You have 1 minute to disprove that, within the context of Buddhism, Nirvana is pleasurable in any sense.
Nagarjuna on nirvana: "There is pleasure when a sore is scratched, But to be without sores is more pleasurable still. Just so, there are pleasures in worldly desires, But to be without desires is more pleasurable still."
Bhikkhu Sujato: "Upon emerging mindfully, the noble one will review the jhana with wisdom. They will see that the bliss in that jhana arose from letting go, and that continuing that process of letting go will culminate in the ultimate bliss of Nibbana."
Dhammapada Verse 204: "...Nibbana is the greatest bliss"
You have 10 seconds to disprove my theory that you have incurable autism.
>>7427772
mad cuz ur hipster philosophy got btfo
>>7427782
Still not convinced.
>>7427765
Why do I have to disprove that?
>>7427787
doesn't matter if you're convinced or not, just that you don't have the faculties necessary to refute the op and are buttpained about it.
>>7427791
Autism confirmed.
>>7427788
Apparently some folks believe that the Buddhist nirvana, as Buddhists understand it, isn't pleasurable in any sense.
buddhism is antinatalist egoist hedonism at its finest
>>7427807
>>7427800
>As to the notion of Nirvana as held by disciples and masters who still cling to the notion of an ego-self, and who try to find it by going off by themselves into solitude: their notion of Nirvana is an eternity of bliss like the bliss of the Samadhis-for themselves. They recognise that the world is only a manifestation of mind and that all discriminations are of the mind, and so they forsake social relations and practise various spiritual disciplines and in solitude seek self-realisation of Noble Wisdom by self-effort. They follow the stages to the sixth and attain the bliss of the Samadhis, but as they are still clinging to egoism they do not attain the "turning-about" at the deepest seat of consciousness and, therefore, they are not free from the thinking-mind and the accumulation of its habit-energy. Clinging to the bliss of the Samadhis, they pass to their Nirvana, but it is not the Nirvana of the Tathagatas. They are of those who have "entered the stream"; they must return to this world of life and death.
Time for bed junior
>>7427818
>Clinging to the bliss of the Samadhis, they pass to their Nirvana
still btfo
>>7427807
>antinatalist
Well approaches in the bodhisattvayana and the atiyogatantrayana are not antinatalist. They don't necessarily reject rebirth and the "shepherd mode" of Bodhisattva path actually intends to have basically infinite rebirths.
>egoist
I have never found this assertion intelligible.
>hedonism
Of course, Bhikkhu Sujato explains clearly that it is a type of hedonism and that non-scholar "Buddhists" that resist the term have some personal aversion to it for irrational reasons (or don't fully understand the nuances of Buddhist philosophy).
Inasmuch as hatred, passion, and delusion are painful, Nirvana is pleasant. Inasmuch as hatred, passion, and delusion are somethings, Nirvana is nothingness. Inasmuch as hatred, passion, and delusion are measurements, Nirvana is measureless.
Source: MN 43 and associated commentary.
>>7427828
>Clinging to the bliss of the Samadhis, they pass to their Nirvana, but it is not the Nirvana of the Tathagatas.
can you even read you goober. op on suicide watch
>>7427833
>they pass to their Nirvana
btfo
>>7427833
also why do you think i'm op?? caps are for fags
>>7427836
nice damage control faggot
>>7427828
I don't think you understand what the text means there, though the tradition this text comes from does assert two nirvanas., "their Nirvana" in context means the highest pleasure the mere stream-enterer will reach that life, rather than one of the two bone fide Nirvanas. Why is this the case? Because one of the two nirvanas of this tradition isn't a soteriological goal, it is merely the innate emptiness of things, so it isn't a candidate. The second nirvana is a soteriological goal but entails a non-returning to "this world of life and death". As such, it is clear that this phrase "their nirvana" refers to an imitation, a mistake in the path (which should be evident considering the word "clinging").
Plus this is a lankavatara text, which is a crude east-asian bastardization of early Buddhist thought, and not even a coherent Mahayana text at that (as the version we have has been modified many times over by competing interests).
>>7427833
I am OP, and this refers to clinging to formless pleasure. Keyword being clinging.
If you look at the Bhikkhu Sujato quote, the nirvana he is talking about specifically concerns the bliss of letting go, rather than clinging.
Even though we are dealing with very different traditions (the lanka is an east-asian fabrication), in this respect there is still no contradiction.
To note, I this is my third post and I haven't been responding to you up till now.
>>7427856
Calling Buddhism hedonist because nirvana is bliss is like calling sex masturbation because you happen to orgasm. The pleasures of existence and the "pleasure" of nirvanic emptiness are antithetically opposed.
If your definition of hedonism is that people naturally follow the Good, then what isn't hedonist?
>>7427869
>The pleasures of existence and the "pleasure" of nirvanic emptiness
>The pleasures and the "pleasure"
the doublethink is real
>>7427886
too autismal to live
>>7427869
> Buddhism hedonist because nirvana is bliss is like calling sex masturbation because you happen to orgasm.
This comparison doesn't make any sense.
> The pleasures of existence and the "pleasure" of nirvanic emptiness are antithetically opposed.
Which is neither here nor there. If hedonism is about maximizing satisfaction and pleasure, then nirvana fulfills this to a T. It is perpetually satisfied and it is the meta-rapture as of a result of eliminating all unpleasantness.
Basically Buddhism is a refining of the strategy for maximizing satisfaction, happiness, and pleasure, and it does so by rejecting clinging and desire to the pleasures of existence.
Now, two points of contention. First of all "nirvanic emptiness" is not really a native Buddhist phrase, and conflates two distinct concepts. Emptiness itself means very very different things depending on the tradition, often mutually exclusive.
However, in the bulk of traditions, in many cases explicitly so, emptiness and pleasures of existence themselves are not antithetical at all. Rather, among the major innovations of mahayana and later tantrayana was the deepening understanding that the actual nature of the pleasures of existence was emptiness. Reinforcing the earliest Buddhist thought that it wasn't the pleasures themselves that were the issue, but desire and clinging of them. This was further reduced by Mahayana to understand that the root of the issue, that which desire and clinging was predicated on, was a misunderstanding, an ignorance of the true empty nature of things...including again the pleasures of existence.
If you want to reject Mahayana and anything non-theravada that is fine. But then you have to completely reevaluate your usage of emptiness, since in theravada it isn't used in that manner at all ( pertaining to nirvanic emptiness).
>>7427765
Nibbāna Sutta
1. Nibbāna Sutta
The Buddha explains to Jānussoni the meaning of seeing Nibbāna in this life. A.i.158.
2. Nibbāna Sutta
Sāriputta explains to Ananda why some beings do not attain Nibbāna in this very life. A.ii.167.
3. Nibbāna Sutta
It is impossible that one who sees sorrow in Nibbāna shall live in harmony und patience. A.iii.442.
4. Nibbāna Sutta
Sāriputta explains to Udāyi (Lāludāyi, according to the Commentary: AA.ii.810) how Nibbāna is happiness, though in it there is no experiencing (vedayitam). A.iv.414f.
5. Nibbāna Sutta
Preached at Nālaka. Sāriputta explains to Jambukhādaka the meaning of Nibbāna und the way thereto. S.iv.251.
6. Nibbāna Sutta
Preached at Ukkācelā. Sāriputta explains to Sāmandaka the meaning of Nibbāna und the way thereto. S.iv.261f.
>>7427913
>Sāriputta explains to Udāyi (Lāludāyi, according to the Commentary: AA.ii.810) how Nibbāna is happiness, though in it there is no experiencing (vedayitam). A.iv.414f.
I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Feeding Sanctuary. There he said to the monks, "This Unbinding is pleasant, friends. This Unbinding is pleasant."
When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. There are these five strings of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing; sounds cognizable via the ear... smells cognizable via the nose... tastes cognizable via the tongue... tactile sensations cognizable via the body — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, fostering desire, enticing. Whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strings of sensuality, that is sensual pleasure.
"Now there is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality, that is an affliction for him. Just as pain arises as an affliction in a healthy person for his affliction, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset the monk is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant.
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought, that is an affliction for him...
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with rapture, that is an affliction for him...
>>7427919
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with equanimity, that is an affliction for him...
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with form, that is an affliction for him...
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, [perceiving,] 'Infinite consciousness,' enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of the infinitude of space, that is an affliction for him...
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, [perceiving,] 'There is nothing,' enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, that is an affliction for him...
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of nothingness, that is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how pleasant Unbinding is.
"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant."
>>7427913
Even allowing the Nibbana Sutta, which was much later addition to the canon, it surely doesn't disprove anything.
This isn't even a matter of different traditions saying different things, which I admit makes the OP extremely difficult to solve. The OP quotes three separate traditions which appear to converge on this issue. If you were to demonstrate that one tradition paints Nirvana in a different way, you would have to labor to show that it isn't merely a semantics difference but referring to a fundamentally different Nirvana. Even then, in the end all you would of shown is that one tradition disagrees, rather than "Buddhism".
Back to the point, even strictly within synthetic theravada (as in including the late additions into the canon that were heavily influenced by polemic commentarial sub-traditions), Nibbana sutta doesn't disprove the OP.
>>7427919
>Just that is the pleasure here, my friend.
Case closed. The Buddhists in this tradition never considered merely the sensual pleasures to be the totality of "pleasure", hence the formless, and greater (in their opinion) pleasure of the refined jhanas.
>where there is nothing felt
This can be also very misleading to people who are not familiar with exactly what is being discussed. This isn't nirodha-samapatti, so indeed "something" is still experienced, Furthermore, until parinibbana upon death, physical pain continues, as does the registering of pleasure, but with the absence of clinging and desire.
>>7427830
>bhikku sujato
what a fucking joke
>>7427934
How so, he has among the most traditional reading of the suttas in modern times. Infinitely more inline with what the Buddha was thought to teach by the early traditions than that depicted in the modern Burmese traditions or most modern references to "vipassana". Most references are bound in the Burmese tradition which frankly is the second most synthetic form of theravada in existence, only after "Thai theravada tantra".
Read his "a swift pair of messengers" book, his work is serious.
>>7427922
>>Even allowing the Nibbana Sutta, which was much later addition to the canon, it surely doesn't disprove anything.
what are the earliest suttas ?
>>7427921
>>7427919
"Thus the image underlying nibbana is one of freedom. The Pali commentaries support this point by tracing the word nibbana to its verbal root, which means "unbinding." What kind of unbinding? The texts describe two levels. One is the unbinding in this lifetime, symbolized by a fire that has gone out but whose embers are still warm. This stands for the enlightened arahant, who is conscious of sights and sounds, SENSITIVE TO PLEASURE and pain, but freed from passion, aversion, and delusion. The second level of unbinding, symbolized by a fire so totally out that its embers have grown cold, is what the arahant experiences after this life. All input from the senses cools away and he/she is totally freed from even the subtlest stresses and limitations of existence in space and time." -Thanissaro Bhikkhu
The only way out is to try to conflate nibbana with parinibbana. kek
>>7427765
Well yeah no shit western culture has orientalist ass projection-ass misunderstandings of buddhism big shocker spank my ass and call me jimmy shove a spike up my urethra and call me bob gouge my eyes and call me sally-no-eyes whoopee good job wowee nice heckit to gosh whoa
>>7427922
>Back to the point, even strictly within synthetic theravada (as in including the late additions into the canon that were heavily influenced by polemic commentarial sub-traditions), Nibbana sutta doesn't disprove the OP.
Op does not even prove anything either, not even quoting the first Sutras. And he does not even say what ''disproving OP'' would mean, he does not even say what would constitute an answer.
Overall, pretty bad troll.
>>7427950
It depends on what you mean. If you mean the earliest dated texts we have, then the various Gandharan collections are it. These span several traditions, but none of these texts are the theravadan version of the Pali Canon.
Rather we have some abhidhamma texts, some texts coming from the Dharmaguptaka tradition (a tradition predating Theravada, though sharing some of its texts in its Canon), and mahayana texts like Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra.
If you mean the earliest Pali Canon texts, then it is rather difficult. The earliest manuscripts explicitly from the Pali Canon start from the 9th century with a badly damaged scrap of paper, a small handful of pages from the 15th century, with the bulk of the Canon coming dated to the 18th Century.
It is through careful reconstruction and comparing overlapping texts from the Pali Canon with older Canons (that were either contemporaneous with, or predated, Theravada), that we have an idea of what the early Pali Canon looked like. In short a small group of Nikaya texts seem to be the earliest.
>>7427962
>not even quoting the first Sutras
That isn't relevant at all, since the "first sutras" are not authoritative in Buddhism nor Buddhist scholarship. Having been written over a hundred years after the "historical Buddha", and written for political reasons.
The OP states within the context of Buddhism, not a specific early tradition of Buddhism (which one, since there were 18 or so early traditions, many of which predate Theravada). In other words, if any Buddhist tradition wrote that Nirvana is pleasure in any sense, then you can't refute the OP.
>>7427986
>In other words, if any Buddhist tradition wrote that Nirvana is pleasure in any sense, then you can't refute the OP.
at least you admit that you are bad at trolling.
>>7427993
It is a bad troll because it is basically a truism. It was aimed a someone in the last thread who claimed before the thread was purged that Nirvana wasn't pleasurable in any sense. Despite the fact that within the context of how Buddhism uses these terms, it is quite evident that they consider Nirvana to be the apex of the pleasurable.
Freedom from desire. Not pleasure.
>>7427998
>my cherry-picked quotations can't be refuted by your cherry-picked quotations
>>7427765
>going on 4chan
>being Buddhist
That's literally impossible
>>7429230
How were the quotations in the OP cherry-picked?
>>7429250
Early Indian Buddhist Tantrayana included drinking your sister's menstrual blood and drinking out of the skull of a Brahman child. Going on 4chan is relatively tame.
>>7429437
because there's a wealth of texts and commentary that describe nirvana as the isness of reality, as the truth, as the final extinguishing of desire. essentially, in austere terms, and not in hedonistic language
>>7429474
None of which indicates that the quotations were cherry-picked.
Try again?
