Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when the Buddha Guatama discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two and a half millenia ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the middle way is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if Buddhism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.
Because it's for fucking sissy kids who still think there's a way out of this shit - there's not. Take the black pill like me and read Stirner; take what you want from this fucking shit world.
Pic related: It's me, the face of a fucking ubermech
>>7216409
Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when Jesus of Nazareth discovered a state of salvation available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two millenia ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the Way, the Truth and the Life is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if Christianity is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.
>>7216409
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>7216409
It's life-denying and also probably a lie.
Stop reading the scriptures and go watch and read accounts of actual monks online.
People leave the monastery and then they're just people with problems like you or I. All the hype comes from them sitting in a cave and smiling a lot.
Also, Buddhism has the somewhat black mark of being a con to get out of back-breaking farm labor. Would you rather:
>work 12 hours a day doing dangerous shitty work in the fields
OR
>ordain at the monastery, clean up a bit, sit in a hut, pay attention to your breath, and eat some scraps
Nice work if you can get it.
>>7216409
>>7216422
Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when Cthulhu discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two and a half millenia ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the middle way is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if Buddhism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.
>>7216429
I'm not saying meditation isn't useful, but "enlightenment" is probably a myth. Tens of thousands of monks strive away at monasteries and, by their own admission, next to none of them become enlightened, even after lifetimes of meditation.
>>7216432
You didn't even change the other references to Buddhism you lazy memer.
mysticism =/= philosophy
Is this bait?
>>7216446
>lazy memer.
What a pleonasm
>>7216456
Hey, there are some expert memers out there, like the guy who made the original chicken tendies post and Sam Harris.
>>7216422
Says yet another fag who doesn't know shit about Buddhism and decides to imagine "well, that must be same shit as Christianity, amirite?"
Read a book for once, fag -- or don't post on /lit/
>>7216463
This has got to be bait
>>7216432
>cthulhu
Fuck off back to reddit
>>7216450
Read Plato nigger
>>7216429
Epic bro, you've cracked the case.
>>7216438
>>7216409
because for the most of western philosophy the main figures of the movement were not even aware of Buddhism or only vaguely aware, and so when there is this huge history of philosophy people are not going to just abandon it all just because translated Buddhist texts are now available.
Also many of the main tenets of Buddhism are antithetical to western consumer culture and the only people that get into it tend be the ones curious enough to read about it in-depth which is not most people. The average sports-watching and video-game playing dude thinks of Buddhism as the funny-looking fat guy in Chinese restaurants that has something to do with feeling good.
Schopenhauer was of the opinion that Buddhism was pretty correct and that it aligned with most of his opinons on things btw.
Cause we're hard-wired to have egos and want things on a biological level. Society is pretty much defined by people motivated by their desires and thus does nothing to help people circumvent their natural impulses and chill the fuck out, so that each individual human effectively starts from scratch in learning to cope with shit.
Also cause most people aren't willing to abandon perceived sources of please to reach a state without sufferring.
>>7216433
Actually its not unheard of for actual monks in modern times to reach the stage of arahant, its just that them informing the newspapers or the internet about it would be the complete opposite of what an actual arahant would do so people usually dont hear about it if they don't live near a monastery/retreat.
>>7216409
>Buddhist shit
>in my lit
Dude, go smoke some dank stuff and shut the fuck up.
>>7216409
Get out of here, you nihilist
>>7216561
>When it comes to Nietzsche's criticisms of Buddhism, such an investigation uncovers what seems to be a misunderstanding of the real meaning of Buddhist doctrine.
http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/buddhism.htm
>>7216557
lol ok chief
>>7216569
From what you call an article :
>So both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer greatly >misunderstood Buddhism,by interpreting >Nirvana as non-existence. The Buddhist >response to them both would be that they >failed to understand the system fully because >they failed to adopt Buddhist practices aimed >at enlightenment - at which point they would >have developed the capacity to conceive of >Nirvana.
Basically he's saying that you can't understand Buddhism if you aren't a Buddhist.
According to Popper, it's a shit argument
>>7216585
you just skipped to the very last part of it without reading the part that explains where he misunderstood it
>By interpreting the Buddhist conception of inaction as a cessation of all action, Nietzsche presented Buddhism as an escapist, and 'weary'ideology. Rightly understood, however, the Buddhist ideal of kamma-niradha actually comes closer to Nietzsche's ideal - being, in his own words, action that is 'beyond good and evil', or outside the moral categories of a dogma.
>>7216520
Metaphysics and a search for Virtue =/= mysticism
>>7216601
umm....
"the self-deceit of moral concepts
already behind it — it stands, expressed in my language, beyond good
and evil. "
>>7216601
>Rightly understood, however, the Buddhist ideal of kamma-niradha actually comes closer to Nietzsche's ideal - being, in his own words, action that is 'beyond good and evil', or outside the moral categories of a dogma.
Well, if you analyse this phrase, you'll see that all the content stems from "rightly understood": the author doesn't say what this understanding might be.
Also, THIS:
>By interpreting the Buddhist conception of inaction as a cessation of all action,
Come on, it's called "inaction"
>>7216621
Nietzsche praises Buddhism in some of his works and also criticizes Buddhism in some of his works including in "The Anti-Christ" but many academics have agreed that his criticism of Buddhism in rooted in a misunderstanding of it likely in part to him being exposed to it through Shopenhauer's biased understanding of it. Nietzsche in "The Anti-Christ" refers to Buddhism as a sort of a way to avoid pain and suffering where the correct way to understand it would be more like the cessation of suffering is just a side-effect of becoming enlightened and understanding the transient and illusionary nature of all transient phenomena.
>>7216627
from the link:
Kamma-niradha is the Sanskrit word for 'cessation of action'. This state is achieved through adherence to the eight-fold path, which guides the Buddhist into kusula, or 'skillful action'. Therefore, it is not simply ceasing to perform actions that the Buddhist believes will eventually lead one to his or her goal. Rather, the type of actions that are performed is the deciding factor. Likewise, it is wrong to conclude that just because one has attained Nirvana that one ceases to act. Such a conclusion implies a misconceived interpretation of kamma-niradha, as it is understood in Buddhism. This is the misconception Nietzsche seems to have made in characterising Buddhism as being centered on the guideline not to act. That such an interpretation is indeed misconceived is apparent when we consider the life and words of the Buddha. After attaining enlightenment and Nirvana, he continued to lead an active life for the next forty-five years. Again, it is the nature of the action that differentiates the enlightened, described in the following passage from the Vinayapatika:
'I, monks, am freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. And you, monks, are freed from all snares, both those of devas and those of men. Go, monks, and wander for the blessing of the manyfolk, for the happiness of the manyfolk out of compassion for the world, for the welfare, the blessing, the happiness of devas and men. Let not two (of you) go by one (way). Monks, teach the Dhamma which is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle, and lovely at the end.'
As this passage illustrates, there are certain kinds of actions that are enjoined on the enlightened. However, it is inaccurate to use the word 'enjoined'in this context because the skillful actions are naturally done by the enlightened Buddhist, and are no longer performed as if they are obligations in a code of behavior. Following the Buddhist 'code', the eightfold path, is merely a means to the end of making it obsolete upon enlightenment. This is because of the way 'skillful action'is defined in Buddhism. The action that ceases is not activity in general, but only the unskillful actions that originate in spiritual ignorance. An action originates in spiritual ignorance when it is affected by one of three biases. These biases are sense desire, desire for some future form of existence, and spiritual ignorance. Buddhism further classifies actions into three categories. Wrong actions run counter to the goal of enlightenment and are driven by one or more of the biases. Of right actions there are those that tend toward enlightenment but are still driven by one the biases and those that are completely free of the biases and based on the correct understanding of the enlightened agent.
>>7216642
It's more clear .
Thank you
>>7216650
no problem homie
OP here.
I'm surprised by all the wild unfounded prejudice in this thread. I might guess a few of you are clutching onto big-manly-man philosophies as a response to the mass cuck hysteria but there's no ruling out good old western xenophobia.
It's easy to get entrenched in the spiritual terminology but in it's purest essence Buddhism is a system of thought (not a religion) and it's entirely secular. Comparing it to Christianity is ridiculous. It isn't a storied mythology, it assumes your current life is the one that matters, and it entrusts your salvation to you alone.
The idea that it's a cop out from real life is even more ridiculous because the point of Buddhism is to engage with and understand the the world to the fullest possible degree. That's what nirvana is. How much of /lit/ is engaging in back breaking labour 12 hours a day? Our society is hardly one of effort and work: we go to low intensity jobs and pick up our meals from a shelf in a store where it's conveniently placed for us. We exercise at our leisure and socialise with who we like. It has never in history been easier to fully explore your conscious mind than in the present day West. The thing that stops us is this anxiety and paranoia we all have lurking in the back of mind. We're afraid to be "wasting" our time.
Anyone who thinks they care should listen to this and anything else you can find by him, he puts Buddhist ideas into excellent historical and scientific context http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jX8PqznN0ao
>>7216609
lmao actually that's exactly what real mysticism is
>>7216974
>It's easy to get entrenched in the spiritual terminology but in it's purest essence Buddhism is a system of thought (not a religion) and it's entirely secular.
No. There is zero sense or utility in caring about Buddhism if you don't believe in reincarnation and souls. Buddhism is nothing but a manual for committing suicide for those that believe in the immortality of the soul.
>>7216974
Disregard OP, he says cuck and expects to be taken seriously.
>>7216994
Some mystics do believe in a literal soul but any secular buddhist would stress recognising the oneness of everything yoy consider your "self" and the rest of the universe. You aren't an entity independent of the outside world, you very much are the outside world. That's where the supposed "immortality" comes from.
>a manual for committing suicide
>immortality of the soul
Buddhists don't do/believe what you think they do. This sounds more applicable to an Abrahamic religion.
>>7217017
Found the cuck
>>7216994
>There is zero sense or utility in caring about Buddhism if you don't believe in reincarnation and souls
That is a silly thing to post, even if you don't believe in rebirth Buddhism still offers a huge wealth of knowledge and advice on stuff like controlling emotions, increasing mindfulness, lessening stress and cultivating happines, etc.
>>7216974
>buddhism
>secular
toppest kek
Go tell all the buddhists in asia that their worshipping, their rituals and so on is "secular".
>>7217134
I'm not that poster but in many ways Buddhism is secular and the stuff it teaches about the mind and emotions and ways to eliminate suffering can be secular. The example you cited is the very most religious example of Buddhism. The rise in popularity of "mindfulness" seminars and retreats in the western world is almost exclusively due to Buddhism, they tend to teach basic principles of the Buddhist attitude to mind but in a secular way and without calling it Buddhist.
>>7217134
Worship of Buddha =/= Buddhism. Not really sure what you're trying to prove apart from your own ignorance
>>7216983
mysticism
ˈmJstJsiz(ə)
noun
1.
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
"St Theresa's writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism"
2.
vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult.
"there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the show's title"
>>7216549
>most people aren't willing to abandon perceived sources of please to reach a state without sufferring.
why would they gamble on buddhism when they already have something that brings them pleasure/happiness?
take your life-denying drivel elsewhere, dothead
>>7217167
Not him but if Buddhism dosn't work for them they can always go back to the same old same old. The reason many people stick with Buddhism though is that it can bring about a sublime joy that seems better then indulging in regular pleasure. Being free from all attachments is like a state of constant and subtle bliss.
>>7217181
despite being depicted in some Buddhist art the Bindi is mostly worn by Hindus
>>7217181
Saying Buddhist is "life-denying" is a complete misunderstanding of it, its been debunked and explained as false so many times already that repeating it is on par with saying western philosophy is useless because its the study of "dead white people".
>>7217220
*Buddhism
>>7217163
So you think Plato's concept of virtue is divorced from the Good/God/Absolute? Do you clowns even know what planet you're on?
Buddhism is pretentious because it assumes that human thinking can lead to realization.
>2015
>believing that practicing rituals will make you happier
Happiness is innate, you're either born happy or you're not, there's no choice in the matter
>>7217252
>Buddhism
>thinking leads to enlightenment
lmao you're ignorant as absolute fuck
>>7217252
I'm curious.
Have you ever seriously tried meditation?
>>7217297
Let me rephrase, Buddhism assumes human action or inaction can lead to realization or understanding about the world around us, and is therefore pretentious.
>>7217300
Provide an example, I've heard too many conflicting ideas about what meditation is
>>7217301
As opposed to science? Any other religion? Or literally any set of principles and methods designed to achieve a certain outcome?
>>7217313
Yeah, they're all pretentious, what do you want me to say?
>>7217276
Are you attempting to imply that practicing the tenets of Buddhism or following the 8-fold path is some sort of meaningless religious ritual?
Because if so you are mistaken. Following the 8-fold path is more a method of conscious regulation of thinking and behavior, and many people find that it does lead them to happiness. Also its incorrect to say happiness is determined at birth, there is a lot of choice in it. People can choose to engage in activities which they find joyful, which would lead to happiness, or they can engage in unpleasant activities which would lead away from happiness. Likewise people can choose to be unhappy at external events they are affected by or they can choose to not let it affect their happiness.
>>7217323
>Because if so you are mistaken. Following the 8-fold path is more a method of conscious regulation of thinking and behavior
How is that not a ritual?
>>7217276
Did he just say....born....happy?
>>7217330
>ritual - noun - a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order
Following the eightfold path is not a ritual because it is not some special thing you do at a certain time or for a certain reason. Instead it is a set of principles that you live in accordance with at all times. That does not meet the definition of the word anymore then following the first commandant of not killing people means you are practicing rituals all the time.
>>7217317
>nothing means anything, all action is futile because we cannot know the world
ok thanks for contributing absolutely nothing bro
>>7217330
lol i think you might be retarded kek
>>7216585
And? Popper was a retard.His opinions aren't wrong because he's a retard, he's a retard because of his wrong opinions.
>>7217323
It's a fucking set of rituals, get over it
>>7217236
goodness is not a deity.
>>7217389
We treat it as one though
>>7217386
see
>>7217347
>>7217347
>not a special thing you do
You change the way you think, thinking is an action
>at a certain time
All of the time you're awake
>for a certain reason
8 Fold path is specifically advertised as a way to enlightenment
>>7217416
your definition of ritual is so loose you've argued yourself into a corner. stop
>>7217425
please tell me how thinking isn't an action
>>7216432
Iä! Iä!
>>7217428
being mindful of your thoughts and emotions isn't a "ritual" you absolute fucking mong
>>7217489
but it can be ritualized and is in the form of meditation
>>7217497
Just because it can be ritualized does not mean that the 8-fold path is by default a ritual, an incorrect assertion which was your original argument.
>>7217670
except it isn't "letting". the mind has to be trained, forced, to think of nothing. you don't understand meaning or purpose or rituals.
>>7216974
>I'm surprised by all the wild unfounded prejudice in this thread.
You must be new here.
>>7217679
You don't understand meditation. It isn't training, it's therapy
>>7216416
careful with that edge bruh. might hurt yourself.
>>7216429
BUDDHISM IS NOT LIFE DENYING OR NIHILISTIC, UNLESS BY "LIFE" IS IMPLIED AN AESTHETIC PREDILECTION TOWARDS THE EMBRACING OF THE ABSURD - TO LIVE, TO LOVE, TO HATE, TO CRY, TO FUCK, TO STRIVE, TO DIE. IT IS THE INEFFABILITY OF THE EXISTENTIAL TRUTH WHICH FORCES THE MASTERS TO USE THE LANGUAGE OF NEGATION WHICH THE IGNORANT TAKE FOR NIHILISM; BUT FOR ALL THAT IS DENIED AND ALL THAT IS DECLARED EMPTY, THERE REMAINS THE POSITIVE, UNWAVERING AFFIRMATION OF BEING. TO SPEAK OF- OR STRIVE AFTER - ENLIGHTENMENT AS IF IT WERE SOMETHING TO BE ATTAINED IS DUALISM AND ANTITHETICAL TO THE WAY.
Wowie. The degenerates of /lit/ are shining through today. Why come here if you haven't actually read anything?
>>7217837
Are you just using "degenerate" as a catch-all term for people who do things or say things you disagree with? Because posting your opinions about something you have not read much about is certainly a little foolish but its hardly degenerate in the classic sense of the word.
>>7217865
I'm applying to people who have very strong opinions on something they are knowingly uninformed on. And i use that word because blindly and viciously attacking something is the act of a degenerate.
>>7217784
yo p much this tbh fam
>realize i am the universe experiencing itself simultaneously through all beings
>realize the foundation of existence is void
>realize life is for fun
>attain a state of carefree happiness, love, compassion, kindness, and bliss
>tfw every day is a blessing and it is a joy to simply be
>tfw plebs will never feel this
>>7218091
Hey man whatever floats your boat
>>7216409
>Ie not being a selfish ass.
Seeking enlightenment is the most selfish thing a person can do.
>Why does it persist when the Buddha Guatama discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than two and a half millenia ago. I
The fact that so few people have attained buddhahood ie less than 50 shows just how dodgy the teachings are
>>7218091
>tfw ignorant of the unimaginable suffering of the world
Buddhism is just another pussyshit ideology that doesn't dare use its metaphysical model to make claims about the capabilities of the mind.
>>7217167
Hedonistic dopamine fixes are suffering
>christians tell me both me and the buddhas are burning in hell
>mfw they don't understand that it's merely a problem of perspective and that god is the one who is burning in 'hell' and that we are trying to bring him to enlightenment
Even god is trapped by suffering, it is our duty, as followers of the great vehicle to free him.
>>7218509
you obviously dont know what your talking about
>>7218846
Does buddhism offer an explanation for the experience of the agent, which is the single abnormality of the human psyche? An explanation for why humans do not experience just things, but in some cases also the "becoming" of things?
>>7216409
Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when the Apostle of Allah was given a Message available to all people and jinn - and handed it down without corruption - more than fourteen hundred years ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems the straight path is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if Islam is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.
>>7216409
>why does philosophy persist
So they can lead us to a time of ignorance when mankind has forgotten the Buddha. Then, a Bodhisattva will appear and rekindle the flame. The teachings of Buddhism are indeed timeless. No matter the celestial sphere, dimension, or time, the teachings of the Buddha can come to be known.
Attaining enlightenment is not something that people should or need to do. Rather it is something that they will do. All beings have a chance at enlightenment. In an infinite universe there are infinite chances.
Chant "Amituofo" thrice, and know that there are no concepts, no selfhoods, no other, and no such thing as time. Chant "Amituofo" as if tuning your brain like an instrument. That is the first step.
>>7216409
Not everyone wants to give up discursive knowledge for mystical experience.
I don't do philosophy as some huge existential to make my life "better". I do it because it is fun.
>>7217252
And with your human thinking you came to this realization correct?
![4063769723_0f28afd9d8[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/vQ2rJJK.jpg "4063769723_0f28afd9d8[1].jpg")
Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when the Karl Marx discovered a scientific understanding of capital and a method available to the proletariat- and made it clear how to attain it - more than one-hundred and fifty years ago? I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems that dialectical materialism is the only philosophy that isn't needlessly ideological or founded around some form of bourgeois individualism.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if Marxism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie fetishising the present state of things rather than treating them as historically contingent developments.
>>7219271
We're still waiting for that revolution.
>>7217784
That's a ruse. Like all religions, it uses weaselspeak. Buddhism's "love" for reality is actually hatred. Same with God's "love" for humanity. If it were actual love, it wouldn't need to be explained or justified.
>>7219319
One of the core parts of Buddhism is 'loving friendliness' you dip
>>7216409
It isn't available to all people. It's entirely dependent upon the karma of your past lives, and it may take hundreds of thousands of lives to reach what Buddha reached. Hence it is an untenable philosophy at best.
>>7216432
Ai ai cthulhu gnatm at met. Mao ei tel di.
Where there was light there is dark
>>7219353
Hedonism only falls because of the way our brains work, not because of some fundamental reality.
Biotechnology offers a better path to Nirvana than the eightfold path.
>>7216422
That 'salvation' comes at a cost no one should be asked to pay.
>>7216585
But that is basically true though.
Entire Buddhist narrative depends on realization experience. You don't have to be a buddhist, but you definitely need to have that realization, either through reading or meditation or learning from people. Its an experience based religion/philosophy that greatly depends on a person's mind clicking to certain axioms that Buddhists sets out.
What does it take for somebody to come up with the idea of meditation for themselves? Meaning, no exposure to it in anyway beforehand.
>>7219394
It takes genius. Which is why Gautama Buddha was a genius.
>>7219485
Buddha didn't invent meditation. Infact he learned it from old sramana masters before him. Meditation has a very long history that might even predate Buddha by more than 2000 years before.
But I'd certainly classify Buddha as one of the ancient genius for coming up with such a system like Buddhism. Even though he might not have invented all of it, he certainly did come up with a system that is coherent enough for many people.
Philosophy isn't a selfhelp guide how to stop caring about things, that's the most pleb opinion you can possibly have
philosophy today shares the goal of the sciences
>>7219387
Damn anon that's a good point. That post kind of helped me realize how some Catholic, Mormon, and Irreligious friends of mine get along and share similar moralities.
t. Buddhist
>>7219503
My mistake then, thanks for the correction. The idea if meditation is still an incredibly impressive one.
>>7217297
Take your pop-zen nonsense elsewhere. Not in a single place in the discourses will you find support for the claim that bodhi comes about through anything but studied reflection. There is arguably a single example in the Bahiya Sutta, which is part of the late and spurious Udana.
>>7218963
If philosophy is "fun," then you are doing it wrong.
>>7219301
"NO"
>>7218963
>>7219609
In fact, if you look at MN 2, the Sabbāsava sutta, you will find evidence that enlightenment cannot be reached without discursive reflection. The relevant passage is long, so I will paraphrase. In an exhaustive list of the āsavas, first the Buddha gives the taints which are to be abandoned by seeing. He says an untaught person attends to things that are unfit and does not give attention to those things that are fit. He gives examples of questions unfit for attention: whether you existed in the past or will in the future, whether you exist at all. These lead, the Buddha says, to wrong views about the existence of the āman. "This is called the thicket of views, the wilderness of views, the contortion of views, the vacillation of views, the fetter of views. Fettered by the fetter of views the ordinary person is not freed from birth, aging, and despair..."
The things fit for attention, on the other hand, are those which lead to the abandonment of taints. "He attends wisely: this is dukkha... this is the origin of dukkha... this is the cessation of dukkha... this is the path leading to the cessation of dukkha."
>>7217149
Yes, enlightened westerner who learned of buddhism on the internet, please inform those peasants that practice a religion the same way it has been practiced for centuries that they're doing it wrong.
>>7218862
I'm not sure, its entirely possible that it does but at the same time Buddha made it very clear that his teachings was only meant to be about certain things and wasn't made to explain everything, and in fact he would rebuke people who would come at ask why Buddhism doesn't explain metaphysical things like why the universe exists or when life in the universe started etc.
As for the the experience of the agent, I'm not 100% sure what you mean but in case you didn't know in Buddhism there is no self or soul. As one Buddhist monk phrased it "There is no thinker behind the thought, remove the thought and there is nothing there".
>>7219736
Nowhere in that post did I claim anyone was doing anything wrong, all I did was point out that the various teachings of Buddhism related to mindfulness can be used and taught in a secular manner.
bum[
Hello friends
>>7216409
Buddhism is great if you experience life as inherently problematic, as an illness. If you are weak and weary.
People who embrace life as it is don't need such elaborate therapy.
>>7220709
>>
>People who embrace life as it
hopefully, this is the explicit goal of buddhism. all is well.
>>7220709
For some, self-delusion is not possible
>>7220723
Yes, but people who already do so to reasonable degree don't really seem to need Buddhism. Buddhism seems more of a correctional therapy to people who excessively suffer from existence.
>>7220752
I don't see how one value judgement is more delusional than the other. 'Life is fun' is no more delusional than 'life is suffering'.
Is there a term for an idea that by nature can't be disproved? For example, solipsism.
>>7220775
You should learn about buddhism before discussing it. This goes for the rest of the thread as well. It amazes me that /lit/ can have such a pleb-tier understanding of Buddhism while they have such a good understanding of Western literature. All of you are attacking a straw man you've named "Buddhism."
>>7220793
Literally nothing can be disproven
>>7220797
How are the judgements and ethical prescriptions any less delusional than any others?
>>7216409
Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when Hitler discovered a state of enlightenment available to all people - and made it clear how to attain it - more than a century ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems Nacional Socialism is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of kikes.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if Nazism is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a kike ass, oy vey
>>7220804
I'm asking that question under the general philosophy that things such as infinite regress are ignored on the basis of their lack of effect on reality.
>>7220793
Unfalsifiable.
>>7220819
>needlessly destructive
So its ok to be destructive, just as long as its towards jews and people who agree with jews?
>>7220829
Thanks anon.
>>7220836
yes, it's necessary to reach enlightenment to destroy them
>>7220797
Agreed, sometimes there is good discussion in Buddhism threads or people familiar with it debate whether they disagree with some aspects of it but it seems like 90% of the time the whole thread is just filled with people saying "Buddhism is stupid because its X" and other people correcting them and then as soon as they realize they are wrong another ignorant anon comes in and says "Buddhism is a death cult, Buddhism is nihilistic" and its just an endless cycle, the ride never ends.
>>7220805
not the poster that you responded to but in what I'm assuming is your previous post you attempted to simply Buddhism as "life is suffering" what is an incorrect simplification. I'm not that much of an expert myself but the truth about Buddhism is that it just realizes suffering exists in life. Alot of it has to do with misunderstanding of the word "dukkha" which many people wrongly assume means "suffering" while it actually encompasses more then that.
From wikipedia because I'm lazy:
Dukkha can mean
1.The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
2.The anxiety or stress of trying to hold on to things that are constantly changing.
3.A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.
Instead of teaching "existence is suffering" Buddhism recognizes both that suffering exists and that everything including pleasure and good-health is transient and not permanent, it is inevitable that people at some point will experience suffering as they get sick and/or die. The experience of losing a source of pleasure or disconnecting from something that gives you happiness is itself an unpleasant situation. Buddhism recognizes that due to the transient nature of all things there is an inherent unsatisfactoriness. I would say this is not that delusional as it is something most people can agree upon even if they don't believe in Buddhism.
>>7219288
>American education
>>7219271
This one is actually right though.
>>7219609
Which is founded on an awareness of what is wholesome and unwholesome. You do not achieve enlightenment by thinking. Reflection is a far cry from intellectualization. While an understanding and contemplation of these concepts is paramount, the final leap into Samadhi can only be made by a mind that neither thinks nor not-thinks.
Stop trying to turn everything into a logic chopping game.
>>7216409
>is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.
Western philosophy isn't about these things. It's about what's true and what's morally right to do. Western philosophy isn't a failed form of Buddhism. It's something different.
>>7221005
I agree, OP's post was badly phrased.
Man it's so fucking easy
There are things under your control
There are things that will fail or become good that are outside of your control
You need to be couragerous with the things of destiny, and to be cautious with things that are under your control. This will release all the fucking anxiety that you have about tfwnogf or tfwnojob or tfwnofuture
You prepare the boat for the sea, but if there comes a hurricane and it blows up all your shit, then at least drown with a smug shit-eating-grin face. Some boats are made to sink in the sea but you can at least be calm that you know about this.
For the same reason religion persists. Outdated beliefs take a long time to go away. Art was deprecated by religion, which was deprecated by philosophy, which was deprecated by science.
>>7221047
>buckling down and learning how your mind operates to reduce the influence of negative thoughts and emotions in your life
>outdated belief
buddhism threads bring out the most ignorant fedoras on /lit/
Why does philosophy persist?
Why does it persist when the George Gurdjieff discovered a path to unlocking the full potential of humankind - and made it clear how to attain it - more than a hundred years ago. I am a novice to philosophy (at least I am not well read in popular philosophers) but it seems The Fourth Way is the only philosophy that isnt needlessly destructive or founded around some form of ego.
I am not trying to poke at anyone or their interests, I want to know if there's value in studying other philosophies for anything other than critique and comparison?
I also wonder if The Work is actually practical when so many people are at odds with its basic values - Ie not being a selfish ass.
>>7221065
>learning how your mind operates
Right, it doesn't do this at all.
Religion at best is a very handy tool of evolutionary psychology. It's basically right for the wrong reasons. At worst it can and does completely destabilize society, as you can see today in the Middle East and Africa
>>7221078
Dude you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Lol you're embarrassing yourself, get outta here with your stock fedora responses lmao
>>7221065
Its funny isn't it. With Christianity threads you have a few militant atheists but for the most part people don't really mind Christ-posting unless it turns into spamming or its obnoxious.
With Buddhism threads however for some reason there are hordes of ass-pained people that flock to it to criticize their own faulty understanding of it. Christians, people virulently opposed to anything related to religion, people who can't be bothered to read anything not from the West, and just plain ignorant people. It really gets under peoples skin, I've been in Buddhism threads before that reach 200+ replies and sometimes its the same butt-hurt anon from the beginning of the thread who keeps criticizing it but just ignores it every time their criticisms are pointed out as misguided.
>>7221078
>equating Buddhist teachings about the mind/emotions with religious and sectarian violence between the 3 Abraham religions.
Confirmed for not knowing much about Buddhism
>>7221115
*Abrahamic
>>7221115
buddhism is fucking awful
>>7221115
Buddhists didn't know what neurons were until science discovered them. Explain how Buddhism isn't just mental masturbation
>>7221126
>he thinks not knowing about neurons prevents you from making positive psychological changes in your life
Ah ahhah ahahahahahahababab
>>7221135
Well it certainly didn't help you make the right life choices if you're pursuing this pointless mental wankery instead of science
>>7220666
Sing to me about spooks you lovable rogue.
>tfw in a few years all this religious mumbo jumbo will be dismissed by eliminative materialism forever
>>7221135
Furthermore, how can you teach us anything meaningful about the "mind" if you don't even know what a neuron is?
This is why no one takes religion seriously.
>>7216519
>cthulhu
Yeah, wow, okay, everything is Reddit now. Suck me faggot.
>implying suffering isn't fucking awesome
>>7221143
Not him, but zany Lovecraftianism is extremely reddit, even when a whole lot of other things are not.
>>7221078
>as you can see today in the Middle East and Africa
Daily reminder that the Middle East and Africa were the hotbeds for secular, materialist-minded, internationalist yet localized movements, and Euro-American power assassinated most of the people involved in these developments, isolated those they couldn't assassinate forcing many of them to take authoritarian nationalist paths, installed reactionary puppet-regimes to kill off the local resistances, and aided uneducated peasantry in weapons and reactionary propaganda in fighting their "enemies" (including those puppet-regimes later down the road).
>>7221137
Lmao when scientism goes too far
>>7221150
>[something] is extremely reddit
And how is this established again? What is and what isn't 'reddit'? What does this even mean in non-autist?
>>7221137
Lol you know the big fad in psychology is buddhist mindfulness right? And that CBT's principles are directly derived from stoic teachings (the founder said as much, it isn't that they're just similar)?
>>7221161
Tweeny lovecraft shit is the quintessence of reddit, sorry you had to find out this way
F'lgahn taft haghn xDd
Buddhism in the west is a mem religion, tbh. It's purpose in western culture is not to actually help anyone but to awe them -- there was DEEP wisdom discovered long ago in a far eastern country. Ignore that they didn't really know jack shit about the universe back then: it is old and esoteric and not-of-this-culture, and that's what makes it important.
Look at them in this thread. They're not arguing or debating but instead crowing about their special knowledge. 'I understand Buddhism and you don't'. There's no attempt to inform because that would defeat the point of their existence -- to hold some form of authority over knowledge in a world too complex for them to be able to properly grasp at it any more.
They're the religious equivalent of hipsters, and I wish they'd all just suffer themselves into an early grave rather than making the rest of us suffer with them.
>>7221078
You are so stupid that I sincerely hope you die. I don't even know how I ended up on this thread of all places, but you are making a fool of yourself and you need to fucking stop. You talk about Buddhism when you don't even seem to grasp the basics; are you just trolling or are you that full of yourself that you can't read a fucking book before you start talking on random topics?
Saying meditation and deep thinking is just religious doctrine is as fucking stupid as saying that being positive or embracing some sort of ethical code is bad because it happens to be preached by major religions as well - when the majority of these have scientific backing (at least if your aim is to achieve the same thing as most other people).
>>7221137
Because science didn't start with conceptualization before the empirical method, right? I guess the Pre-Socratics are also just mental wankers to you as well, along with everyone else that attempted to theorize the natural world and the workings of the mind before "science" was invented.
What pains me most is that piece of shit niggers like you are so stupid, so backwards, so fucked in the head, that you don't get how much of a sheep you are - you are literally blind to the fact that if you were living in Greece 2500 years ago, you'd probably be the one throwing rocks at philosophers because of how silly they are, because everything you needed to know about the world was already established by Homer and Hesiod. People like you are literally cancer, and I'm not tipping my fedora when I say that. In every fucking age there's faggots like you that hang on to whatever is popular at the time, thinking it's infallible, naming everyone else idiots, while failing to realize that you're generally being as closed-minded as the generation that came before you - except, you know, you're one step ahead, and you're too dumb to look back, so that never occurs to you.
This is exactly what Nietzsche (*tips fedora* I guess) was talking about when he said that people never EVER think that their age is anything but the best.
>>7221171
That's not what I asked, you dumb faggot. I asked you how you established whether something is 'reddit' and what the hell that even means.
There are people here who don't have assburgers, you know
>>7221179
>You are so stupid that I sincerely hope you die.
You sound very at peace with yourself
>>7221166
Psychology is barely a science and borders on the psuedoscientific. Also, that's a fad by your own admission.
>>7221195
So if i have a mental problem, i should go to a neuroscientist cause psychology is pseudoscience and systems like buddhism are too mired in religious symbolism right? Fucking clown
>>7221179
It doesn't matter how it started. It superseded philosophy as a way of understanding reality ages ago.
You sound angry btw. This buddhism nonsense clearly doesn't work if this is how you respond to criticism. You would be better off reading deepak chopra if spiritual woo is what interests you
>>7221177
Are you so stupid that you don't understand how self-explanatory your own words are?
Yes, Buddhism, Hinduism, most of them are definitely hipster religions in the West (insofar as anyone actually practices them as religions), but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who have actually spent a lot of time learning about them from the sources rather than say, fucking Reddit.
And also,
>I understand Buddhism and you don't
Is a totally valid thing to say, because the whole image of Buddhism is fucked in the Western perception. Just look at how many people think there's never any violence in Buddhism, or extremism, or how Buddhism advises self-defeatism, or how karma is about doing good and getting good to come back to you. All misinterpretations, yet they'll probably live on for a long time (I mean people still do movies where vikings are using wooden clubs and horned helmets).
Anyway, the point isn't that it's about special knowledge, or anything SOOO BEEEYOOND science and the Western tradition that people can't come to the same ideas via another route - but simply that Buddhism IS misunderstood by most, and the 16 yo fedora tippers on /lit/ who think Buddhism is all about going away in the woods and giving up on life are incredibly annoying in general, and if you think that's not the case it's only because they're not fucking around with a topic you happen to know a lot about. I've fucking beat nerds up for getting shit wrong regarding TES lore, so you best bet when some kid tells me he knows everything about Buddhism because he's watched an Alan Watts video on YT and he disagrees with it, I catch fire immediately.
>>7221209
You should see a psychiatrist or a good psychologist. I suppose you think you should talk to a buddhist hipster in some ridiculous monk outfit
>>7221190
He is. Just not as peace with that anon.
>>7221179
Fuckin rekt. I cant believe this scientism shit itt, its cringey as fuck. 'you cant train your mind to do anything if you haven't studied neurobiology!!'
Retards
>>7221190
>>7221212
Maybe because I'm NOT A BUDDHIST you RETARDED pieces of DOG SHIT.
Not every person who disagrees with you necessarily holds views you fucking hate.
And no, it's nothing to do with spiritual woo, or anything like that - I simply dislike things being written off by people who clearly do not understand them well enough to do so. I'm not a Buddhist, but I can also say I know enough about Buddhism to say that I genuinely disagree with it, as opposed to "lel le ancient philosophy xd le science /r/atheism guis!!!."
But again, like I said, not everything in religions is spiritual mumbo jumbo; if you don't think there's any practical advice in the Bible, then you probably haven't read it or just take for granted already believing everything it advises (and I do mean the 1% that's logical and beneficial).
I guess I'm not so much talking in favor of religion, or spirituality, or esoteric knowledge, or anything - I just hate science faggots with a passion and I want them to fuck off back to /g/ and r/atheism where they belong.
YOUR NAME IS FUCK
I AM YOUR GOD
I AM YOUR SON
COME TO MY TONGUE
COME TO MY LUNG
>>7221213
This tbh
>>7221222
You write a lot but you don't say a lot. I also don't believe you're not a buddhist but that doesn't matter.
>practical advice in the Bible
Like stoning homosexuals? It's 2015. We have the scientific method. There are better books to obtain "practical advice" from.
>>7221231
The Reddit is unbearable.
>>7221236
Your autism is unbearable
>>7221231
>if you don't think there's any practical advice in the Bible, then you probably haven't read it or just take for granted already believing everything it advises (and I do mean the 1% that's logical and beneficial).
>and I do mean the 1% that's logical and beneficial
On /lit/, yet you can't read a simple fucking post and understand things stated plainly.
Yes, anon, stoning homosexuals is exactly what I meant by the 1% practical advice that I went out of my way to indicate. Thank you for being such an understanding and capable conversationalist.
Also,
>we have the scientific method
Once again, proof of retardation surfaces. Have luck with your blessed scientific method that's clearly solving all your problems. If only it had a way of teaching you how to read and understand posts on an imageboard. Maybe in another 50 years anon.
>>7221231
Not that anon, but are you fuckin stupid or something
>>7221242
No, he's right, and you are literally r/atheism incarnate. You also make irrelevant replies
>guy says only some shit in the bible is true and that it's not entirely worthless
>obviously remarks there are more helpful books by now
Basic. Reading. Comprehension. Logical. Argumentation.
>>7221231
Hahahha please be bait. Jesus christ you people are so out of touch with reality you think books like proverbs and ecclesiastes are just woo woo because its in the bible.
You retards have no concept of the fact that religion was where the life experience and wisdom of a community was finally put down and codified. The divine and the every day were inseperavly linked, which is why the ancients have such reverence for the sacred, as opposed to pasty faggots who have never left their state
But what did they know right? They didnt even have iphones!
>>7221261
>>guy says only some shit in the bible is true and that it's not entirely worthless
>>obviously remarks there are more helpful books by now
Sorry, where was he saying this? And where exactly was anyone saying that the Bible is 'entirely worthless'?
>>7221250
You didn't indicate anything specific, so I filled in the blanks based on what contemporary Christians believe. Whatever bullshit you come up with, it's either wrong or you can find it elsewhere in a far more modern and enlightening book. We don't need luck for science btw. Prayer is silly. We actually do shit
>>7221122
boy you sure convinced me with that flawless logic
>>7221141
>I want people to stop thinking about things I disagree with, even if it helps them in their lives!
>>7220666
satan trips checked
>>7221153
also the religous violence is mostly due to Saudi Arabian state funding causing the intolerant sect of Wahabism to go from a small backward sect in one country to being prominent in every Islamic country
>>7221177
>Buddhism in the west is a mem religion, tbh. It's purpose in western culture is not to actually help anyone but to awe them .
Thats a stupid thing to say, you are taking the reasons of a few silly college kids for being into Buddhism and attempting to assert that those reasons are everyones reasons for liking or studying Buddhism. You make yourself look stupid with such broad generalizations. There are tons of people that that are into Buddhism because they find it helpful and not because they are awed by its exoticism.
>Ignore that they didn't really know jack shit about the universe back then
lmao you don't need to know chemistry and physics in order to have insights about human life and their minds
>Look at them in this thread. They're not arguing or debating but instead crowing about their special knowledge
Thats not true, nobody here is bragging about their knowledge of Buddhism or acting like it makes them superior to others. There are tons of examples in this thread alone of people explaining it in a polite and non--patronizing way. Most of this thread is just people correcting other peoples misconceptions. When people act like ignorant assholes and are rude and dismissive of a thing that they don't know much about they yeah the people correcting them won't always be super polite but nowhere in this thread are any people saying "oh look at me I'm so special because I understand X and you don't. If you think correcting others about false statements is crowing about special knowledge then you have a problem tbh.
>>7221231
>You write a lot but you don't say a lot.
Not that anon but holy fuck this just drives me crazy. I don't know what you call this but it's one of the kings of non-content statements. Pure projection.
>>7221268
>religion was where the life experience and wisdom of a community was finally put down and codified
>Stoning homosexuals
wow such wisdom
please tell me more about your magical beard man in the sky
>>7221271
>Like stoning homosexuals? It's 2015. We have the scientific method. There are better books to obtain "practical advice" from.
It's implied you fucking retard. Or should I not expect that people on a LITERATURE board can read a sentence that isn't ANNA ATE AN APPLE an understand more than what's on the surface?
If one person tells you that only the tiniest fragment of something is okay, and then you go and say that even that fragment is bad, then yes, anon, you're pretty much saying it's worthless, so if you're going to try and spin this in some way where he was JUST SAYING THOSE THINGS XD but was somehow making a differet point, go fuck yourself.
>>7221288
I'm giving him constructive criticism. His posts are too long and full of fluff so he should condense them.
>>7221280
This nigga's argument is the bible is obsolete now cause we got guys like sam harris to tell us about morality. Your fetish for what is modern and progressive is a sickness, get it checked.
>>7221231
This is incredibly sophisticated trolling, I for one am impressed.
>>7221290
Literally mentioned two bible books with a wealth of practical knowledge and life advice in the very post you quoted you absolute fuckin bozo
>>7221298
The point is you aren't. You're disengaged because you're unable to actually address anything. You've resorted to attacking form and not content. It's a refuge of an anti-intellectual.
>>7221311
No thanks. I'm not interesting in what *you* think is "practical knowledge" and "wisdom". /diy/ is a better repository of practical knowledge than the Bible.
>>7221280
>Whatever bullshit you come up with
You realize I'm a fucking atheist, right? You retard. God. Uninstall yourself.
This is exactly what I'm talking about with you people. If we were given papers right now to check what we believed in, they'd probably come back identical, yet I am nothing like you. People like you are literally the worst of the worst, and you think you're so much better than Christians because you've got "science" backing you up.
Well, listen here faggot, I was always an atheist. I'd be an atheist even if all the science in the world told me that was flat out wrong. So in that sense I suppose I do empathize with the Christians, because I don't think altering matter and making a computer is really all that, nor do I need SCIENCE to tell me that it's OKAY for me to be an atheist. I am literally an atheist on faith alone. Yes, the irony. Eat shit.
You think that because I spend my time reading books and working a normal job as opposed to conducting lab research into the minutiae of a particular field, I'm not "doing shit"?
But this is another one of the ways in which retards like you try to pull meaning and action into things that represent only the activities you're interested in. You're like those guys who thinks Stephen King is a good writer because things "happen" in his book, and that most noncommercial /lit/ is boring because nothing happens.
If you need science in your life to tell you what to believe, what to feel, and where to find meaning, then I truly feel bad for you, and that's not sarcasm.
>>7221290
Because stoning homosexuals is the only thing the Bible says, right? By that logic Newton was a retard because of the other wacky shit he believed in.
But oh, wait, you can't actually judge the validity of a single statement based on other unrelated ones. :/ What a shame.
EAT. SHIT.
>>7216409
Human nature is self-interest. Literally everything we do or aim to do is in the form of self-interest originally.
>>7221321
But I am. His post is literally "butthurt: the post" except for that bit about there being "practical knowledge" in the bible, which is what I responded to.
>>7221323
Kek you're such a sniveling little faggot.
I feel this needs to be posted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0
>>7221295
>There are better books to obtain "practical advice" from.
This implies that the Bible is worse than these, not that it's 'entirely wrong', like you suggested. You blatantly misrepresented him
Also, stop with the capslock. It makes you look like the biggest sperglord ever
>>7216416
Who the fuck is this guy?
>>7221290
The thing is your conclusions are correct, but your method is shit. Biblical law is horrendous in many areas (its militant homophobia, as you mentioned, for example) and seeking its application is intellectually indefensible. That said, you're taking a giant topic and collapsing it into a minor one, and, perhaps worse, your solution is a misappropriation (the scientific method doesn't apply here).
>>7221358
Damn, I BLATANTLY misrepresented him. Lol.
Man just fuck off already. If you think your pulling at straws is impressing anyone, it's not.
>>7221332
What does that have to do with you pointing out the practical knowledge in bible? And why would you continue to be an atheist if it was shown to be flat out wrong? That doesn't sound rational to me. Then again, none of your posts make sense and you seem to be mentally unstable
>>7221213
Holy fuck shut up.
I haven't even read all the posts itt, but your self righteous douchebaggery is enough to make me want to punch you in the face.
>>7221360
/r9k/ poster who got mistaken for the recent school shooter.
here's one of his videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tuf59ex-U0
>>7221444
He's like an uglier Bill Hicks
>>7221388
You seriously sound like the biggest spastic ever. Good luck with your fatal amounts of autism
>>7221231
Where in the bible does it say that we should "stone homosexuals"?
>thread about Buddhism
>easily the angriest thread on /lit/ right now
>>7221404
>What does that have to do with you pointing out the practical knowledge in bible?
Holy shit, are all you faggots retarded? My point was simply that no matter how much spiritual stuff ancient writings are steeped in, that doesn't mean they're entirely void of useful things, whether it's practical advice on day to day matters, or instructions on how to calm yourself down and how to stop wanting the wrong things as in the case of Buddhism. To say that science has gone forward with this is entirely besides the point; it doesn't discredit the fact that the men who wrote these works made tremendous leaps.
And not to sound like a Christian preacher, but much of what I'd call "practical advice" from the Bible, the positive kind, is still largely unheeded today (like being more forgiving, etc.) so I don't think that writing off the Bible and other ancient materials is in any way. But of course I'm not just talking about religion, even stuff like Zeno's paradoxes are just as relevant to what I'm saying. I just don't see the need to try and bury the history of literature and the positive things in it just because science presents the same shit in a different light, after more than 2000 years.
>And why would you continue to be an atheist if it was shown to be flat out wrong
Because there's no amount of evidence that would make me change my mind. The notion of a god existing is so wrong to me that I literally couldn't accept it. It's the complete opposite to the whole persona I've built over three decades. Maybe saying I'd be an atheist was a bit of a stretch, but I certainly wouldn't become a worshiper simply because I was proven wrong. But for the most part I was just trying to say that most of the things we believe come from our personality (at least for those of us that aren't sheep) rather than our environment. You don't need science to disbelieve in the Bible, or Buddhist teachings, or any of this, and I find it cowardly to bring science into such discussions. It's like talking about paleo cooking and how you can get a cookie to taste good in one method or another only for some other faggot to show up and tell you how great this recipe he found on Reddit is that isn't even paleo. If I wanted a recipe that wasn't paleo, I'd find one fucking easily, but that isn't what's being discussed.
Highest state that you can reach in Buddhism is a form of suicide. To free yourself in Buddhism way of life, you must literally kill yourself (physically):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasamādhi
>>7221456
You have no idea how intense my Dwarf Fortress sessions are. It's a blessing and a curse.
>>7220966
The sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is not salvific, and in fact not even necessary for nibbuti. Once again, these claims are textually unsupported.
>>7221469
Mahasamadhi is a practice that comes from Siddha Yoga which itself is a cult that was started in the 20th century, its has nothing to do with Buddhism.
The Buddha never taught or advocated that people should do that, next time do a little more reading before posting.
>>7221484
adventure mode is for true patricians
>>7221467
The bible is a bad source of practical advice. It is literally a book of nonsense. Just because 0.1% of it happens to be reasonable by chance doesn't mean it isn't garbage as a whole. If you turn in an essay and only 0.1% of it is good, guess what? You get an F.
Now, based on what I've read here tonight, my guess is that you suffer from some sort of mood disorder and you seek comfort in religious and spiritual woo. My suggestion is to seek professional attention.
>>7221518
You are coming off as an obnoxious jerk, just stop. Being open-minded is a virtue, and you really shouldn't be so eager to tell people they are wrong for disagreeing. Its not even correcting false statements, you are just needlessly nit-picking and shitting up the thread.
>>7221518
Ok kiddo
>>7221518
M8, if I wanted spiritual woo I'd watch anything written by Damon Lindelof, not the Bible. That's too grounded compared to the standards Lindelof set me to.
>>7221548
Who the fuck is that. Wtf. Her smile quelled all my rage.If it's a boy I'm in love.
>>7216409
To answer the OP:
Not all of philosophy is concerned with "being happy"; that is but a small part of it. Even if everyone were enlightened, much of western philosophy would still have a purpose.
Buddhism itself - although it reaches the truth all metaphysicians have tried to reach - isn't actually concerned with anything else than the ending of suffering. Or to say it in a positive way: ultimate happiness(but there is a very good reason the Buddha /mostly/ taught it in the "negative" sense).
It's mostly to do with two factors, one being the dilution of Buddhism(as, it has nothing to do with Buddhism). Eg: mahayana, vayrajana and this:
" In 1994, the then President of the Pali Text Society stated that most of these translations were unsatisfactory.[63] Another former President said in 2003 that most of the translations were done very badly.[18] The style of many translations from the Canon has been criticized[64] as "Buddhist Hybrid English", a term invented by Paul Griffiths for translations from Sanskrit. He describes it as "deplorable", "comprehensible only to the initiate, written by and for Buddhologists".[65]"
Not to mention that buddhism is hard to grasp to begin with. Even the Buddha admitted as much.
Then you have the unnecessary repetition(the only reason it exists is because by repetition the canon was more easily remembered by monks before it was written down and orally transmitted).
As a man that has studied the Tipitaka for 10 years i can say that because of the preceding reasons, one should lead a contemplative life(yes, this involves very much discursive thinking - despite what the zen-"buddhists" claim) and also not get caught up only reading the Tipitaka. Atleast from my own experience, I didn't understand it's message until i had lead a investigatory life myself.
Read the texts, but if you don't get it, put it down and come back to it when you have a bit more life, book and experiential experience.
Can any Buddhists here explain why they believe that rebirth exists? It really comes off as someone having a practical teaching to give, but needing to throw people a metaphysical bone so they'll actually follow it. I could understand the reasoning if it went "I am Everything, more life will emerge from Everything therefor I will be reborn" but that takes out any notion of a specific phenomenological division of the Everything that is continuously being reborn, which I call "me".
>>7221046
wish i knew you irl
>>7221695
I am not 100% sure whether I believe it or not but it seems the most likely outcome. The idea that once you die thats it and you cease to exist and never experience anything again seems a little too good to be true. It seems more reasonable and natural and rebirth is the case. There is a reason rebirth is one of the most commonly-held belief among indigenous tribes all over the world.
Also there is actually alot of scientific evidence for it. There have been tons of cases of kids remembering past lives and speaking about details from it that were later validated as true that the kids should not have been able to know, there are also cases of kids having scars or birthmarks when born that correspond to the things that killed them previously.
http://www.near-death.com/reincarnation/research/ian-stevenson.html
http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
http://listverse.com/2014/12/30/10-claims-of-physical-evidence-for-reincarnation/
I believe that it could be possible to be reborn as something other then human or something maybe even on another planet btw in case you are one of those people who think the huge change in the earths human population somehow debunks rebirth.
>>7220900
What if someone is totally cool with change and growing old, etc?
If in theory they were at total ease with impermanence and existence as is? They wouldn't have any use for Buddha's teachings, so would they be enlightened?
buddhism is for unproductive and tired people
let em have it
>>7220900
>3.A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.
This is exactly what the words 'nihilism' and 'death cult' mean. You're denying and backpedaling real hard, just man up and accept that Buddhism is nothing but nihilism Hindu-style.
>>7221759
They would not be enlightened in the Buddhist sense of the word. Frankly however I doubt that a person such as you described exists. They could be the chillest most laid-back okay-with-anything person in the world and they would probably still become upset upon learning their they have terminal cancer or if one of their relatives died or something along those lines.
And even if they were okay with impermanence and the transient nature of existence unless they become enlightened they would still never know the bliss of true equanimity which comes from being free of all attachments and fetters. This may or may not be hard to understand but simply craving something or relishing in the experience of something is itself a step down in quality from what is possible in terms of mental states. True bliss is being free from all craving and associated states.
>>7221793
No anon if you look up those the word 'nihilism' and 'death cult' they do not mean those things.
> A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance.
This is an objective statement, its not a matter of the glass being half-empty or half-full. All forms of life are changing, living, being born and dying as time passes. Nothing is permanent. There is nothing negative about this viewpoint however. Interpreting this as nihilistic is a personal reaction by the person interpreting it and not an accurate representation of it.
Everything changes and nothing stands still - Heraclitus
>>7221742
>seems
There's the key word, it indicates to me that you're having an emotional response to the idea and mistaking that emotional response for some kind of actual logical proof. The fact that something 'seems' one way or another should count for less than dogshit in your actual judgement unless you can develop that response into something real and tangible.
>there is a reason etc.
Yes, so do many things, we're human beings so there is naturally a lot of overlap in our behaviors. I shouldn't have to tell you that this demonstrates nothing other than that it occurs.
>ian stevenson
If you take this guy seriously I think I may know an interesting psychic you'd like to meet who can even tell you your dead relatives names, he's legit I swear! (seriously anon, just look at the second half of the intro to his wiki page to begin to see the multitude of problems in his work)
I'm not trying to shit on your beliefs but I'm confused as to why you're trying to make this out as anything but a giant leap of faith? Rebirth is one of those unfalsifiable things.
>>7221822
>This is an objective statement
No.
>All forms of life are changing, living, being born and dying as time passes.
This is only your opinion and doesn't match reality.
>Nothing is permanent.
This is only your opinion and doesn't match reality.
>There is nothing negative about this viewpoint however.
There is. Denying that permanent things exist when they objectively do is a form of nihilism, a pathological psychological reaction to personal failures.
>>7221875
>Denying that permanent things exist when they objectively do
Please give examples
>>7221828
lmao anon, you politely asked why a Buddhist would believe in reincarnation and then when I responded you angrily tried to take my answer apart. I have a sense that you have some sort of personal issue that you're currently dealing with by arguing with people you disagree with.
Anyways when I wrote seems I meant it to mean intuitively and intellectually as much as emotionally. I hate to break it to you anon but the idea that when we die thats it and we cease to exist, that also unfalsifiable. Literally every single idea or theory about what happens when we die is unfalsifiable because there is no way to prove or disprove it, including the theory that we just cease to exist.
Also Ian Stevenson is pretty respectable, he was the chair of the department of psychiatry at a respected medical school for 50 years. Yeah there was some flaws in his work, not all of it was perfectly accounting for error but at the same time there was still a lot of evidence that couldn't easily be explained away.
>>7221875
>He thinks recognizing the transient nature of reality is a psychological reaction to personal failures
>>7220775
>Yes, but people who already do so to reasonable degree don't really seem to need Buddhism. Buddhism seems more of a correctional therapy to people who excessively suffer from existence.
well you have indeed two roads to the dharma
-the intellectual path which is the phenomenology
-the hedonists who understand that hedonism fails sooner or later
most people being hedonist, they become interested via this path and do not expected that the dharma is indeed a phenomenology which has a side product of going out of dukkha
>>7216429
>Also, Buddhism has the somewhat black mark of being a con to get out of back-breaking farm labor. Would you rather:
>>work 12 hours a day doing dangerous shitty work in the fields
>OR
>>ordain at the monastery, clean up a bit, sit in a hut, pay attention to your breath, and eat some scraps
I think I might rather work 12 hours a day. At least that's not boring as shit.
>>7221695
>I could understand the reasoning
exactly, you fail to understand that your faith in rationalism is only a faith since you fail to connect your discourse to any empiricism...
rebirth matters to you because you have another moral doctrine than the one of the dharma being equanimity+charity. The point of the dharma is precisely stop caring about the rebirth, not because you cared before, which precisely is not equanimity and even less charity (towards you), but the moral doctrine of the dharma (which IS the dharma) stems precisely from the dharmic phenomenology.
Rebirth matters to those who are not the dharma, typically those bikkhus and laymen who remain hedonistic and who do not wish to stop being hedonistic.
>>7221875
I cant believe how autistic this post is
>>7221903
You said some stupid things that taught me nothing and I felt I should tell you why they were useless to me.
Let me just get another couple out of the way here:
>angrily
You're interpreting it as an attack and projecting that onto me, as you are with the following sentence (personal issue etc.), none of which is true.
>intuitively etc.
Intuitively knowing something is exactly the emotional based logic I was describing. If it was intellectual you could present outside the word "seems".
>also unfalsifiable
I would never deny this and would insist upon it. I don't know why you're bringing it up, we're talking about positive belief (i.e. belief that rebirth DOES exist, as opposed to not).
>ian stevenson
Read the second paragraph of the introduction to his wiki page. His evidence isn't evidence. It's potential evidence that's too marred by potential error. It doesn't merit anything other than "somebody should look into this properly". Look into the many such proofs for Christianity et al, everything has this stuff. The drawer is still locked.
I'm asking you why you choose to believe in rebirth, i.e. "because I think there's sufficient evidence", not actually telling me the evidence. I'm talking about on a personal level, what makes you trust that it is the case.
>>7221962
Back in the time when Buddha was alive he instructed the Sangha that they should continuously travel around in order to avoid developing an attachment to certain areas or places. The Buddha said that someone living in society and having an occupation and so forth could still become enlightened but that it would be very difficult. People can attempt it any way they want but the way to do it closest to what the Buddha taught would to become a wondering bikkhu in the way many hindu monks do today in India.
>>7221796
I see. But why opt out of it all when you could surf and enjoy the rolling transience?
>>7221068
>George Gurdjieff
this guys is legit
>>7221875
wew lad
I'm going to have to hide this post. It's painful for me to read again.
>>7221993
I didn't interpret it as a personal attack on me but just that you were/are angry and angrily wrote out your post even if I wasn't the one you were angry at. I thought you were angry because your post was full of negative connotations that someone usually wouldn't use in a friendly or even neutral conversation.
I don't know why you insist that intuitively feeling, suspecting or leaning toward something on the basis of intuition is emotional-based logic because its not, emotion and intuition are two different and separate things; however much the intuition of an emotional person might be clouded or influenced by emotion.
Just because some people have some doubts about the research of Ian stevenson does not mean that is automatically bunk. Its virtually guaranteed that anyone who investigates these sorts of things will have other people saying their research is flawed.
I don't know what answer you are looking for but my answer is that on a mainly intellectual and institutional answer it makes the most sense to me and that its also of interest to me that there is plausible evidence for it in my opinion.
>that which is called mind, mentality or consciousness arises and disappears continuously both day and night. Just as a monkey swinging through the trees grabs one branch, letting it go only to grab another, so too that which is called thought, mind or consciousness arises and disappears continuously both day and night.
-- S.II,94
