[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 120 KB, 299x450, bw(2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18363841 No.18363841 [Reply] [Original]

Is this book a good introduction to buddhism? I would have gone to a buddhist centre and asked them more about the faith but they all seem to be catering to white people hippie buddhism by selling meditation and mindfullness courses instead of actually being about the faith proper.

>> No.18363874

>>18363841
I hope you know that meditation is an integral part and not an optional extra.

>> No.18364432

>>18363841
It's a good introduction.

>> No.18364511

(((Bhikku Bodi))) is a kikeus maximus. Just read the pali canon.

>> No.18365206

>>18363874
Not for the overwhelming majority of lay Buddhists throughout history.

>> No.18365233

>>18363841

This book is basically a couple of random sutras cut and pasted into a book without context to cash in on the current new age trend. I ended up going through a lot of trash books on Buddhism without understanding anything, until I went to the source material. For instance I never really grasped the idea of Emptiness until I read Nagarjuna with a commentary. Most of the off the shelf stuff is a cash grab without much content.

>> No.18365363

>>18365233
>>18364511
there's nothing wrong with his sutta translations, if you don't want the anthology thing just go straight to his sutta books (middle length discourses, long discourses, suttanipata etc)

>> No.18365371

also OP i strongly dislike cucked western buddhists too, but meditation and mindfulness are still key

>> No.18365435
File: 45 KB, 353x526, doa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18365435

Pic related is excellent, especially if you're trying to avoid the hippie shit. Inb4 >evola, it's actually a good overview of the pali canon, and if nothing else it has the approval of the Pali Text Society.

>> No.18365458
File: 2.71 MB, 3000x7000, 1612201217607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18365458

>>18363841
Disregard hyperprotestants, acquire sutras

>> No.18365460

Start with The Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma, don't even need to read the whole thing

>> No.18365466

>>18365435
Curious—has anyone bothered to query the Pali Text Society about this post-2016? If so what did they say

>> No.18365513

>>18365466
What kind of slimeball would do this?

>> No.18365521

>>18365435
It's good at explaining the aims of Buddhist beliefs to a westerner, but you should give it pause when he starts adding his hermetic interpretations to it. That being said, even if you take everything as fact from this book you'll still end up a hell of a lot closer to the truth than most other ones.

>> No.18366342
File: 241 KB, 1000x1327, 962_33-manifestations-of-Avalokitesvara-31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366342

It would be more beneficial to read texts covering the basics of the teachings and then begin to read the Canon. For Theravada the goto is What the Buddha Taught by Ven. Walpole Rahula. For Mahayana, there are several, but Thich Nhat Hahns Heart of the Buddhas Teaching. For Tibetan Mahayana, it would be good to recommend Words of my Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche. From there you can branch out into the general areas of study you like. I myself only discovered my path of Chan/Pure Land after several years of searching, so don't feel discouraged if you don't know what you want immediately.

>> No.18366470
File: 288 KB, 1650x2550, 1622529787168.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366470

Is this good?

>> No.18366527
File: 124 KB, 907x1360, 61y3BNh1s6L.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366527

>>18363841
Some anon shilled this a few days ago.
How does it compare to something like TMI in terms of usefulness for practicioner?

>> No.18366541

I currently own the Lotus, Diamond, Vimalakirti, and Platform Sutras. I also have a few books of Thich Nhat Hanh and Nagarjuna. I want a copy of the Avatamsaka but I'm waiting for a good translation. What other Sutras should I get? I'm sick of reading digital sutras and want to build up a collection.

>> No.18366549

>>18366541
Heart Sutra.

>> No.18366815

>>18365206
Yes it was

>> No.18366972

>same thread a few days ago
>4-5 anons say this is a good intro book
>order a copy
>now in this thread no one thinks it's a good intro
never trust /v/

>> No.18366999
File: 33 KB, 600x450, dreadlocks-stoner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18366999

> believing the metaphysical mumbo jumbo

Hipster, spiritual-tourists

>> No.18367162
File: 73 KB, 640x960, 1620229005250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18367162

>>18366972
it's fine, disregard them
>>18366470
no, it's not Buddhism, it's liberation theology for dalits. it denies rebirth, karma, and a myriad other fundamental Buddhist teachings. heretical trash. avoid.

>> No.18367268

>>18365233
What does Emptiness mean? Also, can you explain how do you get reincarnation without souls? One sutta I read emphasized that consciousness does not carry over, and that consciousness arises from 'ignorance'. What is this thing that is ignorant before there is consciousness?

>> No.18367278

>>18366999
People serious about spirituality disregard metaphysics?

>> No.18367358

>>18366527
The difference is that this book was written by Zhiyi, the founder of the Tiantai school of Chinese Buddhism, or Tendai in Japan. The premise of this book is the practice of Calmness-Insight meditation, which is the combination of samatha and vipassana meditation.

Tiantai is steeped heavily in Madhyamka philosophy and is sometimes called Chinese Madhyamka (to differ it from Indo-Tibetan Madhyamka).

The book itself was written as a handbook for Chinese monks, so it lacks the "gameyness" of TMI. Each page has the original Chinese text with the corresponding English text on the next page.

I recommend it because it's pretty cheap, it's interesting source material from a Chinese patriarch and I have found it to be pretty useful.

>> No.18367395

>>18367268
Emptiness refers the to the lack of intrinsic essence or substance of phenomena. Refer to the Questions of Milinda Sutra, specifically the discussion of the chariot.

>> No.18367444

Not really, you want an intro that will cover everything but not too deeply. This book tries to find the real buddha before all of the legends were made, the historical buddha in other words. It's a good scholastic work but not really a good intro. Would you start learning about christianity by reading about the historical jesus? Dount it, anon

>> No.18367477

Would you ever live in a Buddhist society? No, not as as a privileged expat but as a local. Of course not.

Don't judge a belief system by the theory but by tangible results.

>> No.18367526
File: 78 KB, 502x725, cleary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18367526

>>18363841

>> No.18367574

>>18367268

Someone shilled >>18367526 a couple days ago and I have been going through it and shilling it as well. I thought it had a good explanation of emptiness:

"When Buddhist teaching says that things are empty or do not exist as such, what is often meant by 'things' or 'phenomena' in such statements is things as they are conceived of-the point is then that a name or definition does not encompass or capture a thing, either in its essence or in the totality of possibilities of its conditional existence.

To pursue the matter more deeply, when we consider the idea of the world as conceptions based on perceptions based on sensations, we can see that we have no further direct evidence for any thing phenomenal beyond sense.

If we seek corroboration of sense by sense, we find that we cannot reach beyond sense, so to speak, except by inference.

We cannot therefore directly "apprehend" the objective world; we can only reflect impressions.

This 'emptiness of ungraspability' is among the major avenues of contemplation lead ing to authentic appreciation of emptiness."

>> No.18367857

>>18367526
>>18367574
I don't think I saw any hua-yan posting until someone made the newer Buddhism chart
>>18365458

>> No.18367891

>>18366541
Good deal, I followed zen in the past and they tend to look down on spending too much time reading the sutras and it's only my opinion but think that they help. They help the reader to be more grounded so that your opinion isnt changed by someone presenting what looks like a good point. Of course, one needs balance so that your heart and soul are worked through meditation and similar practices so that your heart is worked just as your brain is.

>> No.18367968

>>18363841
Mastering the Core Teaching of the Buddha - Daniel Ingram

>> No.18367989
File: 22 KB, 218x346, mctb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18367989

>>18367968
4got pic
its also entirely online for free on his website

>> No.18368472

>>18365458
>Theravada
>Protestant

if anything Mahayana is the hyper protestant with their latter day suttas.
The Mahayana sutras are the Gospel of Mormon of Buddhism

>> No.18369301

>>18367268
>how do you get reincarnation without souls
karma is what reincarnates, or as Schopenhauer put it "will"

>> No.18370658

>>18367968
>>18367989
That guy meddles in the occult. He also has a boutique take on Buddhism and especially on enlightenment, trying to argue every religion is talking about hyperfast noting of impressions and sensations. Perennialism is one thing, but that is clearly false.

>> No.18370719

>>18369301
In the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html)) the Buddha says:

>From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
> From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

Is karma this thing that is not consciousness that is ignorant? Can karma learn (despite being non-sentient like a rock) such that it does not give birth to fabrications and then consciousness? Would that be nirvana, and if so, how is nirvana not annihilation?

>> No.18370881

>>18370719
Karma is not a *thing*. Karma refers to action, which plants karmic fruit or results (vipaka) that blossom over time. Check out the alaya-vijnanna in Yogacara doctrine for a better explanation of this.
That being said, when a being attains Nirvana but remains alive, how are they able to operate in the world without generating more karma? The answer is that because they understand how the world works, i.e. that phenomena are empty, nondual, and impermanent, then one can act skillfully in the world without creating more karma.
The flame of existence burns the fuel of karma.

>> No.18371297
File: 1.41 MB, 200x200, 1617323807015.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18371297

I'd recommend either "the heart of the Buddha's teachings" by Thich Nhat Hanh or Karen Armstrong's Buddha biography before "in the Buddha's words" Both start from the complete basics and develop into fairly nuanced understandings of the Buddha's teachings. Both examine the problems of ascribing texts to the buddha and situate buddhism in a historical context which is helpful.
After that I would concentrate on primary sources like "in the Buddha's words".

"The mind illuminated" is a great introduction to meditation which can get you up to being able to sustain exclusive attention on your breathing without being distracted. After that it really is helpful to engage with a teacher or sangha.

>> No.18371310

>>18370719
That translation is weird. "Fabrications" are typically translated as "karmic formations", or "karma." Karma is one "emanation" outward from ignorance.

>> No.18371451

>>18365466
They'd probably take their word back just because he has a bad reputation now and they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by "supporting" him.

>> No.18371782

>>18368472
The point is that the hippies brought their American protestantism into Buddhism which is why it appears as vapid and inauthentic as Methodism or Episcopalianism etc.
>>18369301
It's not reincarnation/metempsuchosis in the classical sense, it's "rebirth." The usual metaphor is of a fire spreading from wick to wick to consume more fuel. Karma is the ripening of action, cause-and-effect, not a personal (You) and not (re)born but what determines births.
>>18371451
That's basically the point. Saying it is endorsed by some authoritative-sounding authority because they haven't bothered to retract it yet (or have they?) is pretty silly and reeks of a certain kind of legalese jutsu best delivered by other religious literature.

>> No.18371844

>>18367477
>Of course not
why not?

>> No.18371855

can I start practicing pure land buddhism as an internet convert or do I need to be initiated?

>> No.18371859
File: 2.29 MB, 378x378, cat-hitting-keyboard-meme.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18371859

Doesn't being a chantard contradict half of the precepts of the eightfold path? (Right resolve, right speech, right effort) or is buddhism like the abrahamic religions where you can cherry-pick aspects you like and ignore parts you don't like....... Kind of like those hippie pseudo buddhists do.

>Mindfully shitposting about niggers, whores, cucks, libtards, spics, chuds and jews.

Lol. Do you actually take yourself seriously?

>> No.18371865

>>18371855
Why ask here?

>> No.18371956

>>18371865
buddhism thread

>> No.18372510

>>18371855
also curious

>> No.18372939

>>18367268
>Emptiness
Imagine a table. There really is no such thing as the table in reality, it is just a label we put on a particular group of items. (a flat piece of wood with legs). What is a flat piece of wood? An object with a certain shape and organic molecular makeup. ad. infinitum. These things only exist in our mind.

>reincarnation
The way I understand it, (and I could be wrong), is that the only thing that lives on after death is karma. In other words a chain of events caused by the the seeds you planted during your lifetime. All other aspects of consciousness are transient.

>> No.18373820

>>18370658
yeh but you can read his book and have a clear idea of what it is you are doing and where you are going when you are practicing buddhist meditation. most other stuff i see recommended here just delves into interpretations of the system, only theory, buddhism is a practical method of inquiry. I wouldnt say he has a boutique take on buddhism, just he offers a space for the outliers, such as people with a natural inclination towards powers, that aren't addressed by other teachers and he doesn't neglect the shamanic components of Theravadin buddhism. i dont even practice his methods, its just the best intro for people attempting to get a grip of what it is theyre doing on the path.

>> No.18373837

>>18371859
lol
this

>> No.18373846

>>18363841
a better way to get introduced to buddhism is not via book. but by practice. go on a retreat. find a system online like TWIM. if you like theravada thanissaro bhikku has better organised suttas and more approachable distillations with hardcopies available for free on his website.

>> No.18373968

>>18371855
no you don't need to be initiated, the core of pure land practice is remembrance and chanting the name of Amitabha which doesn't require any kind of empowerment from a priest or monk

>> No.18374076

>>18365206
lay traditions are often practically driven

>> No.18374137

>>18371859
buddhism is very much a pick what you like religion. there has never been a centralised council in buddhism deciding what the core text is. its entire history is based on interpretation, argumentation, refutation etc... heck even within a monastery you'll have some monks who practice from the Madhymyaka some the Yogacara, some both, each with their own preference as to interpretation, if enough agree they'll split off and form their own sect. you bring up the eightfold path, some monastic traditions only practice four or five of those, ive even seen traditions with only right attitude and effort.

>Lol. Do you actually take yourself seriously?

actual practice communities laugh at people like you.

>dduuuh muuuh my tradition is the only true interpretation of the buddhas words, you can only get enlightened through breath at the nostrils

fucking pseudo buddhists

>> No.18374288

>>18365521
>That being said, even if you take everything as fact from this book you'll still end up a hell of a lot closer to the truth than most other ones.
Evola's analysis is really that good?

>> No.18374690

>>18374288
not really, actual orientalist have better tools to interpret buddhist literature

>> No.18374693

>>18373846
this anon is right

>> No.18374709

>>18365435
>has the approval of the Pali Text Society.
no, Evola claimed that, but it's inno way officially approved by the Pali Text Society

>> No.18375795
File: 15 KB, 300x300, 1614954314199.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18375795

>>18374137
What a load of cope and bullshit. Where do you draw the line in regards to what you can get away with and still have the audacity to call yourself a buddhist?
Can I still be a based and redpilled hate-monger and be a Buddhist?
Carry on LARPing. You're as bad as the much derided hippie lounge-acts.

>fucking pseudo buddhists
Projection and y u mad tho

>> No.18375981

>>18374137
>buddhism is very much a pick what you like religion

there's a general criteria tho

>>18374137
>its entire history is based on interpretation, argumentation, refutation etc

all religions are like that

you present an interesting point, but you rely to much on it to dismiss something that's just to complex and big, just because the fundamentals can be stretched like in any other religion, doesn't mean you can pretty much reinvent or do whatever you want, you're still operating under a particular frame

>> No.18376055

It's awful
I guarantee you you will get bored and drop the book if you start with it
Read Foundations of Buddhism

>> No.18376063

>>18374076
Driven by praying and donating to monasteries. Most Buddhists do not meditate. Any basic book on lived Buddhism will tell you this.

>> No.18376064

Any suggestions for historical and traditional buddhist meditation techniques for a beginner? Preferably from the theravada tradition.

>> No.18376141

>>18376063
yes actually you are correct on that

>> No.18376594

>>18376064
Dhyana is the foundation of all Buddhist meditation, and Eknath Easwaran explaining it in the Dhammapada translation he did is good. Also an Alan Watts talk on youtube called The Art of Meditation

>> No.18376622

>>18376594
Are the explanations authentic to the therevada tradition?

>> No.18376658

>>18376622
Yeah

>> No.18376668

>>18376658
Neither of them seem to have any involvement in Therevada Buddhism though so I really doubt that they had the tradition taught to them by teachers

>> No.18376673

>>18376668
Leaves in the breeze

>> No.18376781

>>18371310
Thanissaro Bhikkhu is based, GTFO abidhamma bitch ass

>> No.18378129

You have an immortal soul, read Plato and the Enneads and disregard all the eastern sophistry.

>> No.18378283

>>18378129
I dunno man I am open to the idea of souls but I just dont believe it

>> No.18378479

>>18378283
Read Phaedo

>> No.18378610

>>18378479
I dunno man I guess I'll give it a shot but I don't really buy words

>> No.18378743

>>18378129
>read Plato
Don't forget the part about metempsychosis and philosophy as askesis that would be at home in any "eastern sophistry"

>> No.18378806

>>18378743
>eastern philosophy has a monopoly on transmigration and ascetic contemplation
Either way, metempsychosis in Platonism also has nothing to do with "rebirth" as understood by Buddhists.

>> No.18378836

>>18378610
>I don't really buy words
You can also simply realize for yourself that you have an immortal soul by not being an NPC and not buying into manipulative ideologies

>> No.18380316

>>18378129
read hume, kant and hegel, the most advanced forms of western philosophy agrees with buddhist epistemology and non self

>> No.18380371

>>18380316
>most advanced forms of western philosophy
lol

>> No.18380382

>>18378836
>not being an NPC
>believing in a soul, the strongest form of cope there is


pick one and only one

>> No.18380391

>>18380382
Ok nihilist

>> No.18380419

>>18380382
If you needed another proof buddhists are cryptomaterialists...

>> No.18380426

>>18380391
lol dude read Nietzsche, believing in a soul is the strongest form of nihilism, it's the culmination of the myths of consolation human create to not face the hardships of reality and the fear of death and oblivion
the only way to be free and live a vital life and experiment a true notion of eternity in this world(nibbana, the deathless state) is to get rid of such machinations, there's nothing more nihilist than believing in a immortal unchangeable soul

>> No.18380445

>>18380426
>read Nietzsche
You mean the guy who called your life-denying death cult what it is? kek
>believing in a soul is the strongest form of nihilism
This is your brain on crypto-physicalism. If you want to believe you're nothing then by all means do so but don't try to rope people into your cult of annihilation

>> No.18380454

Also Buddhism is nominalist which means that it is by essence self-refuting and that all its axioms can be disregarded.
I'll leave this thread before the nihilistic bugmen start seething too hard about their plans to kill their souls being exposed

>> No.18380489

>>18380445
like most people of his era Nietzsche hadn't access to good orientalist material, of course he misunderstood core principles of buddhism
non the less his ideas of nihilism were pretty accurate and goes well with buddhist psychology

>If you want to believe you're nothing then by all means do so but don't try to rope people into your cult of annihilation
you're the one reificating yourself and destroying any possibility to live an authentic life bro

>> No.18380497

>>18380454
>Also Buddhism is nominalist

lol no it's not

>> No.18380512

>>18378806
>metempsychosis in Platonism also has nothing to do with "rebirth" as understood by Buddhists.
Metempsychosis is a form of rebirth. Platonists just add the idea of a soul
>>18380445
No the other dude is right. Personal immortality is a slave cope and a will to nihilism.

>> No.18380516

>>18380445
>If you want to believe you're nothing then by all means do so but don't try to rope people into your cult of annihilation
lmao this is what guenonfags and advaita schizos actually believe

>> No.18380537
File: 158 KB, 487x578, 1612966249344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18380537

>>18380516
>copies Nagarjuna's homework
>calls Buddhists nihilists
>continues a thousand year tradition of Buddhism living rent-free in Hindu scholastic works

>> No.18380920

>>18380445
>Friedrich Nietzsche admired Buddhism, writing that: "Buddhism already has - and this distinguishes it profoundly from Christianity - the self-deception of moral concepts behind it - it stands, in my language, Beyond Good and Evil."[23] Nietzsche saw himself as undertaking a similar project to the Buddha. "I could become the Buddha of Europe", he wrote in 1883
>>18380489
indeed
>Nietzsche's interpretation of Buddhism as pessimistic and life-denying was probably influenced by his understanding of Schopenhauer's views of eastern philosophy and therefore "he was predisposed to react to Buddhism in terms of his close reading of Schopenhauer."[26] Because of this writes Elman, Nietzsche misinterprets Buddhism as promoting "nothingness" and nihilism, all of which the Buddha and other Buddhist thinkers such as Nagarjuna repudiated, in favor of a subtler understanding of Shunyata

>> No.18380977
File: 258 KB, 768x1128, 04l6duzywsw61.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18380977

>>18376064
>>18376622
>>18376668
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZPdxgifj20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcE3TlCDYE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CHLlOSJVr8

yuttadhammo bhikku also has a book called "how to meditate". i hope that you can utilize these videos to start a meditation practice.

>> No.18381426

>>18380977
yuttadhammo is so great! his booklet on meditation is amazing, i did a ton of progress following his advice

>> No.18381722

>>18380977
>>18381426
I didn't like that he believes in rebirth, I am practicing in the Theravada tradition won't believe in rebirth I guess lol

>> No.18381733

>>18363841
Since this is the Buddhist thread, seems like a good place to ask. According to the stories, Buddha was sitting under a tree meditating trying to get enlightened but he was being hindered by Mara trying to tempt him to prevent Buddha from getting enlightened. The question is: what is Mara's motivation here? Why does your devil figure do what it does, tempting people? It's not like popular conceptions of Satan where he steals your soul or something like that, right?

>> No.18381786

>>18381733
mara is just a metaphor for his emotional turmoil

>> No.18381815

>>18381733
mara as a symbol is the world of craving(tanja), and as a world/god he doesn't like alternatives to his own existence (a life without craving) cos it denies his existence as something absolute, buddha wanting to get rid of craving and desire is offending him, in most stories mara always act as a jealous benefactor "why dont you like the world i created for you?" he offers him his daughters, the most beautiful and sensual women that could exist and his food and treasures, but buddha has is eyes set on the big price(nibbana the deathless state) and that's what irritates mara, he thinks he's the big price, that's there's nothing beyond him, mara is a demiurge of sorts, he's not even evil, he's just jealous and greedy
>>18381786
this is also correct

>> No.18381872

>>18381815
>>18381786
>buddha wanting to get rid of craving and desire is offending him
Makes sense, thanks.

>> No.18382212

Which nikaya should I read first?

>> No.18382719

>>18380489
>h-he just didn't understand it
Ok faggot
>you're the one reificating yourself
Desire to strive towards the Good is the greatest expression of the will and b*ddhists want to kill it because they're cowards, simple as
>>18380497
yeah it is
>>18380512
>a form of rebirth
It's not rebirth, it's transmigration, and there is no destruction of consciousness or memory unlike in nih- I mean buddhism
>Personal immortality is a slave cope and a will to nihilism.
You sound like an underage retard
See above
>>18380516
I don't give a fuck about eastern philosophy, cope

You guys are gonna feel so retarded when you die and realize you've wasted this life on a dead-end

>> No.18382756

what's even the point of being a buddhist
Since you're a materialist atheist you have no reason to strive towards anything. The logical conclusion of your NPC ideology is hedonism
Are you guys just larping as buddhists because you like the oriental aesthetic?

>> No.18382775

>>18380454
>Also Buddhism is nominalist
okey so you don't know anything about buddhism or western philosophy
if you wanna use western term to describe buddhist philosophy, then you can say buddhism is in general a type of phenomenology

>which means that it is by essence self-refuting
that should be your first clue to understand that is not nominalist, but you seem to trapped in your own thought to understand that
>about their plans to kill their souls being exposed
and this is why no one will ever take you seriously, and the fucked up thing is you know it, you know you're just rambling like a maniac, but you can't help yourself, you're so invested on your own delusions that you need to keep saying buzzword after buzzword, proving every buddhist point, showing all of us how this pathological believe in a "transcendental self" just leads you to delusion and bitterness, what you fail to realize is that buddhist also have trascendental categories like nibbana, boddchitta, sunyata, much more in line with modern wstern thinkers like heidegger, wittgestein, fichte, hegel etc so your vacuous rambling about nihilism just doesn't work, no one believes it and it proven false, because we deal with much more complex and vital transcendental categories than "a soul" but you're so trapped in the motions you need to keep doing it, you're showing us samsara and proving us right like in ways you don't even imagine
you like to think about all this like "crypto-something" when in reality youre just projecting hard cos you're a crypto-nihilist, you have no faith in the real world so it scares you when some philosophy denies your illusions of a less boring, less hard world somewhere else were you're not an incel with a mediocre life
the bauty of buddhism is that it can create transcendental realities without ignore immanent problems, the fact you can't see that speaks volumes of how weak you are spiritually

>> No.18382789

>>18382719
>yeah it is
prove it

>> No.18382798

>>18382775
Didn't read, nihilist

>> No.18382803

>>18382719
>Desire to strive towards the Good is the greatest expression of the will
he said while he spend his time in 4chan typing cringe shit after cringe shit to a bunch of people who just don't care
dude you have problems, sort yourself out

>> No.18382852

>>18382803
I could say the same about you, nigger. Acquire some self awareness, if you're here than your spiritual practice is lacking
I however don't larp as an oriental nihilist on /lit/ so that at least puts me a step ahead

>> No.18382862

>>18382789
Read the Heart sutra

>> No.18382872

>>18382756
>what's even the point of being a buddhist
fully realization and actualization of the human potential

>Since you're a materialist atheist
nope, buddhism is a form of transcendental idealism

>you have no reason to strive towards anything
nope again because as transcendental idealist we see the human experience as the very pure reason to strive forward, we don't need obtuse concepts to justify our actions, life itself and the struggles that come up with it are our map and destination, Fichte elaborated similar theories in regard to this

>The logical conclusion
your premises are already wrong, so you know your conclusion will be too

>Are you guys just larping as buddhists because you like the oriental aesthetic?
no but i think you're projecting here, maybe you're the one larping to make up for a deeply rooted Inferiority complex

>> No.18382876

>>18382862
i did, you're talking out of your ass

>> No.18382887

>>18382775
Alright I couldn't resist so I read your post
Putting aside that you're a humongous faggot projecting all over the place and seething while pretending you're above it (a buddhist trademark) it's funny you'd employ nietzschean terminology again and again when your bugman spirituality's whole point is escaping suffering while Nietzsche's point was about affirming it, if not seeking it out
Basically your post sums up to "you just don't understand bro" which is about all I'd expect from someone who would seriously subscribe to Buddhism
Also amusing you would call me an escapist (projection?) since Buddhism is about retreating to the world to the point that all your desires are extinguished. You're all over the place and don't seem to understand your own "religion" (can't blame you since it's all a self-contradictory crock of shit)

Now I'm out for real, talking to you faggots is boring and extremely depressing, you all reek of womanly passive-aggressiveness, maybe it's the vegan diet
Drop the nihilistic sophistry, read the [neo]platonists and get out of this death cult while you still can.

>> No.18382893

>>18382852
lol i'm not posturing myself as some try hard tip fedora virtue warrior, i love hanging out here, you on the other hand seem to waste your time talking out of your ass and spewing incoherent rambling without no sense or purpose

>> No.18382983

>>18382887
>Alright I couldn't resist so I read your post
indeed, you're that weak mentally

anyways going to your "final" rambling
all the points you just made were already debunked in this same thread, but i'll refute them once agian for the rest of the people on this thread
>your bugman spirituality's whole point is escaping suffering while Nietzsche's point was about affirming it, if not seeking it out
the actual conections with nietzsche were already proven
also buddhisst don't try to escape suffering, they face suffering right on to understand it and resolve it, they face pain to eliminate the mental formations that transform pain into suffering(dukka) which is just a cosntructionof the mind
>since Buddhism is about retreating to the world to the point that all your desires are extinguished.
wrong again, there's no real retreat, just eliminate distractions to experience the world in his purest form, a lot of Buddhist practices involve going to the most dangerous places, like forest or slums
>since it's all a self-contradictory crock of shit
nah that's you just and you inability to understand simple concepts
>Now I'm out for real
lol no you're not, you're to weak, you'll be right back in a couple of hours
>Drop the nihilistic sophistry, read the [neo]platonists and get out of this death cult while you still can.
you really expect to be take seriously after typing this cringy shit?

what's funny about all this is in every one of your post you out yourself as a insecure weak willed individual who knows nothing about buddhism, have the skills of argumentation of a 12 year old and tries to look cool drooping literature only an edgy teenager would think it looks cool, we all already read plato and the neoplatonics,
you're wasting your time in such a monumental way, but you need to keep going, proving every point of buddhism right

>> No.18382992

>>18382862
okey you don't have any proofs, cool

>> No.18383012

>>18382756
My family are Buddhist and I enjoy the study of religions as well as seeing whether Buddhist meditation techniques would be useful for me
I'm kind of in-between a deist and a theist so it's a bit confusing for me though, I'm still not sure

>> No.18383043

>>18382887
this is the guenonfag that want to "save buddhist form nihilism" in every thread right?

>> No.18383045

>>18383012
>it's a bit confusing for me though
what's confusing you anon?

>> No.18383090

>>18382756
Yeah I never really understood this. If you are not a soul but a transient mass of aggregates that dissolve and rearrange themselves after death, what is the incentive to practice Buddhism? Why care about rebirth at all since I'm not the one who'll be reborn? The only argument they give is "you don't actually exist" which is not satisfying because I obviously can observe my own existence. I identify with my consciousness, ego and memories. If those disappear after death, why should I give a shit about karma going on since it's not me? Seems to me I can just do whatever the fuck I want and the result will be the same from my perspective.
The assumption is that samsara is bad and I should try to eliminate desires but what if I don't agree? Buddhism kind of falls apart if you don't agree with its basic premise which is that suffering should be extinguished through the extinction of desire.
It seems like a perfect system for those for whom suffering is a big problem and who want to stop it, but if that's not my case then I have absolutely no reason to get into Buddhism.

>> No.18383157

>>18382756
>>18383090


lol dude c'mon we know you're samefagging

>> No.18383173

>>18382887
you're just spewing the same shit over and over again, at least address the arguments that are given to you, we already know why you don't like buddhism and everyone here already engage with your ideas and told you why they're misguided, come up with some new shit

>> No.18383175

>>18366972
Damn :(
It's a really good intro anon, don't worry about it

>> No.18383210

>>18375795
Sounds like you're coping!

>> No.18383255

>>18383157
>more than one person disagrees with my religion's tenets? Impossible!

>> No.18383338

>>18383255
dude you write the same shit every time, in every thread, multiple times, it's obvious that is you, you're just to predictable at this point

>> No.18383486

>>18383338
>every thread
This is the first time I've visited a Buddhist thread in months. Take your meds, unironically.

>> No.18383507

>>18383486
lol yeah sure

>> No.18383521

>>18383486
dude you're so cringy oh my god

>> No.18383530

>>18383507
>>18383521
>ask legitimate questions
>get told I'm some boogeyman and insulted
Not very loving kindness of you, but whatever.

>> No.18383550

>>18383530
this is the guy accusing buddhist of larping lmao

dude you're pathetic, this is so embarrassing

>> No.18383557

>>18381722
rebirth is an essential part of buddhism, buddhism is incoherent without rebirth, you aren't practicing in the theravada tradition if you don't accept rebirth.

>> No.18383559

>>18383550
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please take the meds.

>> No.18383565

so what meditations are you all practicing my bros? i really feel like we should make a /buddhismgen/

>> No.18383580

>>18383565
i'm in vajrayana, so i do shamata, vipassana and tonglen

>> No.18383707
File: 24 KB, 500x375, mmm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18383707

>>18383090
>>18383255
>>18383486
>>18383530
>>18383559

>> No.18383711

>>18383707
?

>> No.18383830

>>18375795
there is space for interpretation, but of course being a hate mongering idiot on 4chan goes against the basic principles that are at the core of buddha's teachings.

You literally answered your own question. Either you're really THAT stupid for not putting 1 and 2 together or are pretending to be.

>> No.18384012
File: 218 KB, 1127x986, Yeshe-Tsogyal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384012

>>18383580
hi, fellow based vajrayana brother

>> No.18384080
File: 32 KB, 275x225, monks-with-guns.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384080

>>18383557
Rebirth in each second from moment to moment. No self to be reborn after we decay when we die

>> No.18384103

>>18383557
It is not essential to believe in rebirth or past or future lives for Buddhism. The question is often considered plainly unimportant and not worth thinking about. If anyone tells you there are 7 rebirths they are just making it up, possibly for symbolic or traditional meaning, possibly as a psychological technique within the practice.

>> No.18384104

>>18384080
>>18384103
Sounds like physicalism

>> No.18384147

>>18384012
sarva mangalam brother hope your practice going well, may the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas give you tons of merit in your journey to liberation
https://youtu.be/QXph387bN3U

>> No.18384179

>>18384103
i think is somewhat esential, if you don't conceive some sort of way of reincarnation you end up with a materialist point of view, which is the other way of reification of human experience, beside believing in a eternal soul, if you believe in a soul you end up creating a metaphysical world, which is a contradition since that metaphysical world is created and conceived by our human physical minds trappe din space and time, but if you only believe in the immediacy of this body you end up creating a materialist world with the faulty notions of our senses that we all know well lie to us all the time
i think reincarnation is a good way to develop a transcendental criteria that free us from the traps of the immanent experience, such as not believing in a soul free us or the traps of a transcendental conceptual world

>> No.18384188

>>18384179
>which is a contradition since that metaphysical world is created and conceived by our human physical minds trappe din space and time
Jesus christ please read a book, this is getting ridiculous

>> No.18384202
File: 673 KB, 486x608, 1609097715635.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384202

>>18384103
>hey kids don't worry about the uh... metaphysics... Buddha was actually just a psychologist
Go back to your AmaZen booth

>> No.18384231
File: 109 KB, 604x374, Meditation-Monk-Corpse-Death-impermanence.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384231

>>18384104
>>18384179
To un-reify
you have to add in interbeing, dependent origination, emptiness, impermanence to physicalism.

Yes thich Nhat Hanh goes on about the faulty notions of our senses and thoughts and memories and the difference between seeing 'signs' and the reality underneath. You can't really escape from immanent experience, but can approach it skillfully.

I think of my death as the flame of a candle going out

>> No.18384235

>>18384231
With no transcendent reality, you're still effectively a physicalist.

>> No.18384252

>>18384202
By being some transcendent thing you're going to wreck everything and make up dualisms and why would you want to do this?

>> No.18384277
File: 38 KB, 343x600, 1622448169079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384277

>>18384252
>make up dualisms
It's like you've never even read any Buddhist lit.

>> No.18384313

>>18384277
When I die in a few years, not so long from now, everything will become nothing including me, and I will take a rest forever.

>> No.18384323

>>18384277
>>18384313
I should add even enlightenment is romanticism, a nice story but not real, Buddhism is just living

>> No.18384325

>>18384313
You have absolutely no way of knowing that.

>> No.18384331

>>18384325
Impermanence of all this from meditating long enough on all things

>> No.18384342

>>18384080
>Rebirth in each second from moment to moment.

But one might go further and ask the Nihilist why he does not feel thoroughly ashamed to go on recognizing himself as the agent in every successive cognition right up to his dying breath, and to remember all his past cognitions from birth on as having had himself as agent, while continuing to adhere to his doctrine that everything goes to destruction the moment it arises? He might perhaps rejoin that all this comes about through similarity. One might then reply to him that the notion ‘this is like that’ shows that similarity involves two entities. But as the Nihilist cannot admit that there is a single perceiver who could perceive the two similar things, his claim that recognition is based on similarity is just babble. If, on the other hand, there were really a single perceiver able to perceive the similarity of two moments, then there would be one person persisting during two moments, which would contradict the principle of universal momentariness.
- Shankara (pbuh)

>> No.18384351

>>18384331
Meditation is not proof of anything. You can convince yourself of anything by contemplation and askesis, see Christian mystics.

>> No.18384392

What's your favourite book by Shōhaku Okumura? He has a Sangha in Illinois would be cool to study under a zen master

>> No.18384393

>>18384252
right view is the foundation for all attainment, if you don't accept rebirth you don't have right view. it's as simple as that.

>> No.18384396

>>18384342
oh the shankara fag is here, i'll just refute his arguments really quickly:
Ok, this will be fun. Here are the main arguments and the basic Buddhist response:

>"A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement?"

Buddhism does not reject this generally, it holds that there is viññāṇa, consciousness or knowing. It just states that consciousness is impermanent, ever changing, and interdependent and so cannot be a "Self".

> "against what standard you measure permanence relative to impermanence? Everything is impermanent relative to what? If everything if temporary, then how would the concept of any sort of permanence even arise? ... But then how do you create your own locus standi for the transitoriness to be perceived? Who is the witness, the spectator? There has to be One. The primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis of everything and from which the whole world has arisen."
This argument is mistaken. You do not need something to measure against - something permanent - to prove impermanence. Impermanence is proven through an empirical argument in Buddhism, not a rationalist one. If you just observe the world and your mind, you will see it is constantly changing. Everything is constantly in flux. The focus, feel, intensity and phenomenal object of consciousness are always changing. Sometimes you are clearly seeing a visible object, sometimes you are sleepy and you cannot be aware of things clearly, etc. Sometimes you experience suffering and sometimes happiness. The onus is not on the Buddhist to prove impermanence, which is easily observable, it is on the Vedantin to prove that consciousness is permanent (and ever blissful!, a ridiculous claim), while it always appears as ever fleeting.

>Memory proves impermanence is wrong - "If both perceived object and the perceiver change, there would be no connect – and there would not be any case for memory! "

This is a bad argument too. Memory is just another process, a process which is always in flux. Memory is not a fixed thing, it's always being rearranged and re-built (modern psychology has shown this). That does not mean that there is not something which is remembered, just because something is always changing does not mean that it is totally being wiped out each moment. It only means that parts of it are being lost or changed (which, indeed, is what modern psychological studies of memory show) There is a causal connection between the past and present mental processes and this allows for memory. A river is always changing, but it keeps it's shape for years, for example.

>> No.18384399

>>18384342
Oh, even nihilists have memories

>> No.18384401

>>18384396
>Something cannot come from nothing

This argument is aimed against a false interpretation of Madhyamaka, that sees it as positing some kind of ontological nihilism, so there's no point in refuting it, because no Buddhist ever held that "nothingness" is an ontological ultimate. Not Buddha, not Nagarjuna, no-one.

>"Everyone has the notion "I am"; no one can deny the self, because when you go to deny – there would be the self of the denier – who would scale up the denial."

The sense of "I am" is not denied in Buddhism, the sense of "I am" is ''asmi mana'', it arises from ignorance and is a cause of suffering. It is an impermanent, interdependent process that arises from grasping at a sense of self. A Buddha has eliminated the sense of "I am."

>> No.18384411

>>18384393
I'm suggesting, as nNishijima does, that there isn't really even such a thing as "enlightenment". But it is a good story and a useful one, but can be let go of as a thought goal or motivation.

>> No.18384423
File: 87 KB, 611x940, guenon btfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384423

>>18384401
note that not only buddhist refuted shankara from an empirical point of view, but shankara failed to make a good argument against a rational refutation of atman in the sattvānumāna

>> No.18384424
File: 19 KB, 439x290, 1615924291455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384424

>>18384342
>nihilist this nihilist that
>me, no I'm not a nihilist I just think the world is an illusion and that the real world is us being god forgetting that he is god

>> No.18384429

>>18384423
Based Bataille-Buddha syncretizer. Let us discharge our surplus skandhas and become dionysaic.

>> No.18384432

>>18384396
>>18384401
>>18384423
>>18384424
Nihilistic sophistry
>>18384342
Kinda based but gets points subtracted because eastern philosophy is cringe

>> No.18384444
File: 157 KB, 960x960, 1591462856465.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384444

>>18384432
>Nihilistic sophistry
No this is literally you being the one devaluing life on behalf of a priestly ontology.

>> No.18384445

>>18384396
>>18384401
>>18384423

not only that shankara barely critiques Madhyamaka since he insists it is nihilism on the basis of it being against pramāṇa. He unfortunately missed the development of the incorporation of Buddhist pramāṇa theory into Madhyamaka, which was initially developed by Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśila and then expanded on by various Tibetans.

>> No.18384449

>>18384444
Deahtly quads confirm nihilism

>> No.18384457

>>18384445
Do you remember the time guenonfag was forced to read Mipham? He actually had to update his pastas

>> No.18384466
File: 229 KB, 960x1200, unfpzgzov2051.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384466

>>18384449
>thinking death is nihilism
Death allows me to acquire a new body with which to expound the teaching to sentient beings

>> No.18384469
File: 9 KB, 275x183, qqq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384469

>>18384342
Later formulations of kṣāṇavāda are more objection resistant, but even if they weren't, the original formulations of momentariness do not require a permanent "one who is aware of momentariness," because it is conceivable that a given momentary vijñānadharma may be conditioned by some other momentary dharma in such a way as to realize the impermanence of all things.

the Guenon shaman and all the other crypto nihilist BTFO yet again

>> No.18384477

>>18384466
>me
There is no you to acquire a new body
You're contradicting yourself
Death is not nihilism by the way, it's freedom.

>> No.18384496

>>18384477
>There is no you to acquire a new body
>You're contradicting yourself
Where is the contradiction? If I am not permanent of course I can change bodies. What constitutes me at present was something else in the past. If I were permanent I could not even speak of a future

>> No.18384509

>>18384080
>>18384103
This is beyond retarded. Buddhism only works with rebirth in mind. The whole point of the religion is that you're trapped in an eternal cycle of dukkha and your only way out is following Buddhism. If dukkha ends as soon as you die then you can just wait till death to be free, or kill yourself to be free from dukkha right now.

>> No.18384518

>>18384496
What is it that changes bodies?

>> No.18384545

>>18384444
Quads. Us nihilist Buddhists confirmed as based

>> No.18384548

>>18384518
The consequences of actions

>> No.18384559

>>18384509
yeah I think early Buddhists did kill themselves, and Guarana had to chill out and make new teachings so they didn't do that lol. Some say nibbana is when we die b/c suffering is over

>> No.18384572
File: 469 KB, 803x931, furia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384572

>>18384342
the problem with shankara's text is that Buddhism isn’t actually adhering to or at least not speaking of a proper Buddhist teaching but rather what seems to be the Advaitin conception of what Buddhism is.
Like non-self for example the Advaitin uses the need of a witness to witness things as the existence of an Atman and the continuation of memory as evidence of something unchanging. Which doesn’t really make sense as a witness does not need to be eternal as the Buddhist points out and neither are memories since they change. The Advaitin asserts if this were so there would be no connect as scenes and people which doesn’t really make any sense since Buddhist momentariness doesn’t dictate things completely change every moment as is obvious by looking at say a chair in front of you which is momentary but maintains a continuity.
Then goes into the trying to find a base for phenomena delving into atoms and whatever. But here the Advaitin doesn’t meet the Buddhist argument of how even if there were a base particle it could be analysed to be shown that it has parts and refuted with emptiness. So the Advaitin only addresses arguments on the conventional level here which Sravaka schools employ and these school admit to the existence of atoms so he really isn’t making any point. Then he asserts the base must’ve Brahman with no reasoning.
The Advaitin proceeds argues Atman exists because people feel it? People also feel phantom limbs that are clearly not there... not the best way to demonstrate something.
He argues Tathāgatagarbha is like Atman but it’s just the union of emptiness and appearance making it probably the opposite of what an Atman is.
Buddhist also teaches the misperception of reality namely perceiving it as substantial not that there is nothing at all. Something the Advaitin seems to be confused about throughout the dialogue and says Buddhism doesn’t teach Ignorance as the base of suffering when it does...
The other part where he says impermanence is only relative to permanence is also something brought up in Madhyamaka where both of the extremes are rejected so the Advaitin again only tried to argue from the relative side of things.

>> No.18384574

>>18384548
>not consciousness or anything of the sort
So why do you care?

>> No.18384614

>>18384572
>Buddhist also teaches the misperception of reality namely perceiving it as substantial not that there is nothing at all. Something the Advaitin seems to be confused about throughout the dialogue and says Buddhism doesn’t teach Ignorance as the base of suffering when it does...
This is another Vedanta problem as well: how can you have illusions and the absolute? Well apparently the lord just spits out illusions... because it's just his power to do so. Buddhism does not have this problem since the great lord does not cause everything but is subject to illusion as all sentient life is. And of course, there is then illusion because of ignorance, not because of god wielding ignorance. The problem cannot be externalized away, you must be responsible for actions and consequences.

>> No.18384620

>>18384574
The same process occurs within your own lifetime. Your current consciousness is a result of the actions of your younger self, not a continuation of your younger consciousness. The only continuity in Buddhism is the continuity of actions with resulting consciousness.

>> No.18384653

>>18384574
I have to live through them? Other people have to live through them? Just because things are impermanent does not mean there is nothing.

>> No.18384664

>>18384620
>>18384653
You're dodging the question, there is a continuity between the consciousness of my young self and my own so I can say that's me. If there's no continuity once you die, why do you care? You don't remember your previous lives

>> No.18384708

>>18384664
There is no continuity that I can verify to you, sure. But all life comes from other life, consuming and recycling the energy and so forth... This even happens in one lifetime since the body changes over time as it takes in and expels different energy, as memories fade or get moldy, as affects and my responses to them modulate etc. I think it is plausible that there are previous and subsequent lives rather than coming and going ex nihilo, or coming from nothing and then going somewhere, etc. To me this is one of the least difficult propositions of Buddhism. I care because I am life.

>> No.18384954
File: 233 KB, 602x714, main-qimg-ba1f9224ca36a51c1351377ab9d78add.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384954

>>18384396
>It just states that consciousness is impermanent, ever changing, and interdependent and so cannot be a "Self".
Only the things which appear within and through the lenses of consciousness can be characterized as impermanent, ever changing and interdependent. Consciousness is ever the same, constant and independent, and this is shown by how no matter what we are aware of, we are aware of it in the same way. That is to say, whether we are talking about thoughts or sensory perceptions being known, they are always known to a presence who preceded that moment when that thought etc was known by awareness, who witnesses it, and also witnesses the transition of it leaving or being replaced by another. Even the differences of dream, deep sleep, and waking life are just different configurations of the intellect that is appearing within and to the constant consciousness that illuminates all three. At every moment, there is there pure formless light of awareness and the particular content that coincides with it and is known by it, the former is constant and unchanging and the latter are changing and conditioned. If the Unconditioned and eternal freedom were not already at the very core of one's being there would be no way to attain them.

Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti and Tsongkhapa all reject reflexive relations so if you accept Madhyamaka Prasangika as true then you no longer have any basis to claim that consciousness is conditioned and unchanging, because the consequence of this position is that consciousness cannot perceive its own conditioned and changing nature, just like how a fire cannot burn itself and like how the edge of a sword cannot cut itself.

>> No.18384961
File: 112 KB, 624x434, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384961

>>18384954
>Impermanence is proven through an empirical argument in Buddhism, not a rationalist one. If you just observe the world and your mind, you will see it is constantly changing.
In order to observe that change, one must remain as the same observer between both moments, which shows that not everything is changing but that the only things changing is everything that is part of the phenomena that is appearing within self-revealing consciousness.
>Everything is constantly in flux.
Is flux is itself a constant? Then not everything is constantly in flux. Is flux not a constant? Then it will eventually end and for a while things won't be in flux; so either way what you are say is self-contradictory
>The focus, feel, intensity and phenomenal object of consciousness are always changing.
>Sometimes you are clearly seeing a visible object, sometimes you are sleepy and you cannot be aware of things clearly, etc.
>Sometimes you experience suffering and sometimes happiness.
All of those denote qualities of the things appearing within consciousness, but no matter the variation in them, awareness is simply aware of them without any change in the nature or quality in the way in which awareness is aware of them. All of these changes only apply to the content appearing with the span of a consciousness that is separate from and qualitatively different from that phenomena.

>> No.18384964
File: 159 KB, 607x800, hk81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384964

>>18384961
>The onus is not on the Buddhist to prove impermanence, which is easily observable
No it's not
>it is on the Vedantin to prove that consciousness is permanent (and ever blissful!, a ridiculous claim), while it always appears as ever fleeting.
It is impossible to prove or disprove the permanence of anything empirically, which would require oneself to last potentially for an eternity observing that thing to confirm firsthand its non-eternity. That said, Vedantins accept that consciousness is eternal because the Vedic scriptures proclaim that it is, and Vedanta supplements this by refuting all the arguments which attempt to demonstrate that consciousness is fleeting, this is quite easy to do, because all the evidence that can be adduced of consciousness being fleeting or non-fleeting, such as changes in mental states, is something that is presented to the same constant consciousness which witnesses that change while remaining different from that thing being presented to it.

Vedanta is content to offer refutations of people who try to claim otherwise, but Vedanta doesn't care about proving the eternality of consciousness to people, because it's an esoteric initiatic order that is exclusionary of the masses by default, if someone as a pre-condition of spirituality needs it to be proved to them that their soul is constant and eternal even in the absence of any direct contrary evidence, then one is a materialist in spirit and one would be better off not pursuing the study of Vedanta anyway.

>This is a bad argument too. Memory is just another process, a process which is always in flux.
That process does not observe itself though, memories have no self-awareness but are observed by an abiding awareness who is not that memory. If you didn't observe memories changing as the same awareness throughout the duration of that memory, you wouldn't even be able to adduce any evidence of memory being a process because the awareness that observes the mind's memory doesn't itself possess a memory, so you argument that buddhists use of recognition wouldn't work anymore; and so as the awareness which observes memory cannot itself use memory to recognize change in memory, since change in memories are observed there must be an unchanging awareness there who registers that change by being present throughout it.

>> No.18384969
File: 88 KB, 398x512, shiva.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18384969

>>18384964
>>18384401
>because no Buddhist ever held that "nothingness" is an ontological ultimate. Not Buddha, not Nagarjuna, no-one.
If Nagarjuna doesn't, then in the work of his called Huei-Cheng-lun (Taishō, no. 1601 in vol 32) which survived only in Chinese, why does Nagarjuna denies that he is negating phenomenal appearances to point to a transcendental reality and why does he instead argues for the pure negation of appearances without the corresponding affirmation of anything else? That's basically ontological nihilism if there is no existing (absolute) reality or truth aside from the falsity that is negated.

Secondly, if Nagarjuna isn't an ontological nihilist, why does Chandrakirti interpret him not just as trying to refute the Abhidharma notion that the samskrta dharmas exist permanently, but rather as refuting the position that there are any dravyasat (unconstructed) entities or existents whatsoever, and as holding that there are only conceptually constructed entities instead? Because if there is only a chain of false and illusory conceptual constructs constructing each other out of nothingness with no unconstructed anything, that's also ontological nihilism and liberation just becomes a soap bubble of constructed falseness destroying itself and vanishing into oblivion.

>>18384423
> only buddhist refuted shankara from an empirical point of view
Lies, he never did this
>but shankara failed to make a good argument against a rational refutation of atman in the sattvānumāna
And which argument do they use to purportedly refute the Atman? I'm not familiar with that text but Shankara (pbuh) already refuted so many Buddhist doctrines he may have already refuted that and I just wasn't aware of it.

>>18384457
>Do you remember the time guenonfag was forced to read Mipham?
I wasn't "forced to read Mipham", a buddhist made one post mentioned he attempted to critique Vedanta, so I of my own volition chose to look up his work and refute all of his arguments against Advaita, which was quite easy to do as he seems to have not understood what he was talking about.

You can read my refutations of all of Mipham's arguments against Vedanta here
>>/lit/thread/S17461767#p17466352

I also refuted every one of Śāntarakṣita's and Kamalaśila's arguments against the Upanishadic Atman in their text Tattvasangraha here in this thread
>>/lit/thread/S16894953#p16904797

Buddhist sophistry is no match for the eternal truth of the Vedas

>> No.18385008

>>18384954
>>18384961
>>18384964
>>18384969
Extremely based, keep refuting buddhnihilism my friend

>> No.18385013

>>18384969
>he seems to have not understood what he was talking about
Oh the irony

>> No.18385109

>>18384954
>>18384961
>>18384964
you fail to address any of the point argumented there, you just back tracked to the same position this argument refuted, doing a petitio principii asking us to think consciousness as eternal without giving us any real proof of it
you're just asking us to believe that consciousness is eternal just because you feel like it is, what you fail to realize is that just as there's a sensations of permanence in consciousness there's also a sensation if impermanence, which don't correspond to phenomena but to the same a priori synthetic rationalization you articulate about an eternal soul, just as you can think about an eternal soul contemplating consciousness you can also feel it's impermanence which is even more reliable since you know some day you will die but you can't think or argument any logical way this awareness that depends entirely on phenomena could survive or exist without immanence, in your crypto nihilism you create a transcendental world in your mind, which is just a continuation of this one just more comfy and pure
you keep failing to address this fundamental issue just like shankara did
at the end you just rely on faith and zealotry, you say it yourself
>Vedantins accept that consciousness is eternal because the Vedic scriptures proclaim that it is
>Is flux is itself a constant? Then not everything is constantly in flux
yes because the flux isn't a phenomena but a predicate upon the phenomena, the flux isn't something that actually exist but an idea we create because we're creatures of language, things with a degree of stability but not free of the marks of impermanence
>awareness is simply aware of them without any change in the nature or quality in the way in which awareness is aware of them
maybe awareness as a concept, but awareness as an experience, that is, the true awareness that exist in the real world and not a concept created in your mind, is actually changing all the time and one day will surely end
>That process does not observe itself though
maybe not(that's debatable, some school of thought actually think it does) but it's also in flux, since you remember and forget things all the time

>> No.18385277

>>18385008
guenonfag samefagging once again and being his own cheerleader is hilarious

>> No.18385283
File: 351 KB, 974x502, 1601554384682.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385283

>>18385109
>doing a petitio principii asking us to think consciousness as eternal without giving us any real proof of it
No I'm not, I already stated that the eternality or non-eternality of consciousness cannot be empirically proven, and I simply demonstrated that the arguments for consciousness being conditioned and changing don't add up because they all address changes in things which are other than consciousness. Our inability to prove or disprove the eternality of consciousness combined with the flaws in the arguments for consciousness being changing leaves open the possibility that consciousness is eternal and unchanging, but it doesn't prove it; and simply pointing this out is not asking you to think consciousness is eternal.
>you're just asking us to believe that consciousness is eternal just because you feel like it is
No I'm not, I don't care about what you believe. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your Buddhist arguments without caring about proving my own non-Buddhist position from the ground up.
>what you fail to realize is that just as there's a sensations of permanence in consciousness there's also a sensation if impermanence,
So? That doesn't prove anything at all, consciousness is not a sensation but its the luminous sentience to which all sensations are presented. Just because of the point the mental ideas of permanence and non-permanence are both presented to consciousness like sensations, it doesn't show that consciousness is conditioned or impermanent. Just because the mind can entertain the notion of permanence while having this mental notion be presented to consciousness doesn't demonstrate that its false or that consciousness isn't permanent.
>which don't correspond to phenomena but to the same a priori synthetic rationalization you articulate about an eternal soul, just as you can think about an eternal soul contemplating consciousness you can also feel it's impermanence
As I have said, impermanence is only something that can be detected in things exterior to and different form consciousness, consciousness cannot "feel" its own impermanence because it only feels as objects non-conscious phenomena that are presented to consciousness. You are in fact forced to concede this as correct, because if you reject this and say consciousness can observe itself and thereby feel its own conditionedness you are taking the position that Nagarjuna and Chandrakirit are incorrect because they attacked and attempted to refute this.

>> No.18385291
File: 18 KB, 403x392, 1567635103182.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385291

>>18385109
>>18385283
>which is even more reliable since you know some day you will die
There is no empirical proof that one's own consciousness ends when the body dies, so that's not actually "more reliable", it just seems that way to your crypto-materialist beliefs. You haven't added any new argument for how or why it can be shown that consciousness is conditioned or changing, your vague appeal to "consciousness sensing its own conditionedness" fail to explain how this is possible when all the things that can be described as changing are non-conscious things that are known through consciousness.

>but you can't think or argument any logical way this awareness that depends entirely on phenomena could survive or exist without immanence
Yes I can easily, Awareness is not dependent upon phenomena first off, but is instead self-revealing; the self-disclosing of awareness to itself as non-dual immediate formless consciousness is always constant, and other things appear within the span of this awareness and are illumined/known by it always after this immediate fact of self-revealing immediate existence, consciousness isn't dependent on the phenomena. If consciousness wasn't self-revealing it would have to be known by another awareness in order for it to be known, but that would lead to an infinite regress that would make knowledge of anything impossible because the first would have to be known by a 2nd, but since the 2nd is not self-revealing it would have to be known by a 3rd, and the 3rd by a 4th and so on infinitely and nothing could ever be known because none of them would ever emerge into the light of knowledge but its flashing forth in consciousness would always be perpetually delayed.

This self-revealing independent consciousness simply continues on when the body dies, either the subtle body its observing transmigrates or its a liberated man who simply remains as eternal independent consciousness even after the body dies.

>Buddhist calling anyone else a crypto-nihilist
lol

>> No.18385331

>>18385291
>This self-revealing independent consciousness simply continues on when the body dies, either the subtle body its observing transmigrates or its a liberated man who simply remains as eternal independent consciousness even after the body dies.
Based life-denying nihilist. Let's all go to the permanent supra-reality where the stinky npcs can't follow us.

>> No.18385431

>>18385283
>No I'm not
yes you do

>changes in things which are other than consciousness.
here
>consciousness is not a sensation but its the luminous sentience to which all sensations are presented
here
>impermanence is only something that can be detected in things exterior to and different form consciousness
and here
you're asking us to concede this dualistic existence of consciousness were it can exist beyond immanence, being the thing that observe outside of the thing being observed, it's like claiming that the eyes are not part of your body because they let you see your body

>without caring about proving my own non-Buddhist position from the ground up.
you just did, and you need to present actual arguments, you can't just start your argument with an axiom buddhist refute, you have to explain how this base consciousness is something beyond just the real consciousness which buddhist actually believe exist, until now you didn't do anything else but say the obvious, that consciousness (viññāṇa) exist, you need to prove that the ontology of consciousness could surpass impermanence, which is the fundamental state of everything observable even consciousness, the burden of proof goes to you

>> No.18385443

>>18385331
>Based life-denying nihilist. Let's all go to the permanent supra-reality where the stinky npcs can't follow us.
You are using the word nihilist incorrectly, a nihilist is someone who holds that nothing has any meaning, or an ontological nihilist would be someone who holds that ultimately nothing exists. Advaitas would hold that the meaning of relative existence is to come to know God, and they are not ontological nihilists because they say that God exists as the ever effulgence, inexhaustible all-pervasive supreme reality that is bliss, and they also say that the world is not nothingness but exists relatively as an appearance of Brahman.

Buddhism is much closer to nihilism as many Buddhists say things like nothing has any inherent meaning and that all meaning and concepts are ignorance that arise in a relationship with ignorance as part of dependent origination. Under many interpretations of Nagarjuna he denies that there is any sort of absolute reality independent of samsara with its own existence, and that the samsara is itself negated leaving nothing, and this is very close to nihilism.

Also, Buddhists which deny that anything to do with consciousness continues into or experiences Parinirvana after the death of the body are propounding a complete extinction and annihilation as some sort of highest goal in life, and I would also consider this nihilistic.

>> No.18385450

>>18385291
>Awareness is not dependent upon phenomena first off, but is instead self-revealing
how so? did you ever experience awareness outside phenomena?

>> No.18385458

>>18385291
>here is no empirical proof that one's own consciousness ends when the body dies
yes there is, it's called a corpse

>> No.18385472

>>18385291
>but is instead self-revealing
it's not self revealing because it needs phenomena to be revealed, the rest of your arguments just falls on itself as you fail to resolve this problem

>> No.18385478

>>18385443
>he denies that there is any sort of absolute reality independent of samsara with its own existence,
Right, because he isn't a nihilist. You meanwhile have this Brahman reality to spirit you away from the illusion of appearance (which he Brahman causes in the first place) and you are able to escape because you have a permanent consciousness as explicated through revelatory texts interpreted by priests. Of course, the being outside of existence and the consciousness independent of what is experienced cannot be demonstrated, so we are being asked to negate reality on behalf of fictions. That is nihilism, a belief in a no-thing.

>> No.18385537

>>18385277
I'm not guenonfag but I appreciate his efforts since he always manages to single-handedly derail buddhacuck threads. You buddhists should fuck off back to your cave to kill your souls instead of shitting up the board with your drivel.

>> No.18385543

>>18385458
Another crypto-physicalist buddhacuck
Consciousness is not an emergent property of the body and even science is starting to realize it, get with the times, demoralizing NPC

>> No.18385606

>>18385537
no way, pissing you off is much more entertaining, i love seeing your slow descent to madness, with every new meltdown your pot become more pathetic and strange

>> No.18385618

>>18385606
Take your meds you're unhinged

>> No.18385659

>>18385618
>you're unhinged
lol the irony is so funny and cringy at the same time

>> No.18385679

>>18385618
>Take your meds
did you take yours? your schizo tendencies are showing

>> No.18385688
File: 28 KB, 1080x1080, wig-Lord-Vishnu-Krishna-is-known-as-tri-yuga-compressed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385688

>>18385431
>you're asking us to concede this dualistic existence of consciousness were it can exist beyond immanence,
So in other words, you think I'm asking you to concede that it's incorrect to hold that consciousness has no subjective component and that there are just thoughts and ear-data and nose-data with there being nobody else or no presence aside from these individual thoughts and sense-data who is aware of them? This denial of the subjective aspect of sentience should be wrong to anyone who's not an NPC with no inner subjective experience of their own mind and the world.

As Shankara explains though, if we are going to make analogies on the basis of what we observe, it would indicate that just like eternal objects and detectable qualities like sound are revealed by something which is different from them, the fact that thoughts and sensory perceptions are also known (how else could we speak about them) would indicate that they are known by something that is different from them, that is if we reason on the basis of what we observe about the exterior world and not contrary to it.

>Now, if consciousness (of objects and thoughts in the intellect) is revealed by an intelligence, which consciousness is it?—the one that is revealed (the consciousness of the intellect), or the one that reveals (i.e. the consciousness of the self)? Since there is a doubt on the point, we should infer on the analogy of observed facts, not contrary to them. Such being the case, just as we see that external objects such as a lamp are revealed by something different from them (the self), so also should consciousness (of the intellect)— although it reveals other things like a lamp—be inferred, on the ground of its being revealed by an intelligence, to be revealed not by itself, but by an intelligence different from it. And that other entity which reveals consciousness is the self—the intelligence which is different from that consciousness (of the intellect).

Trying to give an account of how the various thoughts and sensory perceptions know and relate to each other always end in weird contradictions and regresses that clearly don't match up with how we actually experience things. Both to say that thoughts know each other and other thoughts/senses at the same times has many contradictions, and so do the models where thoughts just know each other without being self-knowing.

>> No.18385695

>>18385291
the problem with all your posts is that you end up explaining that consciousness exist, which no one is denying, you have to go beyond that and explain logically, how that connects with a transcendental reality above change and impermanence

>> No.18385699
File: 124 KB, 400x229, freepressjournal_2019-07_6e45cb57-7d7a-4ee4-b88f-80125fed89f9_vishnu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385699

>>18385688
>>18385431
>you can't just start your argument with an axiom buddhist refute,
It was never refuted by Buddhism, can you give an example of how it was refuted?
>you need to prove that the ontology of consciousness could surpass impermanence, which is the fundamental state of everything observable even consciousness,
Consciousness doesn't and cannot observe itself as its own object, until you explain why you believe you can act like it does while accepting Nagarjuna at the same time then your question is completely meaningless. You can either say you are fully committed to all of Nagarjuna's positions, in which case consciousness is unable to observe its own impermanence since he attacked reflexivity, or you can reject Nagarjuna's positions and say that consciousness can reflexively know itself, but since you reject a separate abiding consciousness, what you are really talking about is self-reflexive thoughts and sensory perceptions knowing themselves without any separate knowing consciousness, and this has its own numerous contradictions.

Until you clarify which of these two positions you are taking, none of your arguments have any meaning because you are not explaining how they are not refuting your own positions despite you holding to them. Your own logic stands forth as evidently self-contradictory and its up to you to clarify in order for the discussion to proceed further, right now you are just demonstrating that buddhists are bunch of sophists following contradictory "logic" when you claim that consciousness observes its own changing nature but also then say that Nagarjuna is right to reject reflexivity of consciousness, if he is right then it can't observe its own changing or conditionedness or emptiness.

>> No.18385703

>>18385659
>>18385679
>no u
you're so fucking boring
just like your religion

>> No.18385715

>>18385450
>how so? did you ever experience awareness outside phenomena?
The question lacks any force as an argument when the alternative results in an infinite regress

>> No.18385725

>>18385688
>>18385699
Why do you put so much effort into arguing with buddhists when you know they won't yield and will instead keep disingenuously reusing the same tactics they always do ("you don't understand the doctrine", "you're wrong because buddhist metaphysics say you are", etc)?

>> No.18385735

>>18385703
then why are you here faggot? lol you are so weak willed you keep coming back to be insulted and treated like a little bitch, you have no self control, nor purpose in life, you waste your time here showing all of us how useless and mediocre you are, arguing against religion you dont like instead of doing something useful with your time, damn even the guys at r9k have more dignity than you, you're pathetic lol

>> No.18385742

>>18385735
You seem confused. Not everyone who disagrees with you is the same person
Seethe harder lol

>> No.18385762

>>18385688
>This denial of the subjective aspect of sentience should be wrong to anyone who's not an NPC with no inner subjective experience of their own mind and the world.
this is an ad hominem, so there's no argument here, just a fallacy, which makes sense because it's the only way to protect your petitio principii

so much for the perfect logic of the advaita, they can't even go beyond the most basic fallacies

>> No.18385797
File: 94 KB, 898x913, 1585953819805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385797

>>18385472
>it's not self revealing because it needs phenomena to be revealed,
1) there is no empirical proof for this, because in order to have empirical proof for this you would have to be aware of consciousness being non-revealed in the absence of phenomena, but if you are knowing this empirically there is not in fact a non-revealing of consciousness but since you are directly knowing this in empirical experience there is in fact something being revealed to consciousness.

2) In the absence of your ability to give empirical evidence of it being non-revealing, you point to what you allege is my inability to give an example of it being revealed without any association with phenomena, however this doesn't prove or demonstrate that consciousness isn't self-revealing, for the reason that the observable absence of examples of something doesn't prove that things non-existence, just because for example in ordinary human experience the self-revealing of consciousness is accompanied by phenomena, doesn't disprove the possibility that when liberated that same consciousness couldn't abide forever as self-revealing but without any phenomena.

3) So you have no argument that proves that consciousness isn't self-revealing, and you have also not explained how its alternative wouldn't lead to an infinite regress. As it stands right now my position is the sounder one, since mine doesn't result in an infinite regress while yours does, which is a reason that yours should be rejected as untenable.

>>18385695
>the problem with all your posts is that you end up explaining that consciousness exist, which no one is denying, you have to go beyond that and explain logically, how that connects with a transcendental reality above change and impermanence
That's only a problem if you think that I'm in here in this thread to prove Vedanta to you, instead of being mainly here to simply entertain myself by refuting and demonstrating the inner contradictions of the sophistic and NPC-like arguments and positions of buddhism.

>> No.18385853
File: 1.65 MB, 3164x2793, 1603190271108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385853

>>18385797
>the observable absence of examples of something doesn't prove that things non-existence, just because for example in ordinary human experience the self-revealing of consciousness is accompanied by phenomena, doesn't disprove the possibility that when liberated that same consciousness couldn't abide forever as self-revealing but without any phenomena.
Again, we are being asked to negate reality on behalf of fictions. That is nihilism, a belief in a no-thing. Cool story priest.

>> No.18385855

>>18380454
Nominalists are already discard Platonic idealism, so, why the fuck would they care if Platonists discarded them?

>> No.18385865

>>18382756
>Since you're a materialist atheist you have no reason to strive towards anything. The logical conclusion of your NPC ideology is hedonism
Yes and? Ecclesiastes also argued for the same thing. You've never read the bible, I can tell. It literally endorses nihilism, and tells you to believe in god because reality hurts.

>> No.18385867

>>18385855
Because realism is true and nominalism isn't

>> No.18385881

>>18385762
>this is an ad hominem, so there's no argument here,
Well, the argument followed right after that when I quoted Shankara talking about making inferences from our experience. It would only be a fallacy if I was using the attack on someone's character as an argument to support my conclusion instead doing so simply as part of making a simple observation to myself that I thought non-NPCs would find it self-evident.

So, you just used ad-hominem incorrect
>Improper usage
>Contrary to popular belief, merely insulting someone is not a fallacious ad hominem. A character attack is only considered a fallacious ad hominem if it is used in exchange for a genuine argument.[34]
I didn't make the NPC remark in exchange for an argument, I prefaced my argument with it.

>>18385725
>Why do you put so much effort into arguing with buddhists when you know they won't yield and will instead keep disingenuously reusing the same tactics they always do
For multiple reasons, I find it entertaining sometimes, it's also interesting to see how they respond in real time to arguments that various intelligent medieval-era thinkers made against buddhism, and it also challenges me to draw upon my own understanding of the nature of consciousness and of these doctrines to come up with and string together arguments/refutations, and this can be rewarding. The intersection of these arguments with the hard problem of consciousness is really interesting too and similar arguments come up there when dualists and panpsychists argue against materialist reductionists. .

>> No.18385886

>>18385867
You don't have value the truth though. So, again, what is your point?

>> No.18385899

>>18385886
>You don't have [sic] value the truth
But I do. Which is why I am a realist. Without realism, truth cannot exist.

>> No.18385915

How can you call people NPCS when you believe superstitions like "sin" and "god"? How can you call people NPCS when most NPCs are literally Christians who just regurgitate what they are told, and never think for themselves? How are you not a NPC yourself when you literally believe in god because you don't have the courage to face the nihilism of life? You hold onto god because of your weaknesses, your fear of the calamities of life. You want security, you want safety, you want calmness. You want a completely pampered life without hardship, and use your faith in god as a crutch for those pathetic notions.

>> No.18385935

>>18385899
Nobody has to care what you what you believe in this war of all against all.
>Without realism, truth cannot exist.
Again, nobody has to care - I don't have value truth, your specifically, your "truths" because my self interest is guided by my own wishes, not your pious non-sense. The reason why you push your realist non-sense is because you are utopian social engineer attempting craft man into an idealistic essence that does not exist and will never exist. Man is free to do as he pleases, as any member of the animal kingdom, and even has the means of trampling on sacred truths to make his own path in life.

>> No.18385948

>>18385915
You believe in superstitions like karma and nirvana, you're no different.
I also don't believe in sin and I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in a personal God either like what you atheists like to strawman about.
>You hold onto god because [...]
Nah you're completely full of shit and projecting your own insecurities on me. Your post reads as a r/atheism screencap, embarrassing

>> No.18385957

>>18385915
Yeah it's really just
>oh yeah well what about indo-thomism, huh Buddhists? Checkmate hylics
And of course none of those arguments matter to western, English-speaking people who are Buddhist or interested in Buddhism, specifically because they are almost invariably people who agnostic/atheist/etc. and no amount of commentary in The-Bible-But-in-Sanskrit makes an ounce of difference.

>> No.18385960
File: 11 KB, 204x246, adi-shankacharya.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385960

>>18385853
>Again, we are being asked to negate reality on behalf of fictions.
No, that's not true, that consciousness reveals itself simultaneously with the phenomena revealed by it is supported by the facts of our own experience because of how people don't normally perceive ourselves as identical with individual thoughts like anger, they regard and experience themselves as a conscious presence which seems to feel angry, they don't only exist for a certain moment as the confluence of the taste of food and the memory of raising the fork, they exist as a presence which knows the taste of the food, and which knows the memory of raising the fork. Without this presence there who is separate from the thoughts and perceptions, they would be unable to know each other in an integrated experience like we have because sight cannot hear sounds and the sense of smell cannot see sights.

There is also the point that to deny the self-revealingness of consciousness results in an infinite regress, which is another point in favor of the position that it's self-revealing, and you haven't came up with a response to this one yet. The possibilities which result in an infinite regress like you are proposing can be safely discarded.

>> No.18385963

>>18385935
>I don't have value truth
Oh I noticed you didn't care about truth. Your entire post is complete nonsense and tells me you don't even understand what truth is.
You'll notice your mistake eventually. In the meantime, keep treading this path of nihilistic relativism, evidently it seems to be helping you grow (lmao)

>> No.18385971

>>18385960
>There is also the point that to deny the self-revealingness of consciousness results in an infinite regress
>uh oh I better throw a hard backstop in here to stop me from affirming life as it is and create a fictional origin story for my original character, me, who is also brahman

>> No.18385976
File: 72 KB, 908x539, 1620056436406.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385976

>>18385915
>You want a completely pampered life without hardship, and use your faith in god as a crutch for those pathetic notions.

>> No.18385979

>>18385957
>they are almost invariably people who agnostic/atheist/etc.
Oh fuck I understand now. Western Buddhism is just the evolution of fedora atheism. You're a bunch of underage fags or manchildren having a knee jerk reaction against theism so now you're doing this cringe larp
Huh...

>> No.18385990
File: 34 KB, 296x297, 1621974318245.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18385990

>>18385979
And you are running behind the priest's skirt to get away from reality. Cope, seethe, etc.

>> No.18385999

>>18385797
>here to simply entertain myself by refuting and demonstrating the inner contradictions of the sophistic and NPC-like arguments and positions of buddhism.
but you're not doing that, you're only proving something buddhist all around the world already know, that consciousness exist

>> No.18386010

>>18385960
>No, that's not true, that consciousness reveals itself simultaneously with the phenomena revealed by it is supported by the facts of our own experience because of how people don't normally perceive ourselves as identical with individual thoughts like anger, they regard and experience themselves as a conscious presence which seems to feel angry, they don't only exist for a certain moment as the confluence of the taste of food and the memory of raising the fork, they exist as a presence which knows the taste of the food, and which knows the memory of raising the fork. Without this presence there who is separate from the thoughts and perceptions, they would be unable to know each other in an integrated experience like we have because sight cannot hear sounds and the sense of smell cannot see sights.
probe it

>> No.18386016

>>18385948
I'm not a buddhist, and you're absolutely retarded because certain strands of "Buddhism" , such as Zen, could not care less about "karma" or "nirvana" They would literally tell people kill to Buddha and burn scriptures - try again
>Nah you're completely full of shit and projecting your own insecurities on me.
No, I actually how you rats operate. Like Nietzsche said, the truth shatters your illusions, the illusions of heaven you are weak to give up on because you are afraid and too pussy whipped by the church to seek your own salvation. You are, ironically, a slave to your own hedonism which is in the form of merit seeking for favors ,and indulgences, from god. Instead of proving your own humanitarian behavior by selflessly doing acts without praise, without seeking the vanities of valor, you proselytize your arrogance as the most blatant form of narcissism possible. Some "holy man" you are with your fucking shrew egotism draped in religious veneer, you Christian profligate.

>> No.18386023
File: 1.91 MB, 1033x1033, 1621381968415.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386023

>>18385971
>here to stop me from affirming life as it is
That consciousness is self-revealing independently of and simultaneously with the things that are revealed by it is supported by an examination and analysis of how we experience the world.

>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.

>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.

>If the difference be itself said to be identical with the nature of the consciousness, and if there is nothing to apprehend this difference, then the nonappearance of the difference implies the non-appearance of the consciousness itself; for by hypothesis the difference has been held to be identical with the consciousness itself. The non-appearance of difference, implying the non-appearance of consciousness, would mean utter blindness. The difference between the awareness of one moment and another cannot thus either be logically proved, or realized in experience, which always testifies to the unity of awareness through all moments of its appearance.

>> No.18386026

>>18385990
I'm sorry the priest diddled you but there's no need to sperg out here

>> No.18386033
File: 147 KB, 640x622, 1621706593001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386033

>>18385999
Yes there is an entire school of Buddhism that affirms that reality is consciousness-only, and the very Mipham who guenonfag denies he was forced to read by /lit/, supports this, and shows consciousness is (and always was) compatible with Madhyamaka (what guenonfag calls nihilism). Mipham, also, to use a guenonfagism, "refutes" Advaita Vedanta, which has caused him to seethe to this day, because Buddhism lives free in the bad conscience of the the ressentiment filled priestly types.

>> No.18386042

>>18386016
>here's a branch of Buddhism that's an outlier so you're wrong!
Most of Mahayana and Theravada does believe in those things, you disingenuous, slimy little positivist faggot. Try again
>Like Nietzsche said
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
See >>18385976 you absolute cringe lord. Also you have to be over 18 to use this website
>church
Not a Christian
You are absolutely OBSESSED buddhacuck, I can taste the seethe from here. Grow up

>> No.18386046

>>18385963
You keep talking about truth when man is the measure of all things, Plato. Not you, or your superstitions.
>In the meantime, keep treading this path of nihilistic relativism, evidently it seems to be helping you grow
I love it when Christians talk about relativism when you fucking idiots dozens of sects who have killed each other because nobody can agree on what the bible says. Hahaha, you really a fucking dumbass. Even Ecclesiastes, himself, endorsed nihilism. You've never read the bible, have you?

>> No.18386047

>>18385797
>1) there is no empirical proof for this, because in order to have empirical proof for this you would have to be aware of consciousness being non-revealed in the absence of phenomena, but if you are knowing this empirically there is not in fact a non-revealing of consciousness but since you are directly knowing this in empirical experience there is in fact something being revealed to consciousness.
that would only be the case if there was an ontological duality between mind and body, and again, but you end up in circular reasoning, using your own axioms to justify your axioms

>> No.18386055

>>18386010
>Without this presence there who is separate from the thoughts and perceptions, they would be unable to know each other in an integrated experience like we have because sight cannot hear sounds and the sense of smell cannot see sights.
>prove it
So you are asking me to prove to you that the sense of sight cannot itself taste your food and that your ability to hear does not itself smell odors? Is this really how low you have sunk? I wonder what kind of person could earnestly believe such things in an effort to maintain the coherency of their worldview.

>> No.18386057
File: 6 KB, 235x215, 1619377404677.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386057

>>18386026
Priests invented god, sin, and the other-world for herd management purposes. Debating theology after the demise of their authority and taking it seriously on a Hawaiian tourism forum is performance art and nothing more.

>> No.18386067

>>18386042
>Most of Mahayana and Theravada does believe in those things, you disingenuous, slimy little positivist faggot. Try again
Dogenism isn't buddhism, try again.
>You are absolutely OBSESSED buddhacuck, I can taste the seethe from here. Grow up
Cope all, you want, nihilism lives in your head rent free.

>> No.18386074

>>18386046
>man is the measure of all things
I implore you, please read a fucking book. Please.
This is your mind on not starting with the greeks
>Christian
Not a Christian, funny how they seem to be living rent free in buddhacucks' heads though. You are having a genuine meltdown, did my posts give you flashbacks of being raped during Sunday school?

>> No.18386089

>>18386067
>try again
No thanks I'm not interested in your autistic distinctions, redditor
>nihilism
Dilate tranny

>> No.18386093

>>18386074
>He doesn't know who Protagoras is
I implore, you read a book, retard. Its amazing you know Plato, but you don't even know Protagoras, and his refutation of Plato's non-sense. Talk about a complete fucking idiot. What is with /lit/ attracting you retards these days?
>Not a Christian
Secular humanists are Christians that have replaced "god" with "man" to be worshiped. You're not different than those profligate scum.

>> No.18386094

>>18386055
so you pretty much recognize that this revelation of the self is just a purely material phenomea, wow and i think buddhist were the crypto physicalist

>> No.18386096

>>18386047
>that would only be the case if there was an ontological duality between mind and body, and again, but you end up in circular reasoning, using your own axioms to justify your axioms
No, that's not true, regardless of whether you hold to mind-body or consciousness-body duality or not, in either way there is no way to have empirical evidence of your own consciousness not being revealed ever, because if you are aware of your own consciousness being revealed or non-revealed in empirical experience, either way as a known thing that means its occurring within or too consciousness and is hence revealed.

>> No.18386101

>>18386057
>still seething about Christians
Holy fuck you're a fucking nutcase

>> No.18386109

>>18386033
indeed, a lot of buddhist school are incredible similar to german idealism, the fact that this schizo think buddhism is materialist is hilarious

>> No.18386112

>>18386093
>Protagoras, and his refutation o
lmao
Stop reading wiki articles and read actual books, faggot. I can tell you have no fucking idea what you're talking about and just frantically typed "platonism refutations" on google
>Secular humanists
Are retards, like you. Thankfully I'm not one of them. Cope harder

>> No.18386115

>>18386089
>i'm not interested in discussion anymore because I'm too stupid to debate people superior intellect
Good to know you've learned your place, Untermensch. Don't come to /lit/ expecting you can argue with people who are clearly out of your limited IQ range. Learn your place, and go to boards like /his/ & /pol/ which are made for indulgent ADHD having tradcath larpers like yourself, faggot.

>> No.18386116
File: 31 KB, 240x319, MiphamNew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386116

This thread is now blessed by Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso. Understanding that Consciousness and Emptiness are non-dual will rise from the ocean of nectar like a white lotus, but only if you post "/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book" in this thread

>> No.18386119

>>18386042
>Grow up
lol projecting this hard

>> No.18386121

>>18386115
Oh shit I actually mindbroke you lmfao
Go see a therapist, I'm serious

>> No.18386122

>>18386112
>Read actual books
>Doesn't know who Protagoras is?
Why pretend your smart for reading books you clearly don't understand, or why pretend you read at all. Everyone knows you're fucking pseudo.
>Are retards, like you. Thankfully I'm not one of them. Cope harder
Sure thing, cuck,

>> No.18386124

>>18386101
>doesn't know that vedanta derives from the vedas, a corpus of texts kept by the priesthood of medieval and classical India, which Buddhism does not recognize the authority of, and therefore 90% of Shankara's "critique" is irrelevant to non-Hindu audiences

>> No.18386125

>>18371310
>>18376781

"compositional activity" you plebs

>> No.18386128

>>18386096
>in either way there is no way to have empirical evidence of your own consciousness not being revealed ever
yes it is, read hegel

>> No.18386132

>>18386115
Why are neetche fanboys always so fucking cringe? Bro I'm getting genuine second hand embarrassment from your posts.

>> No.18386136

>>18386094
>so you pretty much recognize that this revelation of the self is just a purely material phenomea
No, I have never said that. The Self is immaterial and the realization of the Self is the realization of the luminous, immaterial, immortal, inexhaustible fountain of plenitude that is the heart and core of one's being, the pleroma, which doesn't exist only in the body or as a material but which is the infinite all-pervasive Lord, within whom and by whose light the appearance of the finite occurs.

>> No.18386138

>>18386132
>things I don't like are cringe
If only you knew how much you sounded like Nietzsche in BGE

>> No.18386139
File: 53 KB, 349x642, poQxTe3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386139

>>18386121

>> No.18386140

>>18386122
You sound very angry, I suggest practicing mindfulness meditation and metta
Also learn to speak english properly you retarded monkey

>> No.18386146

Another buddhacuck thread successfully ruined. Keep seething, buddha trannies

>> No.18386151

>>18386116
>Mipham
retroactively refuted by Guenonfag

>>/lit/thread/S17461767#p17466352

>> No.18386158

>>18386140
I suggest you go find a priest rape you again bro

>> No.18386160
File: 186 KB, 640x640, 1612102848616.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386160

>ITT: buddhists admitting they're not only nihilist atheists but are also only buddhists because they hate christianity
>and that one underage nietzschefag
You can't make this shit up

>> No.18386163

>>18386128
>yes it is, read hegel
Hegel doesn't have an answer, there is no way to have empirical evidence of your own consciousness not being revealed ever and if there was a good argument for otherwise you would have posted it by now

>> No.18386166
File: 26 KB, 346x313, 1611820626489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386166

>>18386151
So what you're telling me is...
>/lit/ forced guenonfag to read a book

>> No.18386176

>>18386160
>Christians from twitter vent their resentment at Nietzsche
Rent free

>> No.18386182
File: 59 KB, 512x512, 1613487373529.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386182

>>18386160
Really it's the nuclear option on Hinduism to call it Christianity with extra steps (on account of the extra limbs)

>> No.18386195

>>18386176
>>18386182
Why are you obsessed with cucktianity? It literally lives rent free in your heads, amazing

>> No.18386196
File: 10 KB, 215x235, index.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386196

>>18386160
>Nihilistic atheist
>Hates Christians
Yes and? Are you new here?

>> No.18386201
File: 52 KB, 593x656, dfaf7a538ecc1610b9f92affe3f5db0e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386201

>Modern philosophical schools of Buddhism are all more or less influenced by a spirit of sophistic nihilism. They deal with Nirvāṇa as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract. They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvāṇa is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.

>According to them the soul enjoys in Nirvāṇa neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither annihilated nor non-annihilated. Nirvāṇa is to them a state of which nothing can be said, to which no attributes can be given; it is altogether an abstract, devoid alike of all positive and negative qualities.

>What shall we say of such empty useless speculations, such sickly, dead words, whose fruitless sophistry offers to that natural yearning of the human heart after an eternal rest nothing better than a philosophical myth? It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.

- Ernst Johann Eitel, 1873

>> No.18386204

>>18386195
>Go around begging people to believe in god and forcing your religious non-sense down peoples' throats
>People tell you to fuck off, and mind your own business
>BRO WHY ARE YOU OBSESSED
Why are you obsessed with us, nigger?

>> No.18386205

>>18386196
>posting stirner
>he doesn't know
Oh no no no

>> No.18386210

>>18386195
I'll break it down for you
>guenonfag comes into buddhist thread using theology as an argument
What other people have done that to no avail over the last few centuries against other non-theological metaphysics?

>> No.18386212
File: 20 KB, 214x317, 1621198670380.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386212

Gautama, Siddhārtha. Dislike him. A cheap nihilist, insipid and foolhardy. A pied piper, pathological narcissist and a cloying moralist. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about remembering past lives seriously.
Majjhima Nikāya. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Yājñavalkya's "Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad"
Dīgha Nikāya. Dislike it intensely.
Dhammapada. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole

>> No.18386218

>>18386204
>AAAA EVERYONE I DON'T LIKE IS A CHRISTIAN
>CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE, GAUTAMA SAVE MEEEE
Bro this isn't good for you...

>> No.18386223
File: 660 KB, 709x677, BASED.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386223

>>18386201
>>18386212

>> No.18386225
File: 794 KB, 1920x1080, Sasuke-kun.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386225

>Man is free to do as he pleases, as any member of the animal kingdom, and even has the means of trampling on sacred truths to make his own path in life.

>> No.18386226

>>18386218
>I'm totally not a Christian guys
>I just so happen to constantly talk about Christianity in a heard about Buddhism because I'm too autistic and ADHD having to not seek attention
Are you still on meds?

>> No.18386231
File: 45 KB, 500x500, OSHIETE YO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386231

>I don't have value truth, your specifically, your "truths" because my self interest is guided by my own wishes, not your pious non-sense.

>> No.18386232

>>18386205
Does doesn't know what? We all know you're not from here.

>> No.18386238

>>18386226
You're the one who brought up christianity lmfao
I get you're a brainlet but try to follow the conversation at least
>>18386232
>We
This isn't reddit pal, lurk two years before posting

>> No.18386241

>>18386225
Dangerously based statement, I agree. If someone wants kill Christians, and rape their family members, they are free to do so. What are you going do about it? Pray to your god to save you? Might makes right.

>> No.18386246

>>18386238
If this isn't reddit; why are you here again? You really think 4chan is a Christian site - are you really this fucking new you election tourist

>> No.18386247

>>18386241
You will never feel the warm touch of a woman.

>> No.18386251

>>18386225
>>18386231
These are based and true statements though. Man can do what he pleases. He burn the bible, he can mock Christians, he even kill Christians burn down their churches they want to. Nobody has to give a fuck about you and your god.

>> No.18386252

>>18386246
>AIIIIIIEEEEEEEE MOM THE CHRISTIANS ARE HERE AGAIN MAKE THEM GO AWAY
Bro this is unhealthy...

>> No.18386257
File: 205 KB, 500x493, kanecuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386257

>Man can do what he pleases. He burn the bible, he can mock Christians, he even kill Christians burn down their churches they want to. Nobody has to give a fuck about you and your god.

>> No.18386261

>>18386247
You will never go heaven. You will never be rewarded in the after life for wasting your life here to defend your pathetic god. You're going to die, and everything you've worked for will disappear.

>> No.18386268
File: 1.03 MB, 904x742, 1622561830218.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386268

Buddhism is trash but I like Vajrayana/Tibetian/Bon Buddhism, but only for the tantric aspects and the fact they have the most developed dream yoga.
Rebirth is only partially correct. When you die your soul is left in a dream-like state of not knowing it had died. This will continue until 1. You recognize you are death-dreaming or 2. You fall in a trap of karma induced nightmares where negative karma manifesting as demons rip your soul/personage to shreds and your soul stuff gets recycled for rebirth. The first option can lead to "liberation" aka extinction of the soul without it being recycled into this prison farm called Earth, or you can fuck off into the astral or decide how you want to rebirth (either on Earth or some place else), each with their pros and cons.
Sources? I witnessed the process with myself. Hylics neither won't nor can't get it.

>> No.18386273

>>18386261
>fedora edgelord is also an ESL
I can just imagine your pudgy shitskin fingers typing frantically while you froth at the mouth in your endless seething lmao

>> No.18386275

>>18386257
Yep. Christians get murdered all the time bro. God doesn't save them. Nor does you preaching your faith here will save them either from death. You keep posting, bro, we both know you're mad that people here shit all over your god and will continue to do so.

>> No.18386282

>>18386275
The christian god is not my God
I'm just having a good time making you edgelords seethe

>> No.18386283

>>18386273
Look at you bro, you're seething on 4chan because someone attacked your fairy tales. You literally wasting hours of your life on a nihilist on like me because I live rent free in that heads of yours. You can't stop obsessing over me.

>> No.18386288
File: 41 KB, 798x644, 1593032240542.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386288

>>18386283
>a nihilist on like me

>> No.18386292

>>18386282
Murder is perfectly fine, so is rape, and so is killing children in their sleep. All is permitted. No fairy tales such as "human rights" or "god" will change that. Christians should be shot for the lulz

>> No.18386294

>>18386268
Based

>> No.18386304

Christians should be shot, and their churches should be burned. The raping of nuns should be encouraged because of how weak they are. Slit their throats and cut out their eyes.

>> No.18386306

>>18386268
>Buddhism is trash but I like Vajrayana/Tibetian/Bon Buddhism, but only for the tantric aspects and the fact they have the most developed dream yoga.
Very based post, have you read Holecek's book and the one by Tenzin Rinpoche or whatever his name is?
>You recognize you are death-dreaming
Trained by lucid dreaming while you're alive, yes?
The second option doesn't sound very likely (ripping a soul to shreds), from what I've seen it's just transmigration into a new material existence.

>> No.18386321

>>18386292
>>18386304
You think this is making me angry but I don't give the slightest shit lmao, I don't care about christianity at all
You're seething at someone who doesn't exist

>> No.18386331

>>18386321
>I don't care about Christianity all brp
>Keeps responding to me
Is it your Ritalin, bro?

>> No.18386342

>>18386331
>he's still boiling in rage
oh noooo don't insult jesus haha that makes me really angry

>> No.18386403

>>18386268
Guenon said practices like astral projection and dream yoga were spiritually dangerous to the uninitiated

>> No.18386428

>>18386306
>have you read Holecek's book and the one by Tenzin Rinpoche or whatever his name is?
Both (yeah you got his name right). Between the Gates is also a book on dream yoga but put in a Hermetic, Qabalistic context
>The second option doesn't sound very likely (ripping a soul to shreds)
That's what that intermediary point between death and transmigration can feel like. Hell is personal. The "demons" and "ripping" can be whatever depending on the soul and said souls karmic circumstances during the "ripping". The tail end of the death-dream is often punctuated with "suicide".
>>18386403
Sure.

>> No.18386429

>>18385899
You are quite retarded because you're making a normative claim, not a positive one. You probably don't know the difference between these two things either because you keep asserting realism as a positive position when it is a normative one. You are saying we "ought to value to the truth", while ignoring the fact no one has to value "truth" because truth in itself is nominal. Your "truth" is just a perspective, an extension of your ontology; which is only self serving for your own egotism. Reason alone is not even necessary, and being antagonistic towards it can certainly be pursued. We don't have to find common ground, or even agree, on anything - really.

>> No.18386437

>>18386429
>sophistry: the post
Shut the fuck up

>> No.18386455

>>18386428
Thanks, do those books go into actual praxis, did you get much out of them outside of theory?
>Hell is personal
What I meant is that the absolute destruction of the soul seems unlikely if not downright impossible; I assume that what weighs you down (what you call karmic circumstances) defines the struggles you'll have to face after you die, and that they could be very painful. Like that scene from Jacob's Ladder, inspired from Meister Eckhart's writings.
>Sure
How do you protect yourself?

>> No.18386457

>>18386437
>Shut the fuck up
Make me

>> No.18386480

>>18386437
Sorry, kid, but Aristotelian rationalism isn't the only way we have to view the world. You can scream, you can cry all you want about it, but it won't change the fact that as long people like me speak, and express my thoughts, you will never have control over me and my life. I will not shut up, and there is nothing you can do, or say, that will ever stop me from speaking my mind.

>> No.18386490

>>18386480
You're the only one screaming and crying here, my dear retard.
You can speak your mind, but there's really nothing worth speaking about in there

>> No.18386506

Another buddhism thread on /lit/ torpedoed by pseuds apeing theologians

>> No.18386512

>>18386506
seethe

>> No.18386528

>>18386490
Where have I screamed and cried? You're the one coming to 4chan telling people to "shut up" for questioning you and your motives. Imagine being so fucking pathetic you have to come to the most decadent part of the web to in a desperate attempt to assert authority. You're just proving you're a weak, servile reprobate without any will. The internet is the only way you can vent your frustration because you don't have the courage to speak your mind outside of it. But, we both know no matter how religious you are, act - your autism, anti-social, profligate behavior won't be cured by religious self-flagellation and sacrilege.

>> No.18386530

>>18386528
Ouch, the projection. I'm sorry your life sucks so bad bro. You wanna talk about it?

>> No.18386545

>>18384954
>>18384961
>>18384964
>>18384969


you didn't refute any f the points, just keep rambling about shankara notions of self, without actually addressing any of the arguments against existence as an flux/inter-being
what a waste f time

>> No.18386552
File: 55 KB, 403x568, 97b4ba143b149f72643bf1bd255d656c--indian-gods-hindu-art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386552

>>18386506
>*refutes buddhism and vanquishes it from India"
nothing personal crypto-materalist

>> No.18386558

>>18386552
BASED
A
S
E
D

>> No.18386570

>>18386506
Its not our fault theologians are mentally ill, and have to project their superstitions onto a world they don't understand. Instead trying to understand cause, and effect, they hid behind Mary's skirt instead of playing with us - being too fearful to face life on its own terms. I love bullying Christians because I love preying on the weak herds. They make for easy prey for apex predators like myself. Its why Nietzsche was so successful at utterly wrecking them beyond repair. Even now, religion is largely seen as a joke with the rise of secular humanism negating the need for gods. The more they push god; the more they push humanity away from him - all the more beneficial to me.

>> No.18386574
File: 100 KB, 910x1024, 1622639911192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386574

>>18386552
>gets conquered by Muslims anyway

>> No.18386576

>>18386570
physically cringed while reading this

>> No.18386578

>>18386455
>do those books go into actual praxis, did you get much out of them outside of theory?
Yes although in terms of inducing lucid dreams themselves I'm not sure. I had practiced lucid dreaming quite a bit before getting into dream yoga; I was proficient in inducing them the "secular" way instead of through tantric/qabalistic means, with the focusing and visualization on the throat and all that. After discovering dream yoga I had put my lucid dreaming efforts into a more spiritual use, albeit a more personal one I can't really divulge on for one reason or another (we are at bump limit anyway). The books did help in that regard but a lot of it was just discovery. I think they are most useful when you are starting out.
>What I meant is that the absolute destruction of the soul seems unlikely if not downright impossible; I assume that what weighs you down (what you call karmic circumstances) defines the struggles you'll have to face after you die,
I think we have a issue of what we mean by "soul". My "soul" is more middle-self, the ego and psyche. Your "soul" sounds more like higher-self, spirit, which is of course indestructible. The "ripping" is erasure of personality, the ego, but the higher spirit never truly forgets said personality, as it was in that previous life.
>How do you protect yourself?
I think most of the dangers associate with this stuff has more to do with the theurgy/goetia that can get involved than the processes themselves. Learn a banishing ritual, and don't make deals with entities.

>> No.18386596

>>18386570
No the theologian isn't mentally ill. He's actually quite sharp. Or was. The people pretending to be theologians today on the other hand have no flock to attract, no clerical authority, no context. It's completely performative, they need to prove they aren't nihilists, to themselves, but to anyone else it's the equivalent of harry potter lore.

>> No.18386599

>>18386545
>without actually addressing any of the arguments against existence as an flux/inter-being
Buddhism has no good arguments for this, the one claim that consciousness is in flux because it observes flux was already pointed out as wrong because you establish the flux of observed things by listing things appearing to consciousness as observed qualities (i.e. not consciousness itself) and according to Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti its impossible to do this anyway with consciousness because reflexivity is impossible, but buddhists dont understand how to be logically consistent it seems.

>> No.18386610

>>18386599
>logical consistency
>shakara in his bhabhaboobee bhyasha on the prikarikarikacaryavama upanishad says that god did it and buddhists smell bad

>> No.18386630

>>18386578
What method do you use to induce lucid dreams? I've been writing them down for about a year (on and off, I'm not very consistent) but I don't really get any.
Been wanting to try the gateway experience tapes, you have any experience with those?
>higher-self, spirit
Yes, sorry for the misuse of terms, I was referring to the spirit.
>has more to do with the theurgy/goetia
Well, not necessarily, I read things about such practices being harmful because they'll mislead you in the afterlife into believing the astral is the true higher world whereas it's an intermediary realm (the tibetans would call it the bardo) and so you risk getting stuck in lower realms. Do you think that's bullshit?
>don't make deals with entities.
I would never do that, but if you're not 100% lucid I can see how you could be misled.

>> No.18386638

>>18384614
>Buddhism does not have this problem since the great lord does not cause everything but is subject to illusion
That's a huge problem, because then there is no way for the contingent non-eternal things like samsara and ignorance to exist, even relatively. A supreme God is the only thing that can account for the existence of samsara, the Buddhist position ultimately crumbles before the PSR and similar arguments.

>> No.18386639
File: 54 KB, 680x516, sx0c3hen8xv61.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386639

>>18386596
Nihilism was explicitly endorsed by the bible. Anytime Ecclesiastes is brought up; these people never respond. They are silent. Its not by coincidence - they are performative because they don't read scriptures. Its all just egotistic merit seeking for people with fragile self esteem.

>> No.18386653

>>18386599
Nagarjuna was a dialectian and a monist. He was no better than Buddhists.

>> No.18386693

>>18386610
>avoiding addressing the argument this hard

>> No.18386711

>>18386693
You're a dialectian; all you know how to do is avoid arguments.

>> No.18386738

>>18386630
>What method do you use to induce lucid dreams?
For the longest time I did DILD, which is where you do a reality check every hour or so while you are awake, and by habit you start doing it in your dreams, becoming lucid. The best (not my opinion, it IS the best for a specific reason) reality check is pinching your nose shut and seeing if you can still breath through it. This almost always works because the sleeping body can't not breath for obvious reasons. After a while (read: a long time) you begin to recognize the feeling of dreaming so you sort of automatically know. Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming is pretty much the best secular book on lucid dreaming that will teach you how to have them.
>Do you think that's bullshit?
Not necessarily. To be honest I might have falling into that trap myself. Intellectually I understand that the astral isn't the highest but I feel like I'm not sure it matters. I'm not the most moral person (in heart, mind you; in action I haven't done anything like kill someone or something) and I am quite selfish and egotistical. The erasure of the middle-self bothers me a lot. I have periods where I think about the implications of union and "fulliness" and what that really means. Is it even preferable? I don't know, a part of my practice is exploring that issue. I like to think that one saying that if you are a donkey you should enjoy the taste of grass is correct. If you are worried about falling into my trap then maybe you should seek initiation.
>I would never do that, but if you're not 100% lucid I can see how you could be misled.
Vast majority of the time you won't be 100% lucid. Also don't confuse lucidity with being able to control the dream.

>> No.18386741
File: 102 KB, 503x500, 1620722281699.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386741

>>18386711
>all you know how to do is avoid arguments.
Funny because Shankara (pbuh) has dozens of arguments refuting buddhism aka crypto-materialism

>"No one, they (Buddhists) claim, can possibly deny this chain of causation (Pratītyasamutpāda) beginning with nescience. And once the whole causal chain beginning with nescience is admitted to exist, and to be revolving continually like a wheel with buckets at a well, it is found to imply that the formation of aggregates must be possible. But this is not right, as the causes so far mentioned lead to production (of the next effect in the series) only (and not to aggregation of any kind). An aggregate could be admitted if an intelligible cause were assigned for it. But it is not. Nescience and the rest may cause one another mutually in your cycle, but they only cause the rise of the next link in the chain. There is nothing to show that anything could be the cause of an aggregate. True, you claimed that if nescience and the rest were admitted, an aggregate was necessarily implied.

>To this, however, we reply as follows. If you mean that nescience and the rest cannot arise except in the presence of some aggregate and so are dependent on it, then you still have to explain what could be the cause of the aggregate. Now, we have already shown in the course of our criticism of the Vaisesikas that aggregation is unintelligible even when supported by such assumptions as that of the existence of eternal atoms along with eternal individual experiencers who serve as permanent loci for the conservation of the effects of past action. So it will be all the less intelligible in a theory in which only atoms of momentary existence are admitted, without any permanent experiencer or any permanent locus for anything. If the Buddhist now claims that it is this causal chain beginning with nescience that is the cause of aggregation, we ask how this causal chain could ever be the cause of aggregation when it depends on aggregation for its own existence?

>> No.18386761
File: 108 KB, 1280x971, 1615903223032.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18386761

>>18386638
>A supreme God is the only thing that can account for the existence of samsara
I don't think so Tim

>> No.18386782

>>18386741
>uh you can't have 12 causes you need 13
>because im a priest that's why

>> No.18386793

>>18386741
I'm not seeing any refutations here. Posting quotas a like a pseud doesn't make you intelligent, or displays your knowledge of the material. Articulate your arguments. What is your actual criticism of Buddhism? Give examples from the text, and explain them.

>> No.18386796

>>18386738
Thanks for the tips anon.
>Not necessarily
Doesn't it scare you a bit that there could be ways in which you could fuck yourself over? Not permanently but still. It could also harm the ego/psyche.
I'm exactly the same as you, ego death and loss of identity and memories is something I want to avoid. Allegedly, spiritual ascension to higher levels is more of a broadening of perception rather than an obliteration, though, so that seems reassuring.
>seek initiation
No religion seems true, and lineages are all corrupted. It seems complicated.
>you won't be 100% lucid
I don't mean in terms of dream control, but in terms of actual lucidity. If your consciousness is not operating at full capacity then couldn't entities fuck you over easily? Hell you might agree to things in your dreams then not even remember it when you wake up.

>> No.18386894

>>18386796
>Doesn't it scare you a bit that there could be ways in which you could fuck yourself over?
Sure but I don't think there has been a point in my life when I wasn't a little scared about something. I have been in enough /gif/ rekt threads to be wary about being too close to machinery or sharp objects. The dangers of the astral is infinite. If you buy heavily in Gnosticism not even the spirit is that safe; if not destructible, it can be trapped. It is what it is I guess.
>No religion seems true, and lineages are all corrupted. It seems complicated.
Yeah, I'm not sure about that either.
>I don't mean in terms of dream control, but in terms of actual lucidity.
That's what I meant, I was just letting you know the two aren't the same if you did think that way. You will rarely be "100%" lucid if such a thing even exists. Despite that the danger of getting attacked by an entity just with dreaming alone is low. You have defenses "built-in". You would have to be in a seriously compromised state mentally or you'd have to invite them in for it to be an issue.

>> No.18386940

>>18386894
>The dangers of the astral is infinite
Maybe there aren't so many dangers in the realm above it. The pleroma, true reality, whatever it's called.
By the way is the DMT realm the astral or is it higher?
>not sure about that either
There's also self-initiation, or being initiated by entities (in Kundalini for example) but that sounds dangerous as fuck.
>the two aren't the same
Yeah I'm aware. But are you saying that even in a lucid dream you're never as "aware" as in waking life?
>dreaming alone
Once you start projecting and doing more out-there stuff with LD, do you take particular measures to protect yourself or do you just try to stay careful?

>> No.18386948

>>18386793
>Articulate your arguments. What is your actual criticism of Buddhism? Give examples from the text,

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthi in the Jeta Forest in the private park owned by Anāthapiṇḍika. There the Blessed one addressed the monks thus: ‘Monks!’ Those monks responded thus: ‘Blessed One!’ The Blessed One said this:

"Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you."

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

At this time, a Brahmin named Sugatasūdana who had joined the audience of monks stood up and said to the Blessed One:

"Oh venerable sir, you proclaim that from ignorance as a requisite condition comes fabrications, but I ask you, from whence arose this ignorance?"

The Blessed One replied to Sugatasūdana:

"Oh Brahmin, a first point of ignorance, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it came into being"

Sugatasūdana pressed the Blessed One further:

"Venerable sir, if there is no first point of ignorance, does that mean the causal chain of dependent co-arising has been active continuously without any beginning?"

The Blessed One replied:

"That is correct, oh Brahmin"

>> No.18386956

>>18386948
Sugatasūdana pressed the Blessed One still further:

"Oh, Blessed One, but what is the cause of the mutual aggregation of the 12 links into such an arrangement which allows them to impart casual efficiency to the next link in the chain in an orderly manner? For the aggregation of things into specific arrangements is an activity, and as activities are effects, a cause for them must necessarily be presumed. For, in the world we see that threads do not form an aggregation of threads in the form of a cloth unless they are acted upon by the spinner at his loom."

The Blessed One replied to the Brahmin:

"Oh Brahmin, do not think that you can fool the Tathāgata, from dependent co-arising springs all causal relations, Brahmā and the rest of the gods are subject to its sway, there is no Deva who is the cause of the aggregation of the links of dependent co-arising. All is dependently co-arisen, including the relationship of the links to one another."

Sugatasūdana smiled and replied for the last time:

"Oh Blessed One, but how can dependent co-arising be the cause of the aggregation of the 12 links of co-arising when it depends on the aggregation of its links for its own existence and orderly functioning? For a daughter is never seen to give birth to her own mother, and smoke is never seen to give rise to fire. But when the Blessed One says that dependent co-arising is the cause of the aggregation of the links of dependent co-arising on which dependent co-arising relies for its functioning, that is no different from saying a daughter gives birth to her own mother, whom that daughter depends upon for her existence to begin with".

The Blessed One frowned and paused for several moments, then he opened his mouth as if he were about to speak, but then he closed his mouth and remained silent. After a length of time, the Blessed One said:

"Oh Brahmin, you have bested me, I do not know how dependent co-arising can be the cause of its own aggregation when it depends on aggregation to function, as you say it is a paradox."

At this moment a murmur of voices started up among the monks surrounding the Blessed One, the voices quickly grew louder and some of the monks began to display anger. At this moment the Blessed One's attendant Ānanda stood up and shouted to the monks:

"Oh monks, this devious demon in human form has dared to show the Blessed One's doctrine to contain contradictions, how dare he! We must stop him from further questioning the Blessed One's doctrine."

Then all the monks gathered up sticks and rocks and began to menace Sugatasūdana, who taking notice of the situation stood up and quickly left the Jeta Forest before the enraged monks could do him harm.

>> No.18386969

>>18386956
See
>>18386782

>> No.18386981

>>18386793
>I'm not seeing any refutations here. Posting quotas a like a pseud doesn't make you intelligent, or displays your knowledge of the material. Articulate your arguments. What is your actual criticism of Buddhism? Give examples from the text, and explain them.
forget about it, he's unable to do it, he never understand the arguments and respond with non related metaphysics of self form adviata, and if you corner him he'll call you a nihilist or npc, he just don't know how to analyze an argument

>> No.18386996

>>18386741
shankara misundertood vital parts of the biddha doctrine, like ignorance, viññana or anicca, posting quotes from him or notions of his metaphysics will amount to nothing, just to stroke your ego thinking you're in some pathetic holy war

>> No.18386998

>>18386981
He's just fucking spamming quotes. He did it again. He's also quite retarded he doesn't seem to realize Buddha's been translated so many different ways there isn't truly a good way to understand him without having the biases of the translator.

>> No.18387007

>>18386998
He didn't post an actual sutta, dumb fuck.

>> No.18387065

>>18386940
>By the way is the DMT realm the astral or is it higher?
I have no experience with drugs so I can't say for certain. My wager is astral.
>But are you saying that even in a lucid dream you're never as "aware" as in waking life?
These conversations get messy because we may not be working with the same underlying assumptions. One of the first things that dream yoga teaches you is that you are as unaware in waking life as you are in non-lucid dreams. Becoming awake in a dream is easier than in waking life because of the difference in "density" (I prefer "malleability"). To be 100% aware in a dream isn't always possible, sometimes the acknowledgment of it being a dream isn't enough, you have to properly feel it than maintain that feeling. It's like how you can intellectually understand and maybe say out loud that waking "reality" is an illusion but monks and mystics spend their entire lives to actually feel like that is the case.
>Once you start projecting and doing more out-there stuff with LD, do you take particular measures to protect yourself or do you just try to stay careful?
Mostly just carefulness. Also manage your expectations. When you expect something to happen in a dream it will happen, that's the underlying principle of dream control. The astral is no different; if you expect bad things to happen they will happen. It sounds easy to just not be scared but it is not. It's the fear that entities love to snag onto. You really have to shrink yourself mentally so to speak so there is nothing that someone could grab onto.

>> No.18387104

>>18386940
>>18387065
If you are particularly worried then look into the LBRP or maybe pray.

>> No.18387112

>>18387065
>you are as unaware in waking life as you are in non-lucid dreams
Have you managed to "awaken" even temporarily in real life or not yet?
This is getting me even more interested in dream yoga. Have you ever thought of reaching out to some kind of vajrayana guru or whatever or would you rather not bother?
>just carefulness
Ever had a really bad experience with specific entities?
What's your opinion on the jungian take that some of the things you encounter are reflections of yourself and that learning to work with them is the first step towards self-realization/individuation?

>> No.18387124

>>18387104
I'm kind of doubtful about prayer; I mean, you shouldn't make contracts with any kind of entity, so isn't it risky to enter in such close contact with YHWH? Not to sound edgy but there's no guarantee he's looking out for our best interests.

>> No.18387129

>>18387007
the guenonfag pretending to be his own cheerleader again, how adorable

>> No.18387136

>>18386638
>because then there is no way for the contingent non-eternal things like samsara and ignorance to exist, even relatively
not really, that's just you again, inventing rules and pretending they're logical axioms

>> No.18387144

>>18387124
Well he appears to have torn up his contract with Abraham & Sons LLP so I would be careful

>> No.18387146

>>18387129
Meds, now

>> No.18387157

>>18387144
>he appears to have torn up his contract with Abraham & Sons LLP
To be fair they had it coming

>> No.18387194

>>18387157
It was a dick move to say the insurance policy wouldn't cover a Babylonian invasion. Why cover Egyptians but not Babylonians? Need to read the fine print

>> No.18387198

>>18387194
How do you get an astral lawyer

>> No.18387230

>>18387198
Supposedly if you know a guy in Chaldea he can put you in touch with any number of gods; law gods, war gods, sex gods, whatever. What you're looking for is a theurgist.

>> No.18387247

>>18387230
This stuff is so complicated. Why can't a human bean walk his own path without being bothered by deities and higher entities? Is it a loosh thing?

>> No.18387254

>>18387112
>Have you managed to "awaken" even temporarily in real life or not yet?
Not yet, although I think just being on this path you could be considered partially awake. People have different definitions of "awake". A buddhist would probably think I'm going straight to hungry ghost realm or something.
>Have you ever thought of reaching out to some kind of vajrayana guru or whatever or would you rather not bother?
It would be inconvenient where I live. An interesting point brought up in those books from earlier is that you can receive initiations from dead masters in dreams. Which isn't something I have gotten to trying, and it seems like it's just something that you get "blessed" into receiving than something you seek out.
>Ever had a really bad experience with specific entities?
I'm pretty sure a painting of a relative is cursed, in that whenever it's in the house I get nightmares and massive headaches. And I had foolishly invoked Bune in a dream and had a bad bout of events occur afterwards after have disrespect him. Besides dream characters I routinely visit (which I guess just count as myself) and a suspiciously sentient and consistent character I see occasionally, I don't fuck with mind foreigners.
>What's your opinion on the jungian take that some of the things you encounter are reflections of yourself and that learning to work with them is the first step towards self-realization/individuation?
I don't buy the solely psychological explanation for this phenomenal. Not everything you encounter is of your "mental space", for a lack of a better term.

>> No.18387275

>>18387254
"Painting"? No, photo.

>> No.18387317

>>18387254
>A buddhist would probably think I'm going straight to hungry ghost realm or something.
kek, why? Attachment to ego or something?
>initiations from dead masters
Yeah, though it's probably tricky to know if a being trying to initiate you is an actual master or something else with ulterior motives.
>suspiciously sentient and consistent character I see occasionally
Could it be some kind of archetype?
>I don't fuck with mind foreigners
I thought it was inevitable when doing AP/OBE.
Man this is a really interesting subject. It feels like I lack the philosophical/esoteric background to see the big picture but I want to dive into it anyway. If not to learn new things, at least to ensure I don't come back here after death.

>> No.18387467

>>18387317
>Attachment to ego or something?
Yeah you get sent to different realms in rebirth depending on your karma. I don't think hungry ghost is ego related though, that's more gluttony type stuff. I don't remember exactly who goes where.
>Could it be some kind of archetype?
Well, all objects in a dream could be considered archetypes or reflections of something within the unconscious mind.
>I thought it was inevitable when doing AP/OBE.
I don't AP that often. Even when I do I rarely engage with entities. Many will just leave you alone; not all of them are bad. It highly depends on "where" you are going. You are probably safe if you are projecting in the aether that surrounds your neighborhood. If you know anything about Kabbalah, the Sefirot are worlds you can project to, which may or may not be dangerous (apparently angels don't take it lightly when you are loitering in Yahweh's backyard.)
>It feels like I lack the philosophical/esoteric background to see the big picture but I want to dive into it anyway.
Try those books out. Maybe start with Between the Gates because it's more for Westerners, although there is some Qabalistic/Hermetic context you might not get. Also realize you don't have to swear yourself to just one system.

>> No.18387501

>>18387467
>Sefirot are worlds you can project to
So there are only ten worlds, not infinite realms? I never looked into Qabalah, do you have recommendations on where to start? I think a lot of the books on the subject are new age bullshit.
>Try those books out
Yeah I will, and thank you for your advice. I guess there's no need to stick to a single system, I'm just still reasoning with the guenonian assumption that if you don't pick a tradition and stick to it you're fucked (which I don't think is true, but the thought still bugs me).
Anyway I have to leave now. Thanks for the interesting conversation and safe travels anon.

>> No.18387559

>>18387501
>So there are only ten worlds, not infinite realms?
More like there are ten ways you could divide existence, not that their are only ten discrete worlds to chose from. You have to realize that some of the worlds of Kabbalah are incredibly broad. Malkuth is basically the entire material universe. All dreams are under Yesod. The further you go up the more abstract things get. Different systems have different ways to divide infinity so that it can be easily understood. The common New Age way of doing it is the 7^7 planes. Gnostics have several ways of dividing it.
>I think a lot of the books on the subject are new age bullshit.
They are, most of the time. The guy that wrote Between the Gates has a book on Kaballah. Chicken Qabalah isn't bad either.
>Thanks for the interesting conversation and safe travels anon.
Good luck. If you seek you will find.