Buddhism

[Anonymous No.18319184]

What's worse:
Stripping buddhism of all is metaphysical content, because its implausible, and being left with an empty mindfulness/self-help programme
Or
Buying into all the metaphysical stuff, because you happen to like the idea of it, and ending up like one of those west coast hippy wannabees spouting incoherent nonsense about chakras and bardos (pic related)
??
Surely there must be some kind of middle way
Are there any books that can be recommended about this?

[Anonymous No.18319272]

jesus christ you're fucking retarded, stick to a devotional path like hare krishna or something, it's designed for people like you

[Anonymous No.18319279]

>>18319272
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.18319284]

>>18319184
>Surely there must be some kind of middle way
Hah, you made an accidental pun

[Anonymous No.18319312]

>>18319284
Wasn't sure if anyone would pick up on that. Lol

[Anonymous No.18319410]

>>18319184
You can accept some of buddhism's metaphysical claims and reject the others, it's literally a free world.

[Anonymous No.18319417]

Read books written by actual buddhists and not reddit posts by americans, that would be a good start.

[Anonymous No.18319418]

>>18319184
The problem with your second option is not buying into all the metaphysical stuff, it's buying into Alan Watts style metaphysical stuff, mixing up a bunch of new age stuff with each other, and then calling it Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18319497]

>>18319418
I don't think that's accurate

[Anonymous No.18319565]

>>18319184
there is no middle way because Buddhist metaphysics are fundamentally retarded, it’s all just a random grab-bag of different attempts to explain away the cause of the universe or to explain away the self-evident reality of consciousness, there is no coherency or order to any of it but its all just a reaction against other, actually logical metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.18319576]

Just believe in all the crazy stuff, but don't let it fuel unhealthy behavior. This was the problem the Buddha had with Hindus. They would activate a chakra or talk to a spirit, and then immediately jump to the conclusion that the eternal God of creation had visited them and united with their consciousness.
You've reincarnated like 8 billion times, and some of those times you've had superpowers or been a king. Remembering past lives is cool the first 10 times and then it's like watching reruns of Big Bang Theory.

[Anonymous No.18319604]

>>18319184
hih its almost like there is scientific proof that various meditative practices have a noticeable effect on the brain for the better(for most people) and that there is no evidence supporting any metaphysical bullshit.
that being said, there are nice stories and fables in every tradition, so ignoring them completely is a bit of a waste.

[Anonymous No.18319615]

>>18319604
>hih its almost like there is scientific proof that various meditative practices have a noticeable effect on the brain for the better(for most people) and that there is no evidence supporting any metaphysical bullshit.
Wooow!! THE BRAIN!!?! tell me more!!!!

[Anonymous No.18319877]

You can remain agnostic on a lot of the metaphysical aspects of Buddhism like belief in Devas, Asuras, Nagas, planes of existance ect.

That being said, you do have to accept some of it, mainly rebirth and doctrine of karma.

[Anonymous No.18319883]

>>18319615
Your bones are made of star dust. Did you know that? Science is crazy man!

[Anonymous No.18319889]

>>18319883
whoa!

[Anonymous No.18319895]

Skip the tertiary angloid literature and start with the 'Jeets.

[Anonymous No.18319902]

>>18319184
If it works who gives a fuck what others think.

[Anonymous No.18319926]

>>18319418
anon has never actually read Alan Watts

[Anonymous No.18320117]

>>18319184
if we gonna use western terms i would say buddhism is less a metaphysical system and more a phenomenology

[Anonymous No.18320119]

>>18319565
guenon advaita fag dtected

[Anonymous No.18320135]

>>18319184
>all the metaphysical stuff
what's this metaphysical stuff exactly?

[Anonymous No.18320139]

>>18319877
>metaphysical aspects of Buddhism like belief in Devas, Asuras, Nagas, planes of existance ect.
that's not metaphysical, that's mythological

[Anonymous No.18320199]

>>18319184
Buddhism metaphysics is not retarded neither implausible, although there is absolutely no way to prove it in a deductive proccess, so it will always be in the belief-tier
But it does make sense. It's based on self-evident metaphysical truths, for instance, causes and the unity. There is no way of convincing anybody by the use of reason that buddhism must be true of course, because it's still based in a dogma, but of all the myths of creation, this is the one that makes more sense.

[Anonymous No.18320207]

>>18319565
>there is no coherency or order to any of it but its all just a reaction against other, actually logical metaphysics.
vedanta "metaphysics" sucked, even parmenides had a better and more precise system explaining being, than the illogical, contradictory and full of holes backward vedanta system, it was a matter of time for someone like buddha to just shit all over that piece of garbage

[Anonymous No.18320302]

>Everything including the self is empty of essence and nothing is permanent and unchanging
>The ideas of Samsara, Dukkha, and Karma though? Those are permanent and unchanging so you need a way of escaping them or you're stuck forever.
>You can escape this eternal cycle by going into Nirvana, also a permanent and unchanging state
>You do it by follwing Buddha, who is a manifestation of the Dharmakaya, which is like a Platonic ideal or "essence" of the Buddha, even though everything is empty of essence and such things shouldn't exist?
This religion makes no sense or I'm a dumbass. Or both.

[Anonymous No.18320306]

>>18320207
Threadly reminder that Buddhism lives rent-free inside every school of Hinduism.

[Anonymous No.18320323]

>>18320207
Advaita is completely logically coherent and without a single hole or contradiction, without having any such flaws in his own tradition Shankara was able to decisively refute Buddhism and vanquish it from India by pointing out glaring defects within it like how dependent-origination is unable to account for the existence of samsara, and how the no-self theory doesn't accord with our experience of having a unified field of awareness. The Buddhists to this day have never even attempted to address Shankara's arguments in writing because they instinctively know any attempt to refute him or address his argument would be hopeless, the Buddhists flee before his scorching brilliance because of its reputation for ensnaring sophists and shattering their arguments into pieces, Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike.

[Anonymous No.18320383]

>>18320302
>>Everything including the self is empty of essence and nothing is permanent and unchanging
Basically there is nothing in the chair that makes it a chair.
>>The ideas of Samsara, Dukkha, and Karma though? Those are permanent and unchanging so you need a way of escaping them or you're stuck forever.
Those are all conditioned, so no they would not be seen as permanent by Buddhists. If for instance karma were permanent, Buddhist cosmology and rebirths would be impossible, or more mundanely all actions would lack consequences.
>>You can escape this eternal cycle by going into Nirvana, also a permanent and unchanging state
This is more subtle, and also debated, but nirvana generally is understood to exclude any sort of personal permanence, closer to henosis than heaven.
>>You do it by follwing Buddha, who is a manifestation of the Dharmakaya, which is like a Platonic ideal or "essence" of the Buddha, even though everything is empty of essence and such things shouldn't exist?
More of an ur-Buddha if anything, a "Buddha essence" would be an idiosyncratic translation of the more common term of "Buddha nature" which is just the notion that all sentient life has the potential to become enlightened (eventually). Contextually the dharmakaya is taken to be synonymous with emptiness. If dharmas are empty of own-nature... a dharma body is a body empty of own-nature, an unconditioned body if you will.
>This religion makes no sense or I'm a dumbass. Or both.
To appreciate anything on its own terms you have to do more work than Wikipedia. Read sources texts and the commentaries on those texts by those who practiced them.

[Anonymous No.18320395]

>>18320383
>This is more subtle, and also debated, but nirvana generally is understood to exclude any sort of personal permanence, closer to henosis than heaven.
the deeper and more fundamental contradiction at hand, which your answer to this one sidesteps around answering, is that Nirvana can't be endless as Buddhists maintain if Buddhists also affirm that nothing is permanent and unchanging

[Anonymous No.18320396]

>>18320323
Seething, ressentiment filled, and absolutely filtered by warrior gang and merchant gang teaming up to dharma-conquer from Bactria to Beijing

[Anonymous No.18320418]

>>18320395
But not Nirvana only
>>18320383
>Those are all conditioned, so no they would not be seen as permanent by Buddhists.
If the existence of Samsara is not a permanent fact of reality, why follow Buddha in trying to escape it? Just wait until it's gone. Also speaking of waiting, change depends on time, does that mean that time is a permanent constant and there is nothing outside of time?

[Anonymous No.18320421]

>>18320395
>Nirvana can't be endless as Buddhists maintain if Buddhists also affirm that nothing is permanent and unchanging
Beginnings and endings are stop-off points of duration, which is a function of conditioned experience. Nirvana is again unconditioned, but since we are speaking, or rather writing, we are deforming what we are discussing for the sake of clarity (or what we think improves the other person's comprehension). I think this is where it sometimes helps to hop outside of Buddhism and read something else, like Plato, or Nietzsche, or Bergson maybe, and then revisit Buddhism, and even if you reject it at that point, its concepts will seem less obscure. Alternatively you could read Nagarjuna or commentaries on him from Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Shantarakshita, etc., which go to the most minute ends of argument about nirvana and its relationship to samsara.

[Anonymous No.18320431]

>>18320418
>Just wait until it's gone
That's where the cosmology comes in. You won't live long enough as your current state. You have the opportunity now. Later you could be a king or a hobo or a goat or a demon or some kind of hobo king of the goat demons, none of whom may be fortunate enough to learn dharma.

[Anonymous No.18320437]

>>18320396
Topkek

[Anonymous No.18320442]

>>18320396
Saved this image.

[Anonymous No.18320444]

>>18320431
You don't understand, the whole idea of Samsara being some sort of prison where you experience Dukkha will change eventually, maybe Samsara will stop existing even, or become something else that is easier to escape from. So I will not even need to learn dharma. Dharma may also change too. Maybe this whole idea of things being impermanent will change and I get to live forever in a next life.

[Anonymous No.18320467]

>>18320444
This is not even something Buddhists debate and there are many such points of the religion that have been long-debated. It is a lack of reading on your part, which is not a big deal, you can read more if you are interested. The 101 here is that anything that appears, or is born, dies. You cannot be born into permanence—accepted premise for Buddhists; Buddhist heavens and hells are purgative and temporary. Could your next round be "different" from now? Absolutely. But no amount of births have made someone immortal, only nearer or further from karmic action and the generation of consequence.

[Anonymous No.18320477]

>>18320467
>The 101 here is that anything that appears, or is born, dies.
That sounds like an eternal, unchanging truth. But eternal, unchanging things shouldn't exist according to Buddhism. Which means it can change and an eternal thing may be born. Karma too, it may exist now, but since everything changes it won't exist eventually, and then the whole rebirth thing will stop having meaning. Either that or the idea of Karma is eternal and unchanging, which again isn't supposed to be a thing in Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18320481]

>>18320418
>not Nirvana only
If you make an exception to the "nothing is unending i.e. permanent" rule for Nirvana then the arguments that Buddhists use against the eternal God or Absolute of other religions lose their force (and these arguments are used to purportedly establish sunyata), not that they were very strong arguments to begin with but its worth pointing out.

>>18320421
>Nirvana is again unconditioned
Okay, then it either stays unconditioned or it deviates from being unconditioned, if it never deviates from its status as unconditioned then you are admitting that its status as the Unconditioned is permanent, so there is a obvious contradiction. Instead of listing other Buddhist thinkers, why can't you just provide a straightforward explanation of why it's not a contradiction? It doesn't seem like Buddhism is able to. This contradiction is perhaps unique to Buddhism as little to no other religious traditions hold that nothing is permanent.

[Anonymous No.18320485]

>>18319272
seriously what are you on about

[Anonymous No.18320491]

>>18320477
>Karma too, it may exist now, but since everything changes it won't exist eventually, and then the whole rebirth thing will stop having meaning
It looks like you're trying to reinvent Buddhism. Need some help?

[Anonymous No.18320494]

>>18320477
Once you start directly asking Buddhists on /lit/ about those sort of inner contradictions in Buddhism at length the responses will tend on one hand to either get increasingly cryptic/schizo-like or they will act dismissive and tell you to just read other books and will try to act that you don't know what you are talking and that there isn't any glaring contradiction.

[Anonymous No.18320504]

>>18320481
>It doesn't seem like Buddhism is able to. This contradiction is perhaps unique to Buddhism as little to no other religious traditions hold that nothing is permanent.
It's literally addressed by like EVERY Mahayana text, all of them. Not that you have to agree with them that nirvana isn't even separate from samsara and that self-mastery of the path Buddha taught should replace escapism.

[Anonymous No.18320509]

>>18320494
Speaking of read-a-book-ism, check out The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James

[Anonymous No.18320522]

>>18320504
>It's literally addressed by like EVERY Mahayana text, all of them.
Wow ALL of them? Can you provide an example of they would respond to this obvious contradiction. Since it's mentioned in every text, you should have quite an easy time remembering and providing a summary of their argument.

[Anonymous No.18320530]

>>18320396
Kek saved

[Anonymous No.18320598]

>>18320522
You really expect me to walk across my apartment and get a book to quote for the board that hates reading books anyway? If nirvana "exists" that would make it impermanent. Ponder this.

[Anonymous No.18321045]

>>18319184
>empty
once you get this you'll get the
>metaphysical stuff
you're looking for

happy trails

[Anonymous No.18321482]

>>18320418
>Just wait until it's gone
you can do that, it will take aeons tho

[Anonymous No.18321492]

>>18320395
buddha never said nirvana isn't endless or unchanging tho, nirvana is actually the only thing that transcends samsara and thus change
that's why it's called, "the other side of the river, eternity"

[Anonymous No.18321506]

>>18320485
>>18319279
i was in a bad mood and being a dick, forgive my impertinence

[Anonymous No.18322076]

>>18319184
Seriously... stick this in your pipe and smoke it: http://buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm

You need to take this stuff more seriously if you want in to actually have a significant impact and it can. Don't fuck around with your life and liberation kiddo.

[Anonymous No.18322084]

>>18319565
Sounds to me like a typical modern materialist analysis actually. The Buddhist view is much more similar to medieval and ancient view where the world is contained with consciousness, to radically simplify.

[Anonymous No.18322601]

>>18321482
But considering that I'm denying Buddhism, my bad karma means that enlightenment is gonna take eons too. Might as well wait eons until Buddhism changes into something easier to follow or until karma as a concept stops existing and some other easier system comes into place. That's if there still is a Samsara for me to escape from of course, it might be gone already.

[Anonymous No.18322613]

>>18319184
>Surely there must be some kind of middle way
THERE IS NO MIDDLE WAY IN BUDDHISM

[Anonymous No.18322626]

Are there really hippies on the west coast who ascribe to an orthodox (in an authentic branch of Buddhism) view of buddhist metaphysics?
I always assumed it was a hodgepodge and bastardization of eastern beliefs called 'Buddhism'
If they really do exist then I vastly prefer that as someone who grew up in an east asian buddhist family, I hate the idea that you can just strip away the metaphysics and still have Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18323044]

>>18322626
Yes. Check r/buddhism

[Anonymous No.18323094]

There are no reading recommendations itt, specifically about how someone can react to the more outlandish aspects of Buddhists metaphysics who hasn't been raised and inculcated in buddhist doctrine/tradition (I.e. Westerners).
Closest I've read is a couple of Stephen batchelor books which are a bit one sided and not exactly concise.
On the other side of the coin we find not much that's substantial. At best you could describe it as an approximation of the pascal adage of "kneel down and you will believe", at worst you could describe it as the "I believe in what I like the idea of". The type of religious voyeurism/tourism we find in the much maligned west-coast type pseudo-hippy character.

I find it significant that this is such a fundamental problem for many people yet it isn't really addressed substantially.
At the moment, because of this, I just assume that there isn't a substantial solution.

[Anonymous No.18323111]

>>18319184
I have found that the Zen tradition has some of the most enriching and personally resonant content out there. The schools of Zen I subscribe to emphasize the meditative experience over all forms of teaching. And the non-prescriptive manner that a lot of the teachings provide are very palatable to me as a westerner.

If you’re at all interested, I would recommend Zen Mind, Beginner Mind by Shunryu Suzuki. That’s a good jumping off point to the practice and teachings of Zen.

[Anonymous No.18323332]

>>18321492
Okay, then all the Buddhist arguments against an eternal God existing become useless

[Anonymous No.18323381]

>>18319902
This. The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow directly addresses this. Who cares about metaphysics, the Buddha is trying to help end your suffering and you're debating about irrelevant crap.

[Anonymous No.18323396]

>>18323381
It’s not irrelevant, if the metaphysics underlying it are illogical and wrong than nobody can state with any certainty whether or not you can really end rebirth using Buddhist teachings etc

[Anonymous No.18323421]

>>18323396
"The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth."
It is irrelevant according to the Buddha and his followers. Just sit down and end your suffering. If you want some metaphysics go be a Christian or something.

[Anonymous No.18323475]

>>18320477
Karma is not a "thing". It is a causal mechanism that leads to further rebirths. There is karma, action, and vipaka, results. Every intentional action (so karmic action) of body speech and mind creates karmic seeds in your mind-stream that develop into karmic fruits. In order to attain cessation, or nirvana, you have to stop producing karma. This is done through the cultivation of wisdom into ultimate reality which allows you to interact with the world in ways that do not create karma. This is why the Buddha and other enlightened beings do not "disappear" after their first nirvana and only at death or parinirvana.

Karma is not an essence or something to be reified in the way that you are describing it.

>>18320467
This anon is right.

This is a basic idea of karma is that is present in almost all Indian religions.

[Anonymous No.18323525]

>>18323094
There are definitely more secular interpretations that treat metaphysics as parable or symbolic, even from Buddhist countries, e.g. Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu

[Anonymous No.18323601]

>>18321492
>nirvana is actually the only thing that transcends samsara and thus change
This seems like an eternal, unchanging truth.

>>18323475
>Karma is not a "thing". It is a causal mechanism that leads to further rebirths.
Doesn't change anything. Is that causal mechanism an eternal, unchanging one? Like:
>In order to attain cessation, or nirvana, you have to stop producing karma
Is that always gonna be the case?

[Anonymous No.18323938]

>>18319895
is this a good starting point? I know literally nothing and I don't know where to start

[Anonymous No.18324137]

>>18323601
You’re not getting it, you’re supposed to just ignore those contradictions and instead non-surgically lobotomize yourself, while also maintaining that Buddhism is more logically consistent than other religious traditions.

[Anonymous No.18324653]

>>18323094
>>18323525
>Secular Buddhism
>"Yeah, bartender, bring me whiskey on the rocks, but with no whiskey in it; oh, and add milk in it."

[Anonymous No.18324712]

>>18324137
No, you're not getting it. The buddha is not God handing down 10 commandments. The dharma is not 12 step program. Take what he taught and work with it. Dalit Buddhist scraped most of what people keep arguing about in this thread. Also, logical consistency has never made anyone happier or saved.

[Anonymous No.18324767]

>>18324712
>Also, logical consistency has never made anyone happier or saved.
the test of internal logical consistency is the rock upon which false doctrines like Buddhism are cast upon and broken apart on its surface when their weak points buckle under the pressure of the impact

[Anonymous No.18324826]

>>18324767
So what systems survive, wise anon?

[Anonymous No.18324999]

>>18324767
I get the impression you're a christcuck arguing against Buddhism because you're so trad. Name any school of thought that lacks logical inconsistencies or stop posting.

[Anonymous No.18325286]

>>18320396
warrior gang represent

[Anonymous No.18325314]

>>18324999
Don't bother arguing with christcopes, their entire belief system is precariously balanced on some Jew coming back to life with no proof beyond "just trust me bro"

[Anonymous No.18325341]

>>18324999
>>18324826
see >>18320323

[Anonymous No.18325421]

>>18324712
>Take what he taught and work with it.
He wasn't very convincing about this whole "eternal release from the eternal cycle of rebirth and suffering even though nothing is eternal" thing, so why follow him?

[Anonymous No.18325470]

>>18323044
Isn't /r/buddhism full of secular 'buddhists'?

[Anonymous No.18325487]

>>18325421
>He wasn't very convincing about this whole "eternal release from the eternal cycle of rebirth and suffering even though nothing is eternal" thing
He was

[Anonymous No.18325507]

>>18323938
Read Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin.
If you try to dive straight into Buddhist literature you'll find it to be repetitive and uninteresting.

[Anonymous No.18325510]

>>18323601
>>nirvana is actually the only thing that transcends samsara and thus change
>This seems like an eternal, unchanging truth.

it is, nirvana is an eternal unchanging truth, buddha never denied that, you're not owning buddhist by saying that

[Anonymous No.18325520]

>>18324137
>Buddhism is more logically consistent than other religious traditions.
it is, most expert in logic arrived at similar conclusions, hume, kant, godel, wittgenstein etc

[Anonymous No.18325530]

>>18323332
not really, you have to make a huge leap to affirm the existence of god from that, a lot of traditions and philosophies have transcendental principles without a god

[Anonymous No.18325536]

>>18323332
Does Buddhism have arguments like that?

[Anonymous No.18325543]

>>18322601
indeed, buddhism is about salvation, is about a quick effective slavation, if you wanna wait and see what happens you do you bobo

[Anonymous No.18325545]

[Anonymous No.18325556]

>>18325510
Read again. I didn't quote that nirvana is an eternal, unchanging truth. I quoted that:
>nirvana is actually the only thing that transcends samsara and thus change
is an eternal, unchanging truth. That is, nothing else can transcend samsara, ever. So you can't wake up tomorrow and suddenly something else can transcend Samsara, because the fact that nothing else can transcend Samsara is unchanging and eternal. Even though nothing other than nirvana is supposed to be unchanging and eternal.

[Anonymous No.18325568]

>>18325545
Isn't the 2nd Buddha not the same historical Buddha as the others?
Why is he in this picture?

[Anonymous No.18325587]

>>18325568
Should have started with the greeks

[Anonymous No.18326367]

>>18325556
>So you can't wake up tomorrow and suddenly something else can transcend Samsara, because the fact that nothing else can transcend Samsara is unchanging and eternal
indeed

>Even though nothing other than nirvana is supposed to be unchanging and eternal.
there's no contradiction there

[Anonymous No.18326415]

>>18324767
there's no internal inconsistency in buddhism tho, most modern logic share the buddhist point of view on self, being and causality

[Anonymous No.18326659]

>>18326415
>there's no internal inconsistency in budd-

[Anonymous No.18326668]

>>18326659
>there's no internal inconsistency in budd-

[Anonymous No.18326677]

>>18326668
>there's no internal inconsistency in buddhis-

[Anonymous No.18326688]

>>18326659
>>18326668
>>18326677
Rent-free in every crypto-buddhist bhasya

[Anonymous No.18326910]

>>18319576
>big bang theory
Top kek

[Anonymous No.18327262]

>>18324712
>metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.
he is so secure about his teachings he think talking about some possible contradiction and preconception is a waste of time. just stop suffering!!!. remind me to modern psychologist/psychiatrists.

[Anonymous No.18327394]

>>18326659
Didn't shankara plagiarise buddhism and relabel it as Advaita Vedanta?
At least that's what I've heard

[Anonymous No.18327469]

>>18324712
>point out a contradiction
>if you mock him somehow the contradiction disappear

[Anonymous No.18327520]

>>18327469
>>point out a contradiction

lol no you didn't

[Anonymous No.18327524]

>>18326659
>>18326668
>>18326677

just a bunch of mambo jambo without logic or reason, poorly written and with awful arguments, this is the best you got?

[Anonymous No.18327532]

>>18327262
>>18327469

you still didn't point out any contradiction, you just say you did

[Anonymous No.18327559]

>>18322601
no, because you'll be dead long before any of that could happen

[Anonymous No.18327564]

>>18327520
>>18327532
im not the guy of the thread. im refering to the image. the guy maybe is obnoxius but he is right.
in fact, buddhist invent a deus ex machina "a heaven" (samsara, nirvana whatever) to get rid of of that exact contradiction. if you desire to not desire you get to some place of pure bliss.

[Anonymous No.18327662]

>>18327564
What is the "contradiction" here? That Buddhist soteriology promises an end to suffering due to acts and consequences even though Buddhists do not believe in permanence? Ask me how I know you've skimmed some write-up of Buddhism that doesn't cite any actual Buddhist literature. Nirvana is not "permanent" because if it were some unchanged state then one could not enter into it. For something to become permanent that was not permanent does violence to permanence. And if permanence does not exist then impermanence becomes nonsensical as an attribute, being a negation of something unreal. In any case, language is descriptive of conditioned realities, and empirically these are not seen to be permanent. Nirvana is taught to be accessible through following a path of askesis, virtue, meditative states, etc., which releases one from the interplay of these conditioned realities. That doesn't mean you become permanent or those impermanent things stop being impermanent or some other configuration of this and that.

[Anonymous No.18327716]

>>18327662
you are coping with the other guy. im just talking about the contradiction of desiring is bad but desiring to not desire is good.
all your post is confusing and contradictory too. sounds like you just dont want to admit that buddhism is based in a notion of "permanence" as all religions need. you are just in denial.

[Anonymous No.18327736]

>>18327716
Hmm, I'm not really that familiar with Buddhism but isn't desiring not to desire seen as a bad thing in buddhism?
I remember seeing it discussed somewhere, like how there's good and bad attachments and the good attachments are good for a beginner but they need to be shed later on since they're still attachments

[Anonymous No.18327781]

>>18327716
>the contradiction of desiring is bad but desiring to not desire is good
This is just dumb wordplay that thinks it's more clever than it really is. Do you really need it spelled out to you that attachment to ephemeral things is an inevitable cause of pain and distress and that therefore equipose towards these is valued in Buddhism?
>all your post is confusing and contradictory too. sounds like you just dont want to admit that buddhism is based in a notion of "permanence" as all religions need. you are just in denial.
If you have zero foundation in the material, sure, it is hard to follow. Do all religions have concepts universally non-demonstrable? Yes. I think Buddhism is fairly tame to suggest phenomena are impermanent and you can overcome soofering by pursuing self-mastery and non-attachment. Just look at some of the other stuff out there.

[Anonymous No.18327794]

>>18327736
yes, they usually go for that. you have to "really" not desire. not just desire to not desire. and that ends in a hypocritical loop when you basically need to shut down all your critical thinking to not to see how there is always a thinly veil of "desiring not to desire". its all human too human in the end.

[Anonymous No.18327831]

>>18327781
>and you can overcome soofering by pursuing self-mastery and non-attachment.
i always assume if the only point of buddhism is "not suffering", as op say, its not different from any youtuber selfhelp trite shit. ok, go with your method. nothing is easy, you lose things with your mind buddhists mutilations too. go with it. its like some kind of voluntary lobotomy just because you dont want to accept that life is pain. ok. now you have all this "liberation" that you really believe and you think is perfecly logical.

> I think Buddhism is fairly tame to suggest phenomena are impermanent
what do you mean with this?.

[Anonymous No.18327952]

>>18327736
>t isn't desiring not to desire seen as a bad thing in buddhism?
yes, that dumb critic about "you desire to stop desire" is from people not familair with buddhist terms, you don't want to stop desire, you want to stop "craving" which is a particular form of desire related to the illusion that things are permanent, you desire something at the level of craving and that makes you suffer, and that's what buddhist want to stop, suffering that arise from craving, desire itself is unimportant, some buddhist schools even use it as a tool to enlightenment

[Anonymous No.18327977]

>>18322601
>or until karma as a concept stops existing
you're confusing the terms, all phenomena is impermanent, karma is not phenomena, is a tendency of phenomena, it's like trying to apply entropy to the laws of thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.18327994]

>>18327831
>f voluntary lobotomy just because you dont want to accept that life is pain.
on the contrary, the main goal of buddhism is to stop creating fake ideas to shelter ourself of the harsh realities of the world, which in turn makes us "suffer"
suffering and pain are two different things, pain is is what this world give to us and it's inevitable, suffering is a byproduct of our minds when we fail to accept things as they are, the only way to erase suffering is to accept pain

[Anonymous No.18327999]

>>18327952
>if i substitute desire for craving i win.

[Anonymous No.18328025]

>>18327994
why do you need buddhism to accept that life is pain?. sounds like a completely unnecesary step to me. also, you just come with a somehow idiosyncratic difference between pain and suffering.

>the only way to erase suffering is to accept pain
this is just a plain lie. pain lead to suffering. creating a "mastery" to bent it over is what i refer with "lobotomy". its like an ancient thought antidepressive. go and take it.

[Anonymous No.18328099]

>>18327994
>accepting pain but no suffering
that is shit. that is leaving empty the meaning of the word.

[Anonymous No.18328130]

>>18327999
you're trying way to hard to win an argument and a tthe same time you're way to lazy with your comebacks, that's pretty pathetic not gonna lie
>>18328025
you too, but the time you take to write all that nonsense is actually sad
>>18328025
>why do you need buddhism to accept that life is pain?
how should i know that? i don't know what you need,it seems like you don't know either
>>18328025
>you just come with a somehow idiosyncratic difference between pain and suffering.
i didn't it's in the pali canon
>>18328025
>this is just a plain lie
no is not
>>18328025
>pain lead to suffering. creating a "mastery" to bent it over is what i refer with "lobotomy"
that's some nietzsche high school fedora shit right there, to bad it makes no sense at all
>>18328025
>its like an ancient thought antidepressive. go and take it.
you seems to find some comfort in thinking that even to they already show you it's the opposite, you do you bobo, to bad is messing up your reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.18328135]

>>18328099
only if you don't know how to differentiate both words, they don't mean the same

[Anonymous No.18328141]

>>18319184
>i wanna religion
>but i wanna strip it of all religion
>cause religion is like implausible maaan
>can i huz religiom without religiom?

[Anonymous No.18328193]

>>18328130
>that's some nietzsche high school fedora shit right there
you think you dont lose anything when you get rid off of suffering/pain. but you lose something fragile. buddhists live in a mental trick.
>>18328135
> they don't mean the same
literally the first i see in a dictionary.
pain
to feel hurt; suffering; misery; torment; ache, agony, anguish
suffering
The condition of one who suffers; the bearing of pain or distress.

you are only talking about buddhists idiosyncratic argot. and its stupid. dont you think all the, "pain is inevitable, but suffering is choosable". dont you see the cheesy it is?, the phony and cheap it is?.

[Anonymous No.18328776]

>>18328193
>literally the first i see in a dictionary.
trying to understand buddhist concepts with an English dictionary, try a pali dictionary next time, word have different meanings in different languages, freedom doesn't mean the same in modern english than in ancient greek
>>18328193
>dont you see the cheesy it is?, the phony and cheap it is?.
no because i'm not an edgy teenager with a limited understanding of the hardships of life, i know the difference between objective and subjective

[Anonymous No.18328790]

>>18328193
>idiosyncratic argot.
you don't know what those words mean

[Anonymous No.18328794]

>>18319184
eastern philosophy is termite garbage no thanks

[Anonymous No.18328799]

>>18328193
>you think you dont lose anything when you get rid off of suffering/pain. but you lose something fragile. buddhists live in a mental trick.
i love how you answer your first edgier fedora quote with a even edgier fedora quote

[Anonymous No.18328808]

Literally ITT

[Anonymous No.18328855]

>>18328808
Should have used an eastern example of anatheist buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18328874]

>>18328794
ironic

[Anonymous No.18329018]

>>18327977
if phenomena change, the tendency of phenomena change with it too.

[Anonymous No.18329028]

>>18328799
pain and suffering are another side of joy and happiness. you cant have one without the other. you basically nullify all your capacity of joy when you avoid suffering.

[Anonymous No.18329164]

>>18327520
>>18327532
>>18327662
The contradiction is that Buddhism affirms that nothing is eternal and unchanging other than nirvana, which is allowed to be eternal and unchanging because it is cessation, or in other words, it "isn't". The problem is that in this thread a bunch of other eternal, unchanging things are being pointed out, and if there are other eternal, unchanging things, then Buddhism falls apart. On the other hand, if things like karma, samsara, the reality of dukkha, the dharma and others aren't eternal, Buddhism also falls apart.

>>18327977
Why would phenomena keep the same tendency for eternity, won't it change eventually like everything else?

[Anonymous No.18329268]

>>18329164
>The contradiction is that Buddhism affirms that nothing is eternal and unchanging other than nirvana, which is allowed to be eternal and unchanging
That's a bit of a poor reading, for reasons already provided, so the rest of your attempt to pick the rest of the system apart isn't much better.

[Anonymous No.18329281]

>>18329028
If buddhists are lobotimized then you speak the words of a battered wife.

[Anonymous No.18329367]

>>18329164
>On the other hand, if things like karma, samsara, the reality of dukkha, the dharma and others aren't eternal, Buddhism also falls apart.
they are not eternal just by virtue of this universe being finite

[Anonymous No.18329388]

>>18329367
If dukkha and samsara aren't eternal there is no need to follow Buddha, because the whole point of following him is that if you don't you will be stuck in this cycle forever.

[Anonymous No.18329400]

>>18329388
This isn't abrahamic theology. You're not being forced to do anything about samsara. It simply is. Essentially it lasts as long as you want for it and keep acting on that basis and ripening consequences.

[Anonymous No.18329419]

>>18319184
>and ending up like one of those west coast hippy wannabees
How about not doing this?

[Anonymous No.18329437]

>>18325470
Lol no. They're really prickly about it too

[Anonymous No.18329455]

>>18329419
That's why you need to start with the 'Jeets.
>>18319895

[Anonymous No.18329471]

>".....so anyway, that reminds me of a sutra I've got saved on my kindle. I got a kindle oasis. Its pretty rad."

[Anonymous No.18329509]

>>18327394
No, practically every doctrine of Advaita is fundamentally opposed to Buddhism, even in the few areas where there are similarities, they turn out to have totally different positions, e.g. Shankara says that ultimate reality exists and that the contingent conventional realm is an appearance of it, while Nagarjuna says the conventional realm is false but he also incoherently denies that there is an existing ultimate reality underlying this appearance

[Anonymous No.18329518]

>>18329509
>incoherently denies that there is an existing ultimate reality underlying this appearance
As if it weren't incoherent to say god is the ultimate reality of all things except appearances/illusions. Keep seething priest caste gang

[Anonymous No.18329529]

>>18329471
>Oh that's a nice sutra my faux-Buddhist friend, but perhaps you didn't know that it was directly taken from the Pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. I don't even think you are Atman enough to bathe in the corpse filled Ganges, perhaps next time you utter such a phony shloka in my presence you keep in mind that Indians are far superior than either of us.

[Anonymous No.18329533]

>>18329509
>while Nagarjuna says the conventional realm is false but he also incoherently denies that there is an existing ultimate reality underlying this appearance
Not even close to Nagarjuna's position.

[Anonymous No.18329543]

>>18329529

[Anonymous No.18329597]

>>18329518
>s if it weren't incoherent to say god is the ultimate reality of all things except appearances/illusions
All appearances and illusions can only exist so long as they are rooted or founded in some reality which allows them to appear as such, so this in fact is highly logical. Without a foundational reality there could not even be illusion.

>>18329533
>Not even close to Nagarjuna's position.
Yes it is, the Murti interpretation of Nagarjuna as a pantheist is incorrect. In Nagarjuna's work Huei-Cheng-lun (Taishō, no. 1601 in vol 32), Nagarjuna denies that he is negating phenomenal appearances to point to a transcendental reality and he instead argues for the pure negation of appearances without the corresponding affirmation of anything else. Nirvana existing as an ineffable transcendent Absolute would violate the principles of anitya, pratityasamutpada and anatta.

[Anonymous No.18329612]

>>18329597
the Murti interpretation of Nagarjuna as a pantheist is correct.

[Anonymous No.18329617]

>NAGARJUNANAGARJUNANAGARJUNA
GOD I'm so popular.

[Anonymous No.18329641]

>>18327524
>just a bunch of mambo jambo without logic or reason
All of those pages are one reasonable argument after another, to just take one of his arguments for example the Buddhist doctrine of dependent-origination cannot reasonably be the origin of samsara because each aggregate is the cause of the next one only but there is nothing that places the aggregated whole in existence to begin with and allows them to exist as such, nor is there any way to explain how the aggregates form the casual relationships with eachother as the 12 links that they do without a pre-existing design inherent in the scheme which cannot itself be caused by dependent origination or it leads to a regress.

[Anonymous No.18329653]

>>18329612
Why has his book been trashed by so many modern scholars of Buddhism than? Are they all in a big conspiracy to show that Nagarjuna was actually closer to nihilism than Murti believed?

[Anonymous No.18329659]

[Anonymous No.18329715]

>>18323475
>There is karma, action, and vipaka, results.
Which was first, the karma/chicken or the vipaka/egg? Europeans have their Prime Motor, what is the solution for the buddhist?

[Anonymous No.18329728]

>>18329597
>Without a foundational reality there could not even be illusion.
A foundational permanence issuing forth illusions? Sounds like bullshit. If it is permanent it should not be mutable. Go read Nagarjuna again. The emptiness of absolute reality is what allows it to appear.
>>18329612
Pantheism is a highly specific German debate on whether you can read Spinoza and still be a good Lutheran. Doesn't really apply to Indian religions.
>>18329617
I KNEEL O DRAGONBORN
>>18329653
>modern, i.e. contemporary, scholars are nihilists
Yes, a hundred percent yes.

[Anonymous No.18329752]

>>18329715
>what is the solution for the buddhist?
unending cycles of contingent things being contingent upon one another without beginning, without any explanation for why these things and the whole cycle exists to begin with. Problem? Want to invoke the PSR? Bruh just meditate instead, Buddhism isn't about giving answers to questions of metaphysics but you have to take an illogical metaphysical scheme involving beginningless cycles of contingent phenomena on the basis of faith.

[Anonymous No.18329797]

>>18329728
>A foundational permanence issuing forth illusions? Sounds like bullshit. If it is permanent it should not be mutable.
This is not a refutation that applies to the Advaita position of Vivartavada, since this argument is directed against the Parinamavada position held to by other schools where there is a transformation of the Absolute into other things. In Advaita the Absolute remains unchanging and unmodified, and It's exercising of Its own power of maya is Its own unchanging inherent nature, and this maya that is sustained by Brahman is responsible for the world-appearance and samsara without Brahman thereby being changed in any way.

>>18329728
>all scholars except this one 20th century Indian are all nihilists who misunderstood Nagarjuna despite that some of them read Nagarjuna texts preserved only in other languages like Chinese which Murti had never even read
cope

[Anonymous No.18329816]

>>18329752
>you have to take an illogical metaphysical scheme involving beginningless cycles of contingent phenomena on the basis of faith.
Believing in a "beginning" is an illogical leap of faith. What caused God? Or the big bang? I presume your assumption that everything must begin with a first cause stops at that first cause? Curiously dogmatic and illogical...

[Anonymous No.18329847]

>>18329797
>In Advaita the Absolute remains unchanging and unmodified, and It's exercising of Its own power of maya is Its own unchanging inherent nature, and this maya that is sustained by Brahman is responsible for the world-appearance and samsara without Brahman thereby being changed in any way.
You are very clearly setting up a dualism between brahman and the not-brahman which unaffects brahman. So much for that
>muh modern scholars are the proper exegesis of texts
Since this is surely in bad faith from a medieval Hindu revivalist, care to refute the widely accepted modern scholastic view that god is an human product used to coddle and manipulate the masses for the benefit of an elite ruling clique? A charge which your own theology would not be excused from given the crucial role of state sponsorship in the rise and fall of sectarian metaphysical beliefs in India. You must submit to the modern scholars, sorry.

[Anonymous No.18329970]

>>18329847
>You are very clearly setting up a dualism between brahman and the not-brahman which unaffects brahman. So much for that
You don't know what you are talking about. Advaita would only be a dualistic system if it proposed that either the Atman was not Brahman, or if it set up an independent reality or force that was opposed to Brahman but similarly also real and eternal like Brahman; however Advaita does neither of these things. The duality of maya is only transient and apparent and when someone attains moksha there is no longer any not-Brahman, and when the body of the liberated man dies his consciousness continues forever as Brahman without any association with maya, so the maya doesn't continue forever as a dualistic reality alongside Brahman but it's sublated, leaving the non-dual Real alone; so it remains a non-dual ontology or metaphysics.
> care to refute the widely accepted modern scholastic view that god is an human product used to coddle and manipulate the masses
>You must submit to the modern scholars, sorry.
There are countless modern scholars who are devoutly religious and who would wholeheartedly reject that. There is not a similarly large cadre of scholars of Buddhism who defend Murti's book, so that's a false equivalency.

[Anonymous No.18330011]

>>18329970
>The duality of maya is only transient and apparent and when someone attains moksha there is no longer any not-Brahman
How did we come to forget the real brahman was us all along if everything is brahman? Brahman wielding maya is just hypostasized priestly authority. Speaking of which
>appealing to the majority of modern scholars again
Good I guess we can safely discard medieval Indian theological musings since contemporary educated people are atheists or agnostics.

[Anonymous No.18330204]

>>18330011
>How did we come to forget the real brahman was us all along if everything is brahman?
You made two errors in your question, 1) that there was an original forgetting and that 2) Brahman is the stuff within maya

Ignorance is beginningless as in Buddhism, time itself is a product of or part of maya, Brahman stands outside time wielding maya and time only pertains to the things within that maya/samsara, but within that sphere of maya there was no beginning to ignorance. Brahman is not everything because maya is not Brahman, Brahman is only everything that ultimately exists, which is just Himself i.e. Brahman since maya doesn't ultimately exist in absolute reality. The mind and intellect of human beings are not Brahman because they are maya, they never had knowledge of Brahman that they lost, the Atman-Brahman never lost His own eternal enlightenment.
>Brahman wielding maya is just hypostasized priestly authority.
No, it's actually a good and logical explanation for the existence of samsara, unlike the Buddhist explanation which cannot account for how and why its there at all.

[Anonymous No.18330219]

>>18329281
i assure you that in some buddhist texts they same the same i said. avoid "suffering, pain, joy, happiness and all attachments". if they dont give you the promise of this ineffable heaven goal of samsara you would see the lobotomized part more clearly.
we all are a battered wife. the preconception of buddhism is right
>we all suffer.
the copes are the differences. your cope is one religious mystic one. ok. how original. people take antidepressants as they are candy. in ancient times they have this kind of mental tricks or faiths. the results are the same.

[Anonymous No.18330315]

>>18330204
>brahman eternally wields ignorance and all the not-brahman is due to this
So this is a capricious god who we can only be rescued from by priestly authorities.

[Anonymous No.18330333]

>>18330219
>everything is just your mental copes
Congratulations on re-inventing vijnanavada/yogacara

[Anonymous No.18330363]

>>18330315
>So this is a capricious god
No, since Brahman is unchanging which is mutually exclusive with capriciousness,
>who we can only be rescued from by priestly authorities.
No, since maya is transcended by the individual via his own inner spiritual realization, after he has been initiated into the tradition which teaches people how to properly do this. The action of any priest does not directly rescue anyone, but rather, success or its absence ultimately rests upon the individual.

[Anonymous No.18331488]

>>18330333
what obnoxious buddha-boy. look, i dont need a tradition to say this. plenty of people say it one time or another. its a simple thought, its not enlightened, its not about liberation, its not about not suffering, its not about trascendence. my point is that buddhism, meditation and karma-consciousness is another cope. and i dont know if there is a branch of buddhism that say suffering is ok and you just live and all the karmic wheel and samsara are copes and lies. if there is one i agree with them. but i am refering to the large and common buddhism that people are talking in this thread. im not re-inventing nothing. you are so involved in the fanfiction buddhists that you think all existence revolve around it.
im not saying everything is cope. i say something that is manufacturated explicitly to "surpasse" suffering is an obvious and a red light cope.

[Anonymous No.18331516]

>>18331488
>i say something that is manufacturated explicitly to "surpasse" suffering is an obvious and a red light cope
I suppose building a walled and roofed shelter is a cope too?

[Anonymous No.18331526]

>>18330363
You don't see an issue with the real thing being needed to release you from the unreal things that come from the real thing wielding its power of unrealing? Priest/10

[Anonymous No.18331575]

>>18331516
>comparing thoughts to pure utility.
this is the problem with this mix of western easy consumism and buddhism or any philosophy or religion. why do you prefer a religious system instead of antidepressants if the only thing you want is to avoid suffering?.
you are the house, you inherently have a roof. and eventually the shelter will crumble and fall anyway.

[Anonymous No.18331595]

>>18331575
>just do drugs
Yeah there are no negatives associated with anti-depressants and painkillers lol
>you are the house, you inherently have a roof. and eventually the shelter will crumble and fall anyway.
So I shouldn't be attached to the walls I put up around myself and just think of them as means or expedience? Interesting.

[Anonymous No.18331680]

>>18331595
>Yeah there are no negatives associated with anti-depressants and painkillers lol
my point is that there is negatives with meditation and buddhism too. you just have to talk with a buddhist. like i said before, there is no enthusiasm, no innocence in them.

>So I shouldn't be attached to the walls I put up around myself and just think of them as means or expedience? Interesting.
i dont know what are you talking about but no. you dont put a roof inside a roof. its a bad metaphore. i shouldnt respond to your retard and self-defeating assumption of buddhism is the same as a roof for raining.
we dont need a metaphore. buddhism promise that you should not suffer because not because is uncomfortable but because there is a place where you should go. the "real" place. they dont have this utilitarian view of the world that you are having now.
>next respond is some branch of buddhism that say exactly what im saying.

[Anonymous No.18331720]

>>18331680
>buddhism promise that you should not suffer because not because is uncomfortable but because there is a place where you should go. the "real" place. they dont have this utilitarian view of the world that you are having now.
I think only Pure Land does this level of escapism and even they view that "place" as a waystation to actual enlightenment

[Anonymous No.18331779]

>>18331720
>actual enlightenment
here we go again in the merry go round. enlightenment dont mean a shit if you admit is just a form of "be happy" while you live. i mean, there is plenty of stoic philosophies out there. the point of buddhism is getting out of the wheel of this world.
but hey, its ok. you are exposing youself, at least to my eyes, as an utlitarian at heart. you just use buddhism as people use antidepressants. i say it more than one time, i know. but im legitimely surprised of the low key arguments that you have to defend your view. i mean, it really is McHappynnes to you. an ancient philosophy that give you happiness.

[Anonymous No.18331834]

>>18331779
For me personally I do not view Buddhism as primarily pharmaceutic or therapeutic, that is something you keep hammering on. Not sure what you are expecting to see otherwise though from a religion. There is a smaller side for philosophers and then a much larger side of carrot and stick to get people on board with the former. Not really a feature unique to Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18331885]

>>18331834
>though from a religion.
you are literally hollow out the religious part of buddhism in various posts. its like you dont understand that if you see all the promise of samsara as scapism you dont have a religion anymore. you have to not suffer because there is a no-place where you finally release from everything. this is the point of buddhism, this is the religious part. not about being enlightned. but im feeling you dont understand one bit of what im saying. maybe me neither from you. so its ok, stay with your religion and be happy and enlightened. its ok. if its not this is another thing.

[Anonymous No.18332545]

>>18319312
nagarjuna be like mulamudlakasdakudladkrarakarika