/lit/ - Literature

Anything can be done with Buddhist ideas because Buddhist ideas are vapid pieces of shit for pretentious fags to project meaning onto.

Explain his egoism. Most likely its not compatible with Buddhist idea of anatta.

>>4152850

I'm not sure if I could properly explain... but basically you live for yourself, as a unique, unhindered by ideas or "spooks" such as mankind, god... most social rules. It's ultimate liberation, basically.

>>4152856
*tips fedora*

>>4152856
Nope. To me his view is just another Hedonist view revisited. So Buddhist would probably call out on the worship of the unproven "you"/"soul" that egoist seem to place as important. Again, Buddhism is all about reducing suffering through means of self-actualization. So they would probably begin by saying the idea of a fixed "you" for which you say you work to sustain is nothing but a delusion. Each moment our thoughts change our memories change and our bodies change along with it. We are essentially a different person from day to day or more technically from moment to moment. Well they would probably begin somewhere around here and move into how there really isn't any "self" or "you" to worship for. And that only the ignorant would think there is an everlasting and unchanging "you"/"self" that places all their emphasis/joy/worry/sadness/anger/happiness/etc underneath all the body. Something like that.

>>4152886
What if I beat them up?

>>4152893
Works nicely.

We shall see that the existentialists take up a similar theme, albeit less confidently.
Stirner is, however, not to be counted among its antecedents, because in his idea of the "Unique" there is virtually no opening of the deepest dimensions of existence.

Stirner, who saw in all moral-
ity the ultimate form of the divine fetish that was to be destroyed. He
denounced the "beyond" that exists within man and that tries to give
him rules as being a "new heaven" that is merely the insidious transposi-
tion of the external, theological beyond, which has been negated. 4 With
this conquest of the "interior god" and the exaltation of the "Unique"
that is free from rules and "rests its cause on nothingness," opposing
itself to every value and pretense of society, Stirner marks the end of
the road trodden by the nihilistic social revolutionaries (to whom the
term nihilism was originally applied) — but trodden in the name of Uto-
pian social ideas in which they always believed: ideas such as "justice,"
"liberty," and "humanity," as opposed to the injustice and tyranny that
they saw in the existing order.

>>4152856
I think the premise flawed because everyone is totally egoistic already. Trying to be not egostic is egoistic and altruism is just a different manifestation of the ego. It might be not materialistic but you're still trying to gain something.

>>4152908
>everyone is totally egoistic already

that's quite the claim

>>4152942
How could you not be egoistic?

Taoism > buddhism anyway

>>4152942
By assuming you're not egoistic you are getting satisfaction, knowing you are supposedly pure and caring (and other such concepts). But you receive pleasure from knowing that, you're still serving your own interests even if doing good to others is what you desire, it still satisfies you in the end. You are just an unconscious or unwilling egoist.

>>4152979
Zen combines the best of both.

>>4152962

Very few ppl have gotten rid of the social boundaries needed for them to become true egotists in a stirnerian way.

>>4152962
what do you mean by egoism?

if you mean, 'not altruistic' than that's just plain wrong

if you mean some nebulous inclusive concept which swallows all moral acts, including everyday acts of altruism and extremely selfless acts (grenade jumping scenario, etc) - then that really doesn't mean anything and you're just using semantical sophism

How do you explain a qt that you love her if you are both aware of egoism?

CAN BUDDHIST BE STIRNER?
CAN STIRNER BE BUDDHIST?
ANSWER: FUCK YOU

People only claim to not be egotistical because being egotistical is perceived as negative, and they wouldn't want to be judged as an egotist.

>>4153012
Also, everyone has faults, so fault-finding seems pretty trivial and egotistical.

>>4153000
Let's say you want to be a better person and to eradicate all desire, doesn't this mean you're still desiring to not desire?

>>4153017
And that's when I discovered Nirvana.
Desiring is the root of all suffering, so I had no desire to attain Nirvana and enlightenment.

>>4153017
There's no such thing as desire and no such thing as its eradication. Embrace nirguna brahman.

>>4153022
I want to beat your ass for claiming such a thing.
Is that not desire? Is my inability to do so, and the sadness that ensues, not suffering?

buddhism used to be patrician (read: when it was for hipsters), but now its ultra pleb

>>4153017
the desire to enlightenment helps you get rid of all other desires, then you give up that last one, after you use the raft to get to the other side you don't need the raft, or as Witty said, after you climb the ladder you can get rid of it

>>4153022
>Advaitins

oh god no, go away

>>4153024
>Is that not desire?

It's not your desire, so no it isn't.

>>4153024
I guess it just is what it is then.

>>4153024
If all is void, as the Buddhist claim, what is suffering?

>>4153030
What strain of buddhism uses that raft analogy?

>>4153035
There is suffering but no one who suffers.

>>4153037
all of them, it's in the suttas brah

>The Raft Simile
>"Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

>"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

>The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

>"No, lord."

>"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

>>4153006
can someone tell this to me

>>4153037
Togoan Griot Buddhism

>>4153039
>There is suffering but no one who suffers.
Seems legit.

>>4153042
Sure sure. But isn't there a small and a big raft or something?

>>4153035
void doesn't mean nothingness or nihilism, you've misunderstood shunyata

>>4153033
Nigga shu up. I am, but your time signature and doubles freaked me out a bit.
>>4153034
Damn straight.
>>4153035
An illusion projected by the mind under a false notion of self.

>>4153051
But the self doesn't exist.

>>4153049
that's referring to the different schools of Buddhism, the Mahayana use the simile to define themselves against the Theravada, which they call hinayana ('little vehicle, lesser vehicle' which the Theravada find offensive)

>>4153054
Exactly.

Guys, I get it, I get it, I have to sit down and stop trying to read things and all these shortcut things

Stop spoiling it before some shitbag... oh shit

>>4153057
How does something that doesn't exist delude itself?

>>4153058
Why should you stop to read things?

>>4153072
You can't read, you can only not exist while simultaneously deluding yourself into believing that you're reading (but you don't actually do that)

>>4153069
Like this.

>>4153082
I just read, don't know about that other fancy stuff you're talking about.

Stop taking weed and just sit back

Its better than weed at some degree, just don't force yourself, you know, forcing yourself results in stuff that gets in your stomach, hemorroids, the such

I ordered a copy of the ego and his own a few hours ago, it's used and the guy said it had some writing on it, should I expect neat notes?

if the self is an illusion,
who or what is experiencing the illusion?
related, what is humanity?

>>4152790
the self is a stooge, or whatever that cunt calls it

>>4153168
define forcing yourself

>>4152856
>implying the ego is not a spook

>>4152790
>stirner
>asks about buddhism
>pic is laozi

>>4152790

>can you please help me intellectually legitimize my social inadequacies?

>>4153369

>>4152790
I think so. Stirner said:

>.....The Unique One is the straightforward, sincere, plain-phrase. It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."

>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.

>Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. (...) It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."

>By bringing the essence into prominence one degrades the hitherto misapprehended appearance to a bare semblance, a deception. The essence of the world, so attractive and splendid, is for him who looks to the bottom of it — emptiness; emptiness is — world's essence (world's doings). ...."

>.. [F]or 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

That's some Zen shit.

>>4153463
Not zeo, the dao

>>4153463
Too intellectual. Not the real thing.

>>4153538
do u even jnana yoga

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

>>4153222
this is important

Stirner: when Rand is too uncool and Nietzsche too mainstream.

>>4153222
I cannot believe how people keep misunderstanding this. Buddha didn't say anything about there's no you, or self, only that there's no solid you, there's no a single idea or you, is basically the five skandhas.


google for thanissaro bhikkhu no self

>>4154130
Stirner probably barely if ever heard of Buddhism, he was working the Western tradition and in a mostly Hegelian philosophical climate. I think he was pretty close to the whole no-self thing by intuition.

>>4153222

This video is a bit on the long side but if you actually wish to have your questions answered thoroughly you'll watch it.

The Video is titled 'Who is it that knows there is no ego?'
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ4_75nT6_M

>>4154603
>Rand anything like Stirner
I hate when people shout bullshit about things they don't know about on /lit/.

>>4154130
Lel. Guess the Shobogenzo isn't either then. Too intellectual, zen is just quirky quietism all the way!

>>4153222
Aliens.

How do you explain a qt that you love her if you are both aware of egoism?

>>4154843
You tell her you are the creative nothing and she is nothing to you but simply being your property.

>>4154850
I don't think she would like that

>>4154843
Are you requesting an image?

>>4154843
>If I cherish you because I hold you dear, because in you my heart finds nourishment, my need satisfaction, then it is not done for the sake of a higher essence, whose hallowed body you are, not on account of my beholding in you a ghost, an appearing spirit, but from egoistic pleasure; you yourself with your essence are valuable to me, for your essence is not a higher one, is not higher and more general than you, is unique [einzig] like you yourself, because it is you.

>>4154843

Egoists are capable of the most honest and powerful love. You love her as she is unique, not held down by spooks, and you love her not because of spooks, but because of your own genuine want of her.

>>4154900
I love that part

>>4154900
>>4154909
my heart

>>4154843

>>4154909
What spooks could you love someone for?

What does he mean when he says all things are nothing to me?

He obviously still values some things because they feel good to him

>>4154974

they have no essence

>>4154943
>tfw no pure virgin gf
- r9k

>>4154974

It means that when someone starts telling you about your duty...to your family, to your job, to your country, etc...That you are being fed bullshit.

You have no duty to anyone. You owe nothing, not to society, family, ...nothing. The things that have value are the things which YOU place value in, not others. And the value only really matters to you, anyways.

Basically, you are Judge Dredd.

>>4152790
are there any drawings or photographs of stirner other than engels'?

>>4155103
No. He was a neckbeard schoolteacher who lived in a basement.

The greatest man of modern times
;_;

Him and Diogenes would have been the greatest of bros. Imagine the philosophy those two could have done as a tag team.

>>4155102
It's what I always thought, it's nice to see someone came to these conclusions 200 years before me

>>4152841
>writing off an entire religion and way of life because of new age fuckers who only follow parts of it anyway.

How euphoric can you get?

>>4155102
This just sounds like stupid solipsistic individualism and postmodern relativism. No wonder 4chan loves to jerk off to Stirner--his philosophy is a ringing endorsement of masturbation itself.

Of course you owe something to society, quit being a child.

>>4155130
You owe absolutely nothing to no one, and when you die everything else dies.

>>4155120

Buddhism is full retard. Step up.

I bet you haven't even read the Bhagavad Gita me neither, just admit you are self hating white liberal that wants to suck curry-nigger cock so we can just ignore your threads.

>pic related, a real man's waifu

>>4155118
Stirner was just the first person that was too dumb to be embarrassed that he thought of something so stupid.

>>4155138
Are you 15 or something? What is this horse shit? Surely you must be misinterpreting this philosopher, because this is the most crude tumblr crap I've ever heard.

>>4155130

You only owe to society if your are possessed with Society; if you have Society as a fixed idea with which your ideology spins.

If you voluntarily allow yourself to be possessed by such a spook, then it is likely for your overall benefaction as an individual.

>>4155130
>Of course you owe something to society

Really? Why?

i haven't read stirner but if you guys are summarizing him correctly itt it sounds like he didn't even manage to take his nihilism as far as nietzsche did (and nietzsche only god halfway)
i recommend that you read the upanishads, my friends

>>4155130
>Of course you owe something to society, quit being a child.

The definition of a spook, ladies and gentlemen.

>>4155149
Please make a case for why you owe society things. Where does this obligation come from and what makes it binding?

>>4152856
>ultimate liberation

AKA another spook. This is my problem from what I know of Stirner based on these threads (he's on my list to read eventually): whatever purpose you propose for casting spooks away will merely be a spook itself. Does Stirner not address this? Isn't he playing with "spooky" morality when he implies that living spook to spook is wrong? Shouldn't it ultimately be irrelevant?

>>4155154
I like how he defends spook with spook. If you don't serve Society, you are not really a Man. Do as I say or you will not earn the right to this label.

>>4155150
Okay, that actually doesn't sound too bad, I kind of like that.

>>4155153

Stirner's nihilism isn't nihilistic, it's simply about self-liberation.

Maybe things matter, maybe they don't. That isn't your concern. You are your concern and fuck everyone else. If god is unhappy with you, he can suck your dick. If mom won't make you Tostinos because you were too loudly masturbating, fuck her you will make your own Tostinos. Nietzsche is an edgy faggot pretending he is the "uberman" and other homoerotic faggotry. The reality is that you may or may not be superior to others, and the only power you have is that which you can attain, aka reality. Nietzsche is just the nazi aryan master race bullshit. Stirner is about just being true to yourself.

>recommending hindu shit
not even once.

>>4155169
This just sounds like YOLO bullshit dressed up for nerdy angry white virgins.

>>4155161

Living by following spooks isn't wrong. It's just that he says it's important to take what *you* want into account. That the best source of truth and motivation for your life is internally based, and superior to external bullshit. If you yourself decide you want to follow your "duty" to society, then whatever.

>>4155172

Yes, exactly, but the virgins were German and had muttonchops. This, unironically, makes them superior.

>>4155172

Surprisingly accurate...still, it's an excellent philosophy.

>>4155169
i guess that's what i get for trying to talk about things on 4chan
>>4155172
the point of the man willing to look god in the eye, face existence on his own terms, etc. is good but the problem, i guess, is that the one we're being told of it through is one for whom it consists of telling god to suck your dick and jacking off in your mom's house.

>>4155172
>If you think like this you are of low social status

Trying to spook us into compliance again!

>>4155183
>i guess that's what i get for trying to talk about things on 4chan

"hey guys i haven't read anything you're talking about but it sounds wrong read this shit i like instead" - u

>>4155172
Embracing Stirnerism has gotten me a lot of pussy and has made me Happy and Successful in Life.

"A rare personal remark he once made to a friend is characteristic: he related to that friend that his first wife had once uncovered herself unconsciously in sleep, and that it had been impossible for him from that moment on to touch her again."

Stirner planned and financed (with Marie's inheritance) an attempt by some Young Hegelians to own and operate a milk-shop on co-operative principles. This enterprise failed partly because the dairy farmers were suspicious of these well-dressed intellectuals. The milk shop was also so well decorated that most of the potential customers felt too poorly dressed to buy their milk there.

>>4155244
>>4155236

Just because Stirner was a faggot, doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the gay bathwater.

>>4155400
>implying we don't share these anecdotes lovingly in an 'oh, stirner!' sort of warmitude

>>4155405

He's my favorite degenerate

:)

>>4154767
where is this from?

>>4154715
I'm only going from what the OP said

>>4155142
what is the original illustration this is from?

>tfw stirner realised the traps people face on the buddhist path

>Sacred things exist only for the egoist who does not acknowledge himself, the involuntary egoist ... in short, for the egoist who would like not to be an egoist, and abases himself (combats his egoism), but at the same time abases himself only for the sake of "being exalted", and therefore of gratifying his egoism. Because he would like to cease to be an egoist, he looks about in heaven and earth for higher beings to serve and sacrifice himself to; but, however much he shakes and disciplines himself, in the end he does all for his own sake... [on] this account I call him the involuntary egoist.

>...As you are each instant, you are your own creature in this very 'creature' you do not wish to lose yourself, the creator. You are yourself a higher being than you are, and surpass yourself ... just this, as an involuntary egoist, you fail to recognize; and therefore the 'higher essence' is to you – an alien essence. ... Alienness is a criterion of the "sacred".

>>4155428

It's a lecture by Alan Watts. He was a fairly esteemed philosopher and author during the 60's and 70's. There are tons of videos and audio lectures of his on Youtube.

>>4152886
>To me

Well, no one cares about 'you'. If you think Stirner is 'just another hedonist', maybe fucking read him (again). Don't skip Stirner's Critics, either.

>>4152886
Buddhism itself is just another hedonist view revisited, silly.

Maybe I'm dumb, but how would any of this intellectual stimulating jargon affect my day to day living if I immersed myself in it?
Would I have to quit my job? Would I like my job more? Would I be bitter that I have to work that job?

I'm just trying to get by, do you think this will help me?

>>4156229
Adverbialize intellectual please.

>>4153017
That's the whole point. You recognize what your desires are and in recognizing it no longer beholden yourself to them, you act outside of them. That's one small part of enlightenment.

>>4153035
The failing of the not self to understand the universe and apply a fractured view of the world in an attempt to understand the universe under several concepts which are irreconcilable with the changing universe.

>>4153054
It also doesn't not exist.

>There is actually people in this day and age that believes in this self help bullshit.

Learn to balance yourselves, give AND take. Only analysis of the context will provide the right choice. Know thyself and through that know others, golden rule bitches.

>>4153222
There is no self (no immortal, immutable soul) but there is also no "no self" (ie nothing). In books I've read it's referred to as simply your experience (ie we are the sum of what we do, say and perceive). The illusion is that parts of the whole try to look at the whole as if its segmented and separated. Humanity is just another part of the whole.

>>4156242

>21st century
>he seriously believes in the golden rule

>>4156242
>talks about self help bullshit
>states the basis of most religions as if that isn't the biggest self help bullshit

>>4156229
It will remove all the rules except for those actually there, giving you more room to do as you please.

>>4156242
>dismisses self-help bullshit
>proceeds to post sell-helpy bullshit

lukewarm kekking situation

>>4156277
Like what? I do as I please and I do what I need to survive. Is there something I'm missing?
What doors does this open? Speak in concrete terms please, abstractions poorly translate to reality, unless you designate how those abstractions can be articulated.

>>4156280
Let's say your playing a shooter online. There are certain actual rules (or laws of vidya nature, if you will) such as losing all your health points means death, killing another person gets you one point etc. Players of the game often also develop an etiquette. (no spawncamping, shotgun if for noobs etc.) This etiquette often gets defended and promoted militantly and intensely with all kinds of peer pressure. After a while it becomes so commonplace that this etiquette begins to appear like actual, unbreakable rules.

Real life is like this as well. Certain things are just 'not done', if you don't provide for yourself you are 'not a real man (hurr lame noob), if you hit someone while he's down in a fight you are not honourable, you mustn't cross a person so, you're a bad person if you do this etc. Stirner reminds us that etiquette is merely etiquette and that the actual rules of the game are the unbreakable ones. If a rule can be broken it is not real, even if people try to convince you it is. So someone who reads Stirner might get an edge over other people since he uses his full range of options within the game, without getting shamed into compliance to an arbitrary set of values. You might win because you're spawn camping with a shotgun, even though society frowns on it.

This frees you up practically (less rules to obey) but also mentally or even spiritually if you will. If you realise the etiquette is a fraud people can't shame you into feeling bad for not complying or being like you are. It frees you from guilt as well as obligation. So Stirner might help you cut corners to get that promotion and it might help a young gay kid do away with the notion that there is something wrong with him, to name some examples. It frees you from arbitrary boundaries.

>>4156280
To ask a more specific question, how does knowledge of the self, or lack of self, or whatever you want to call it, impact someone's life in a tangible way?
How does shedding spooks make my life better?
Keep in mind, my life is just about as average as possible. I work a decent job, have a wife and child, and live a somewhat modest and somewhat comfortable lifestyle.

>>4156292
If anything it will makes you less susceptible to your wife's manipulation techniques. Whenever you are demanded to do something in the name of Fatherhoofd, Family and being a Good Husband, you can think '2spooky4me'.

>>4156291
>>4156291
Yea, culture is structured, so deconstruct it. That's all well and good, but I am a social creature. I may not need these arbitrary rules, but I do need the company of others.

In video games, people play them online because they require skill and because they are social. The reason people follow those rules is because the game isn't as fun if everyone in the server hates you.

In my life, I know that I can rat out my coworker who screwed up the company project and that it might get me a step closer to a promotion, but I don't because I value my relationship with this person who is also my friend. It might also make people apprehensive to work with me at work, making my life at work less enjoyable.

Regardless they are antiChrist and to be condemned as Satanic, as they neglect our dependence on God and our obligations to Him

>>4156298
But I love my wife and it makes our relationship stronger when I give myself completely to her, just as she gives herself to me.
I'll gladly do the dishes every night and go to my son's football games because they are both expected of me and make my life more enjoyable.
When my wife wants a new pair of shoes and we have the money for it, and sometimes we don't, I'll gladly give them to her because that is how she wants me to express an aspect of my love for her and it makes me happy to see her happy. Of course, there are limits, and if she asks for me to prove my love by buying something new weekly or else I am not a man, then I won't put up with it.

>>4156303
If you comply with a request from a person because you value being liked by that person, that's fine. If you comply with a request because the notion of Family comes with the Duty to do X, you're spooked.

If you don't rat out a co-worker because you value his friendship over a promotion, that's a good decision. If you don't rat him out, even if it's in your best interest and you hate him, because of some notion of Honour that has to be kept up, you have been tricked into servant-hood to a concept, a word at the expense of yourself. You are sacrificing at the altar of a mere idea. It's a form of superstition really. See the difference?

>>4156311
Doing something for your wife because you love her is fine with Stirner. Doing something for her because she's your wife is being duped. One is a gift to a person, the other an offering to an institution.

STIRNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRR

>>4156316
If you kant see a problem with this you are a fucking pleb.

>>4156389

pls go.

>>4156316
But, if you are perceived to have honor by others, that very well could translate to real world results, just not immediately.
Cultural mores, while at times seemingly pointless, in actuality have purpose because others give them meaning.

This does not mean that cultural norms should be rigid though, and they are challenged all the time. Sometimes people are vilified for their challenge, and other times they are justified. Mores are not immutable, which is the image that Stirner presents.

>>4156397
Elaborate.

>>4156434
That's the point. Go along with the game if it suits you, but don't get hung up on it.

u guys think stirner fingered his butt?

>>4156796

I think everybody fingered their butts.

That being said, earlier on in this thread somebody mentioned that they doubted Stirner even knew of Buddhism, but I would disagree with this. In Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach speaks of "oriental nihilism" and "oriental pantheism". A large part of the Ego and It's Own is a criticism of Feuerbach's Essence. One could most likely conclude that Stirner would have been familiar with Buddhism, to some degree.

>>4152962
Through meditation.

>>4157248
People were horribly informed regarding eastern philosophy at the time though. Stirner may have grasped something, but his intuitive grasp of certain things close to zen can't come from that.

>>4156291
But you can obey some rules or morals if they satisfy you, you don't have to become a degenerate hedonist or sociopathic businessman

>>4158421

there's probably something wrong with you biologically if getting rid of all restraints drives you to be a misanthropic killer

>>4158716

not really. you've just forgotten how violent people are.

>>4158716
Considering that you're implying biological restraints are what keep people in check and you already admitted to getting rid of all restraints it's actually the only possibility.

>>4158733

there's a difference between having no restraints and having a drive

jut because you have no restraint from killing someone doesn't mean you'll have a drive to

>>4158727

Killing will always exist but the murderous quality of humans has reached a new peak in modernity... not in prehistoric uncivilized times. We'd be more peaceful if we reverted back to that.

>>4158741
Very few killers have a drive to kill, they simply have a drive to something else and view killing as the most efficient way of getting what they want.

>>4158741
Steven Pinker would have words with that assertion.

>>4158741

what is constant tribal warfare, alex?

>>4158771

what is constant modern warfare?

>>4158802

It's a different game. Modern wars are fought in the name of nebulous political entities whereas the political group fought for in tribal warfare is the family unit. If we were to live in a tribal way today, the entire world would be similar to a gang controlled ghetto or something similar. Centralized power pacifies.

>>4158820
But Stirner was about seeing past the bonds made both by nebulous political entities and by smaller family units. He wasn't advocating a return to primitive societies. His egoist would likely prefer the relative security of modern society and would be willing to accept the rules he has to in order to survive in that society.

>>4158820
>Centralized power pacifies.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>4158885
>being this ignorant of authoritarian politics

>>4158716
What did I say that was relevant to murdering? I'm saying you can use egoism to justify focusing on carnal pleasures alone and ignoring any morals

>>4158885
centralized power does pacify... it fosters authoritarism on a higher degree but it does pacify... as long as it doesn't reach breaking point

INSOFAR AS IT IS SELF-conscious, no.
INSOFAR AS it is viewed as inescapable within this mortal frame and even necessary (or -gasp- even Desirable . . . ) by a Buddhist, surely; dat zen schvag leute jajajA

Op's pic is brilliant, LOL

The short answer is no, but they do have some similarities.

Both Stirner's creative nothing [schöpferische nichts] and Buddhism's nothingness [mu] are basically anti-foundationalist views of the self. They hold there is no fixed, essential subject; no Self. In addition both have existential implications. Both believe that it is the fundamental nihility of existence that makes life worth living, because it allows us to create our own values. An affirmative nihilism rather than a nihilism of despair, if you will. Each also puts forth a notion of overcoming the limits of one's individuality. And each have a “nameless.”

Beyond this, mu and nichts radically diverge. This is due to a fundamental difference: the former is realist and monist, the latter is nominalist and pluralist.

Buddhists believe there is a fundamental unity underlying all things. This is why buddhism is non-dualistic and why one aim of buddhism is to show the practitioner that the distinction between self and other is illusory. Once the illusion is overcome one transcends the limitations of the ego and enters a non-dual, anti-essential state of consciousness which is ineffable: buddha-nature. People are seen as being part of common humanity and all of life and strive to benefit all that lives, hence the bodhisattva vow. This is somewhat reminiscent of Hegel's dialectic which ends in a synthetic unity of opposites.

Stirner rejects this approach entirely; he sees this unity as a spook, thinks that the distinction between self and other is not illusory, and upholding the notion of a non-essential self while simultaneously holding that an underlying unity exits is contradictory. Insofar as egos are unique they cannot in anyway be a specimen or member of some underlying unity, a universal. Each is founded on its *own* nothingness, and hence is its *own* unity. There is a plurality of nothings (nichts) and the notion that there is a fundamental nothingness (mu) underlying egos it is a recourse to essentialism. Stirner thinks this is sneaking the Self in through the back door, which is why Stirner would have laughed at the bodhisattva vow, seeing it as a vow to sacrifice oneself to a host of spooks. "I am my own humanity." For this reason Stirner does not want to weaken the self/other distinction but strengthen it, "Their disgrace is not that they exclude each other, but that they only half do this." For "only with the ultimate separation does separation itself come to an end and turn into unity."

"The final and most decisive opposition, that of the unique individual against the unique individual, is basically beyond what is called opposition, yet without sinking back into 'unity' and unanimity... Opposition disappears in perfect separation or uniqueness."

Stirner's nichts is able to maintain duality while banishing opposition from it. This carries over into Stirner's notion of self-overcoming. Self and other are neither absorbed into each other, nor dissolved or recognized as some fundamental unity or a third party; rather, the self and other, two completely unique and non-united egos, "overflow" their limitations and in doing so weld themselves together, without loosing themselves in each other, nor some unity that is not ego, or an original nature. Connected, but not united. This is what Stirner was getting at when he says the ego is not all, but destroys all. Stirner's ineffable is ineffable because it is self-transcending (or more accurately overflowing). Pic related. When we speak of ego we are only able to speak of what is inside the circle, and so end up speaking of a falsification of an ego. I can't find the quote, but I'm sure there is a part of The Ego and Its Own in which Stirner says that the unity the buddhists speak of is an artifact of the dynamic intercourse between egos.

I hope this helped and I made a lick of sense, I'm fucking tired right now.

>>4153463
this is classic taoism m8

>>4159481
>>4159485

>implying anyone is going to read all that shit

>>4159771
>implying I didn't read it all and enjoy it

Go back to /b/ kid.

>>4159485

thanks for this insight. it wasn't a waste of time and taught me a lot.

>>4159776
>implying you didn't write it all and enjoy it

see?

>>4159782
This one is you too.

LOL

>>4158820
we are more the same with our tribal grandfathers then we might think. out of all the gangs it is government that has the monopoly and the highest freedom to fuck people over and do whatever it wants. authoritarianism only gives the power to one crazy gang and says go wild.

>>4155169
nietzsche never claimed to be the ubermensch, he said that the closest thing to the ubersmensch that had existed was Jesus,Buddha, Cesar Borgia and Napoleon

>>4155146
Spook Internet Defense Force to the rescue!

>>4155113
>tag team philosophy
other than russel/whitehead, when has this been done?

>>4160072
Delueze and Guattari. Marx and Engels.

>>4159835
Which generally works out better. Even most dictatorships are more pleasant than Somalia.

>>4155130
>Of course you owe something to society

Well... how about making a point beyond "of course"? Actually, one of the most telltale signs of bullshit is when someone starts a sentence with "of course" or "obviously" or "everyone knows". That just means it is accepted dogma.

>Of course the sun revolves around the earth
>Of course you cannot ride in a train at 70 mph, your blood vessels would burst

>>4155161
>whatever purpose you propose for casting spooks away will merely be a spook itself. Does Stirner not address this? Isn't he playing with "spooky" morality when he implies that living spook to spook is wrong? Shouldn't it ultimately be irrelevant?

No. According to Stirner, there are different motivating factors in human behavior. There are basic drives and urges, things you derive genuine enjoyment from and that you strive for because of that. Then there are obligations that are imposed on you through culture, and these are fraudulent claims that are in place not because they are legitimate (laws, for example), but because they prop up the system in power. Because everyone bows down to this system, it stays in power.

Getting rid of spooks does not serve a 'higher' purpose (which would indeed be a spook, if it commands your actions), but it only serves yourself. You get rid of spooks because they prevent you from attaining the things that you realize you really want.

>>4159481
>>4159485
Thanks for this post anon, I didn't have a clear understanding of Stirner and how it compared to Mahayana. That being said, I'd like to point out that this applies only to the Mahayana as only they have this non-dual view of Shunyata. Even so, this non-dual or monistic Mahayana is a later development, and I would warn against applying to all Mahayanists (I'd say it's mainly a Chinese thing - for example, the Huayen school, but can also be seen in Tibetan Mahamudra practices). Early Madhyamaka has a more complex notion of this, exemplified int he "two truths" doctrine and I would argue that this is not monistic (and in fact was opposed to the Advaita monism of Indian Vedanta at the time). But this is another story that is much more complex.

Then there is the Theravada abhidhamma which has more of a phenomenological and pluralistic reductionism, selves are seen as constructs from multiple and always changing dhammas (phenomenal particles, moments of experience). And their ethics is founded mainly on the individual transcending attachment to that construct which arises out of conceptual proliferation and the "three poisons" of greed, hatred an delusion. It is strictly soteriologically individualistic in that sense. The abhidhammika would argue that strengthening the self is a futile endeavor, because of the very nature of the self is flux. Rather, through a set of practices, true insight (Vipassna) into the self leads directly to non-attachment and liberation, which is not seen as a merging into a greater monistic whole (a Vedantic concept which they would reject as Hindu and not Buddhist) but as a transcending of conditioned phenomenal existence into an ineffable and indescribable state which is free from all suffering.

>>4160328
>>4160072
Adorno/Horkheimer

>>4159485
>Insofar as egos are unique they cannot in anyway be a specimen or member of some underlying unity, a universal. Each is founded on its *own* nothingness, and hence is its *own* unity. There is a plurality of nothings (nichts) and the notion that there is a fundamental nothingness (mu) underlying egos it is a recourse to essentialism.

Also, I wonder if (when you have time) you could either expand on this, or perhaps point to somewhere I might read more about this particular argument/facet of Stiner's thought.

Mainly, how does he argue for the individuality of each nothingness/self? This sounds very strange to me and more essentialist than the non-dual position.

feeling pretty unique today yall
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1RHTTJJzlf7

>>4160612
Not him, but individuality feels more intuitively right from a Western context I think. Also, you should just read The Ego and Its Own and Stirner's Critics. It's very much worth it.

>>4160624
>The Ego and Its Own
different anon, but what's the best english version of this? my gf bought me a copy last year, but i think its a shitty translation so i'm just gonna download a better one.

>>4160633
I'm not sure, didn't read it in English. There's a Cambridge edition and I guess they know their shit generally.

>>4160552
>>4160612

Thanks for your reply Buddhanon. I realize that I should have probably prefaced my post by saying that Stirner's critique would likely apply more to Mahayana than anything else. I can totally imagine Stirner having some sympathy with Theravada, but not Mahayana or Vajrayana.

As for the individuality of each nichts, I will agree that this is one of Stirner's harder points, and I'm not sure if I totally get this yet either. I also agree that this is a very strange thing for him to say given his anti-essentialism. The explanation I have given is the one subscribed to by the majority of those who have studied him, though there is some dispute over just how much of an anti-essentialist Stirner actually was. The majority say that he was an anti-essentialist, but a minority seem to think that Stirner's goal was not to defeat essentialism, but to make it workable by demystifying the essence.

I think his position could best be explained as the logical outcome of Stirner's nominalism and his insistence on the embodiment of egos.

Stirner stresses the embodiment and transitory nature of ego:

“When Fichte says, 'The ego is all,' this seems to harmonize perfectly with my thesis. But it is not that the ego is all, but the ego destroys all, and only the self-dissolving ego, the never-being ego, the - finite ego is really I. Fichte speaks of the 'absolute' ego, but I speak of me, the transitory ego.”

>>4161473

Stirner also, as a nominalist, regards absolutes and universals as unreal. To him they are both essences, which come to exist by our “bending the knee,” consequently they are also idols. We have, in a very Feuerbachian way, projected something that is an attribute of ourselves into a void, where it appears to us as an essence, consequently, universal and absolute. What is interesting about this is that these essences started out as our own attributes, but as essences they are are no longer properties of our own, but have become “chimeras.” The goal then is to recognize these essences as our own attributes and not essences.

“I no longer humble myself before any power, and I recognize that all powers are only my power, which I have to subject at once when they threaten to become a power against or above me; each of them must be only one of my means to carry my point, as a hound is our power against game, but is killed by us if it should fall upon us ourselves. All powers that dominate me I then reduce to serving me. The idols exist through me; I need only refrain from creating them anew, then they exist no longer: 'higher powers' exist only through my exalting them and abasing myself.”

I'm guessing that, if one combines these two positions, it is necessary to hold that nothingness must be as individuated and unique as we are, since an unembodied universal could not exist on this account. I imagine this is how Stirner thinks he can strengthen of the self/other distinction. By ridding ourselves of notions of absolutes and universals which mutilate the difference of our existence (i.e. diminish our uniqueness by holding us to be related to each other through some universal or absolute), the real relation between the self and other is restored to its proper place.

Anyway, if you are interested in Stirner I'd highly recommend reading him. Maybe you will be able to make more sense of it then I can. There is an essay called “The multiplicity of nothingness: a contribution to a non-reductionist reading of Stirner” by Riccardo Balidissone. I have not read it and I don't want to pay 50 to 80 dollars for a 20 page essay in a collection which is the only place I can find it right now. If you can get it somehow it might help make things clearer.

>>4161477
I found the essay you mentioned:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byv8xsFlc9x4LVFnZjVybUFKbm8/edit?usp=sharing

>>4161511
>oh god the postmodernism

Well after looking through that, it is not as concerned with Buddhanon's question as I thought it was.

Oh well, maybe he can get something out of it anyway. Perhaps I've made a mistake with respect to Stirner's nichts.

>>4161477
Interestingly enough, the early Buddhists and also the Madhyamikas like Nagarjuna would also qualify as nominalists, in the sense that they constantly speak of how our minds create attachments and ideas through "conceptual proliferation" (papañca) and also (especially Nagarjuna) denying any essential grounding for things (the emptiness of dhammas of svabhava - "own-essence"). This is also seen in the Tibetan Prasangika Madhyamikas (the Dalai Lama's sect, the Gelugpas, posit this view). I would say there is definitely a lot of overlap, not just the emptiness/nichts concepts and their radical nominalism, but also with regards to their wish to dissolve these conceptualizations/spooks. The main difference then seems to be how they deal with the self, self-identification and of course their ethical stances.

I don't want to go too far here, comparative philosophy is only useful if we have a deep understanding of both traditions and texts, and by knowledge of Stirner is minimal. Still, I am very interested in the apparent surface similarities enough to want to read Stirner. Do you think it is important to tackle Hegel first to understand Stirner, or is it not totally necessary?

>>4161473
>>4161477
Thanks again anon.

Interestingly enough, the early Buddhists and also the Madhyamikas like Nagarjuna would also qualify as nominalists, in the sense that they constantly speak of how our minds create attachments and ideas through "conceptual proliferation" (papañca) and also (especially Nagarjuna) denying any essential grounding for things (the emptiness of dhammas of svabhava - "own-essence"). This is also seen in the Tibetan Prasangika Madhyamikas (the Dalai Lama's sect, the Gelugpas, posit this view). I would say there is definitely a lot of overlap, not just the emptiness/nichts concepts and their radical nominalism, but also with regards to their wish to dissolve these conceptualizations/spooks. The main difference then seems to be how they deal with the self, self-identification and of course their ethical stances.

I don't want to go too far here, comparative philosophy is only useful if we have a deep understanding of both traditions and texts, and by knowledge of Stirner is minimal. Still, I am very interested in the apparent surface similarities enough to want to read Stirner. Do you think it is important to tackle Hegel first to understand Stirner, or is it not totally necessary?

>>4161477
Thanks again anon.

Interestingly enough, the early Buddhists and also the Madhyamikas like Nagarjuna would also qualify as nominalists, in the sense that they constantly speak of how our minds create attachments and ideas through "conceptual proliferation" (papañca) and also (especially Nagarjuna) denying any essential grounding for things (the emptiness of dhammas of svabhava - "own-essence"). This is also seen in the Tibetan Prasangika Madhyamikas (the Dalai Lama's sect, the Gelugpas, posit this view). I would say there is definitely a lot of overlap, not just the emptiness/nichts concepts and their radical nominalism, but also with regards to their wish to dissolve these conceptualizations/spooks. The main difference then seems to be how they deal with the self, self-identification and of course their ethical stances. For the Buddhists, the self is the ultimate spook, the real illusion which needs to be conquered.

I don't want to go too far here, comparative philosophy is only useful if we have a deep understanding of both traditions and texts, and by knowledge of Stirner is minimal. Still, I am very interested in the apparent surface similarities enough to want to read Stirner. Do you think it is important to tackle Hegel first to understand Stirner, or is it not totally necessary?

Also, I found some discussion of this in this Japanese philosopher Keiji Nishitani's book, there's not much because of the preview mode cutting off some pages, but it's nice to see an academic taking notice.

http://books.google.com/books?id=YFS4-k4qoH4C&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=Stirner+Buddhism&source=bl&ots=8f3t6vzEX4&sig=kpT6mFauAXLXH_82juHOMtQdmrk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ruRQUqXPHoHW9AS54oDwCA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Stirner%20Buddhism&f=false

Have some original content as well, I'm inspired

>>4161726
Oh and the full text is available on libgen.info

Just search for Keiji Nishitani

>>4161665

>Do you think it is important to tackle Hegel first to understand Stirner, or is it not totally necessary?

Funny you mention that, I'm actually trying to tackle Hegel right now in the hopes it will help me understand Stirner, since the Ego and Its Own is basically a response to Hegelianism in general and Feuerbach and Bauer in particular.

It might be useful to have a grasp of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Then again, if there are as many similarities between Stirner and Buddhism as there seem to be it might not be necessary for you. I'd say its not necessary, but it can help clarify some things.

A reading tip though, Stirner does a pretty poor job distinguishing between his own positions and those he is setting up to critique. If you ever read Stirner and find yourself thinking he has contradicted himself, first, go back a bit and make sure you have not confused his own ideas for the ones he is critiquing.

Also, I find it interesting that the early Buddhists also qualify as nominalists. Does this go for Zen too? I recently took a class on Zen Buddhism where I asked this very question and I was told that Zen was not nominalist? Does that seem accurate to you?

>>4161726
>>4161750

Also funny, I actually have that very same book. It was actually the source of some of the claims I made here.

You guys know better than me, so I'll ask you.

I tripped pretty hard last night and suffered wild mental oscillations catalyzed by a friend "dying" (read: panic attack) during her trip. There were many people present so this huge emotional event sent me careening out of control into a solipsistic dreamspace where I began to run through endless hypothetical situations.

It's very hard to put a finger on and express because defining it with any set of words adds context to it and pollutes the inherent nature of this contextless realisation.

I really want to present this to you guys in a way that won't result in me sounding like an acidhead hippie. The simplest way to explain is that through I was attempting to within my head create a thought-pattern that would be self-sustaining and allow my thoughts to rest. I ended up running through an infinite scenarios in my head, trying to create within my mind another consciousness that was not me, and through this understood the nature of love as yearning to be, and the nature of god.

Dude my question is, a lot of what I read about samsara and moksha explains my trip last night very well- how do those of you that feel super zen reconcile this huge loneliness, dude? The loneliness of the universe wanting not to be? It seems that moksha is the embrace of nonbeing, I see the path to moksha, but every step I take towards it creates two me- one leaving reality behind, and one remaining incarnate, the counterpoint to whatever ascended self left me.

I've never felt loneliness like this before, and I don't know if I can ever feel anything but ever again. It's as though in becoming aware the universe found it had sprung this trap. All other people are just the same nothing, taking out loans on entropy to exist in a form that's not so relentlessly alone, all the same, all the time.

Is this what there is? The very nature of life stops me from ever breaking free- no matter how much I learn, when I die, I return to formless nothing to dissolve, forget, and reform only to repeat the process.

I just want god to not be so lonely, tired and lonely, dude. I feel as though I'll never really sleep again.

Why?

>>4161848
>Also, I find it interesting that the early Buddhists also qualify as nominalists. Does this go for Zen too? I recently took a class on Zen Buddhism where I asked this very question and I was told that Zen was not nominalist? Does that seem accurate to you?

I think we have to be careful here for two reasons. 1. Is in imputing a Western philosophical concept back into another philosophical context, and 2. Is that there are different forms of nominalism and there different forms of Zen.

That being said, I do not see why Zen could not be classified as nominalist in a general sense. Zen Buddhists would not hold to any universals for example, or any particular qualities inherent in anything.

Perhaps some Zen Buddhists might use the "Buddha nature" concept in such a way that it might sound like it is some form of universal foundation or ground, and there I would agree that, if reified, this might conflict with nominalism. But most forms of Zen Buddhism, which are grounded in Madhyamaka and Yogacara (which might be some form of phenomenalism or conceptualism) would warn against any reification of Buddha nature and be quick to point out that it is itself empty or (as in Yogacara) simply a mental construct.

There is a whole book on Buddhist nominalism from some of the major Scholars in the field

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/29885-apoha-buddhist-nominalism-and-human-cognition/

>>4161897
You should probably stay off psychedelics for awhile as it seems you had a very powerful and perhaps damaging experience.

Try not to force or impute any existential or religious meaning into it - it was a bad trip, outside of your control. Stay grounded, stay busy, don't stay alone by yourself.

>>4161726
>dat pic

Thanks for contributing.

>tfw a Stirner thread is the most interesting and intelligent thread on /lit/

f-finally.

>>4161897
>trying to create within my mind another consciousness that was not me

Don't do that, the human brain has defence mechanisms in place to prevent stuff like that from happening. Its the same reason when people are proven completely wrong you see them have that look on their face where they look down to the right and shake their head slightly. Their/our mind associates beliefs with identity which means a revelation or form of enlightenment is considered a threat and is filtered/Geassed. That is why its so hard to convert individuals from one ideology to another. Their entire reality, the very thing that makes them THEM, could come crashing down. Its why children are valued so highly (not the only reason) they haven't defined themselves yet. They are like a blank page that is waiting to be written on. That's not to say change is impossible, it takes time to change.

TLDR; Don't create alter-egos. That shit is dangerous.

>>4162084

>Perhaps some Zen Buddhists might use the "Buddha nature" concept in such a way that it might sound like it is some form of universal foundation or ground, and there I would agree that, if reified, this might conflict with nominalism. But most forms of Zen Buddhism, which are grounded in Madhyamaka and Yogacara (which might be some form of phenomenalism or conceptualism) would warn against any reification of Buddha nature and be quick to point out that it is itself empty or (as in Yogacara) simply a mental construct.

Ah I see. This seems to be the problem I have been encountering then. While I'm not very familiar with Buddhism I do believe I know enough about it to say that it seems like a lot of Zen Buddhists in the west, and even some in the east, have persistently reified Buddha nature. The end result is something that resembles Hinduism or Friedrich Schelling. I feel that this suspicion was partially confirmed in the book Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm Over Critical Buddhism. Granted quite a lot of the claims made by the Critical Buddhists are extraordinary, but I don't think their critiques are without merit. Perhaps the problem is a cultural one rather than a theoretical one, if, as you say, most forms of Zen warn against reification of buddha nature.

>>4162089
see
>>4162120

>>4162113

I know right.

>>4162103
...thanks dude

>>4152790
By the way, is this book actually worth reading or is this just another /lit/-fetish?

>>4162171
Both. It also has an important and interesting place in the history of philosophy and is pretty much one of a kind as far as Western philosophical works go. He's also stylistically strange and whimsical which some find delicious and some hate. I'd say read it and find out if it's worth reading.

>>4161897
This is the best advice: >>4162103

Still, as far as theory goes your post brings Alan Watt's take on Hinduism to mind portraying the universe as God playing hide and seek with himself and making unity seem as multitude. Once you get your head back together you might want to download Alan Watts- Out of Your Mind (Essential Lectures) somewhere and have a listen. He has more of a jolly take on it.

As far as the negative version goes, Schopenhauer portrays existence as being essentially a blind Will constantly seeking satisfaction but never finding it, which may be emotionally closer to what you experienced.

Also, keep in mind that artificially induced psychotic episodes don't necessarily correspond with metaphysical truths no matter what hippies tell you.

>>4162113

main reason I have been lurking /lit/ as of late

>>4162117
True for inferior dogmatic minds

>>4162117
The word "alter ego" is a loaded one. It can mean something like a split personality, but it can also refer to something a bit healthier. Lots of famous people have "alter egos." The idea there is to create a version of yourself who is more confident, successful, hard-working, etc., and who takes the blows when you fail at something, but takes them much better than you would. Then you think of yourself as that you until it becomes a habit. You're the old you when you're relaxing, and that you when you're training, performing, etc.

>>4162120
Yes, I would say that the critical Buddhists (mainly Hakayama Noriaki and Matsumoto Shiro) are responding to that very issue, though I think they go too far in saying that all Buddha nature is un-Buddhist. However there is much more at work here than philosophy, this is a radical Soto Zen response at the perceived ethical failures of Japanese Buddhism (during the war and also with post-war issues) as well as the moribund state of Buddhism in the country. They basically blame all those problems on Buddha-nature and original enlightenment (hongaku), while the real issues are more complex modern Japanese social issues. It's very self serving because then they turn around and use Dogen (the founder of Soto zen) as the ideal Buddhist battling the Buddha-nature concept (which is a bit of a stretch I think). So in a way the Critical Buddhists see themselves as religious revivalists. But I feel their critique is somewhat misplaced.

>>4162533

Thanks for your replies Buddhanon. I feel this exchange has been a very fruitful for both of us.

>>4162533

is that supposed be a dick kanji?

>>4163406
Bodhidharma could be a bit of a dick at times.

>>4162196
Thanks man. Torrenting Watts now, will look into Schopenhauer. I've got some Stirner on the way, along with the myth of sisyphus, and some of the Phaedo has helped me feel better about it- it wasn't all negative, just powerful- I felt as an old man playing an old, old game, I truly felt as though the universe saw me reaching for understanding, rushed into my head and said "well if you want to see how it is, I'll REALLY show you", and then the freak show began.


It's just the cycle of yearning and almost getting then not quite reaching, only to fall back down again dissatisfied, turning away from the game- then coming back to it again. So sad, dude.

>>4164288
>It's just the cycle of yearning and almost getting then not quite reaching, only to fall back down again dissatisfied, turning away from the game- then coming back to it again. So sad, dude.

>>4163394
Likewise Stirnanon

>>4162196
Dude, listened to the first few Watts lectures last night before bed. I actually wept like a bitch. All of the confusion and sadness from that bizarre, mixed up trip melted away, dude.

Thanks for the feels.

>>4160612

That cat is huge.

OP here

so glad to see my thread be so nice :' )

you're alright, /lit/

>>4165341
Glad I could help!