Is negative hedonism the end-game of ethics?
What's negative hedonism
>>8150902
Masochism
>>8150902
jerking off while scowling
>>8150902
avoiding suffering rather than seeking pleasure
>>8150944
If you are using that phrase to describe the Buddhist approach to suffering its inaccurate, Buddhism is not about avoiding suffering and 'negative hedonism' isn't really a fitting description.
>>8151052
what then
>negative hedonism
Did you just make that up? Also Buddhism doesn't view pleasure as the only thing good in itself, you know. There are other virtues to consider.
The asian religious practices are so rich. I'm interested into meditation and started reading Zen Training from a recommendation on 4chan.
How does Zen relate to other neighboring teachings. Can someone provide context for me?
>>8151126
If you want to find a word to describe the Buddhist approach to suffering (taking about actual suffering here and not the word dukkha which doesn't mean suffering in the English sense of the word) for the purposes of asking whether its the end-game of ethics then you might as well just ask 'is Buddhism is the end-game of ethics'.
If you want to find a particular term that is not 'Buddhism' then I'm not sure. In Buddhism instead of avoiding suffering the point has more to do with the concept of becoming enlightened which can be somewhat simplified as realizing that we suffer because of our ignorance of the truth of there being no self and how this leads to a false sense of self and attachments/cravings that accompany this which causes suffering.
Its not about 'avoiding suffering' but more about waking up from the illusion and becoming aware that we are only suffering because of our misguided beliefs in and attachments to the illusion. In this sense once you become enlightened or start to practice Buddhist practices diligently then you naturally start to experience suffering less because you don't abide in the illusionary beliefs/mindset/attitudes that cause suffering. In this context 'avoiding suffering' is not a goal but the cessation of suffering is simply seen as the natural result in a 'cause-and-effect' sense of what happens when you are enlightened or start to make progress towards it. The cessation of suffering was not the main reason why Buddha advised people to practice his teachings, he advised people to practice them for the sake of being enlightened itself and a cessation of suffering is just seen as a component of that.
I don't know if there is a term that can accurately describe that in a few words. Maybe something involving the words 'transcendental', 'enlightenment', 'awakening' etc but for someone who isn't familiar with the subtleties of Buddhist ideas (most people on /lit/ tbhf) the term probably won't convey all that.
>>8151164
what is dukkha in english
>>8151052
the 4 noble truths are literally a cure for suffering
>>8151170
Its uncontentment, more than direct suffering.
>>8151177
It's a cure for Dukkha, which shouldn't be directly translated as suffering.
>>8151164
im sure you know about the burning house parable from the lotus sutra. the enlightenment is not a goal. it is an upaya, skillfull means, to make ignorant people get out of their samsaric attachment precisely by using these attachments, because they are the only means possible for this, it is the only world they know, you cant talk them out of them.
I wouldnt say either that the goal is avoidance of suffering, but it certainly is not a positive goal to attain something. If anything, it is closer to avoidance of suffering, but I think there is more to it, because once they are out of samsara the whole picture changes and those old terms (goals, suffering etc) no longer fit the wider reality.
>>8151153
>How does Zen relate to other neighboring teachings. Can someone provide context for me?
I like to view Zen as the more pratical approach to Buddhism. This can be a good thing and a bad thing, depending on how attatched to the rigidness of it you get, which is actually an illustration of buddhism in itself
>>8151177
They're also a potential ill to fighting against faults within society, and just learning to accept them.
>>8151195
"Avoidance of suffering" is too broad of a term to encompass the subtleties of the buddhist practice, to be honest.
Maybe "avoidance of subjective suffering" would be a better way to put it.
Also, "attatchment to enlightenment" is a thing, and "good attatchments" are also a thing. In the end, however, they should all be dissolved.
>>8151153
Zen is the result when Buddhist Mahayana teachings from China reached Japan and developed into their own thing. They were already changed by the time they had reached China as they had gone through the Middle East to reach China and the farther it went from the source the more it changed like the game telephone that kids play and once it reached Japan it changed even further.
Zen mixed with the Japanese religion/tradition Shinto a little but mostly it was just about them finding ways to coexist and the core practices/beliefs of Buddhism were not much changed. Zen became different from other branches of Buddhism by developing a larger focus then other schools on direct-experience and on meditation and in particular seated meditation. In Theravada Buddhism there is still a big focus on meditation but its seen something that should be done in accordance with Buddhist precepts and as part of a larger Buddhist practice while in Zen meditation is seen more as something that should be practiced for its own sake.
The only other significant teachings/religions in the area besides Buddhism and Shinto were Confucianism and Daoism but it was my understanding that they didn't directly influence Zen much. They could have influenced Chinese Buddhism which was brought to Japan with those influences within it but as far as I'm aware there was not a significant Confucian/Daoist presence within Japan influencing it directly during the period when Zen developed.
I am not that informed about Zen Buddhism in particular but thats my TLDR understanding of it as someone who is relatively familiar with Theravada Buddhism and eastern religion/philosophy in general.
>>8151201
In Buddhist thought, those faults come from a lack of understanding of how things work however. So, by dealing with those misconceptions, they are actually not simply "accepting", but actively fighting against them
>>8150899
hinduism > buddhism
buddhism didnt come out of a vacuum. it is just an unorthodox hinduist way that, presenting itself as new, borrow and builds on all the hinduist concepts and general worldview. buddhism is therapy for hinduists. but only a temporal one, one sort of escapism that can only be ultimately solved by facing the hinduist contradictions, not by avoiding them. vedanta does this. but to get it you first have to be a hinduist, then try buddhism, or jainism, or carvaka, or ajivika (the 4 nastika or unorthodox views) live them, see that they dont solve it and then, by all you learned there, solve the initial problems.
>>8150899
a few talks by an ajhan I just discovered
Ajahn Dtun
http://www.wbd.org.au/audio/ajahn-dtun/
https://www.abhayagiri.org/audio
I think he describes his stream entry here
https://www.abhayagiri.org/audio/questions-and-answers-3-the-aha-moment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9rI9d178cI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ4Yp3cjDZQ
also, bhante punnaji who uses western vocabulary.
https://www.youtube.com/user/bhantepunnajivideo/videos?sort=dd&shelf_id=0&view=0
>>8150899
It's the end game of utilitarianism because utilitarianism is retarded.
>>8151228
you understand that hinduism is inaccurate as soon as you hit stream entry
>>8151211
could you name a concrete example of this?
>>8151228
>hinduism
>>8151237
all isms are inaccurate by definition. but they are the way to accuracy by the solution of those original spontaneous inaccuracies.
>>8151228
isn't vedanta just buddhism that called the void god?
I really enjoy knowledgeable in depth buddha posting lads
keep it up
>>8151170
Its a word to describe the broad concept or concepts that the universe is inherently changing, and that as part of this all experiences and perceptions are just fleeting moments or illusionary and that there can be no eternal satisfaction or rest, and that even those who have great lives will eventually be unhappy or grow sick and experience the suffering involved in dying and rebirth.
Basically that as long as existence continues there is an unending cycle of unsatisfactory-ness and the always-present potential for immediate suffering as well the the guarantee of future suffering at some point in time, that aside from becoming enlightened and the ending of rebirth that there is no way to permanently achieve any sort of permanent happiness or satisfaction that won't melt away eventually, and that all of this applies to every living being in the universe and is just a fact of the universe like gravity or color. Its not some metaphysical law condemning living beings to eternal suffering but more a recognition that existence itself is inherently something that always changes, cannot satisfy and causes suffering.
Thats basically what the term dukkha means although its not a perfect explanation.
>>8151177
No, the noble truths have to do with the fact that dukkha exists and that there is a way to end the cycle of dukka which is Buddhism, see the above response. A 'cure for suffering' is not an accurate description at all, suffering is just a facet of dukkha.
>>8151195
I'm not that familiar with Mahayana texts and I haven't read the lotus sutra. I do agree though that the concept of 'goals' are not that useful to use in describing Buddhism and its aims.
>>8151164
>I don't know if there is a term that can accurately describe that in a few words. Maybe something involving the words 'transcendental', 'enlightenment', 'awakening' etc but for someone who isn't familiar with the subtleties of Buddhist ideas (most people on /lit/ tbhf) the term probably won't convey all that.
sotāpanna = lose your faith in hedonism, still an hedonist (of the body, of the will (=the forms (as in forms is emptiness) in the dhamma)), and of the conciseness)
Anāgāmi = still lose your faith in hedonism, no longer an hedonist of the body, still an hedonist of the consciousness
aharant = lose your faith in hedonism, no longer an hedonist
Do we have any serious meditators here?
Every once in a while I see some good posts about Jhana, but I'm wondering how many people actually practice on that level.
>>8151275
>will eventually be unhappy or grow sick and experience the suffering
so it is not that thre is not suffering but more that it is inveitable so we should accept it as part of life?
>>8151275
oh...well it is one of the most famous parables. it can be resumed by wittgenstein's description of his work: "i show the fly the way out of the fly bottle"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upaya#Parable_of_the_burning_house
>>8151242
Concrete as in a specific sutta? I've only read the majjhima nikaya, I won't be able to cite specific examples.
But to Buddha, a lot of the "wrongdoings" of society come, for example, from the attatchment to Ego. And since the ego is an illusion based on misconceptions, by clearing those misconceptions you wouldnt feel the need to practice bad actions.
Since Buddhism tries to teach you how to shed your ego away, it would be actively trying to dispell the faults of society.
Of course, there are more stuff that Buddha had to say about that, maybe the Buddha-Statue-Posting-Friend can develop this topic further.
>>8151301
Yeah, I've meditated enough to get in the first 4 Jhanas. Lately, however, I have relaxed my practice a bit and focused on other stuff.
The Jhanas really are a pitfall, you know.
>>8151247
Throw the raft out when you get to the other side.
I started with Buddhism, and now I'm getting into Hinduism because of my Yoga practices. Can you guys list me the basic texts of the Hinduist philosophy? I have the Upanishads and the Mahabharata waiting for me to open them.
>>8151334
>Can you guys list me the basic texts of the Hinduist philosophy?
All you really have to know is all men aren't created equal and the pathetic and weak and poor (who the people who own a lot of gold don't like [who aren't really defined as why they should be that rich at all]) shouldn't even look at them while toiling for their supreme order, lest be utterly destroyed with supreme prejudice. Anybody who questions this should also be destroyed with supreme prejudice.
If that's your thing, you do you, go be a sado-masochist.
>>8151228
>buddhism didnt come out of a vacuum. it is just an unorthodox hinduist way that, presenting itself as new, borrow and builds on all the hinduist concepts and general worldview.
Stop pretending that modern-Hinduism was the religion of India at the time and that Buddhism was just a part of that or a reaction to that.
Modern Hinduism is largely a modern invention that is the result of the British control of India, the unification of the country by the British, the attempts by the Brits to study and classify the religion in India as "Hinduism" and then Indian nationalists grabbing that label and running with it for their own purposes to invent the idea of a single religion being practiced all across India since ancient times.
At the time of Buddha the religious scene in India looked nothing like modern times with Hinduism. There were large amounts of different groups and religions including the Jainists and different Sramanic groups and untold other teachers whose teachings were lost to time. The only thing that can be described as 'Hinduism' at the time was the Brahmanic priests in the cities and in some religious centers but most of what they were doing was just studying Vedics texts and performing superstitious rituals. The other groups like the Sramanics had very little to do with the Brahmanic religion and they should not be perceived as being part of Hinduism because they weren't.
Buddhism was more closely linked to the various Sramanics and other ascetic movements/teachings then to the Brahamic Priests and their Vedic texts. Because the Vedic texts are huge and address a huge amount of subjects its natural that Buddha would have been asked about some of them so its no surprise that there is records of him somewhat agreeing with them on some points while disagreeing with them on others.
Labeling everything religious that was going on during that time in India as Hinduism is incredibly disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. The notion of reincarnation and rebirth is one of the most common beliefs among indigenous tribes worldwide and is by no means an invention of Hinduism and Hinduism was not the first to come up with it. The Brahamic religion was influenced by the Sramanics and started to prominently feature notions like reincarnation because of that Sramanic influence which continued into modern Hinduism, but the Sramanics were not Hindu.
An accurate description would be that at the time of the Buddha the only thing that can accurately be described as Hinduism was the Brahamic religion but that was not the only common religion/beliefs at the time and that as far as we can tell Buddhism was influenced very little or none at all by Hinduism and was more closely related to the other Sramanic and ascetic movements at the time which were not part of Hinduism.
>>8151339
Eh, all religions have stupid stuff in them. You would have to be quite ignorant to dismiss everything on the account that some people have used it as a caste-system apology. Corruption is unavoidable when your religion goes through millions of people for thousands of years, but if you distill it enough you can still drink the sweet sweet honey of wisdom.
Searching for different ways to look at the same issue can be very enlightening sometimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aj%C3%B1ana
/all spiritual ways and views
>>8151364
I don't know if true knowledge is attainable, tbqh. However, I think the usefulness of the "spiritual ways" stem from the practice of self-knowledge and self-improvement. So the "Ultimate Truth" or whatever isn't as important as the meaning we give to our lives through the spiritual views.
>>8151364
>>8130161
TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.
what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...
>>8151382
I even get the feeling that Buddha was somewhat skeptical of his own views of the Truth. He was very careful with how he made his affirmations about the Middle Way (saying a lot that he only dealt on Dukkha and its cessation) and about why you should follow him (you should do your own research and only follow him if you feel good while doing it - Pascal's Argument but better).
So maybe he was aware even of those caveats, and how Belief and Faith are at the same time feeble and powerful things.
>>8151322
Apart from the fact that traditionally Jhanas are strongly advocated for by the Buddha, if you think they're 'pitfalls' I highly doubt you've achieved hard Jhanas.
You're probably misinterpreting your own practice and at best hitting Leigh Brasington tier meme Jhanas.
>>8150944
The correct name for that is Negative Utilitarianism.
>>8151352
>The other groups like the Sramanics had very little to do with the Brahmanic religion and they should not be perceived as being part of Hinduism because they weren't.
yeah of course the use of the term hinduism or buddhism is western nonsense, but i used them to give a quick picture of the thing. but when you say that the sramana groups were not part of the the brahamanic religion or hinduism or whatever you wanna call it that is not accurate. the term religion used in that phrase does not mean what we in the west mean by that. it was a whole way of life, and the sramana people came out of that whole way of life, were a product of it even if in disagreement or indifference to it. they sure started searching for something else and something different, but they did not do it out of nothing, as human beings they grew as part of a society and even if they thought they were rejecting it all their subsequent searching was made with those concepts, behaviors and general wolrdview that they previously learned to live with. they simply gave it an alternative shape.
it would be like saying that all the alternative people that today go live in ecovillages are not part of the western world or have a different culture. even if they go live under a tree they have all the views learned in western life, and it doesnt matter if they cloth it with chinese or indian facades.
anything truly unrelated or completely new would be, if not death itself, a feral child living in nature. once you have been socialized into a group you cannot ultimalety overcome it, you can only fool yourself into that thought by shaping it differently.
>>8151407
>traditionally Jhanas are strongly advocated for by the Buddha
Please tell me where he said that Jhanas were anything more than nice states of mind and ultimately empty.
If I'm not mistaken, he said that you should only really worry about getting to 1st Jhana (since controlling your focus is important), but he had disciples who allegedly attained Nibbana without even getting past access concentration.
I mean hell, he even got into the 3-day meditation binge after he realized the 9 Jhanas didn't do anything for him, so I highly doubt your claims.
>Leigh Brasington tier meme Jhanas.
And this is why I say they are a pitfall. My Jhanas are always better than yours, thus my practice is always better than yours, and I'm oh so much more enlightened.
Eh, I've been through that, and that's why I don't care much about the Jhanas anymore anon. Maybe you are right, maybe my practice is shite, but it sure feels good to shed this "spiritual attatchment" and don't bother so much.
>>8151380
>important as the meaning we give to our lives through the spiritual views
ok, then the average citizen giving meaning to his life by eating burgers and pizza is fine if he believes in it and people meditating or being benevolent are no better.
Adi Shankara in his works refuted the Buddhist arguments against Ātman. He suggested that a self-evident conscious agent would avoid infinite regress, since there would be no necessity to posit another agent who would know this. He further argued that a cognizer beyond cognition could be easily demonstrated from the diversity in self existence of the witness and the notion.[103] Furthermore, Shankara thought that no doubts could be raised about the Self, for the act of doubting implies at the very least the existence of the doubter. Vidyaranya, another Advaita Vedantic philosopher, expresses this argument as:
No one can doubt the fact of his own existence. Were one to do so, who would the doubter be?[104]
Fooking Lel
>>8151301
I do meditate but I don't even bother with thinking about the Jhanas. Trying to meditate for the purposes of reaching or experiencing them goes against the whole point IMO. I have found that when I just try to clear my mind of all thoughts and impulses and am able to maintain that for long periods that its the best kind of meditation. There are occasionally moments where I experience bliss or euphoria but those are just a distraction from the meditation itself.
The S.N. Goenka Vipassana meditation retreats are 100% free and are really good. You don't have to buy 100% into what they say or what Goenka's videotapes say for it to be a good experience. Almost all of what he says is in accordance with Buddhism anyway but its stuff anyone who has studied Buddhism would already understand and the point of it for a lot of people is just putting yourself into a situation where you would end up meditating way way more for a week or 10 days then you would ever do on your own.
>>8151304
>so it is not that thre is not suffering but more that it is inveitable so we should accept it as part of life?
No, understanding dukkha is about understanding that existence itself is by nature something where there can be no permanent and lasting satisfaction and that there is always suffering that can occur and will occur eventually just because its an inherent part of conscious existence.
Its important to recognize the existence of dukkha but from the Buddhist perspective instead of resigning oneself to experience suffering one should instead become enlightened and no longer be experience suffering because while all living being can experience physical pain and other unpleasant physical stimuli the reaction to that stimuli with suffering is not mandatory and with Buddhist practices there can be a cessation of suffering and the opportunity to permanently end the potential for future suffering.
>>8151242
this guy >>8151308 has it right for the most part
I'm not aware of a specific text I can cite but a basic component of Buddha's teachings is that there is no such thing as genuine evil, all "evil" or unwholesome actions are rooted in confusion and ignorance of the true nature of things.
Buddha taught that violence and mistreating others was something that was unwholesome and wrong and that the people who did this did it because of poor self-control, giving into anger, lust, jealousy etc and that a truly non-ignorant person would understand what was wrong and would refrain from doing things that are wrong.
One of the basic aims of teaching Buddhism is to dispel ignorance and to improve understanding and the act spreading the teachings to people helps fight societies faults by allowing people to individually improve themselves and when masses of people do that then society improves and its faults are remedied as society is made up of the people and its quality and its faults reflects theirs.
>>8151438
If he is happy while doing that and doesn't seek anything more, why would it be?
No one studies buddhism or any other religion if they already feel content with themselves. There's even a term in Pali for that "uncontentment" with one's life that Buddha claimed was paramount for the beginning of the path.
Of course, it's not that simple, since the practice of Buddhism can be said to be the practice of self-consciousness, and I think a more conscious person would have more tools to achieve happiness and contentment than a burguer-and-pizza eating dude.
>>8151445
In Buddhism the existence of the mind and thoughts are acknowledged but they are not regarded to be the self. The mind in Buddhism is regarded to be the sense faculty of the brain like smell is the sense-faculty of the nose. Thoughts may be directed towards considering themselves but that should not be considered the self examining itself. As Walpola Rahula wrote "there is no thinker behind the thought".
>>8151449
>no longer be experience suffering
>all living being can experience physical pain and other unpleasant physical stimuli
well then what i said stands, because i did not say 'resigning' to accept it but acknowledging it as part of life, only not under a fatalist and blind acceptance but by an aware one. but ok i guess this discussion points our rightly the distinction between the fact of pain and the particular emotional reaction to it, which is what in the end breeds dukkha. i think then this last term could also be defined as wrong expectations.
>>8150909
Buddhabro, are you also kantbro?
I have the uncanniest feeling you are.
From a Buddhist perspective, isn't altruism equally based on illusion as egoism since it directs itself towards non-existent selves?
>>8151651
Nope, altruism is considered better because you are seeking to "increase the good in the All". It's what their karma is based on.
In a very oversimplified way, if everything is part of the same One Reality, everything you give onto that reality you would receive back, as a kind of action-reaction.
The reason why you are altruistic also matters a lot to buddhists. If you only are altruistic when the ramifications of the act will help you, you wouldn't be given as much karma as if you were doing it out of pure Love and Compassion.
Remember that a non-existent self doesn't imply that we as beings do not exist, nor that our suffering does not exist.
>>8151170
Craving or desiring. Even the bible mentions it: "thou shall not covet".
>>8151209
You are exactly wrong. It's the other way around. Zen Buddhism is just Japanese Chan Buddhism, which is a stripped down version of Buddhism, influenced by Daoist (and Confucian) concepts. (To the point that Gautama Buddha, Lao Tze and Confucius are often depicted together in Japanese art.) I say influenced, but really the original Buddha Dharma and Daoism really aren't that different and Chan Buddhism simply interchanged vocabulary to explain things more clearly.
"Stripped down", because there were some Buddhists in Eastern China who it dawned on that Buddhism had been quite infested with various theologies and concepts and said "Fuck all that".
Shinto the a theism that has nothing to do with Buddhism, apart from maybe aesthetics and a couple unimportant rituals.
Meditation is VERY important in Zen. (Zen literally means "meditation".) The high emphasis on meditation is because of said "Fuck all that". It is used as the simplest way to free oneself from delusions. Why make it more complicated than necessary? Sure, you could make some neat mandala. Or you could just sit the fuck down. Sure, you could dance around while drumming. Or you could just sit the fuck down. Sure you could study endlessly about previous Boddhisattva and how they are totally not based on previously existing gods. Or you could just sit the fuck down.
I like Zen.
And assuming all the other longer posts are also by you, I invite you to do some real research into it yourself, instead of just relying on my edgy explanation. Because reading the other stuff, it sounds an awful lot like you have sucked up a for of Buddhism which is more theology/esoteric than just Buddhism and that you kindasorta wished for less fancy stuff you'd have to ignore.
>>8151228
If you even knew the short version of the story of Siddharta Gautama, you'd know that it is quite divorced from the other Indian theologies. There is a reason Buddhists were hunted down as heretics and fled to Tibet.
>>8152025
That really isn't the same thing at all.
>mfw a life denier is near me
>>8151651
>since it directs itself towards non-existent selves?
Lolwut?
Altruism is simply viewed as a quality of humans. Meditation helps you be your natural you. That's all there really is to it.
>>8151861
>Karma
Fuck karma. This is one of the points where I take Gautama's advice and call him out on his BS.
He uses karma in a very odd way to explain something else poorly. I understand why, giving the context he was living in. But really what he did was spiritual "Don't think about a blue elephant!".
>>8152250
Neitzsche was shit, Stirner was shit, go to bed
>>8152250
Buddhism isn't life denying though. Nietzsche was pretty good, but couldnt understand the subtleties of a lot of things.
>>8152331
>couldnt understand the subtleties of a lot of things.
Examples, cunt.
There should be a word for making these huge, vague claims without proving them.
Oh yeah, shitposting.
Prove you're not.
>>8152343
Shut up jesus christ. You off topic aggressive lot are the worst.
>>8152266
>But really what he did was spiritual "Don't think about a blue elephant!".
what? I don't think you understand Karma. It's not the "score" that the Universe has against you, like many people with superficial understanding of the eastern religions think.
You are not getting less Karma when you "think about a blue elephant", for Karma literally means Action. And Karma isn't a new concept introduced by Buddha either, it comes from Hinduism if Im not mistaken.
It's more of an application of Newton's 3rd law to a metaphisical and ethical plane, in an already simplified metaphor.
>>8152343
I haven't read the book "Nietzsche on Asian Thought", so you will have to do the research for me, but this entry confirmed what I had felt when I read through Nietzsche's books.
I haven't read all of his works, but whenever he talks or references asian religions, he does sound like he simply didn't get a lot of its messages.
>>8151412
I agree somewhat with your point but I disagree with it in that specific context. They have been many situations where different religions arose in the same area but are still regarded to be different religions. Some scholars place the Sramanics and the other ascetics in the group of traditions and beliefs that had existed in India since before the Indo-Aryans came to India bringing their Vedic religion.
I think its entirely accurate to say the Sramanics were not part of Hinduism. Modern Hinduism is the result of the Brahmanist/Vedic religion at the time of Buddha being influenced by the Sramanics and also later developing a bigger focus on the deities among other things.
Many of the Sramanics rejected much or all of the stuff in the Brahmanic religion and the Vedic texts, that was Hinduism at the time and so its fair to say they were not Hindu. Just because Hinduism was influenced by them does not mean they should be retroactively classified as Hindu. Judaism was no different then any other bronze-age tribal cult until they came into contact with Zoroastrians and adopted beliefs that eventually led to them forming an early form of modern Judaism but its still inaccurate to call Judaism an unorthodox Zoroastrian sect.
Its important to know the context of the time-period and culture in which a religious movement develops but you are ascribing Hindu influence to them in a way that removes any autonomy from them and discounts the notion that they could simply disagree with the Brahmanic/Vedic religion and instead had other ideas. There were many other religious traditions before the Indo-Aryans came to India and there were others existing simultaneously alongside it and Sramanic is one of them. The preponderence of Hinduism doesn't justify classifying everything then in India as being Hindu.
>>8151540
If you mean the person posting pictures of Buddha-statues then no, I'm not Kantbro. Kant seems interesting but I haven't gotten into him yet.
>>8151485
Yes, in Buddhism suffering is a different concept then physical sensations. Buddha never claimed that the people who practiced his teachings or became enlightened would no longer experience pain, hunger, or uncomfortable temperatures etc. In Buddhist practice its instead about not reacting with emotions or cravings for a change in physical conditions. Obviously if you are in danger or risk being physically harmed then you should remove yourself from what is causing you but in terms of experiencing hunger or the cold/wetness of rain in Buddhist practice you should just be aware of the sensation but not be effected by it or dwell on it.
>>8152200
I haven't read much on Zen but I have not spent much time on the theological/esoteric facets of Buddhism either. I not sure why you got that impression but all the stuff I posted about has to do with basic concepts of Buddhism. Maybe in Zen where compared to Theravada there is a bigger focus on meditation then the ideas in Buddha's teachings but what I posted about and Buddha's teachings are not that complicated or esoteric if you put a little effort into understanding them.
Mandalas, dancing, drumming and stuff about Boddhisattvas has nothing or very little to do with Theravada Buddhist practice, the practice of the first groups of Buddhists or Buddha's recorded teachings. I enjoy meditation and it is something that I am experienced in and have gone deep into. If you are just focused on meditation while ignoring Buddha's teachings though you are not practicing Buddhism as Buddha taught it should be practiced and are just meditating.
And there is nothing wrong with that, Buddha himself became enlightened after a long meditation session and he said that it was possible to become enlightened without following his teachings and even leaving aside ideas like enlightenment mediation has been shown to be good for mental health and improving brain functioning but if you are going to try to practice Buddhism in the way that all the evidence indicates Buddha intended for it to be practiced then its better to not dismiss basic concepts of his teachings as being useless or distracting theological/esoteric ideas.
>>8152250
>>8152343
Understanding Buddhism as life-denying or nihilistic is a common misconception of it which was even more understandable in his time when there were none or very few quality translations and analyses of Buddhist texts published in European languages.
Life-denying is a label which doesn't really apply to Buddhism because Buddhism centers around introspection and attempting to best understand oneself and the human mind. There is nothing about Human life that it denies but instead contends that once you reach a certain deep and sublime understanding that you are freed from an illusionary mindset and that is blissful and liberating rather then anything suppressing or denying anything about Humans.
Even without enlightenment basic Buddhist practice is liberating and can lead to blissful sensations and states of mind almost immediately. The idea of Buddhism being life-denying is based on the false perception of Buddhism being about trying to deny or suppress something that is an inherent or essential part of Humans/Human life when that isn't true at all and Buddhism is more about mastering ones own mind and striving toward the full potential of what it is possible to reach in life.
If you don't get it and still believe Buddhism is life-denying then post a detailed example of how Buddhism in your view is life-denying and I guarantee you that its probably just because you have misconceptions of it.
>>8152637
>>8152521
Buddha-bro, what have you read of the Pali Canon? I've never read the Dammaphada, only the Majjhima Nikaya, do you think I should read it, even though the core precepts are repeated like 1000x in the Majjhima? What about the Visuddhimagga and the Vimuttimagga, are they worth the time to read?
Also, what are other good books on buddhism that are not Canon? I've read Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, and it's pretty great if taken with a grain of salt.
>>8152343
Amor Fati is irreconciliable with the concept of the Übermensch. At least St. Max understood Ego was just a word and shouldn't be used as something to superimpose on other things.
>>8152355
I understand karma. But you don't seem to at all...
The Buddhist concept of karma is about how your actions affect how you cling to illusions, which keep you in samsara.
The point is to build "momentum" with "positive" karma while avoiding "negative" karma. (There are actually at least four different types, which regulate the system. Like surpressing other karma, neutral, ignoring other karma effects because it is OP karma and whatnot. But that shit is an essay and a half. Do your research.)
The simplified explanation of what "positive/negative" is, is based on the Three Poisons and their "positive" counterparts. Therefore cetana (intention) is a factor here. Which is why I made the "Don't think of a blue elephant!" comparison. Especially because Gautama also applied concepts of reincarnation, similar to the Brahmanism he already knew. (And yes, there is a whole thing about different types of karma and when they take effect ON YOU.) You literally have to forget ALL of this, so that your intentions are truely born from real love and compassion.
It isn't as much an intellectual problem (because oneness and dependant origination and whatnot), but it puts the practitioner in an unnecessarily difficult position. Meditation itself is difficult enough to do without goals in mind. Adding an entire system of "flavours" of kamma, is just unfair. Not to mention the "worlds", which are theological in nature in imho not in line with the rest of his thought and more culture than anything.
I am of the strong oppinion that these "side concepts", which clearly were carried over culturally, do harm. In particular I am of the oppinion that these concepts are the origins for the violence propagated BY Buddhists. You will notice that the vast majority of Buddhist violence is within Theravada Buddhism, where there is still an emphasis on these concepts.
In most Mahayana schools, the more "mystical" aspects are less big or gone. And the only real occurance of violence there, was in WW2 Japan, where the reasoning was also based on "long term karma" and the weighing of life.
The fancy version of karma does the exact opposite of what is intended. So I lean more towards good old Rinzai karma, which is all about shutting the fuck up and sitting down.
>>8151201
This seems to be extremely egoistic. Think of the children.
>>8152200
the history of the buddha is a hagiography. see >>8151412
>>8152411
right. i was indeed using the term hinduism in a quite vague and inaccurate sense imlpying the culture of india. i was just trying to give a wide picture in a few words for the passing litizen. but back to it, how can the sramanic movement be anterior to the development of the culture? that needs no empirical or historical verification because it would simply mean your random tribe in the middle of the amazon living in nature. the point of the definition is lost. if they had been completely unconnected then you wouldnt find references to the same or similar cultural ideas and would certainly find completely unrelated ones. which is not quite the case.
i mean yes, inside the indian world, all that came out of the sramanic tradition is different than the vedic tradition, but that doesnt mean it is not on the same cultural ground, or it would be accurate to say that buddhism is as unrelated to the brahmanic religion as taoism or pyrrhonism or any animistic cult from the pacific.
but ok, im reaching here my limit because i havent really gone deep into the historic part of it. because if you say that there are scholars placing it before the vedic development then i would say that the organization of these sramanic ways, even if at first unrelated to the inexistent or vedic religion, later came into concrete forms, namely the nastika, in reaction to the well established vedic movement. because if not, then you are putting at the same level buddhism or jainism and the way a random ascetic created for himself and never shared.
>>8152725
Third party here.
>In most Mahayana schools, the more "mystical" aspects are less big or gone.
What about Tibetan Buddhism? Or are you putting Vajrayana out of Mahayana?
>>8152725
Yeah I get where you are coming from, and I mostly agree. Karma and rebirth are to me the most convoluted part of the whole Dharma, and I also feel it might be a "leftover" from the preexisting hinduist belief.
I agree that putting too much emphasis on the theory of Kama can be harmful to the overall practice, but I think you are still wrong about the "blue elephant", mainly because of the cetana aspect you mentioned.
Doing things in order to get a better Karma would imply an egotistical mindset, and therefore it would be a "less good Karma". Thinking in these terms, it might make sense why the whole thing was taught by buddha. If you do a good deed, even though you are Ayn Randing it and doing it because of your ego, it will still be a good deed overall. It will still be good to everybody else, it's just not that good to your own development in the spiritual path, as opposed to doing it for altruistic reasons.
So I think the point of it is that by doing good you are still developing yourself, just not as much. A lot of the Buddha's theory of how the mind works is based on the concept that you will have an inclination towards what you think, right? And since body and mind are one, your good deeds on body will have an effect on your mind. And maybe by doing good deeds over and over you would still develop your mind and think better thoughts.
To me, there's a "fake it untill you make it" mentality to it that I actually think is quite beneficial, if you don't get lost in the details. But Buddha himself was very wary of the technicallities of his own practice, so I guess he might have thought this way as well.
P.S.: how can you say in Mahayana schools the "mystical" aspects are gone? To my admitedly small understanding of that school, it's the most mystical of all, with a huge emphasis on the Lotus Sutta and the whole cosmological aspect of buddhism...
>>8152780
Yeah, he might, since Vajrayana to me is the most representational of the Mahayana school. You could argue that Zen is also Mahayana, but to me it's a completely different beast altogether by now.
How to get into meditation? I mean in non-religious way
>>8152813
Buddhism is a pretty great way to get into it in a non-religious way, tbqh
I first got into it with "Mindfulness in Plain English" though.
>>8152772
Obviously, but there is such a thing as a historical Siddharta Gautama. Obviously the taxonomies we apply are mostly based on the very early "research" put in by the British colonizers. Rupert Gethin has a very good book on this topic.
It's like calling the theory of relativity "Einsteinism".
Still, I'd argue that the development of Gautama Buddha at least illustrates how he divorced himself from many common concepts. Most of which born from a saparation from mind/soul and body, rather than those just being to perceptions of another thing entirely.
>>8152810
Yeah, Chan/Zen are probably too different. But for the sake of the argument I left them in Mahayana.
>>8152780
I view it as seperate. Mainly because of the heavy influence the local theologies had on it.
Still, one could argue that that form of "politicized Buddhism" is equally problematic.
(I am annoyed with all this overhyped Tibet-loving, tbqh. They have their issues and the Dalai Lama isn't exactly a saint.)
>>8152795
"Fake it untill you make it" is a very problematic method. Even within modern psychology/neurology.
It works for very simple things like "smiling to feel more happy". But only if your base condition is not too much off.
Probably the most harmful thing to come out of self-help/esoterics is "positive affirmation". That shit is deadly to anyone with real issues. It's just a lie. And that is imho what is problematic, I think. Engraining a behavior despite your true feelings will engrain exactly that pattern: Faking it.
And it isn't really in tune with the Buddistic idea of how your behavior should work.
Probably the best example is "Right Speech", of the eightfold path, which is essentially "If you have nothing nice or useful to say, don't say anything at all."
Abstaining from "negative" behavior is a better solution to a negatively set mind than "lying via behavior". All assuming, obviously, that you are continuing your practice.
@PS: Honestly, I think all that taxonomy is just BS and emphasises to us that we must be vigilant with the useless add-ons the various cultures had. It will be interesting to see how Buddha Dharma will develop in the Americas and Europe, since we already have established philosophies which similarly dismiss antiquated concepts, came up with similar ideas and have people who are generally more "practical" in their beliefs.
Prolly why Zen is taking off the way it is.
>>8152653
I have not read any complete sections from the Canon, I've only read certain passages and chunks from it although some of them were many pages, I don't remember the names of them though. Reading entire sections of the canon or reading it entirely is something that can be very rewarding and worthwhile but its something thats not necessary to sufficiently understand Buddhism especially if you read good books about it that use extensive references and selections from the PC.
Many books by westerners on Buddhism are not very good and I have heard that Ingram's books like the one you mentioned are not very good and misrepresent Buddhism. Of course not all books by westerners on it are bad though but the more pop-culture ones naturally are more popular in the west which is where the stereotype comes from. The book "What the Buddha Taught" (revised & expanded edition) by Walpola Rahula is very good and contains many passages from the PC and constantly cites it throughout the book when describing Buddha's teachings. Rahula was born in Sri Lanka and become a theravada monk there but learned english and became the first monk to teach at a western university so he has very good credentials. Another really good book I would recommend is "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikku Bodhi (westerner), its very good and is around 500 pages almost entirely of selected passages from the Pali Canon that are selected and discussed in order to best present and help one understand Buddhism, the Dalai Lama wrote a foreward praising it.
>>8152863
Well, the "fake it" mentality should be done in harmony with the practice, so you should always be striving to Right Intention while doing the Right Action.
It's also easier to get "Right Action" down before "Right Intention", since the later implies a much better control of your mind. But the whole system was taught to be interconnected as a whole. By working on one of the "sides" of the wheel, you would be improving on all the other ones indirectly. So by forcing yourself to Right Action you would be, according to Buddha, getting nearer Right Intention as well.
>>8152887
I wouldn't say Rahula being a Sri Lankan Buddhist was a positive, like Thai Buddhism It was HEAVILY influenced by Christian rationalism and western modernism.
>>8152887
I've also read "What the Buddha Taught". It was my first contact with the practice, and I agree it's pretty good.
Never read anything original by Bhikku Bodhi, but my version of the Mhajjhima was translated by him and he does a great job at explaining Pali concepts in english language. Will try to get my hands on that book.
>>8152906
But it isn't "Right Action" without "Right Intention".
You are separating mind and body, m8.
>>8152926
I get it, but the same would be appliable to all wouldn't it? It's not Right anything without the other 7 Right Stuff. And although the best way is obviously to strive to reach all of them at the same time, in practice is pretty damn hard wouldn't you agree?
Maybe, in great Buddhist fashion, they are and aren't the same thing.
>>8152942
They're all the same. That's the point. And that is why we meditate.
And you can still have inclincations. It is easy for me to concentrate, but I tend to not shut up when I ought to, whenever I am nervous (or drunk). Both are better with practice. But they are both born from the same place.
>>8152958
>And that is why we meditate.
No, you meditate because you're under the false premise that It's principle to Buddhism.
>>8152966
No, I meditate because it's just the easiest way (to get started with).
>>8152813
"[...]just close your eyes nigga" - tyler the creator
>>8152813
Just google "mindfulness meditation" or "zazen".
This:
>>8152823
Is a good beginners book tho.
Just sit upright and breathe. Don't get hung up on whatever thoughts may pass by. Closing eyes is optional. Lotus is optional. Even walking meditation is an option but most people prefer to sit. Calmer that way.
bupm
I left open a long thread, thinking it to be discussions of meditation, the ego and its relations to ethics.
Now I read it and it's about Buddhism vs. Hinduism and who's misinterpreting what..
>>8154317
thats where you get the lit gems. i only browse waiting for these threads to show up.
What's the endgame study of ethics?
>>8154337
Ecology.
>>8154339
Why?
>>8154342
I don't think I can properly explain currently.
>>8154337
Either extinction of the human race (and maybe a few other animals) or some kind of mass control. There may be a third or more options.
Morality and ethics is partly about getting people to act/think/view things in a certain way, so if there's no room for that sort of difference then there's no room for any debate around ethics.
>>8154337
nihilism
A History of Mindfulness 10. Meditation Before the Buddha
>>8154348
Is it the old (I think it was the rhizome dudes (it's Sunday and I'm tired so my memory isn't working) example in that bazillion plateaus) humans may conflict but mother nature always wins like that painting of the two guys fighting in quicksand?
>>8154339
this.
ecology is the way western science in general and physics in particular will finally arrive at the same conclusions all these easterns arrived ages ago. it will be ineteresting what concrete shape will they give to it, because the whole thing is antithetical with the basic principles of science. lets see what story the human mind creates to reconcile them.
>>8154357
I'm talking about sustainability in general.
>Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills
Is the elimination of suffering preferable to the continuation of life?
Has anyone of you wannabe monks read pic related? I've been meaning to get it in print form, but only found the pdf version from accesstoinsight...
>>8154370
>but he cannot will what he wills
That's wrong according to my best bro Gottama tho
>>8154411
Explain?
>>8154411
Well, a lot of the Buddhist way of thought is based on the premise that your mind will have a natural inclination towards what it thinks about most.
So you would be shaping it to be a good mind by constantly being aware of the thoughts, and only "feeding" the beneficial ones. That would weaken the prejudicial ones, which would get less and less constant until they just vanish.
In the end, this is a way to will what you will, since you are constantly "willing" yourself to have a better "will", until it would become second nature. It's a way to shape your intention.
That is, if I understood the meaning of your expression correctly.
>>8154444
>based on the premise that your mind will have a natural inclination towards what it thinks about most.
Sure, but why would the inclination reflect reality?
>which would get less and less constant until they just vanish
>until they just vanish
Proof?
>It's a way to shape your intention
Of course.
>>8154474
>Sure, but why would the inclination reflect reality?
What do you mean? Reality of what? The reality of you wills? It's a subjective reality, what your mind is inclined towards will shape how it works.
>Proof?
Are you seriously asking for proof on a philosophical/religious idea about the subjective inner workings of your mind? You will never find any objective proof other than by looking at an experienced practitioner and evaluating how happy he feels.
But this belief exists in a lot of the more modern pshycology methods of therapy, and that's the closer you will get of an "objetcive proof" that it could be true.
>>8154488
>what your mind is inclined towards will shape how it works
Yes, but why would we have an intuitive understanding of factors which did not influence our evolution? Cognitive bias shouldn't be ignored.
>Are you seriously asking
Obviously it can't be proven.
>>8154444
did buddhists invent cbt?
>>8154501
CBT is a little different. What that anon is talking about is quite internal. For cbt there's much less of a focus on becoming aware of your own internal processes. CBT also tends to moralise or have "being happy" as an end point, and tends to pathologise detractors from this process. Buddhism tends to be less bothered about such things.
Is there a most Lutheran interpretation of Buddhism? A following where you hold onto what causes you suffering in order to humble yourself?
>>8154501
the dhamma begins with what they call Right view. The dhamma finishes with the embodiment of Right view [which is happiness] plus the knowledge of the Right view and of the embodiment of right view
>>8154518
There is the theory of Boddhisatva, which is a practitioner who refrains from reaching the "full enlightenment" in order to keep teaching the Dhamma to other people by being reborn over and over.
It has some similarities to what you said Lutheranism was about, but the Buddha himself viewed the practice of penitence and asceticism as misguided attempts to reach Nibbana. The Boddhisatva theory didn't appear in the original Pali Canon, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm actually a bapthised Lutheran, but never bothered learning it.
I hate this fucking world, too many god damn fuckers in it.
Too many thoughts and different societies all wrapped up together in this fucking place called AMERICA.
Everyone has their own god damn opinion on every god damn thing,
and you may be saying 'Well what makes you so different?'.
Because I have something only me and V have; SELF AWARENESS.
Call it exortenstiolism or whatever the fuck you want.
We know what we are to this world, and what everyone else is.
We learn more than what caused the civil war and how to simplify quadratics in school.
We've been watching you people and we know what you think and how you act.
All talk and no action.
People who are said to be brave or courageous are usually just STUPID,
then they say later that they did it on purpose cause they're brave,
when they did it on fucking accident.
God everything is so corrupt and so filled with opinions and points of view,
and peoples own little agendas and schedules.
This isn't a world any more.
It's H.O.E and no one knows it.
Self awareness is a wonderful thing.
>>8154501
There were many philosophies that touched on the concept of "You are what you do repeatedly."
In that sense it is similar. And right now there is the so called "third wave of CBT", which mainly revolves around awareness/mindfulness and related concepts. There is good scientific foundation for it to have clinical value for some types of disorders and biographies. But it isn't the cure-all some new agers or pop-science media likes to make it.
But it helps immensely with stuff like depressive relapse.
Historically, however, CBT is purely based on psychological research (as opposed to psychoanalytic schools of thought), with some cognitive science and basic ethics/humanism mixed in a bit later on.
The similarities are purely due to the fact that they studied the same thing.
>>8154496
>why would we have an intuitive understanding of factors which did not influence our evolution? Cognitive bias shouldn't be ignored.
It's not really "intuitive" in the sense that you need to investigate how your own mind works in order to comprehend it, eventhough the "faculty" of intuition does play a big role in Buddhist thought.
I don't understand how Cognitive Bias is appliable when dealing with your own mind and how you think it works. The action of wanting or willing it to work in a different way plays a big part in shaping how it works, so "cognitive bias" shouldn't really be used in this area. Maybe I misunderstood what you asked, but the act of "proving" that my mind is working a certain way is completly irrelevant, since it's a subjective experience anyways, and the concept of cognitive bias would be the influence of our subjective upon the objective right? In this matter, we are using the subjective to deal with subjective.
>>8154638
Not him, but a cognitive bias related to many concepts in Buddhism.
Cognitive biases are essentially established modes in which you (chose) to perceive, interpret and react to the world on a more automatic level. They are mostly learned and are activated when people use less of their cognitive faculties (unmotivated, tired, topic is too complex to understand instantly, etc.)
Which has a lot to do with the three poisons and/or what happens when certain aspects of the Eightfold Path are not practiced. In a way they are the exact opposite of mindfulness.
>>8151301
>tfw working towards them, just haven't reach that much progress yet.
>>8154692
Interesting, but Jhanas should be used to investigate reality: they should be the base on which you practice vipassana.
So what's the point of getting in a Jhana if you won't be able to investigate anything when you get there? Honest question.
>>8154653
Well, then Cognitive Bias is never ignored by a good practitioner.
>>8154713
Any book recommendations on cognitive bias?
>>8154711
>So what's the point of getting in a Jhana if you won't be able to investigate anything when you get there? Honest question.
the dhamma begins with right view.
if anything, the jhanas makes you understand that
-you can have the highest pleasures on your own
-the highest pleasures comes form losing your will and your body
once you want to be happy and once you understand that you remain hedonist, (which leads you to right view), you like jhanas more than anything, but once you go out of them, you are able to reach vipassana in reflecting on the noble truths (since you have heard them before).
Listen to the talks and Q&A of ajhan DTUN here >>8151230
especially where he talks about his stream entry
>>745953
only the eternal return changes your life since it means that as soon as you accept dukkha over and over as in a samsara, as soon as you stop despising life, as soon as you stop being a nihilist, your existence changes in accessing a different perspective on existence. the eternal return is a surrender, an abdication of your self before your sufferings and joys stemming form your failure to fulfil your wish to live in hedonism, in avidity towards pleasures and aversion towards pains. once you abdicate, you destroy (mundane) hedonism.
>>8154444
this post inspired me to stop drinking desu
>>8154444
I think I need to print this out and keep it in my living space. The mind is ultimately an instrument of the self, and not the self itself
>>8154444
>>8157887
that is upside down. you are taking for granted the self and think of the mind as a manageable object by that self guided by the will.
what is actually fix is the mind and its workings. the self and the will are devices created by the mind to guide us into action. the point of these spiritual ways is to be aware of the workings of the mind and not take those practical devices it presents us as facts, because that can derail us into human catastrophe.
>>8157915
No, the point of spiritual practice is to refine and strengthen the presence of the spirit. The mind is an apparatus, an evolutionary crown, and the spirit is known through the mind. Spirit being consciousness, ultimately lucidity.
>>8157927
The entire point of the philosophy is that there is no difference between mind/spirit and body, chucklehead.
The whole plot point leading up to the golden middle is supposed to illustrate that and is flat out said in the canon.
Stop repeating what you saw in movies.
>>8157951
Not quite the entire point of it, just one of the main aspects.
I don't think he is wrong by saying that ultimate lucidity (which he labeled to be spirit) is known through mind, since vipassana is basically that, to experience reality with the ultimate focus until you finally dispell all misconceptions about it.
The whole point is not to illustrate that mind/body are one, that is considered one of the illusions you would dispell (the duality, that is).
>>8154637
do you have any recommendations to start working on not being a pessimistic drunk by myself?
>>8157965
That's what I meant. It is neither one or the other. Both are just (illusory) aspects of something else entirely. But to label that "something else" as spirit or labeling it at all is certainly not part of Buddhism. Quite the opposite, namely anatman, the rejection of the notion of atman.
>>8152343
nietzsche didn't even understand darwinism or socialism, let alone buddhism.
he should have stuck with talking about the greeks because that's pretty much all he was knowledgeable about.
>>8150899
>end-game of ethics
ethics is a no-end game. it is just there to be played endlessly, it is a mode of existence inherent to humanity.
>>8157975
If enlightenment is the graduation of this reality to the next greater one, and enlightenment is something to be known (id est, a state of being), then yes there is something to be known. Whether it makes you superior or not is a question that makes no difference to this simple truth.
>>8157951
How practical is that? Typing it out is one thing, realizing it - actually living it - is another. So it was said it in the canon. But you can't change your body by just thinking it. For the pedants: yes, you can, but only after the integration of the thought with the act, propelled by will, with and by attention - consciousness. This is why I wrote what I wrote and phrased it like I did.
>>8157993
First of all: Quit drinking. Cold turkey. Don't drink again until you fully understand your motivations.
Don't make excuses until then. That "one drink for relaxation" will quickly turn into several. And don't look for negative coping mechanisms as replacement. Look for a positive one like tea or exercise. (Google positive/negative coping mechanisms for more info.)
Also sleep properly and eat properly and get some sunlight.
Secondly, you might want to consider hitting up a CBT therapist. I don't know how serious your issues are, but at the very least talking to a neutral and non-judgmental third party a couple times will give you insight. Maybe you have depression, maybe you are just an alcoholic, maybe you just need someone to set you straight.
The first meeting should be free. If not and you lack the cash or insurance for more, check for local free alternatives. Schools usually offer free counseling (often these are therapists themselves). But sometimes there are other alternatives. Your city should have a list on their website.
DO NOT go to AA meetings. They don't work and some studies even suggest that they could be harmful.
>>8158016
well, that is not false but still defines things in the terms of the old reality, which makes no sense because it is not even wrong.
>>8158003
On this topic, I've recently started reading the upanishads, and to me the notion of the Atman or the Great Self isn't all that departed from the Buddhist view. If I understood correctly, the Self is still considered a part of the "purusha", which would be the All. The difference is that they taught the Body to be a veicle for the Self, but the end of the journey is still the All Pervading Purusha, so the end is still the Non-duality, right?
Maybe the Buddha was dealing more with the misconceptions of the schools of Hinduism in his time and the way they were practicing it, rather than going against the religion in itself?
I need to research this topic further.
>>8158016
But you can change your body "just with your mind".
Meditation actively alters the morphology of your brain, m8.
Did you honestly think that the practice was just about some kind of mystical change of perspective?
Divorcing mind from body is not only often harmful (since you are essentially divorcing yourself from all things), but simply increasingly ludicrous from a scientific point of view.
The reason why practice is a good idea instead of just knowing it intellectually is because of said neurology. Areas of the brain which take care of stuff like individualism are overly dominant. Especially in non-collectivist cultures. Meditation changes that.
>>8158057
>I need to research this topic further.
please do.
>>8158057
>Maybe the Buddha was dealing more with the misconceptions of the schools of Hinduism in his time and the way they were practicing it, rather than going against the religion in itself?
Obviously, which imho led to many of the odder sides of the Buddha Dharma (like karma theory). He was obviously heavily influenced by Brahmanism. Also the canon isn't exactly first-hand or anything. It was written down something like 200 years later.
They are still "part of all", in a more qualitative sense. You know, blind men and the elephant and all that jazz. The problem being that when we single out such qualities, we tend to overextend their meaning, distorting the truth.
This is one of the reasons many people see connections between Buddhism and phaenomenology.
>>8158028
I'm the kind of guy that can go without a drink for weeks but as soon as I take one I'm keeping my glass full until I am unconscious.
During the first half bottle or so it cheers me up but nearing the end of the session my state of mind gets so dark that I end up in fetal position on the floor mumbling about suicide to myself desu.
Still, it's hard for me not to have those first few drinks since those are the ones I associate with fun. I keep walking into the trap.
I appreciate the advice, mate.
>mfw this thread
>>8158064
This sounded so passive-agressive I need to ask, what made you think my view was wrong?
>>8158087
>connections between Buddhism and phaenomenology.
Could you elaborate on this topic?
>>8158090
I know. Me too. That's why I understand the position you are in.
At some point you will learn to know the difference. Make a habit of looking very closely at the impulse. Even if you won't be drinking later.
Alcohol is one of the few drugs where most people can learn to use it normally, even after addiction.
Still. You may want to consider how important it is to you and if you maybe could do without entirely. And don't let cultural convention make up your mind for you.
Or something like going without a drink for months/years instead of weeks and starting slow again when you were forced to learn how to deal without.
>>8158117
I haven't looked too closely into it. But here in the West I have seen many textbooks and college courses i.e. compaing Dogen Zenji with Heidegger or Hegel.
But I guess the basic notion of viewing things as phenomena rather than "individual things" is quite similar to the Buddha Dharma's notion of interdependancy.
>>8158090
>>Still, it's hard for me not to have those first few drinks since those are the ones I associate with fun.
not him
understand that if drinking and having were solutions to whatever problem you think you have, then you would not have to do them again, day after day or week after week.
The repetition of this attempt to fun (thru drinking or other activities by normies) is exactly the inefficiency of hedonism of the will+body. It is not a solution. It is exactly dukkha. The opposite of dukkha is finding a *irremediable* way to have the purest yield to be happy.
The most difficult task in your life is to reject your mediocrity, aka the mediocrity of material hedonism, to stop taking seriously what you think and feel (to the point where you stop acting on them), to stop doing what you have always been doing, to take a ''equanimous'' stance towards what you think and feel, in order to depart from them (this brings you the jhanas) and then understand that nothing that you are conscious of will save you. (in other words, you even reject the jhanas).
>>8151170
Dissatisfactoriness.
>>8158090
Buddhism and specially meditation can help you deal with those thoughts and with the lack of will to "stop while you are ahead". Self-consciousness is the only true cure.
>>8158119
Have you successfully moderated your drinking so far?
I generally feel more cheerful when I stay sober since I don't have to deal with the blank shame that comes with hangovers after having blacked out, but one of the problems with not drinking at all is that I no longer have a social life beyond my nuclear family. I don't even text people back unless I have ten drinks in me.
I suspect that drying up completely would separate me from the few 'normal' aspects of my life.
>>8158179
>I don't even text people back unless I have ten drinks in me.
>I suspect that drying up completely would separate me from the few 'normal' aspects of my life.
Well, it seems like the cause for your drinking is a lack of confidence in yourself m8.
I had to learn how to enjoy myself and the company of others without any soft drugs before I could take them in a "healthy" manner (or at least no binge drinking and getting high all the time at all the parties). To me, enjoying sobriety to the fullest by itself it a must to control yourself when you are not sober.
>>8158186
To me it feels like I have more confidence when I'm sober to the degree that I stand up for myself beyond convention.
for the alcoholic fags: that kind of behavior is just your mind calling attention to the fact that you hate (something in) your life and that you know it but refuse to do something about it (dukkha?). all the 'treatments' just switch the symptom to a socially acceptable, but equally self disruptive, form, while leaving the cause intact.
the buddha could just go live in nature and see how the human entity works and then make a story our of his experience. we on the other hand cant leave this society, all we can do it try alternative ways to live in it. we are pretty much fucked, because the only way to solve the dukkha riddle is going to nature after ones mind has been opened again (the 1st time was infancy) due to a chronic period of sufferig or uneasiness, and remake a worldview through learning which will hopefully be functional this time, ie allow us to live without or with minimal dukkha.
>>8158179
Yes. Obviously I slip up sometimes, but the trick is to let it be just a slip up and keep going.
Think of it as "practicing to do it without drinking" as opposed to "doing it by drinking".
So it would be a good idea to quit until you don't require it anymore.
Not to mention that it is contributing to you psychological issues. You know. The usual vicious cycle.
>>8158213
Then maybe it's an over attachment to ego? The fear of getting yourself "pulled down" to the same level of the other people? Or doing something stupid and being attacked in a personal level?
>>8158062
>a mystical change in perspective
Yes, because it is a way of being. A lifestyle. Anything less is for dilettantes and pundits. But even with all your presumptions, we aren't disagreeing. You have your methodology, and I have mine, and if we are lacking in insight, nature will impel us to correct it.
>>8158252
I'd still argue that a "mystical perspective" is still, at it's core, one side of a dichotomy.
Even if you feel I am simply taking the "other side of the perspective", perhaps it can still give you some useful input.
>>8158214
Gautama Buddha didn't just walk out of society tho. That doesn't work. Golden Middle and all that.
>>8158252
Buddhism is often said to be the only activity you can practice everywhere you go.
Both are right, in the sense that it is both a practice and a way of living.
>>8158271
>Gautama Buddha didn't just walk out of society tho
He kinda did bro, and even left his son and qt behind. He only "returned" (still living in the fringes of society) after enlightenment.
>>8158270
>mystical perspective
>mystical change in perspective
There is a difference. A mystical change is an ontological one.
>I'd still argue
I won't.
>>8158275
Then we just have different senses of the word "mystical". To me it is quite pregnant with the supernatural.
>>8150899
buddh lookin fly as hell w/ that beach bod an the studbble on der keep werkin it siddy
>>8158273
Exactly. He left for the sake of asceticism and realized that that wasn't the right way to do it.
>>8158539
I mean, do you consider living near society the same thing as living in society? He was above it, so in a way he never really returned. To me, the expression "to live in society" means more the way we live and comform to the "rules" shared by the people living in it, not by physically living in it.
just a semantic detail in the end, I guess.
>>8158569
Yes, I do. Society, at its core, is just us humans living together and trying to make it work as best we can. Nothing unenlightened about that.
Secondly, he didn't spend the rest of his days in eternal bliss. After his enlightenment, he did have "karma" and dukkha. I think we overestimate what his enlightenment meant, because he did it with little knowledge of what was going to come. Now we just kind of know. And when a student in, say, a Zendo runs to his teacher and tells him about how he truely realized all things are one and all knowledge was within him all the time and all that jazz, the answer is usually "K. Go back to sitting."
At least some version of enlightenment happens all the time. And it seems amazing, obviously, but it doesn't really mean much.
Case in point: Shoko Asahara. That dude meditated like a madman (pun intended), with pretty much self-taught/constructed narrative, had such an experience and literally freaked out.
And I'm starting to think that such "spiritual experiences" may be the reason why many religious fanatics become so overly sure about their ideology. Just saying. Stick a Muslim in a kimono and let him pray and there wouldn't be much difference to what goes on in a Zendo.
So to get back on topic:
We are social. There is nothing wrong with taking part in social life, however you may construct it. Barring declaring yourself Christ and trying to kill a lot of people.
>>8158644
Indeed, having the experience of feeling the All can be quite intense. I've felt it in a very intense way after eating some mushrooms once, and it was just pure bliss. However, you get into this state of overconfidence really easily when you are experiencing it, and objective reality starts to blurr itself with the subjective one. It's pure bliss, and absolutely frightening at the same time.
Now I'm trying to experience it in a more controlled state with meditation and yoga, but that experience will never leave me. Religious experience, the glimpse of the All, is just one step removed from psychosis really. Controlling it is what matters most, but it's way too easy to get sucked into it and lose your center in the process.
>>8158649
after almost 200 answers finally someone hit it.
>>8158665
Stuff like shrooms and LSD are different, m8. They essentially bombard you brain with sensless (sensorical) input and it tries desperately to make a coherent picture out of it.
Obviously that will also fuck with your perception of where you end and everything else begins. But really it's artificial.
Meditation is about seeing things how they really are. Including the interdependance of it all.
But yeah, the emotions involved would be quite similar.
>>8158707
I used to think like that, but now I think LSD and shrooms may have an use in the spiritual path. I know it's not the same thing, but if you are meditating, you are basically trying to perceive the world through your 6 senses (the "mind" faculty being one of them). So, if you can control the experience of your senses while on those drugs, I think they can make you "jump" from one state to another.
That is, if you don't get stuck in your own mind or in your subjective representation of the trip. Read a little on mushrooms, they actually act in a lot of the same areas as the meditation does. And empirically, I can only control my trip well when I am meditating a lot beforehand. Of course, I will never know if what I felt was the "real deal", but the way the Buddhists, Neoplatonists and Hinduists talk about the religious experience is really accurate to what I went through.
Not that I would actually advise anyone to do it, when there's a much better and more controlled way to do it.
>>8158707
LSD, yes. Shrooms, I severely doubt it. I've done shrooms and to say that the experience was merely sensory overload is a poor estimation. At worst it is synthesia, at best the alteration of consciousness, the communication of an intelligence greater than the average persons.
>>8158738
Well, at most it will confront you hands on with how feeble your perception of reality and self are and probably give you a more open disposition to, well, less rigid concepts regarding them.
Probably the reason for their clinical value.
So maybe once, as a jump start, if you can't help yourself. And I know of people who do it once a year, as a general "reset".
But as you said. Just meditating is safer in many ways. And probably has more benefits.
>>8158753
Read up on the neurology of it all. LSD is simply much more potent.
It is generally a very bad idea to take drugs without fully understanding what they do. Not only does that give you a properly informed decision health-wise, but also about if that is in line with whatever you want to do with your mind.
>>8158771
Have you taken either?
>>8158771
>LSD is simply much more potent.
It's not that simple. Different mollecules, acting on different sites of the brain, causing different effects.
>>8158822
>But both do the 5-HT2a thing, essentially.
Thing is, we don't even know if serotonin is actually the mollecule responsible for the trip. And the brain is a much more complex organ than you are painting it to be. See, the same neurotransmitter can have absolutely jarring effects if it acts on different parts of the brain.
The Brain works in a much more hollistic and integrated way than other organs, so it's really not useful to think in the same concepts of "well, if it's the same mollecule, it gotta do the same thing" like would be the rule for most other systems in our body. If you activate 2 distinct areas, they can synergize, antagonize or simply act appart each other. It's absurdly hard to "map" the effects of a drug that effects so many different pathways and areas in the brain as LSD and psilocybin, so saying they are essentially the same thing is an oversimplification that misses the point completly.
>>8158851
I understand that and I agree. (Though the premliminary studies do seem to point to it screwing the the regions which perceive and interpret information.)
But again, that wasn't the argument I was making in the first place. They are the same in the sense that they produce artificial experiences.
That isn't to say that that makes them evil or useless or that you can't learn "real" things from a trip. The reopened clinical trials certainly point to it being at least a little useful for certain patients.
All I am saying is that the comparison of hallucinogenic states and "meditative euphoria" is lacking. Especially from a Buddhistic perspective. There is a reason the vast majority of the traditions categorically reject psychotropic drugs of that sort.
The only reason I am pointing it out, is because it could harm the practice in the long run, if he really does meditate.
>>8158891
Yeah, I'm not advocating it either, just clearing misconceptions, in the true buddhist fashion lol
>they produce artificial experiences.
We don't know that though. Even if I were to achieve Nibbana, what would make it "less artificial" than a trip? I would never be able to prove to you that I was in fact enlightened in any way, and there is a lot to say about how your brain pattern changes while meditating. Maybe it's also just a kind of trip, but with the internal substances of our body instead of external ones.
I think the only real, palpable advantages of the experiences I get while meditating and contemplating and whatnot is that they are much deeper (in the sense that to get to them you have to work much harder and change yourself much more) and more sustainable than the ones I got while tripping. It's "more real" only in the sense that I felt those experiences in all aspects of my life, rather than just a handful of hours. The way they felt, though, I can't say was that different.
>>8158941
Well, perhaps they are both (trips and meditation-induced euphoria) real/unreal in the sense that one should take both with a heavy spoon of salt in terms of how you relate them to "real things".
But I'd still argue that even meditative euphoria is, in a way, a natural state a human can be in. (Similar to trance states. Same extreme, other side of the spectrum, very similar results.)
I see less issue with these "naturally achieved" states, because you can reasonably assume that whatever the experience, there isn't anything "added to the mix". Even if you may not comprehend what happened. Especially when you are back out of the trip and try to make it coherent with a different cognition or even emotions.
All the while the huge issue with psychotropic substances are that most of the time it is near impossible to tell what is "altered state" and "random bullshit". Depending on the substance this varies, obviously. With a very safe and controlled setting, an LSD trip can be quite a clean and "rational" experience.
Perhaps I'm just a little hyper-vigilant about this, because I've had so much personal contact with people who took their trips for face value and subsequently increased their "delusions", rather than decreasing them, forming some kind of "radical esotericism". And that shit is a fast-track for an ego as big as Texas.
Whatever. Essentially we both agree that we ought to shut up and sit, I guess.
>>8158941
>Even if I were to achieve Nibbana, what would make it "less artificial" than a trip?
the intention is not the same and taking drugs shows that you fail to understand dukkha
>>8159843
>the intention is not the same
how so? If I take a drug in order to learn more about myself, how is that any different from meditation?
>taking drugs shows that you fail to understand dukkha
Don't be an edgy buddhist, not even Buddha liked those. You can get drunk or high sometimes without losing track of your satti practice buddy. The abstinence rule was created more as a way to control his inumerous disciples than as an actual rule to "understand dukkha". Read more, that dogmatic view of yours has nothing to do with actual buddhism.
>>8160451
>The abstinence rule was created more as a way to control his inumerous disciples than as an actual rule to "understand dukkha"
the rules are for normies like you who want the fruits without any practice.
also, people who take drugs trying to find whatever reality they imagine always whine that the effects fade and the sole idea which pops into their mind is ''I need to take the drug again''
>>8159001
>personal contact with people who took their trips for face value and subsequently increased their "delusions"
That can definitely happen, but it's easier to avoid if your main objective is to stay self-conscious. Taking psychotropic drugs repeatedly without time to properly "digest" those trips can be very harmful to your brain, since you will essentially create pathways you won't be aware of, and you can get lost in them and "go down the rabbit hole". As I said before, I wouldn't advocate them as of right now to anyone following the spiritual path, since I don't think they can do anything beneficial that meditation can't, and the latter is much safer, its effects much deeper and long-lasting. But I do think that research has to be made on the subject, since I can't deny the experiences I've had on them, and how transforming they were to me.
The intensity of the trip can be a bad or a good thing, depending on the person that goes through it, and maybe when we understand those substances better we can use them to "kickstart" a spiritual journey in a much more controlled way. Or maybe not, maybe they really are just harmful bullshit.
> Essentially we both agree that we ought to shut up and sit, I guess.
In the end, that's the only true and sure way to progress, that much we can agree on :)
>>8160485
>the rules are for normies like you who want the fruits without any practice.
heh, who said I want that? Good lord, you are projecting your views of people and the dhamma so hard, I am inclined to think you are just trolling at this point. Reality isn't always black and white, buddy, I am merely trying to discuss a taboo topic among other practitioners, and you are dismissing it in the most cliche'd way possible. Maybe read the thread before you make assumptions, you know, like a buddhist would?
> people who take drugs trying to find whatever reality they imagine always whine that the effects fade and the sole idea which pops into their mind is ''I need to take the drug again'
I am sensing a lot of first hand anecdotal experience here. Drugs can be a slippery slope down the wrong way, for sure, but if you have a good relationship with them, *some* can sometimes help you untie a specific knot on yourself or your practice- That's all I am defending right now. Im not forcing your or anybody else's hand on the matter, and I repeatedly said I also don't consider them to be the best path to enlightenment, just that dismissing them outright might be too dogmatic, especially on this day and age.
>>8160514
I don't think they can produce enlightenment in the same way that meditation can, as meditation acts through a dopamine feedback loop and amplifying gamma brainwaves, while psychs act on seretonergic pathways and cross-connecting areas of the brain. The "clear light" state of meditation that is the final subtle awareness state also doesn't seem to be achievable through psychedelics since it's characterized by lack of the dependent nature of reality that buddhism holds.
I think that while psychedelics can be used as a tool to shed light on what needs to be worked on, and offer access to perspectives different than that which you normally hold.
D R U G G I E S
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5731034
http://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5373596
>>8150899
These threads are a stark contrast to the rest of 4chan. I thank you
>>8160549
I like the idea of using a piece of cloth wrapped around my waist as a support for my hands. This is the thing I'm least comfortable with while meditating, and I end up just putting them on my knees in jñana mudrá
>>8160538
>psychedelics can be used as a tool to shed light on what needs to be worked on, and offer access to perspectives different than that which you normally hold.
Yeah, that's my point of view as well. I don't think one could achieve a sustainable Nibbana by psychs alone, but I do think that sometimes they can be used as a way to "break through" certain barriers in the practice, that would otherwiser take years of dilligent practice to surmount.
>>8160451
>The abstinence rule was created more as a way to control his inumerous disciples than as an actual rule to "understand dukkha".
I think it is also just good general advice for non-monks. At the very least it is a good idea to pace oneself and be very wary about any kind of drugs, alcohol included.
>The intensity of the trip can be a bad or a good thing, depending on the person that goes through it, and maybe when we understand those substances better we can use them to "kickstart" a spiritual journey in a much more controlled way. Or maybe not, maybe they really are just harmful bullshit.
Again, I think it depends.
Take MDMA and it's effect on relationships as an example. The experience can also be of a spiritual nature, when you can experience love/interdependentness as a sort of kick-start. Just to realize that the feeling exists at all.
However, it can be quite a crushing experience, when you use it, have an amazing time and form "connections", only to wake up the next morning and realize that that amazing experience was fake to its core.
Here again, it can be useful for a "hardened mind/heart", since it is a quick way to prove to yourself how large the capacity of your mind/emotions theoretically is. But it can be risky to place too much value on the subjective experience itself.
Apart from all of that, I also see a risk in the general tendency we have to be a bit too eager about "shortcuts".
>>8160538
I agree. But again, unless you are using it in a clinical setting, I'd argue you might as well just meditate. Sure, it is slower, but I suspect also more wholesome. I know the whole "The journey is the reward." thing is cliché. However, I feel a realization you came to "at your own pace" is probably a more stable one.
Still. I am carefully optimistic about the use of psychotropic drugs, LSD in particular, in clinical studies.
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.
all this is about the realization that we are one with with all and that all is one. you get that in taoism, get it in greece and in india as well. also in some non western tribes. the whole point is that human's existence is based on the device of consciousness, which might be 'incorrect' from an absolute point of view, but it is functional, that is how humans live their lives. usually this knowledge is only attained by a few or a single member of the group so he keeps the group's life within certain limits and effectively perpetuating itself. but it would be pointless if everyone knew the thing, there would be no society or life, because life can only be lived if you believe in the reality of your actions and the ideas that back it. and that has to be built collectively and overtime.
consciousness and its product, the ego, is not an illusion nor something wrong or that makes you inferior. it is the natural way we perceive things and we cant change that, no matter how 'enlightened' you are. the point is not changing what humanity is nor going against it, but just accepting it and living it without the additional drama that stems from taking that shared practical view to be absolute, which after some generations tends to happen and problems begin. shamans and this kind of spiritual ways are just a social device to prevent a massive stuck that will prevent social flow. like that mesh you put on the sink to retain big residues so it wont get stuck.
of course the western world is in a particular situation because society no longer maintains itself by social devices (like kinship, rituals etc) but by purely mechanical ones. that is why drugs are misused, and that is also why these ways, which are beginning to be truly discovered, will also be misused. because they are an easy fast way to experience that oneness, which can only be managed by someone whose life is dedicated to its knowledge and who then gives the rest of the group a practical device to make them avoid the pitfalls so they can live life without major worries.
>>8161014
The practice of Buddhism isn't to destroy the ego, m8. Just to be aware of it, just like everything else.
I feel like you have a very pop-culture understanding of what most of these traditions actually try to do.
>>8161014
>consciousness and its product, the ego, is not an illusion nor something wrong or that makes you inferior
Explain to me then how almost every single (if not all) act of what we would call "evil" or "wrong" stems from the ego, if it's not an illusion nor is it inferior.
>>8161014
yeah tibetans love this. too bad that the only wish from the tibetans is to become theravadan amirite
>>8161014
>but it would be pointless if everyone knew the thing, there would be no society or life, because life can only be lived if you believe in the reality of your actions and the ideas that back it. and that has to be built collectively and overtime.
Why do you assume that if everyone had this knowledge of the absolute, we wouldn't be able to still construct societal values and ideas overtime? Being aware that everything is an illusion doesnt imply we would all kill ourselves or go live as hermits in the mountains. If anything, being aware of it would imply a more sensible society.
>which can only be managed by someone whose life is dedicated to its knowledge
You seem to have a very romantic view of the spiritual path, like if you don't spend all waking hours thinking about the absolute it would shatter and you would lose it somehow. That's not how spirituality works. It's about self-awarenes, it's more a state of mind than it is an action or a study.
This is slightly off topic but someone on /sci/ got me interested in this and i was wondering what is some other Buddhist literature i should read?
>>8151140
>implying you can make things up
humans haven't made anything
>>8161023
well that is precisely what i said. where did i say it was to destroy it? re-read, because you just paraphrased a part of what i said and then tagged it with its opposite.
>>8161106
well that is answered in what i wrote. the ego is just a device, and it turns to 'evil' when this device is unregulated. as if someone grabs a kitchen knife to go kill someone. this doenst mean that the knife in the kitchen is an evil tool or that knives should be banned.
>>8161118
yeah ive heard the tibetan developments are not far from academics intellectualizing and debating far from practice. but ok thats just a hearsay because i have not actually directly checked it.
>>8161130
>a more sensible society
i would simply say a different one. if the knowledge generalizes it will simply take a new practical form that will eventually disregard the knowledge itself and will develop into a collective practice with its myths and roles (see james' 1st hand and 2nd hand religious experience). the human mind is not there to give us an ontological view of the world but to allow collective life by the design of practical models that are taken as reality, irrespective of its hypothetical actual laws or patterns.
and the romantic view is that of thinking one actually gets to know reality by a spiritual path. 'things as they are'. that is just skillful means to guide the behavior of those who cant really face the void because they still think there should be something. so, those who, voluntarily or not, had to face the void and saw that it is not a big deal can continue, but those who remain attached to that need of content, of reality, are then given a practical tool so they can still have that content but are not derailed into inhumanity. see >>8151195
>>8161369
>practical models that are taken as reality, irrespective of its hypothetical actual laws or patterns.
Yes, but there are still better (in the sense of more benefitial and pleasurable) and worse models of reality, even if you go to the subjectivity route.
>and the romantic view is that of thinking one actually gets to know reality by a spiritual path
as I said, the spiritual path is that of self-awareness. It's not there to give you magical, pre-made answers, it's there to make you question yourself. It's a way, in a sense, to help you shape your own reality.
>skillful means to guide the behavior of those who cant really face the void
Seeing the void is not understanding it, and understanding it is not dealing with it. The spiritual path is indeed a guide for your own relationship with the "void", it is indeed a practical tool. But as I said, by experiencing the "void" through the path, you are "knowing" reality, so that doesn't negate the usefulness of the "spiritual".
>the ego is just a device
Agreed. The attatchment to it is, I misunderstood your meaning.
>>8161420
well, better or worse need to be defined in relation to something. that is why i said different, because any qualification using adjectives takes for granted what is in question.
and for the rest i agree, specially with the recognition of the fact that the spiritual path is not meant to give you formulas but to allow you shape your own. thats a big point that is usually overlooked. however, that awareness at such an individual level that might be a special turn of modern societies, because such a thing would never be allowed or functional in a traditional society. if achieved at a mass scale it would be a prime for humanity, because it is antithetical to what a society is, at least as they spontaneously have formed so far.
>>8160605
vonmpo
how do monks defecate, do they have a special place in their kutie?
>>8163581
there exists a sangha of lesbians
>>8163581
If you dont eat you dont defecate
This thread is literally a capsule version of EVERY hipster/pseudo-intellectual discussion of Eastern philosophy and Buddhism.
>>8165053
Some of it. But there were some good points raised. Even the drug part was quite tame.
Also unless you have anything better to offer, you might want to dial down about 20% there.
Especially because this shit isn't exactly super accessible to anyone who wants to make a serious study out of it. It's like jumping into a Chinese Christianity thread in an anonymous cowboy cartoon forum and telling them just how pseudo-Christian they are.
>>8165053
>This thread is literally a capsule version of EVERY hipster/pseudo-intellectual discussion of Eastern philosophy and Buddhism.
found the plebbitor
buddhism does little to prove itself any different from Abrahamic religions in that its followers remain avoidant of displeasing Dad-god out of threat of pain or cognitive dissonance and are encouraged to channel all their energies into "turning the mystery crank" (dharma, asceticism, active sexual repression, work relevant to society or the tribe)
>>8166677
What 'dad god' exactly? How's "turning the mystery crank" any different from other forms of life, you're still just doing stuff until you die either way.
>>8150909
Kek
>>8166677
It's almost like you read the Buddha Canon right around before enlightenment and then stopped.
I don't know dude. Read Rupert Gethin. Or even just the wiki.
>>8166842
>How's "turning the mystery crank" any different from other forms of life, you're still just doing stuff until you die either way.
When then four women get rescued from the abusive cult leader's bunker, they're "just doing stuff" afterwards as well, but they have much more freedom in a much larger world, can explore their sexuality and emotions without guilt (or a cult leader beating them)
One of the girls appeared to like living in the bunker and turn mystery crank, it was simpler for her, when she got out she wanted to go back, that's her deal, but the rest of them were better off not living in an underground bunker because an insane old men kept them there.
>>8150944
How is that different from Epicureanism?
>>8167228
I'm pretty sure unlike abrahamic religions, the life of buddhist monks hasn't been forced on people en masse. In fact, buddhist nuns had to form their own sect just to be able to live a monastic life, as they were not allowed to join monasteries for fear they would distract the monks.
hedonism is the opposite of nibbana
the pinnacle of hedonism is solipsism, which collapses as soon as the solipsists notice that he controls nothing.
>>8167320
This was just in more recent times, however. In Buddha's time there were no rules agains bikkhunis
>>8167228
I don't know how you are comparing Buddhism to a cult. Guilt was never a part of Buddha's doctrine, and freedom to think by oneself was a big part of it.
Ajahn Chah: Part 2 - Ch38 - Unshakable Peace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl8_g3HAylg&index=21&list=PLoP5asjFOVFQ1ru5nJ8iKCgeyu7lt9r70
he discusses his first summation of the 4th jhana.
reminder that what people call morality is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is not* their self'' and what people call meditation is ''the tranquility and paramitas towards what they think *is* their self''.
>following formulas made by someone else
man, people are so lazy. i will make my own religion and im sure people will buy into it, no matter what i come up with as long as it gives them a way out of having to do something for themselves
>>8150902
asceticism
>>8167980
Literally what the Buddha taught. Just gave you the tools not to be an idiot about it.
>>8168038
well that means the human species is the most petty of the species, cause at best it can do by a hugely complex effort what other species do spontaneously, not to mention the possibilities of not succeeding in that path and all the potential terrible derails that can happen.
and even worse, history only teaches that those who achieve that complex path and for some reason get it shared only give more grist to the human stupidity's mill.
fuck the human mind. it is the root of our misery. we cant get rid of that misery, only manage it.
>>8151228
I like that pic a lot
>>8168304
>we cant get rid of that misery, only manage it.
If that's what you believe, than that's what you will get.
>>8167236
epicureanism is a form of negative hedonism but not all forms of negative hedonism are epicureanism.
>>8167829
Was that due to the sangha not being fully formed yet, or other reasons?
>>8168304
>cause at best it can do by a hugely complex effort what other species do spontaneously
Literally the opposite of what the Buddha taught.
It's very simple. There's nothing special to it.
The only reason it seems difficult and complex to you, is because you are holding on to that delusion.
Prolly because you have noticed that it can't be taught or understood very well just by thinking about it. But acting naturally is something you do, not something you know to do.
Also stop stressing the fuck out. Sit and meditate.
There is a reason this is seen as one of the few valid answers to people with problems.
Oh, and I have the suspicion you haven't realized that there is a difference between pain and misery. Might want to reflect on that, m8. Generally on the specifics of dukkha in Buddhism.
>>8169234
>It's very simple.
I know it is very simple in itself. it actually just goes by itself irrespective of our opinions. but talking about it in itself is useless because we are here and now living from the human perspective entangled in the spontaneous illusions that our lives as humans create. what is complex is not 'it', but realizing that simplicity. and that realization is what im talking about, that shift that will allow you to stop 'stressing the fuck out'.
once it is done yeah ok, you can say what you want, but my point is that that chilled state has to be worked by humans, while animals are just there by default without even the danger of derailing.
the misery im talking about is the minds creations. once you realize what they are and stop taking them for reality itself fine. you can manage them. but they wont stop. they are inherent to human life. that is the misery im takling about. not the dukkha that arises from taking them for reality.
>>8154337
social darwinism
>>8169526
What if it's white to move and draw?
>>8169531
Chess is an overrated autistic board game to be honest. The idea that it's a good exercise for the real world is mostly a meme.
>>8169551
8169551
>Chess is an overrated autistic board game
Nope.
>The idea that it's a good exercise for the real world is mostly a meme.
Of course, but it's mostly non chess players who think that. Anyone who's been to an open has seen the truth.
>>8169520
>but talking about it in itself is useless because we are here and now living from the human perspective entangled in the spontaneous illusions that our lives as humans create.
Not useless. Just secondary and not really necessary.
>but my point is that that chilled state has to be worked by humans, while animals are just there by default without even the danger of derailing.
First of all, chilling the fuck out and getting your head out of your ass has nothing to do with meditation. Just stop, take a step back, take a breather and ask yourself if you aren't just spouting bullshit and ought to rather shut up already. Stop trying so hard.
Secondly: No. We are not the only animals who can suffer. Animals are very capable to living with illusions of suffering. Granted, to get them there borders on torture. But it is possible. Or, you know, operant conditioning.
Thirdly: You really have to stop singleing out humans as if we are special snowflakes. We are not. From a Buddhistic perspective this is a really dumb thing to do. By passing judgement on "all humans", you are also making an assessment of THE ENTIRE FUCKING REST OF THE UNIVERSE. Do you really feel like you are in a position to do so? Do you have the balls to make any truth-statement about the universe?
Again. Delusional. And you don't need to meditate. You just need to stop. Meditation just helps you keep an eye on yourself.
>the misery im talking about is the minds creations. once you realize what they are and stop taking them for reality itself fine. you can manage them. but they wont stop. they are inherent to human life. that is the misery im takling about. not the dukkha that arises from taking them for reality.
The fuck are you even talking about? I'm serious. Make an example.
Do you know what you do, when you realize you are causing yourself suffering for no good reason? You stop. Again, meditation is more or less just being more aware about what you are doing in your mind. And then you either unlearn it (if it is a habit) or you just stop, realizing how dumb you have been. You let go.
I have the distinct feeling this whole "muh inherent suffering of the human condition" is nothing more than a fancy way for yourself to protect your precious precious self-pity. That and/or you are actually depressed and this is that whole "I'll never get better" thing.
OR you have fundamentally misunderstood dukkha. And failed to observe your own pain and suffering properly. In Buddhism there are three types of dukkha. Pain, suffering of change (shit you "get over", unless you cling to it) and "all-pervasive" suffering, which is, at its core, you inflicting pain on yourself because the universe isn't the way you imagine it should be. Which, again, is just you clinging to delusions which are stupid for multiple reasons. And are mostly just conditioned responses.
Dear god, man. If there ever was someone who needed a keisaku...
>>8169652
where could i start answering to that... lets do it in order: i agree, maybe useless was saying too much, you can do it but only after the main issue has been solved. like that arrow parable where the wounded man is worried not about healing his wound but about who threw it, what is it made of etc. once you are healed you can engage in those questions, but, true, you dont need to.
and yes of course animals can be brought to live in pain, but they will never cause that state by themselves. only humans can do it to them and to themselves. whats the difference there? and yes, you and me and any human being can make universal statements about humanity once they have got in touch with the human condition beyond the particularities of their concrete situations. otherwise we wouldn't be able to relate to anyone different from those who grew the same way we did, nor would we be able to understand how other people have sovled the human dilemma.
and whats with the whole meditation thing? you sound like you think it is some magical device that will do something. meditatin is just a fancy name for those who need to tell themselves and others that they are doing something in order to be able to stop doing and learn from that nonaction. meditation is some sort of mental fasting. when you fast the body doesnt just stop its metabolism. thatd be death. when you fast the body continues doing its shit to keep us alive. after some fasting and eating a few times and some observation one starts seeing how the body works. the mind is the same thing, and meditation is just some time to allow it to 'digest' ideas feelings etc. dreams and other like-phenomena work there too. what we get in consciousness is the end results from that. shit is, the western version of indian meditation is almost a fetish now. try comparing it with the chinese xin zhai (mind fast) and zuowang (sit and forget).
and i think youre just projecting the standard 'hurr all is suffering' into my words because maybe im using certain terms that you get in the angsty nonsense. i could not be more far from the resignation thing of diving in despair and justifying it by an universalisation of it. if you see that in what i said, check those categories you use, because the thing aint a black-or-white thing. maybe the word misery was not the right one because of its common connotations and associations. let me paraphrase (in the next post) in a more neutral way, even if that might make the statement lose some flavor:
>>8169873 (2)
the human animal is a social and symbolic entity. even if some rudiments of this can be found in some non human animals, the complexity you find in human life is quite unique. this social organization is not inherent in nature nor in the newborn, but is something that is worked out into a concrete practical form collectively through interaction using the capacities of the mind as a tool to build. but we agree that those creations are mere adaptations specific to the groups that made them. taking these practical models we use to act on reality to be reality itself can lead to disaster. random tribes in the jungle are in such a state, and that is why they only take to be humans those of their group and prey on others. but when a civilization grows, people start going beyond these constructions and start seeing the human mind's workings through the patterns underlying all the thing they do in their lifes. after some generations this becomes systematic and you start getting philosophy logic religion etc.
so, the misery i was referring to, is this complexity that humans need in order to be able to exist individually and collectuvely, all the cultural devices you get for a human group to be able to tolerate existence. a concrete example?: cats are hungry, they look for a mouse and eat its brains and entrails, then go to sleep. humans are hungy? they cant just go eat a fruit and go sleep. they have to make a huge fuss about how when and what to eat, make parties myths stories surrounding food sleep sex etc. all that for them to be able to eat and sleep. and all this is a need the human heart/mind has. you cant get rod of it, all you can do is reach awareness about it and then move on from there. like that zen story about the mountains being mountains before zen, no longer being mountains during zen, and finally being mountains once again after zen.
shit that was long. this is what i tried to avoid by using partial little terms like misery. but the downside is that they hurt sensibilities and make people miss the point being made.
