I'm a white buddhist. Rip into me.
>>501220
what's the difference between acid and shrooms?
meh
Ok Schopenhauer, what wisdom do you have for us to rip into?
>>501223
The sad thing is, I could actually answer this question in some depth. My religion led me to reject psychedelics in favour of actually lasting practice.
>>501236
I haven't actually read Schopenhauer, I should have when I was a stereotypical college Nietzsche fanboy but I wasn't into exploring things in actual depth back then, mostly because I was a stereotypical college Nietzsche fanboy. I rejected Nietzsche because his life-affirmation is the anti-thesis of the Buddha's teachings.
>>501240
do yo into jhanas ? if yes, tell us how it is in them.
>>501262
I've only reached the first jhana. I can't say I've attained the first jhana because I do not regularly reach it, but I have on a number of occasions. If you've ever done mindfulness of breathing meditation, it's easy to imagine what jhana is like, it's like normal meditation except all those distractions aren't there, you still think but your thoughts are focused on the breath, and rather than getting all that dukkha from the random shit that pops up, you just get to enjoy the pleasantness of breathing and of concentration. Since I am still new to them, I get quite a surge of pleasure when I enter it as it's unlike anything in daily life with all its bullshit. From what I understand, second jhana is the same except you don't even think of the breath, awareness of the breath and the sensation of the breath are not distinguished, which seems even more pleasurable.
>>501278
With the kind of meditation I do, it's not so important to aim specifically for jhana, it arises naturally. The sensations that arise from breathing well are pleasant in and of themselves, and just by meditating and having to deal with the crap that pops up you get on a roll in terms of using insight and tools to deal with that crap. It's more like a sliding scale than jhana vs not-jhana, concentration on the sensations of the breath throughout the body increase as you go and you get more on a roll in dealing with crap as you go. Then you get to a point where concentration is fairly strong and it takes no effort to deal with distractions, this is just a further point down the scale. This doesn't mean concentration is perfect, as concentration can still progress, which is called entering the second jhana, where even thoughts on the breath cease.
>>501220
Are you got thangka of Buddha with correct eyes type?
>>501307
From what I understand, that is part of Tibetan Buddhism. The form of Buddhism I am closest with is the Thai Forest Tradition of Theravada, which is completely different. I do find Vajrayana interesting, and I'm considering trying a Chenrezig Sadhana I've learned along the way, but all that seems far removed from the Buddhadhamma as I know it, which consists of Virtue, Concentration, Discernment.
>>501300
so you see the lights/nimita ?
do you follow a few teachers ?
>>501255
>I rejected Nietzsche because his life-affirmation is the anti-thesis of the Buddha's teachings.
This is also incidentally why Buddhism is retarded.
Why would you settle for nihilism, if you could have affirmation?
>>501220
Cultural appropriating SHITLORD
>>501319
Yeah, when the strong pleasure (usually called rapture) comes on, I get a sense of light in my vision, I usually just ignore it and return to the breath.
>>501320
Buddhism is not nihilism. It gives a distinct meaning to life. And unconditioned happiness is a form of life-affirmation in itself, just far removed from what Nietzsche discusses.
>>501328
>Buddhism is not nihilism. It gives a distinct meaning to life.
Buddhism clearly is nihilistic in that there is a metaphysical escape from the torment and suffering of living; i.e following the Noble Eight-Fold Path.
Some of the parts of the Path are things which relate to humanity, but others are purely metaphysical, such as the belief that there is even anything that can be called Nirvana.
It might give you meaning, in the same way Christ gives meaning to a Christian, but the point is that it is life-denying meaning.
>>501345
>metaphysical escape
only if you take ''the torment and suffering of living'' as physical.
and life is not meant to be dukkha, this is the whole point of the dhamma.
>>501345
Nirvana is not really a thing though, it is more of a process, something one does. Its usage in english does not really capture its usage as a verb in the scripture. It is living beyond metaphysical thing and noumenal realities and seeing phenomena simply for their apparent qualities and accepting that. There are certain ways of changing phenomena through skillful means, but even skillful means are phenomena and must be seen merely as phenomena with certain apparent qualities. From there, the act of seeing phenomena merely as phenomena with certain qualities is seen simply as a phenomenon with certain qualities and so on, deeper down the rabbit hole until there are simply phenomena, no stories, no underlying reality, just phenomena.
>>501353
>only if you take ''the torment and suffering of living'' as physical.
Well isn't it? Do you think dead humans suffer?
Suffering is not strictly physical clearly, since it is a subjective experience in sentient beings, but it is epiphenomena, so if you kill someone, they clearly can't suffer anymore.
>>501363
I know that Nirvana is a verb that means "blown out", sort of like a candle, but you still haven't made it clear why it is a positive experience to relish in the meaninglessness and transitory nature of reality.
>>501363
Talk about "life-affirmation" or "life-denial" is simply another story, another narrative we can tell ourselves, trying to make sense of these phenomena. The Buddha's judge of stories, of beliefs in regards to phenomena is do they lead to the end of suffering, to a point beyond stories and beliefs. Does talk of life-affirmation and life-denial accomplish this? No, it simply gets us stuck on the phenomenon of thinking in terms of life-affirmation and life-denial. So, what does lead to the ending of stories, to seeing things just as they are? Well, the Buddha's teachings. This is radically different way of viewing reality than our usual narrative, concept-based mode of thought, so it is understandable that it is hard to understand. And of course, people are always going to reject this kind of thinking, because their narratives and concepts are very important to them, they feel lost without them. But the Buddha taught that through skillfulness, we can use the concepts and narratives taught by the Buddha to drop our more coarse concepts and narratives. The final step of the path is dropping even the concepts and narratives taught by the Buddha. Of course, to believe that this will work takes faith, a form of narrative. But it leads to a lot more happiness than the narrative of life-affirmation and life-denial and in fact, I think it more or less fits Nietzche's concept of the transvaluation of values.
>>501386
You are misunderstanding. Nirvana is not to relish in the meaninglessness and transitory nature of reality, that is simply another form of narrative, it is a point along the path but even that narrative must be relinquished for it to be considered Nirvana.
>>501392
Yes, but then you should see the intrinsic absurdity of the whole thing.
How can the cessation of everything that makes us human, i.e our concepts, our desires and our dreams, be a good thing?
>>501240
>reject psychedelics in favour of actually lasting practice
why not both? You stupid english bastard.
RETURN TO THE TRUE CHURCH
DEUS VULT
>>501394
To say that these things are what constitutes a human is just telling more stories, to talk about good or bad is to tell more stories, Nirvana is beyond good or bad. So-called fully enlightened people tend to come off as a lot more human than the conceit met in day to day life. These concepts, desires, dreams are just things we place value on because we know no different, we are ignorant of the actual phenomena underlying the attachment and creation of these stories. Why should these things be a good thing in the first place?
>>501220
Enjoy yourself, as long as you don't act like one of those American white buddhists
>>501278
>I get quite a surge of pleasure when I enter it
thats dukkha
>>501402
Because psychedelics may in some special instances offer insight that is in line with the Dhamma, but they also offer a lot of delusion, which only sets us back in our actual practice.
>>501409
It is dukkha, jhanas are dukkha, but they are still a necessary step along the path. The path consists of abandoning the more coarse forms of dukkha in favour of more subtle forms, in the process offering us insight into the workings of dukkha. Only upon final awakening is dukkha fully relinquished.
>>501328
>ignore it
you're trying to ignore it, aren't you?
just let it be brah
these temporal fluctuations come and go, don't struggle mang
>>501415
I'm not sure what you're actually getting at, but by ignore it I don't mean I try to make it go away, I just pay it no mind. Breath is what made it appear in the first place, so I put my concentration on the breath.
>>501386
>>Well isn't it? Do you think dead humans suffer?
>
>Suffering is not strictly physical clearly, since it is a subjective experience in sentient beings, but it is epiphenomena, so if you kill someone, they clearly can't suffer anymore.
physical in the green sentence was meant as the same physical in meta-physical.
the achievement and the consequences of nibanna are not meta-physical. they are part of life, just like dukkha is.
>>501402
>>why not both?
The psychedelic experience is a doorway which leads to a hallway which leads to only what you want to find within yourself.
In other terms, a drug is nothing but a high-yield (fast but not perfect) technique to reach partly what your reason and heart cannot achieve fully in your opinion. If anything, it is a total lack of confidence in your reason and in your abilities to philosophy to be at ease with life; ease which remains unlikely, given that the choice of doing these drugs with the goal of opening your awareness and opening your mind is already a sign of close-mindedness and poor ability to reflect.
>>501403
>To say that these things are what constitutes a human is just telling more stories, to talk about good or bad is to tell more stories, Nirvana is beyond good or bad.
These two sentences seem extremely oxymoronic to me.
How can you say everything is simply about "telling stories" and that it doesn't matter, when the whole concept of Nirvana and Buddhism to me, is precisely that, just another story.
>>501417
Better wording would be:
One-pointedness on the breath is what made it appear, so I merely continue to cultivate one-pointedness on the breath so I can move forward rather than get stuck on one pleasurable experience.
>>501428
They are stories, that's why upon final awakening, they are abandoned. But if we try to abandon them before final awakening we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and returning to coarser forms of narrative.
>>501414
>dukkha
yo it's my opinion that one of the primary failings of Buddhist thought is the assumption that dukkha is a negative, or something to be avoided or escaped from.
It is what it is, and I don't really see sensation in itself as something to be avoided or sought after or even to be acknowledged as a thing.
I prefer the Daoist and Hindi-type take on it desu.
>delusion
that's everything though
I don't even take sobriety seriously
>>501434
>It is what it is, and I don't really see sensation in itself as something to be avoided or sought after or even to be acknowledged as a thing.
it is nice not to see sensations as something to be avoided. it is better to actually act as they are not not meant avoided: the day where you can bear the lack of comfort and even pain, and the day you can stop being avid of pleasures will be the day where you live what you know....
>>501424
>leads to only what you want to find within yourself
I've been places I never wanted to go, I've seen sins in myself that I didn't know I needed to see on psilocybin.
>doing these drugs with the goal
I just do things mang. All the striving to do gets in the way of doing. Potential leads to the actual.
Shit unfolds on it's own, and there's honestly not much we can do about it except to allow it to just happen as it should.
>>501428
>How can you say everything is simply about "telling stories" and that it doesn't matter, when the whole concept of Nirvana and Buddhism to me, is precisely that, just another story.
because you think that languages replaces well experiences, when they do not.
>>501432
>They are stories, that's why upon final awakening, they are abandoned. But if we try to abandon them before final awakening we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater and returning to coarser forms of narrative.
I see that you take refuge in metaphysical sophistry now, so I can't be arsed continuing this discussion.
>>501444
>because you think that languages replaces well experiences, when they do not.
Yet you are convinced that every narrative apart from your own is "coarse" and not real, except the one you have accepted, i.e Buddhism.
It's interested to see someone so totally blind to the fatuousness of their own arguments in real time.
>>501434
Dukkha in buddhism doesn't simply mean an unpleasant experience. Even fully enlightened people have unpleasant experiences, the Buddha still experienced the fruits of his negative kamma from before his enlightenment. The difference is that these experiences are seen for what they are, phenomena with certain qualities.
>>501447
Buddhism is still a narrative, or rather a set of narratives, it's just a set of narratives leading to the ending of narratives. Attachment to Buddhism is still dukkha, it's just attachment that leads to the ending of attachments, the ending of dukkha. That's the only thing that's special about Buddhism compared to other narratives, it is oriented towards the ending of narratives.
>>501445
This is just your own attachment to your narratives causing you dukkha. The fact that the philosophical basis of Buddhism is radically phenomenological is no argument against it.
>>501454
To elaborate on my last point. The Buddha specifically set up Buddhism as radically phenomenological to not get drowned down in this kind of my views vs your views. He wasn't concerned with getting to the bottom of some objective or noumenal reality, he was concerned with the ending of dukkha.
>>501454
>That's the only thing that's special about Buddhism compared to other narratives, it is oriented towards the ending of narratives.
Right, and the only thing that is special about Christianity is the remediation of sin and the hope of the glory of God after death, and nothing other than Christianity can make you arrive there.
It should sound suspicious that a religion claims to be the answer to all your problems, but it doesn't vex you at all it seems.
>>501476
If Christianity was concerned with the ending of narratives, I would give it the same consideration as I do Buddhism. But it is not, it is concerned with the things you mentioned, which are just further narratives. Same goes for any philosophy.
>>501485
>the ending of narratives
that's a narrative
>>501485
Also, if I was able to give Christianity a sincere shot and I found it offered tools to deal with my coarser forms of suffering in the here and now without even considering some grand end-point, then I would be willing to take its further claims more seriously. However, I have not found this to be the case, whereas Buddhism offers tools that require none of the religious concepts associated with Buddhism to see benefits in the here and now. Much like psychotherapy (which itself is now taking on an influence from Buddhism), it offers a set of tools which is tremendously helpful in daily life.
>>501492
Well yeah, that's exactly what I said. It's a narrative oriented towards the ending of narratives. That's what makes it interesting as a narrative.
>>501447
>Yet you are convinced that every narrative apart from your own is "coarse" and not real, except the one you have accepted, i.e Buddhism.
it is not a narrative. the first step of the dhamma is to ask yourself what you want, what method have you done so far to reach what you want, and finally whether you have succeeded and why you think that you method would lead to success.
Once you admit that you wish to be happy, you admit that happiness cannot depend on people whim's , on the weather and what you cannot control, which includes your body and your mind.
the first step of the dhamma is to stop having in your deliriums about the past, the future (and the present), to stop being systematically averse towards pain and avid towards pleasures.
also, before calling someone a troll, wonder if you do not appear as a worse troll yourself. But I am glad to find another buddha hater, the one on r9k said he would leave, so I was quite sad to lose a good source of entertainment.
yes, buddha hater from r9k has returned !
>>>/r9k/25454186
>>501497
>it is not a narrative
>proceeds to explain how it is a narrative and manages to call me a troll
Good job. And sorry faggot, I am not a "buddha hater" simply for disagreeing, but keep believing it is so, delusional as you are.
>>501515
That's a different person to me. Buddhism and the concept of Nirvana are narratives, they are simply narratives oriented towards the ending of narratives, which makes them unique among narratives. Of course it cannot be proven through argumentation that it actually results in the ending of narratives, but due to the success I've already had with it in the early stages I have developed conviction that perhaps these benefits are cumulative, and the path does do what it says on the box. This is conviction in the Buddha's teachings, one of the many narratives useful along the path. If it could be proven logically, it would not be religion, and it would not be radically phenomenological. That kind of conviction can only be developed through experimentation, and it takes no faith that it actually leads to the end of narratives to try the path out and see that at least in some form, it does lead to a reduction of dukkha. If it was necessary to have conviction in the more religious principles to do so, these same tools wouldn't be used in modern psychotherapy in a secular context.
>>501531
>narratives oriented towards the ending of narratives
>literally kill yourself: the religion
>dharma
*tips schizophrenia*
>>501240
then do so, what's the difference?
>>501531
Look, if it makes you happy that's fine.
But don't pretend it's any different than another religion for the rest of us, because from the outside, it doesn't seem like it.
>>501540
Well, it does have a lot of similarities to other religions, the main difference is that is oriented towards the ending of religion. Upon final awakening, any need for Buddhism or another religion is relinquished.
>>501536
That's a bit of a non-sequitir, my friend.
Anyway, I have other matters to attend to. It was nice talking to you all. If you are sincerely interested in this matter, you don't need me to discuss with, these same matters have been discussed ad nauseum and you can find some further reading on the internet without much effort. Also, most of these issues, the Buddha personally addressed in the Pali Canon, I highly recommend you check it out if you're interested in learning more about Buddhism. Goodwill to you all.
>>501220
No. Insulting someone's deeply held beliefs is something that only shitheads and fedoras do.
ook
