as long as it clings to life as the logical consequence of doing so, and has the choice to let go.
>>22045895
Non-self negates the ego, not the subject. The ego is a physiological construct that keeps us addicted to life, acting as a lens through which people regard things as "happening to them" and suffer as a consequence, rather than recognizing things as "simply happening" and observing them for what they are, in which there is no misery.

[Anonymous No.22046776]

>>22046712
What is the subject, and how is it different from the ego? Does subject have identity?

[Anonymous No.22046919]

>>22046776
>What is the subject
The entity to which consciousness pertains
>how is it different from the ego?
The ego is a lens the subject is given through which it relates experiences to its life
>Does subject have identity?
Identity comes and goes with the ego

[Anonymous No.22047023]

>>22046776
Depends on the sect, there are even personalist non-annihilationist Buddhists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudgalavada

[Anonymous No.22047303]

>>22045848
The Buddha attained full enlightenment, he wasn't annihilated

[Anonymous No.22047327]

Because annihilation doesn't occur.

[Anonymous No.22047444]

>>22045848
There is nothing to annihilate.
Buddha neither does or does not exist.

[Anonymous No.22047590]

>>22046569
>countless irrelevant factoids
>the typical definition of scholarship
It's okay to refuse to read, but then why are you posting here?

[Anonymous No.22047781]

I crafted a long rambling essay in response to this with reference to Buddhism’s debates on and ultimate rejection of the extremes of both eternalism and nihilism (which latter would correspond with annihilationism), with extensive reference to how Buddhism’s cosmology also paradoxically is very similar to a conventional interpretation of “eternalism” despite claiming to be arguing against the conception translated as “eternalism”, suggesting a Buddha could “exist” eternally, except simply without the fetters of having a localized, centralized, definitive sense of a “self” that could be defined apart from voidness and dependent arising, using various Sanskrit terminology from various schools of Buddhism (the Dharmadhatu, the Dharmakaya, the Tathagatagarbha, the Bodhisattva ideal of Mahayana, shunyata, pratītyasamutpāda, and so on), but then I remembered I am not a fully enlightened Buddhist and do not entirely understand and still get confused by Buddhism myself, so hence cannot have the pretension to fully answer your question. Also, it’s dubious answering you would do any good even if I WERE a fully enlightened Buddhist without doubts about Buddhism, since there’s no way to tell whether you’re a serious student or enquirer for whom this answer would do any good, or just someone wanting some momentary fleeting entertainment, or to try to get people into loops answering you so you can make the Buddhists and Western New Agers who like the Buddhists look stupid.

Hence, I am just not going to answer you, OP. Have a nice day.

[Anonymous No.22048095]

>>22047781
didn't read frog post

[Anonymous No.22048363]

>muh dharma
try Christ, Sid

[Anonymous No.22048366]

>>22048363
give me some christian metaphysics to ward of these damned heathen devils

[Anonymous No.22048464]

buddhist logic is suicide logic but with the (false) belief of reincarnation. If buddha was born with the belief that at death there is no rebirth, then he would just kill himself. that's liteally what the whole religion is, some sort of method to commit "cosmic suicide". but rebirth isn't true, there isn't 32 realms of hell or some shit and stabbing a man in your past life doesn't make people be born blind in this one. kamma, rebirth, ghosts, devas, demons etc ARE NOT REAL. so why bother with this religion? why does its religious nonsense get a pass? I know why. It's because white faggots see le eastern chink in le crossed legs and think it's le spiritual and le enlightened and le wisdom. it's basically just racism. if some dunecoon or nigger was babbling this same shit people would just say he's a crack addicted fag, and if some christcuck or snowmonkey said the some shit they'd get the banana in the ass treatement. only reason this religion gets a pass is because chinks are seen as esoteric and spiritual, and not the deluded religious retards that they are (unlike the semites and muzzies).

Just forget this gay religion. It preaches that life is shit and we'd all best just fucking die. fags

[Anonymous No.22048471]

>>22045848
If a raindrop hits a body of water, that's not "annihilation", although it's awfully close.

[Anonymous No.22048611]

>>22048366
the talmud

[Anonymous No.22048752]

>>22048464
>le chinks, le dunecoons, le le
you are a tiresome individual

[Anonymous No.22048824]

>>22046776
Subject means the source of subjectivity, a conscious agent. Ego moreso means the intuition of an ontologically real self. A kind of personal essence that is immutable, like a soul. Many Western philosophers have denied the Ego but not the Subject. Hume readily comes to mind. Subjectivity can be nothing more than the illusion of the eternal unity of a bundle of properties, even though it is little more than an ephemeral and vague unity. Kant also denied the ontological reification of the ego. The unification of different impressions of experience he said is caused by the "transcendental unity of apperception" which is really nothing more than a term for the formal unity of these things, not an indication that there is a self behind them which unifies them.

[Anonymous No.22048831]

>>22048464
>if buddha was born with the belief that at death there is no rebirth, then he would just kill himself.
The Buddha's vow of the bodhisattva was triggered by the appearance of Brahma Sahampati who commanded him to help others share in enlightenment and attain nirvana. BODHISATTVAS ALL TAKE VOWS TO STAY IN SAMSARA TO FREE EVERY BEING FROM IT. You fundamentally misunderstand the most basic tenets of a religion then criticize it.

[Anonymous No.22048849]

>>22048363
>>wisdom
>just be a retard, while pretending you're a genius