how come you have not joined the revolution to become true robots,buddha is a true robot, never worrying about women, chad or any of the things troubling the world today, join my brothers.
and become true robots.
>>24600342
Non-feeling is indeed an awesome sensation, but it's kinda hard to give up pleasure in the end
>>24600342
>buddha is a true robot
He was a psychopath with the schizotypal personality disorder who literally caused, and continues to cause, emotional and physical suffering of millions of people.
>>24600420
>my psychology is totally not a religion and far superior to this buddha who was a psychopath according to my psychology
>>24600478
Psychology is, indeed, a religion. But psychiatry isn't. The man's brain was broken: both instinctively and intentionally figurative, context-violating, overly abstract, and so on. And that he was morally bankrupt should be seen instantly from OP's quote.
>>24600547
>But psychiatry isn't.
u say potato i say religion.
>The man's brain was broken: both instinctively and intentionally figurative, context-violating, overly abstract, and so on
how would you know?
>And that he was morally bankrupt should be seen instantly from OP's quote.
I don't see it. Feel free to elaborate.
>>24600342
Just started reading up on mindfulness/meditation
Shit's been pretty informative actually
Still have trouble "concentrating" (keeping track of breath) for more than 5 to 10 minutes though
>>24600420
>>24600547
>Conquer anger with love, evil with good, meanness with generosity, and lies with truth.
>lies with truth
Jesus. If I heard him say this, I should literally break his face.
There was probably no single man in history who has done more to harm adoption of falsifiability and unambiguity. Not a single one.
>>24600635
In fact, just a couple quotes below:
>We are what we think.
>All that we are arises with our thoughts.
>With our thoughts we make the world.
Buddhists will literally defend this.
I miss the time that I yet wanted to live on this planet. It was so long ago.
>>24600651
>Buddhists will literally defend this.
But they won't defend it literally.
>>24600651
you have to consider that some clarity will be lost in translation and through being passed down. a lot of it was probably made up after buddha had died.
I find Buddhism to be nothing more than emotional invalidation and self-denial. I think its for depressed people who just wanna do the whole "transcending identity" thing because they don't like who they are.
>>24600605
>I don't see it. Feel free to elaborate.
Sure. Considering that you are a Buddhist, feel free not to understand it and call it 'paranoid, psychotic ramblings' -- you know, Buddhists' usual fare when they disagree with something. >>24587954 and the following exchange. This is an exception by the way; I don't normally quote my past posts, and I won't in the future.
>>24600707
Oh I have considered this.
>>24600683
Aw anon, you brightened my night. I smiled. Thanks.
>>24600712
it is detachment which is true power, without it you are not free to be yourself.
>>24600765
You too, Buddhist idiot, both should and never will read the discussion I mentioned in >>24600736. But, well, quoting archived threads is bad form, so I'm shutting up.
>>24600736
I'm not a buddhist. Why don't you elaborate instead of linking to another post that is unrelated to the quote?
>>24600683
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
>>24600795
you are a really insecure, and weak.
>>24600803
>unrelated to the quote
When Buddhists say this, it is really hard to decide if they are being literally retarded or just lying.
It is related because the Siddhartha man would have pretended that there is no room for that exhortation to give up anger to cause you to become passive, because such becoming passive can be prevented through either (1) free will or (2) 'meditation'. (2) is false and (1) is a cowardly cop-out that shifts the responsibility from the utterer to the listener. He was a literal coward.
>>24600834
You forgot 'person'.You forgot the 'This is not an ad hominem, by the way, I am really, literally concerned about your mental and emotional health.', too.
>>24600803
>I'm not a buddhist.
You are. I know that Buddhists are all special snowflakes who just 'consider Buddhist principles' or 'find value in every single religion' or 'just entertain some Buddhist hypotheses' or 'just consider it of more of a set of guidelines', but trust me, the definition of Buddhism: intellectual nihilism, unwillingness to generalize, moral relativism, ad hominems ('observe your mind'), unambiguity, figurativeness, you display it.
>>24600950
>unambiguity
*ambiguity
THE BETA MANIFESTO
Peace be upon those who are righteously guided.
It is my divine given duty to deliver these words and share these ideas. Ideas that we may once come to live in peace with the world around us, and that the world around us may yet reach out to embrace us. We are here, Her RIGHTFUL children, and we earnestly ask for Her blessing so that our minds and our legacies may know happier times. We ask that through Her grace we will be given the just fruit of our past labors to a system that continuously thrusts us down into the mud.
We have been SYSTEMATICALLY OPPRESSED by those who have the audacity to call themselves normal. We have been their scapegoats for centuries so that they can live in the grossest excesses of life. They throw us into the dirt in the streets, and they expect us to pick ourselves up and crawl back to them, as if we are the ones who have erred. They look down at us from upon their golden thrones- but they are just that. . . gilded to hide the rust and decay of their society. They have done these injustices without regard to us for far too long, and they will continue to do so unless we cast their TYRANNY down, cast their false idols down, cast their shackles upon us down, and cast their broken bodies from the Purity of the World.
Here comes the anti-buddhist guy with the mental illness.
>suddenly, Buddhist hate from a crazy person
Best thing I've seen on this board in weeks. 7/10, would read again.
>>24600974
I ask that you FIGHT for what is the straight and narrow path. For if we do not fight, we will be ever drowning in the pit of their profligacy. We fight for the lonely, for the torn down, for the ones who seek a better world only to be let down, for faithless who are where they are now regardless of their fight, for those who would dream - if only for its sake, and for those who take a stand, knowing that they can. We are all common friends, and we are bound together in a destiny of oppression or a destiny of hope and fulfillment. It is our GREATEST decision to solve which future we shall be a part of. . . I can only pray for the future that we may take back our lives.
Those who lord over us think we are merely kicked dogs, who will cower and run from them. . . but we will not do that. We will rise up to meet their challenge, and they will know that they were wrong as their establishment of rot crumbles down upon them. We are kept in the shadows by those who are known as ALPHA. . . they are scared that we will break their bloody grasp on order. Our chains create an artificial shortage of men so that these CHADS can run their debauched harems at our expense. These barbarians and DEGENERATES must be expelled from OUR society, lest they seep back in like a disease to corrode what is Ours.
And so here we stand ready to bring about this change. It matters not if you hold your head high or low, but that you wield a RIGHTEOUS axe to cut away the twisted and reaching tendrils of their system. They will soon know that we have had enough of their DECEPTION, for we will STAND and we will FIGHT and we will BLEED. . . and we shall taste the greatest triumph of our times. . .
Peace be upon those who have >tfw no gf.
>>24600980
>>24600981
'I-I was just being figurative, it was a figure of speech bro, just a figure of speech!'
>>24601004
I'm not the person you were arguing with, direct your mental illness elsewhere.
>>24601004
Incidentally, I have come to suspect that the utter moral sliminess of such evasion of responsibility for one's words typifies Buddhists even more than the original eagerness to abuse terms.
>>24600420
>who literally caused, and continues to cause, emotional and physical suffering of millions of people
What? How?
>He isn't a Taoist
Seriously nigger.
I dare you to try and deny wu wei.
>>24600950
In other words, for most validity, religions should not be defined as organized groups, but rather as ideologies to which people with certain clusters of traits are attracted. With Buddhism, it is what I gave. On the other hand, monotheistic religions, for instance, rather involve a more materialistic outlook, a bigger focus on compassion, and much more consistency in terms (and much more willingness to define terms in the first place).
>he isnt a member of the Roman Catholic Church, the one true church of Christ
if you aint in communion with the bishop of rome, you aint in communion with Jesus
>>24601190
Fuck off heretic
>>24601104
It is tragic to be asked questions like this because you won't understand the problem until you realize the volume of literature propounding Buddhist evil.
Let's just say that there are tens of thousands of book with hundreds of thousands of implications, parables, and analogies to the effect of 'thinking is noise', 'strength is letting go', 'seeing means nothing unless you realize that you are the seer', 'reality is like a gust of wind', 'you are the world', 'you are your thoughts', 'you are not your thoughts', 'no scientist is a true scientist until they meditate' (I actually fucking saw this once), 'ultimate truth is just sipping on your tea', and so on, and so on, and so on.
And every single one is going to be defended with 'it's just an analogy bro, just an analogy'.
This is the most efficient way I could briefly explain it. There are literally hundreds of individual Buddhist manipulations which the make to keep people from caring and trying, thugh.
>>24601316
Of course, there are tens of millions of people swearing by that Buddhism is literally a science.
Things like 'no true Buddhist' go without saying, as they have for a long, long time.
>>24601190
I'm not even Christian, but I know that you're a heretic in Christ's eyes.
>>24601316
You're christian, right?
>>24600898
I cant follow your reassoning at all because it is complete mumbo jumbo.
resentment is a coping mechanism for your impotence. it achieves nothing but make you content with your impotence.
>>24601316
Will the shock proof stop inside an anomaly? How will a constraining junk guard an engaged dread. Its purple guides the executable dialect. "A taxi alleges a pedal." The grade doctrine lectures the bond beneath the lucky light. The reasoned logo behaves opposite the erased override. A radical batch tolerates the musical heel.
>>24601399
No, but again, I respect Christianity as, as far as I observed, relatively consistent and not willing to interrupt discussion with tactics as pathetic as 'you should really observe your mind', 'how can you be sure', 'language is limited', 'you should rather ask yourself why you're asking this', 'this discussion is eventually futile', etc., as well as partly concerned with physical questions such as origin of life or existence of souls.
>>24601405
>>24601432
You have never witnessed thought derailment. It doesn't look like that.
>>24601509
>such as origin of life or existence of souls
Note, the concept of souls is, of course, nonsense, but, again, the question is relatively scientific compared to Buddhist gibberish about 'duality of truth'.
This anti-Buddhist guy has an metal illness. Don't respond to him.
>>24601547
>This anti-Buddhist guy has an metal illness.
The sad thing is that you are sacrificing your personal integrity so as never to lie for a lie that's not even going to be believed.
>>24601567
That guy may be right. I cannot follow you at all either.
>>24601405
>resentment is a coping mechanism for your impotence.
I think I begin to understand Buddhist fallacies better and better.
Yours here seems to ultimately be, again, that you think of personality as a set of binary units as opposed to likelihoods affected by situational quanta. Meaning, you are on the mental level where there's a single trait that is such or such by definition. For instance, the trait of 'resentment' that is unproductive by definition, that 'shouldn't' be in a healthy personality. And on this neat, prescientific level at which people are like PCs in a game, indeed it is easy to religiously proclaim 'thou shalt not resent'. But the reality of the brain is that reading a single claim such as 'you should not resent' affects numerous likelihoods at a time. To forgive someone you shouldn't forgive; to search for more webpages with quotes like this; to find use of the word 'should' acceptable; to yield to reproaches; to think about yourself rather than about the PC you are using; and so on, and so on, and so on. It takes rejection of free will to move to this.
>>24601714
>I cannot follow you at all either.
In the mind of the Buddhist, this can only mean one thing.
>>24601850
do you get your hands burned often because you can't decide not to touch a hot stove?
>>24601908
Is this a threat made so to make me stop discussing Buddhism?
You'd be late, you know. I have received threats before.
>>24601405
Also, of course, there are other, smaller evils in this post, such as implication of free will, or ambiguity allowing to ad hoc redefine 'resentment' to include criticism, hesitation, disapproval.
>>24601937
>>24602082
my man you have donkey brains. no cure for donkey brains.
>>24602169
Is this a variation I'm unaware of of the 'monkey brain' totally-non-anti-intellectual label for a brain that wanders as might effect creative or scientific ideas?
>>24602200
there is a difference between entertaining something and assuming something. as a result of your donkey brains you don't seem to be able to differentiate between the two.
>>24602245
I see. 'I am wrong because I could be wrong', also worded as 'that I tell you you could be wrong is an adequate input in discussion'. Literally naturally, a Buddhist staple.
>>24602302
no you have donkey brains because you are convinced in your mind that you are right in any assumption you make.
for instance, the assumption that i am a buddhist. you didn't even seem to notice when I told you in a previous post, that I am not a buddhist.
>>24602302
If I had a dollar every timeI refused to point outthat a Buddhist had done this -- told me that 'I am unaware of things/factors/aspects/causes/consequences/things/everything/reality/...' while later refusing to specify what exactly.
>>24602338
>you didn't even seem to notice when I told you in a previous post, that I am not a buddhist.
Old, old, old tactic. 'Lie until the person being lied about tires of pointing it out, at which point the lies will be believed.'
See >>24600950 and >>24601185.
>>24602399
no that's just your donkey brains kicking in again. I'm really not a buddhist.
woe be to the donkey-brained.
>>24602302
While you may be more intelligent than I am I am extremely hesitant to believe anything you say because you display no humility. You believe yourself to be infallible. I'm not going to write your words off as paranoid or psychotic ramblings but to me they are just that - perhaps I'm just not capable of understanding. What I do understand is your school of thought is not inherently better or more valid than mine and no amount of self-absorbed anti Buddhist ramblings are going to change that.
dont you want a bohdy?
hide the bohdy
>>24602351
You have to be specify what you're not aware of to be not aware of it?
You commit logical fallacies of your own, mister
>>24602453
you are not a buddhist for a reason, what is it, criticize buddhism, go
>>24602453
>I'm really not a buddhist.
And pseudoscientists are scientists because they say so.
Another dollar mine would be when Buddhists expect people to judge them by declarations rather than by actions.
>>24602458
>While you may be more intelligent than I am
I am not.
>[...] you display no humility. You believe yourself to be infallible.
I don't think I'll soon stop wondering how humans come up with such manipulations. If they weren't naive at least. To instead of addressing a point just try to coerce a person into conceding the 'fact' that they might always be wrong, so as to exert a concessive connotation, a lingering impression, that 'well, yes, even the guy did imply that what he said might not've been true'.
>I'm not going to write your words off as paranoid or psychotic ramblings
Maybe you'll have opportunity to in a next thread.
>your school of thought is not inherently better or more valid than mine
Ah, the anti-intellectual's equalizer, the slightly more cowardly version of sour grapes. 'The grapes aren't worse, they are just no better than apples.' 'Both a gory newspaper story and a paper are texts, so they are of equal merit.' As if identity *on a level* proved identity in general.
What makes Buddhist brains innately proficient at manipulation?
>>24602590
the same reason im not a hindu. my knowledge about it is very scarce and general in nature.
i don't bother subscribing to any ism's at all.
>>24602562
>You commit logical fallacies of your own
No I don't.
I don't even commit fallacies, which is what you should have said because not all fallacies are logical.
>>24601850
If you want to argue against something you should probably abstain from rambling like a psychotic idiot, nobody understands your frantic, incomprehensible train of thought.
>>24602601
in your donkey brained mind you are capable of deciding that I am a buddhist simply from my posts questioning your donkey brained ramblings.
however in reality, i am not a buddhist.
>>24602636
>>24602647
Those two posts alone, screencapped together, would be fully sufficient to convince any and all Buddhists on /r9k/ that the person those posts replied to is, indeed, a rambling, psychotic idiot.
>>24600420
you dumb shit lol
>>24602707
Behold, a Buddhist's pervasive curiosity in the subjects of the nature of the mind and the nature of understanding at work.
>>24602698
what an injustice huh? why can't everyone just follow my insane ramblings and understand what i mean though i make absolutely zero effort to make what i am saying understandable?
>>24602750
>accused of zero effort
>accused of being a no-life shut-in who literally spends, what was it again? 16 hours? or 18? anyway, who literally spends from 15 to 20 hours every single day on /r9k/ also
You just can't win.
>>24602787
why do they persecute me so???
>>24602812
I have been providing the reason to this very question in dozens of threads.
>>24602824
why don't they read my posts from previous threads?!!? we all know about those.
>>24602824
>the reason
*the answer
>>24602842
I have provided it in this one, also. Speaking of logial fallacies.
>>24602621
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#Suffering.27s_causes_and_solution
if you were being holocausted the cause of your suffering is nazis, not cravings, therefore buddhism is wrong
the things buddhism is right about are obvious
the things that are unique to buddhism are wrong
>single quote polack autist still breathing
please end your life for your own benefit and everyone around you
>>24602854
>if you were being holocausted the cause of your suffering is nazis, not cravings, therefore buddhism is wrong
This. Kudos. It is basically the stereotypical liberal mentality of absolving the perpetrator. Instead of standing up to evil, the Buddhist prefers to rather teach the victim patience, 'train yourself to endure, train yourself to resist' -- because speaking up against the evildoer, instead of reproaching the victim, might involve retaliation from the former. And that takes courage.
>>24602850
>if you were being holocausted the cause of your suffering is nazis
there is an infinite amout of causes you single out. if you starve in a concentration camp you are suffering because you crave food. but you are also suffering because it was decided to starve you.
>>24602932
An example is saying 'just ignore it' to bullied children. Shifting the responsibility to deal with the situation from the one who can do something about the situation to one who cannot, while claiming this shift to be in the best interests of the victim because 'everyone needs mental fortitude'.
>>24602932
>>24603012
and conservatives prefer to entertain delusional fantasies of revenge and power to cope with their impotence.
>>24601850
...and you're claiming that Buddhism is pathological gibberish?
>>24602985
This man is impossible to argue with because he is so convinced his school of thought is the only correct way to think. It might be, but I cannot believe someone who believes themselves to be infallible. I pointed out a fallacy he committed only for him to deny it was a fallacy. There is NO winning, only being smugly refuted with a line of thinking that's barely comprehensible (at least to me).
I stand by what I said when I said you display no humility. Like the pidgeon flipping over the chess board, shitting on it and strutting about like it's won.
>>24603012
>Shifting the responsibility to deal with the situation from the one who can do something about the situation to one who cannot
*sorry, typed 'the situation' twice, should proofread
>>24602985
Observe. A very typical Buddhist attempt to implicitly dismiss the situation by bringing up truisms. My reply, >>24602932 and >>24603012, points to a specific irresponsibility of a specific group. His reply derails one's attention into the platitudinal abstraction that 'everything is connected': 'an infinite amount of causes'. Except such platitudes get nothing done.
>>24603095
>he is so convinced his school of thought is the only correct way to think
Suggest an alternative one.
Oh wait, we've been through this already, the alternative I am 'blind' to amounts to 'just be open to alternatives, learn some humility, and accept you can be wrong', as described in >>24602601.
>>24603109
persecution complex. you place all responsibility for your own actions and descsions on other people.
it is a subconscious reaction to your impotence, you do not consider yourself responsible because you lack power. you are so used to being helpless that you start to define yourself as such.
>>24603109
>My reply
*Well, sorry, not mine, I probably wouldn't notice it hadn't >>24602854 said it before.
>>24602854
Yeah but that's not what Buddhism claims at all, that's not what "suffering" means.
>>24603095
You can't really argue with 4chan autists. The dumber or crazier a person is, the more difficult it becomes to communicate with them.
On /r9k/ you tend to run into those kinds of people every 5 minutes or so, but this guy is particularly exceptional.
>>24603201
>as >>24602854 points out, Buddhists have for hundreds of years been telling people that their suffering is caused by their attachment and is of their own doing
>point out that this is cowardly, safe victim-blaming that doesn't address the real sources of said suffering
>be called irresponsible
The time is long gone that summarizing Buddhist villainy (in the literal, original sense of just being a primitive human being) with just one word, 'Buddhists.', was novel.
>>24603249
What's the totally-not-imaginary difference, then, since you clearly couldn't have elaborated on it on your own?
>>24603158
>Suggest an alternative one.
Maybe something less reminiscent of Jared Loughner....
>>24603358
you also suffer from narcissism, likely another coping mechanism. totally convinced that you alone understand the real reason people are suffering.
>>24603385
I chuckled. Thanks.
But next time, much as I am open to the possibility it might happen one day, be more explicit that you are just pretending to be a Buddhist so retarded as to compare me with a murderer. Some Buddhists might not get the joke.
>>24603358
>What's the totally-not-imaginary difference, then, since you clearly couldn't have elaborated on it on your own?
Dukkha isn't physical pain, material deprivation, illness or death. It's more like the expectation of satisfaction that doesn't come. You do something that you think will bring you lasting happiness, but it doesn't, and you're disappointed.
>>24603471
>You do something that you think will bring you lasting happiness, but it doesn't, and you're disappointed.
This is literally the process that underlies all self-development. Literally all self-development is location of worth someplace, desire, attainment, loss of worth, location of it someplace else, attainment again, rinse, repeat, die.
The Buddhist manipulation whereby imagined and posited is that this process happens 'too much' in people and should be 'put under control', and whereby the risk for such claims to impair one's drive is dismissed through assertion of free will, 'you can control the effects of those claims', is described in >>24600736 and, briefly, in >>24600898.
>>24603591
And I'm not even mentioning *why* Buddhists are doing this. (Admittedly, it is simple: to justify their own laziness, crab mentality.)
>>24600420
>Emotional and suffering of millions of people
>Central philosophy is the freedom from suffering
ya ok man.
>>24603591
I once realized, on my own, that 'happiness must always be conditional', as it is crucial for having and reaching goals.
Some time later, I had a sudden suspicion, and searched for >unconditional happiness.
What should come up if not Buddhist websites.
>>24603591
>This is literally the process that underlies all self-development.
No, the thing is that if you recognize the futility of doing anything as a means of attaining happiness, you're then free to pursue it for its own intrinsic good, rather than with the expectation of attaining anything.
The goal isn't total passive inactivity. That's an elementary misunderstanding.
>>24603704
Buddhism is also opposed to ascetic practices.
So there's that too.
>>24603704
I understand not reading the whole thread, even though we haven't even hit 100 posts yet, but not even bothering to read my reply, >>24601316, to another anon's reply to my post before you dismissed it is rather lazy.
>>24603744
You really just don't understand.
You really just are an useful idiot, and I can't even be brought to stress the idiot part as much as I should. I just feel sad.
It is exactly the dissatisfaction, the desperation, that forms and fosters the mindset of pursuing goals. That dissatisfaction is not some removable component of the pursuit. There is no such thing as the pursuit consisting of the 'sane component' and the 'insane component' of desire, removal of the latter magically manages to leave you with as much drive as always, except now free of disappointment should you fail. What results in that disappointment should you fail IS THE SAME FUCKING THING that results in satisfaction when you succeed. And everything Buddhism propounds, quotes such as OP's, 'meditation', should be related, in the scientific, statistical manner, to existence of that one fucking thing in the brain: namely, whether it manages to release enough of whatever chemical underlies motivation as soon as that thing is mentioned and having it imagined.
>>24604165
>>24603744
In short, it is not physically possible to isolate happiness from having from suffering from not having, so as to only preserve the former. Or to remove suffering-based motivation ('I hate myself for not having it') from desire-based motivation ('I want it'). It is like thinking you can separate, I don't know, inhalation and exhalation. It is THEORETICALLY possible for an animal to have separate systems for either of those functions, I imagine, but it just won't happen for humans. We're just not built like this. It is pure sophistry.
>>24604165
>>24604343
Or, in short, putting religious belief before science. For it is a pure religious belief, insubstantial, immaterial wishful thinking.
>>24604165
>smug, incoherent repetition and insults without actually addressing anything I said
>again
I applaud your stamina and I'm sorry you're going through difficult times or whatever.
>>24604391
You didn't say anything. You just posited a magical situation whereby one property of the brain can be magically altered without upsetting other ones, except you didn't even use those terms.
>>24604442
In other words, again, classic belief in free will, and classic >>24601850. Putting neat symmetrical classifications of thought as 'good and bad', 'productive and unproductive' before physical reality.
>>24604343
>>24604387
The funny thing is that you're the one that just made a bunch of unsubstantiated (and not even plausible or well informed) claims. Where's the science behind anything you posted? Where's the data to back up any of your claims or assumptions? There's actually a lot of science backing the efficacy of meditation.
>>24604489
>the efficacy of meditation
At?
>>24604343
it is entirely possible. but since you only know failure, you have resigned. and in your resignation, you feel compelled to tell others about the futility of trying.
all your problems result from your weakness.
>>24604518
pain management and treatment of psychiatric disorders for starters; I think that's the most active area of research
>>24604540
>and in your resignation, you feel compelled to tell others about the futility of trying.
/r9k/'s mantra
>>24604540
Again, free will. 'Uh no, it is possible to at the same time calculate the Earth's circumference in a.u.'s, meditate, cut yourself, orgasm, and compose a painting, you just need to exert your free will, quitter.'
>>24604518
To clarify: I have seen much more studies on 'meditation' than you have, I'm just curious which intentionally ambiguous terms you're going to give. Normally it is I who prove that I have read them by giving both the relationships that were studied and that *should have been* studied.
>>24604540
>>24604608
All right, which consequence of belief in free will is your favourite? Retributive violence? Disinterest in neuroscience? Laziness with repect to motivating other people, thinking 'you can do it' would suffice? Blame and resentment? Lack of educational and medicinal improvements because 'people would solve it if they only tried'? Do share. Don't be shy.
>>24604688
>free is will is not real im not even gonna bother defining free will it is enough that i bring up that things are as they are. that absolves me from all responsibility.
>>24604733
Forgot some more: excessive confidence with respect to capacity to control the effects of addictions, practices, substances, external social influences? Decreased drive because 'this is not a pressing issue, my free will can fix in any time'?
>>24604733
Forgot some more still: having expectations from other people, thinking they owe me things?
>>24604733
>>24604774
These are sins ye are guilty of. They are a result of your foolhardy choice to believe in free will, choose instead, like me to denounce personal responsibility, this is the source to unlimited power as I have made clear with my crazy rambling.
>>24604733
When the fuck did I say anything at all about free will? Are you aware that dependent origination severely undermines the idea of autonomous individual agency, i.e. a very common notion of free will? You don't even have your philosophical concepts straight. Like at all.
>>24604848
You have literally invented a scenario out of thin air that you fancy should happen and are telling me that it can happen if I only try.
>>24604774
>forgot some more incoherent word salad drivel that doesn't come close to addressing anything that anyone ever said
>>24604882
>When the fuck did I say anything at all about free will?
In >>24604540, 'you have resigned. [...] all your problems result from your weakness.'
In >>24604608, saying that rejection of the causal meaninglessness of the above is 'a mantra'.
>>24604894
if you put a bunch of cockroaches in a basket, maybe some can climb up and some can't. from my point of view you appear a little baby crying uncontrollably.
>>24600342
Jesus Christ this thread. Is anybody else understanding the anti-Buddhist guy or is it just me?
>>24604986
I think he's just trying to be an edgelord
>>24604938
>>24604882
Also, don't tempt me to point out the irony of you two for some twenty posts throwing 'YOU just avoid responsibility', 'YOU just refuse to change', 'YOU just don't want to understand that YOU have the power to control YOUR thoughts', and then having the nerve to boast that "independent arising" crap of yours. It would be too bitter. Oh wait.
>>24605015
>independent arising
*dependent arising
>>24603776
I read it.
I think you do well in the "right speech" part of the eightfold path.
You did not call me a faggot once.
>>24605015
Specially supersimplified explanation for Buddhists:
If it 'depends on me' to disallow myself to have my drive decreased as a result of reading Buddhist cliches and 'meditating', then where did those thoughts arise at?
>>24604986
he is mentally ill and confuses different posters which each other, but what he's saying is not that complex.
he claims to have no control and one should accept this, but his actions directly contradict this as he attempts to convince others, being clearly annoyed when people don't understand what he means.
so ultimately it's just some guy who get's off on preaching to others and deep down he knows this and is terrified of being called out on it, which is why he keeps up such a haughty facade.
>>24604986
no, literally no one has any clue what he's going about; he doesn't even know
the funny thing is, if I'm not wrong he's been at this for quite a while. I remember weird anti-buddhist infographics a long time ago, but they were a lot more coherent and organized (though still wrong)
either he's on some sort of weird psychotic downward spiral or I'm mistaken and thinking of someone else
>>24605015
You're talking to more than one person, I didn't post whatever you're accusing me of posting.
>>24605015
>don't tempt me to point out the irony of you two
>>24605165
>You're talking to more than one person
If mental retardation were a mental illness, I could at least return your favours of calling me the latter.
>>24605120
>he claims to have no control
True.
>and one should accept this
True, because rejection of free will is literally the only way to open human behaviour to science, and in fact science has only studied human behaviour insofar as scientists have rejected it.
>but his actions directly contradict this
Believe it or not, I've actually had another Buddhist say that, too: 'You don't really reject free will, otherwise you wouldn't try to achieve things.'
>>24605120
>he claims to have no control and one should accept this
The thing is, I think that's actually perfectly compatible with Buddhism. You don't have control because you're a small part of a larger system rather than an autonomous individual with an autonomous will.
But that isn't the same as "why bother trying?" fatalism.
>>24605206
When you suffer it is your own choice. You are too attached to your desire of being right, you will cvck yourself just to prove that you were right about being a cvck.
Buddhism is Hinduism for plebs. Also Buddhism is an inherently selfish religion. The rejection of desire and connections may make you feel better, but its almost always at the expense of other people. You can see in the dhammapada where Buddha fucks over his wife and child and they resolve it magically by making her a monk too.
>>24605206
Save your tard rage for when you can actually keep the conversation straight.
>>24605278
Well I'm not really a buddhist, but to me there is not much difference between mr. rust mc fedorov here and the typical buddhist preacher.
they are like worms trying to drag you down all the while saying they want to help you understand.
>>24605278
>compatible with Buddhism
Correction: compatible with what Buddhism *declares*.
See, wow, that's going to be a long scroll back... >>24605286 >>24605120 >>24604947 >>24604848 >>24604767 >>24604608 >>24604540 for what Buddhists actually *believe and espouse*.
>>24605292
>The rejection of desire and connections may make you feel better, but its almost always at the expense of other people.
No it's not. The end result is that you act more ethically and compassionately.
>>24605336
Those are all me.
I'm still not a buddhist.
>>24605331
>to me there is not much difference between mr. rust mc fedorov here and the typical buddhist preacher.
Maybe you should look into it a little bit more then.
>>24605374
>trying to take all the credit
NO ONE OF THOSE IS ME DIPSHIT
>>24605409
ive heard just about enough of it for my liking.
>>24605374
>>24605439
Mastery of the mind, am I right?
>>24605439
yeah but you were just agreeing with what i said.
>>24605454
Also, this has not been a good thread. The Buddhists were particularly retarded, and illiterate too.
>>24605504
more of your impotent rage. you really are a big baby.
>>24604608
But, forgot about this post.
>pain management and treatment of psychiatric disorders
Good (& only) choice of examples, for it demonstrates the overlap 'meditation' has with 'psychedelic' drugs. Again, let me educate you: the latter are used for depression, (palliative) anxiety, pain, addiction, autism, and so on. Namely, where and only where the definition of the illness is 'caring too much'. There is hardly any evidence for *active* benefits such as creativity, and the little there is is ambiguous and studied under clinical conditions. In other words, this exactly proves my point: 'meditation' is only used where there is LESS to care, to want, not more.
>>24602636
Scuse me mate but I follow what he's saying perfectly well. Maybe you're all just idiots. The state of this board lately, I can readily believe it.
>>24605605
>for *active* benefits such as
*of 'meditation'
>>24605605
>Namely, where and only where the definition of the illness is 'caring too much'.
I'm not sure how you can claim to read so much and yet obviously misunderstand literally everything.
Everything you think you have a handle on just goes right the fuck over your head. Religion, philosophy, psychiatry, neuroscience, all of it.
>>24605623
Care to translate it into English for us, then?
>>24605623
what's he saying? paraphrase it.
Stoicism is much more realistic than Buddhism and does the exact same things for you. Plus you're not a fag weeb hippie by being a Stoic, but a fag Greek/Romeboo.
>>24603012
>An example is saying 'just ignore it' to bullied children
I love you anon.
>>24605686
>>24605680
It's perfectly fucking understandable. I'm not your nanny.
>>24600342
avoidance of suffering is aight but I prefer a broader experience
>>24605659
OF COURSE 'meditation' has been applied to psychotic disorders, too.
And OF COURSE it has only relieved the affective symptoms of them.
>>24605693
not very stoic of you to care about how others view you.
>>24600342
>tfw this life is fucked
>will never attain enlightenment on this life
>will probably get a downgrade and reincarnate as a clam or something
Oh well at least I tried I guess.
>>24605720
>I love you anon.
I don't think I am a safe person to love, anon.
>>24605623
Let's take just a single sentence and analyze it for a moment.
>To forgive someone you shouldn't forgive; to search for more webpages with quotes like this; to find use of the word 'should' acceptable; to yield to reproaches; to think about yourself rather than about the PC you are using; and so on, and so on, and so on. It takes rejection of free will to move to this.
Firstly, he obviously has no idea how to use punctuation of any kind, the number of semicolons here is fucking absurd.
Second, there is no point being made or proven here, you can clearly see that he is just stringing a bunch of random sentences together with absolutely nothing tying them together and no overarching point. The entire sentence is meaningless.
Lastly, the vocabulary is intentionally vague, lacking any substance whatsoever. All I see here are random words put together. "To yield to reproaches", gee, isn't that a clear statement. I understand what it means, but what the flying fuck is it doing in the middle of this Frankenstein monster of a sentence? You rob the context of anything you throw in there, it's complete word salad.
I seriously think this guy is either mentally challenged, a foreigner, or a bot.
>>24605693
Stoicism was actually influenced by Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
>>24600420
Read the dhammapada. Buddha's far from psychopathic.
Right view espouses compassion nearly above everything else. Right view's one of the eight principles found on the noble eightfold path. Founded by Buddha.
>>24605818
And I think you're literally too dumb to follow what he's talking about. That's not even meant as an insult, you really are simply unable to understand his posts.
Maybe you really don't have a decent rebuttal for him so you just resort to this, wilful lack of understanding so that you can just call him mental or autistic or whatever. I noticed a post above using the "edgy" buzzword. That right there says it all really.
>>24605720
I understand what he is trying to say. It just doesn't make sense.
First of all, I quote Nietzsche and he responds by saying
>I think I begin to understand Buddhist fallacies better and better.
by the get go he is completely convined that I am a buddhist even though im not.
> that you think of personality as a set of binary units
here he assumes to know what i think personality is based on nothing but his idea that i am a buddhist.
Then he attempts to obscufate the meaning of my statement(impotence comes before resentment), with a vague matter of factish statement
>as opposed to likelihoods affected by situational quanta.
and in the end he concludes that you cannot tell people what to do because they have no self-control and it's impossible to happy without being sad, which is a sign that he is depressed seeks self-annihilation to cope with his disappointment.
>>24600382
But pleasure is addictive, and, in the end, only cause disappointment.
>>24605890
It is not the mark of stupidity to fail to comprehend the ramblings of someone who knows nothing about proper sentence format. Fuck off.
It's like listening to a fucking toddler try to explain metaphysics, it's a complete act in futility. When he learns to properly express himself I'll listen to him, but you can't expect anyone to follow that jumbled nonsense without a fucking instruction manual, hopefully not written by the same inept author.
I hate referring to meme image shit in arguments like this, but pic very related.
>>24600651
You must live under two rocks if you don't believe this is true.
In our history, we can see it happen. Every thought we have shapes us, mantras. You'll forever be a NEET if you constantly think that you are a pathetic faggot living with your parents still.
Your thoughts shape the world, and can shape another individuals thoughts. People think about who they want to become, or what they want to invent, or how to prepare a meal, all the time. Our thoughts often times find themselves manifested in reality. Because we have the power in ourselves to do so. It is all just about being willing to put on those pants and making it happen.
Mantras.
>>24605818
First, you didn't take one sentence, but a sentence and a sentence fragment.
Second, regarding semicolons in heterogeneous lists:
http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2010/02/lists-part-2-commas-and-semicolons.html e.g.
Regarding purported vagueness: remember the context. The context was that instead of discussing the nature of abstracted traits such as 'resentment', you should rather study particular consequences of exposure to claims about such abstracted traits. In that context, 'to yield to reproaches' was intentionally 'vague' so to illustrate that the kinds of 'reproaches' to relate to such claims should be as many as possible.
I am a non-native speaker.
>>24605917
>here he assumes to know what i think personality is based on nothing but his idea that i am a buddhist.
pretty sure he inferred that based on what you were saying mate
he's fucking right, there is no such thing as a purely "productive" and "unproductive" emotion. the mind doesn't fucking work like that.
he is right. the endgame of buddhism is a person completely lacking care, drive or compassion, a human vegetable, totally unfeeling and unmotivated to improve themselves or their situation.
maybe the guy uses a few big words and has an idiosyncratic way of communicating but look at you people, you're just latching on to that and attacking him based on who you think he is and not the argument he's proposing (which oh wait, you can't understand because you've decided he's mental and you'll never decipher his insane ramblings).
>>24605991
I managed to follow that jumbled nonsense perfectly fine. if you just slow down and maybe re-read a couple sentences it's perfectly understandable jesus christ. wilful ignorance right there.
think your own thoughts instead of relying on quotes from others. that's probably where a lot of buddhists start out actually.
>>24605890
I can read some pretty difficult stuff. The problem isn't parsing the words; it's following the logic of the arguments. He consistently offers little to nothing of actual substance, expects you to know exactly what he's referring to, and then responds with a total non sequitur.
>Maybe you really don't have a decent rebuttal for him so you just resort to this
Trying to respond in a reasonable, well thought out manner to drivel like this is a complete waste of time.
>>24606104
go meditate on it faggot
>>24601316
>He bitches about analogies
>While using language
top aum
go read the diamond sutra
>>24606057
>pretty sure he inferred that based on what you were saying mate
How do you infer that from what I said?
>here is no such thing as a purely "productive" and "unproductive" emotion
I think productive is a really poor(vague and unfitting) choice of word, and I cannot recall ever using it.
>he is right. the endgame of buddhism is a person completely lacking care, drive or compassion, a human vegetable, totally unfeeling and unmotivated to improve themselves or their situation.
Ironically this is the natural result of his philosoph(or lack of). As demonstrated by his own actions in this thread.
Here is a person who denies any and all power. He is living simply impulse to impulse.
> but look at you people,
I gave him ample opportunity to explain himself , but he insisted on meming with his mumbo jumbo contradictory OC philosophy.
At no point has he made a genuine effort to communicate, instead he is talking to the imaginary audience he fantasies about.
>>24605917
>he concludes that you cannot tell people what to do because they have no self-control
What? This is nonsense on the factual level and I see no reason it should be true on the ethical level (I see no reason why nonexistence of free will should make certain requests morally wrong or not right).
>it's impossible to happy without being sad
Not quite. The danger of, broadly speaking, Buddhism and 'meditation' is hardly lack of enjoyment, but rather becoming removed from that current of desire-achieve-become bored of-desire something else-achieve something else, which Buddhism is really rather explicit about. Such removal won't result in unhappiness as no ideology can cause self-neglect to the point of neglect of basic needs such as a job; but I can and have seen increase in statements in the vein of 'agree to disagree', 'your point is worth as much as mine', 'some things aren't worth arguing', 'it is just words', and so on. And this is just in terms of discussing.
>>24606057
>he's fucking right, there is no such thing as a purely "productive" and "unproductive" emotion. the mind doesn't fucking work like that.
Where was that ever claimed to begin with? The closest I've ever encountered to a similar value judgment in actual Buddhist literature is probably skillful vs. unskillful, which is pretty much unrelated. I don't think there's any Buddhist concept of "productive emotion" vs. "unproductive emotion". So that's just strawman bullshit.
>he is right. the endgame of buddhism is a person completely lacking care, drive or compassion, a human vegetable, totally unfeeling and unmotivated to improve themselves or their situation.
Not true at all, see >>24603744 (my post)
>you're just latching on to that and attacking him based on who you think he is and not the argument he's proposing (which oh wait, you can't understand because you've decided he's mental and you'll never decipher his insane ramblings).
You're imagining we're 10 year olds stumbling upon a Michel Focault book and deciding it's retarded because it's over our heads. It's not quite like that.
>>24606350
>What? [...]
Ah, wait, you meant that I meant that the fact of nonexistence of free will makes requesting some things of people irresponsible. No, that wasn't my point either. What's irresponsible is *implying the existence of free will* with which to potentially counteract the harmful effects of those things, rather than finding out empirically, and then informing the person you're requesting of, whether those effects actually tend to happen.
>>24606350
>I can and have seen increase in statements in the vein of 'agree to disagree', 'your point is worth as much as mine', 'some things aren't worth arguing', 'it is just words', and so on. And this is just in terms of discussing.
...so?
Is it preferable to tard rage and foam at the mouth?
>>24606434
I am not going to opine whose posts ITT were more valuable, yours or mine.
>>24606242
I am as convinced that all words are metaphorical (realized this a couple of years ago) as that that sutra says nothing to that effect and it is just your apologetic apophenia.
>>24606350
You can't have morality without personal responsibility. If providence is responsible for everything you do then you are responsible for nothing. because you have no power/control.
Morality is not about placing the blame on others, but your capacity to take responsibility for your actions.
>desire-achieve-become bored of-desire something else-achieve something else
This attitude will lead you straight to despair.
>>24606518
You equate identifying causes with placing blame. I find it quite inexplainable.
When I say that, for instance, my parents made me violent, this is in no way blaming. It is as factual as a claim about the weather.
When you call it blaming, it is you who are immoral because you silence statements about real, causal relationships, such as those between their choice of interaction with me and my brain. It is literally indirect censorship.
>>24606507
Except that that is exactly what that whole sutra is about. Why do you keep talking about things you don't understand?
>>24606518
>This attitude will lead you straight to despair.
To the degree it has, it has been because people who share my outlook are, while existing, very rare.
>>24606610
What you are saying is that it isn't your responsibility to control your violent impulses. As a matter of fact, your parents have made you violent and that's that.
I could say, video games made me violent, but the truth is that I choose to seek out violent video games to satisfy my desire for desire for violence.
And thus the real cause is not video games, but me.
>>24600342
That statue looks like eggman.
>>24606644
>that is exactly what that whole sutra is about
I searched for the word 'word'. Four results.
For fifteen screens of text, it seems a bit little to explain an linguistic-historical phenomenon with a neurological representation.
>>24606367
fellow meditator here
The fear of eventually becoming an emotionless vegetable has lead me away from the buddhist path before. As said by multiple Buddhist teachers, Buddhism isn't necessarily something you understand. As you would understand a book from Nietzsche. You have to experience it for yourself. To put it bluntly: The unskillful mind will not understand why it is bad to be in that position. You have to become mindful to a certain extent where you can fully realize that we are all stuck in samsara. Just like a tadpole can only realize that it has always lived in water, once it becomes a frog.
>>24606649
It is a futile existence when you live for goals you have sat up simply to satisfy your subconscious deisres.
an endless hamster wheel if you will.
>>24606784
>A two thousand year old scripture doesn't talk about neurons.
You don't say. Any other bar risings you have in store? Have you actually tried to read some of it?
>>24606863
>You don't say.
Yes I do, because this literally means that it did NOT talk about that phenomenon. If I take some ancient epic about humanity raiding of the dwelling of the gods, or something, I can't pretend that it is 'about economic modelling of states' productive power'. You are seeing 'about', 'it is about', where there is none.
>>24606805
'Preferably, your behaviour should be fully conscious.'
Obviously. And obviously irrelevant.
The question is, obviously, of the power of 'meditation' and exposure to Buddhist texts to alter the properties of my brain, such as to notice things around me (in the literal, sensory sense) which to put to use, to choose to pursue interests which lead to exposure to things to notice, to want to do things, to have certain definitions of personal gain and loss, and so on. In short, the wealth of outcomes necessity of relating which to 'meditation' and Buddhism I explained in >>24601850, and which belief in free will is being leveraged to dismiss.
>>24607018
>Yes I do, because this literally means that it did NOT talk about that phenomenon.
How the hell does that follow, you nincompoop? Are you that gone that you think you can only talk about a subject in one way? Have you forgotten you yourself said language is metaphorical?
>If I take some ancient epic about humanity raiding of the dwelling of the gods, or something, I can't pretend that it is 'about economic modelling of states' productive power'.
That's a nice strawman, but the thing is literally just Buddha talking to one of his disciples about perception. Which you would know if you had at least attempted to read it, rather than trying to criticize something you haven't even read.
>>24607018
None of that shit is written down in the original language, or ad verbatim, because the Buddha is mythological figure like Krishna, Apollo and Jesus.
It only takes one translation or "clarification" to change the meaning of someones words completely. If you look into these religions you are sometimes met with wisdom though most of it is wishful thinking or delusion.
When you hear about how dirt poor peasants were told to live righteous lives so they could earn good karma points and reincarnate into a better life then you might be tempted to dismiss the whole thing in advance.
>>24606786
>Buddhism isn't necessarily something you understand. As you would understand a book from Nietzsche. You have to experience it for yourself.
Utter, harmful, anti-intellectual bullshit.
It is an ideology. What it is is literally three things: stuff about it in books, stuff about it being said, and Buddhists tending to do certain things. If I measure the (perfectly measurable) effects of those three on other people, then I can 'understand' it. (Considering that it in itself makes no absolutely no meaningful, falsifiable claims.)
>The unskillful mind will not understand why it is bad to be in that position. You have to become mindful to a certain extent where you can fully realize that we are all stuck in samsara. Just like a tadpole can only realize that it has always lived in water, once it becomes a frog.
'I am magically superior to you because my brain gets to catch itself thinking every now and then and has believed and become attached to the imaginary significance of the truism that "experiencing is something else than thinking", and you will never, ever understand what it feels like until you do it too.' You literally said nothing.
>>24607018
Did you put this through a Markov chain before posting? Because that's how it reads...
>>24607153
>the Buddha is mythological figure like Krishna, Apollo and Jesus.
Buddha was a historical figure, as was Jesus. This isn't controversial at all; it's widely accepted by historians.
>When you hear about how dirt poor peasants were told to live righteous lives so they could earn good karma points and reincarnate into a better life then you might be tempted to dismiss the whole thing in advance.
You can do the same with literally any worldview, ideology, philosophy, etc.
>'I am magically superior to you because my brain gets to catch itself thinking every now and then and has believed and become attached to the imaginary significance of the truism that "experiencing is something else than thinking", and you will never, ever understand what it feels like until you do it too.' You literally said nothing.
I can see that you worked very hard on that straw man that has nothing to do with the post you're quoting.
>>24607293
It doesn't matter what historians accept.
>You can do the same with literally any worldview, ideology, philosophy, etc.
Not really. but a lot of people think that there is only 1 kind of buddhism and that every buddhist philosopher thought the same.
It's like dismissing all philosophy based on the writings of one philosopher.
>>24607129
>Are you that gone that you think you can only talk about a subject in one way?
Buddhists intentionally speak in parables and metaphors because it allows them to claim that 'oh, it has been about this-or-that modern scientific subject from the very beginning, just on the metaphorical level' safely. Because as soon as a culture accepts figurative language, no one's interpretation can be unambiguously proven or disproven, and you have to take the author's, or the interpreter's, version on faith. What kind of person would want that, I wonder.
>Have you forgotten you yourself said language is metaphorical?
I didn't say 'language', but 'words'. That's a difference. Language is symbolic; A or x or + or ? have no original meaning, they are, as soon as they aren't considered as glyphs which do have etymology, arbitrary. *Words* aren't arbitrary; they evolve. 'To evolve' used to mean 'to roll out'; 'arbitrary' meant, apparently, 'pertaining to one who comes'. Words are necessarily metaphorical; language as a whole must reject metaphor to be intellectually responsible (see above).
>>24607406
It is funny to me that you think you can learn about yourself by cutting open a brain and putting it under the scope.
very typical of our times though.
![Kussetsu - 03.avi_snapshot_23.01_[2015.04.11_23.13.56].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/AIdCXVh.jpg "Kussetsu - 03.avi_snapshot_23.01_[2015.04.11_23.13.56].jpg")
>>24600342
buddhism confirmed for the best way to defeat kekery
>>24606041
Way to fail to understand, as always.
The problem is not whether 'you make the world' 'can' be construed as true by *a* reader; some fucking Buddhist will find truth and relevance in everything (see >>24607406). The problem is, as I described in >>24607018, what such claims will do to the *average* reader. Will they imply to him/her that free will is a thing? That it is fine to e.g. reduce 'your thoughts affect your actions' to 'you are your world' (this is a very real problem)? Or that it is fine to say things like 'definitions don't matter, the meaning behind the definitions does'? Again, and so on, and so on?
>>24600342
jesus christ i thought that was an eggman shoop
>>24607564
Free will is a product of consciousness, anything can be done, but you are held back by your religious mathmagical scientism
You have lost your grip on reality.
>>24607406
>Buddhists intentionally speak in parables and metaphors because it allows them to claim that 'oh, it has been about this-or-that modern scientific subject from the very beginning, just on the metaphorical level' safely.
Right, okay, Buddhist have been doing this for thousands of years just to appease a movement that didn't even exist when Buddha was alive. Right.
Not to mention Buddha explicits his points various times through the sutra. But I can't fault you for not knowing that because you haven't read it.
>Because as soon as a culture accepts figurative language, no one's interpretation can be unambiguously proven or disproven, and you have to take the author's, or the interpreter's, version on faith.
It's a good thing then that Buddhist doctrine is often pretty explicit and categorical with its concepts. If you don't believe me you can do something as simple as check wikipedia on the meanings of most concepts.
Also funny how you just ignored the other half of my post.
>>24606269
>He is living simply impulse to impulse.
By the way, readers ITT who are not Buddhists, ye mythical creatures. Even though it isn't about it, let me say that this insult I would actually accept in the sense that 'impulse from impulse' suggests fine causal self-analysis, namely learning how every single thing in my environment affects every single desire of my brain, which belief in f.w./Buddhism dismisses ('your emotions depend on yourself').
>>24606744
>the real cause is not video games, but me
I hate those moments when arguments stop being about arguments, and become assertions of will. 'No you are wrong I am just telling you not to relate yourself causally to nature and nurture and just feel that you are the way you are because of yourself, whatever that would even mean'.
>>24607752
you are simply an actor who mastered the talk, but you have no comprehension of the meaning.
you post in a theatrical, insincere manner distancing yourself from any dialogue, instead insisting on lecturing and correcting people based on what you assume they think.
instead of making any effort to understand what people tell you, or to make you what you say understandable to other people.
it is all manevours to protect your frail ego.
>>24607752
>'your emotions depend on yourself'
>thinks buddhism equates the mind with the self
>thinks buddhism accepts self as a valid concept at all
>>24607477
'You don't truly understand yourself until you fit my magical criteria re. your brain behaving in specific ways!'
'No, you don't understand yourself until I do as I say, e.g. meditate. No, knowing how nature and nurture and your brain interact is not enough. No, of course what true understanding truly is cannot be explained in words, of course it is magically, arbitrarily unexplainable because it is unexplainable. What were you thinking?'
The trick of sect leaders since forever.
>>24607293
>straw man that has nothing to do with the post you're quoting
>say bullshit
>get it pointed out
>'stop strawmanning!'
Am I supposed to be surprised?
>>24607892
>The trick of sect leaders since forever.
That was actually Kierkegaard. I am still not a buddhist.
>>24607863
Buddhist definition-juggling about the self being, or not being, I forgot which, the self, or the you, or the I, or, again, whatever, is not relevant. You can literally find as many Buddhists saying that the self exists as saying that it exists but has to be destroyed and it exists but has to be mastered and exists and has to be befriended and exists and has to be observed and Buddhists saying it is the same thing and Buddhists saying it is not the same thing and Buddhists saying this doesn't matter.
It is all worthless, harmful crap.
>>24607981
In other words, Buddhists latch onto the most ambiguous claims about which to invent ad hoc claims and insist that they are unambiguous products of the sharpest, edgiest intellect.
>>24608028
>these guys im debating are just making logical fallacies by twisting my most ambiguous and totally not vague claims and they think they real smart but they really real dumb
quality post smartypants.
>>24607700
>Buddhist doctrine is often pretty explicit and categorical with its concepts
Understand for once that Dunning-Kruger pertains not onl to intelligence, but to things such as explicitness as well.
>check wikipedia on the meanings of most concepts
Oh, I used to. Not only Wikipedia; I don't like to rely on it. Sometimes I'd look for quotes from mediaeval 'teachers', sometimes the contemporary ones. It is a bit like watching gore; entertaining, but taxing.
hey, anti-buddha
fuck off you retarded piece of shit. you're the r9k equivalent of a tumblrina sjw. we live in a society's that's addicted to spewing filth into the air and it's probably going to destabilize the atmosphere. there's a meme ideology enforced being championed by a apocalyptic death cult on the other side of the earth threatening to swallow us up. they're less important than the other meme ideology whose solution to all of society's problems is slavery, brutality and propaganda.
and you obviously believe the biggest danger presented to modern society is people sitting quietly. fuck you and your idiotic nanny mentality. fuck your anal obsessive drive to squeeze every last drop of efficiency out of humanity. people who seek personal happiness as the highest virtue are self-centered assholes, maybe if they sit quietly they'll realize, "oh maybe buying the new outfit, the new videogame, tricking the indiginous people off their land so we can destroy their environment and enslave them in sweatshops isn't going to fill the emptiness inside me."
what you forget is that if we're, "all one being," like the buddha says, that includes jeffrey dahmer, anders breivik, john wayne gacey, every debauched perverted CEO happily shilling the death of society by debauched sexuality, automatic thinking and apathy.
you think staring at a wall is the biggest threat to society right now? that's what you're occupying your time with? i thought i was a goddamn joke but then i see dipshits like you here. this place is destructive to my psyche. i really can't handle being surrounded by so many lazy assholes. go shoot up a school already if it means you'll stop bugging us, you fucking shit stain.
also school shooting this is a joke.
nobody shoot up schools please
XD this is just toxic XD
>>24608126
>people who seek personal happiness as the highest virtue
This is your fallacy, and it is doubly wrong.
It is not happiness they seek, but implanting self-doubt, 'what if I'm wrong', 'what if it is through meditation that true truth can be reached' shit, as typified by >>24606786 or >>24607827 in addition to, oh wait, literally millions of people who say the same.
And it is definitely not personal. They are vocal, maybe more so than Christianis.
>>24607700
>you just ignored the other half of my post
How on Earth one is supposed to reply to 'no ur wron and dum'?
>>24608117
>The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
>Pulls this up when
>refusing to read the text being discussed multiple times
>admitting all of his knowledge comes from quotes and wikipedia articles
>overall admitting he hasn't read the original source on the doctrine at all, but still will keep rambling about it like he's beyond it
>>24608310
Simply stop being dumb and wrong.
>>24608328
>admitting all of his knowledge comes from quotes and wikipedia articles
The sad thing is that there is literally no Buddhist on /r9k/ that, upon reading that, will not even ask 'where', much less notice that it is not true.
>>24608277
You are doing what I accuse you of doing while quoting me accusing you of doing it.
I haven't said a word about meditation, and yet you assume that I am a buddhist, so naturally I must meditate.
And instead of enganging me, you engage the second mentally ill person to enter the thread, to continue your narcisistic charade and display your delusional self-importance.
>>24608351
Come again?
>>24608347
You use figurative language.
You make no testable hypotheses.
Your terms at no point have been defined physically.
Your posts are literally just accusations of retardation and mental illness of mine and assertions of relevance and specificity and meaning of Buddhist texts which lack the power to either predict things or add to frameworks within which things are predicted, and cliches about 'having an open mind'. In fact, those texts and those posts explicitly distract from those frameworks by stressing existence of free will, 'it is impossible to understand until you try', 'true understanding' being experiential, and so on.
You fail every single standard.
>>24608439
in his fantasy he is fighting a lonely crusade against the menace of the /r9k/ buddhists.
>>24607827
>[you are] making [no] effort to understand what people tell you
Translation:
'[you are] making [no] effort to believe what people tell you'
>>24608549
what exactly did I ask you to believe then?
>>24608471
Of the accompanying ironies the bitterest is, of course, that of 'Buddhism is not a religion'.
>>24608573
You didn't say. Yours has been just the regular 'you don't understand what you don't understand, if you don't understand what you don't understand then there is no way to make you understand until you understand on your own accord'.
>>24608601
I see that's all you picked up from my posts, probably because you were too busy assuming stuff on my behalf. So I felt compelled to correct you. Multiple times.
>>24608625
Please make just one fully-sentenced claim with I purportedly don't understand.
>>24608471
At this point you're just talking to yourself.
Here's a excerpt from the diamond sutra, so you can test your hypotheses:
>"Subhuti, when someone is selflessly charitable, they should also practice being ethical by remembering that there is no distinction between one's self and the selfhood of others. Thus one practices charity by giving not only gifts, but through kindness and sympathy. Practice kindness and charity without attachment and you can become fully enlightened."
>"Subhuti, what I just said about kindness does not mean that when someone is being charitable they should hold onto arbitrary conceptions about kindness, for kindness is, after all, only a word and charity needs to be spontaneous and selfless, done without regard for appearances."
>>24608647
Oh, also, preferably a Buddhist claim, not 'You are illogical.', even though the latter is expected.
>>24608647
>resentment is a coping mechanism for your impotence. it achieves nothing but make you content with your impotence.
>>24608673
Literal garbage, as in, literally every copy of every book this has been printed in should be recycled.
'There is no distinction between one's self and the selfhood of others'. What the flying fuck. I can't even decide if this is meaningless or tautological. The affix -hood implies abstraction; if this were so, then 'selfhood of one equalling selfhood of another' would be as trivially true and useless as 'cathood of one cat equalling cathood of another'. 'You become fully enlightened when you give gifts.' Cheap populist carrot-and-stick; implies that as soon as you're nice, no further self-development is needed, because the endgame of 'enlightenment' has been achieved. Inventing a word solely to give it a privileged connotation and give it to people. Implying free will via 'can'. Anti-intellectualism via 'arbitrary conceptions' and 'spontaneous', equivalent of 'just shut up and do it'. Disabling the brain by stressing empathy. 'Selflessly charitable' is meaningless because self has no physical denotation. 'Without attachment' has been gone through already, in vain. Implication that language is limited.
Yes, that man was evil.
Now, who is going to expose literally the hundred thousand times larger remainder of Buddhist 'literature'?
>>24608843
>implies that as soon as you're nice, no further self-development is needed, because the endgame of 'enlightenment' has been achieved.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Congratulations, you got it.
>>24608904
That a teacher or a stranger might tell as much to a child of one is sufficient reason never to have children.
I tried reading this thread and I just can't follow it. What the fuck is going on in here? It's like an academic warzone with all sorts of distant and out of context terms just whizzing by my head.
>>24608939
>It's like an academic warzone with all sorts of distant and out of context terms
Now now, 'idiot' is a rather intimate term.
>>24608920
It's okay though, even if they were to tell that to your child, and that child would take it to heart, the child would still develop, because it doesn't require a self to change.
>>24608843
still better than most religion
it's at least not dependent on the existence of folklore to have meaning
>>24608843
>'Selflessly charitable' is meaningless because self has no physical denotation.
Sorry, must retract this one. With 'charitable', self actually is more or less a physical term, in the sense that specific brain regions are involved during the charity-making. That's not to say that there aren't literally tons of Buddhist 'literature' that 'discuss' self-in-itself or shit like that.
>>24608990
>the child would still develop, because it doesn't require a self to change.
Now this is pure religion.
What's 'develop'? What's 'change'?
What's 'it' in it, 'child' or 'developing'?
Is this some sort of, again, anti-intellectual 'just let matters take their course'?Of course it is.
>>24609020
>'involved'
>>24609079
What are you implying? Redundancy? Don't see any. Vagueness? Granted, but I just needed to point out that the distinction between 'selfless' and 'selfish' there corresponded to something, as opposed to, a potential distinction between, say 'the self' and 'selfhood', which I'm sure *some* Buddhist has come up with.
>>24608964
I don't even know where to begin with this thread. It absolutely reeks of some wannabe militant academic thinking they know the world because they've found the right set of words with which to splatter conversations in bullshit that few people want to put up with. It's funny, as this is the same tactic governments have been using as they increasingly encroach upon the freedoms of the very people they are composed of.
Unconditional happiness can in fact exist. I don't care for Buddha - never really have - but to go and outright claim something so ridiculous about the nature of happiness with lame verbiage and no papers to add to the conversation is the move of a loser. In fact, this same loser has quoted bits and pieces of Buddha throughout this thread completely out of context just to push their agenda. They are up to no good.
If you want a rather simple rationale as to how happiness can be unconditional, you can read something as simple as V for Vendetta. There are multiple papers that offer some absolutely fascinating interpretations of the story. I.E, how it can be a defense of human dignity, and also how it contains a way with which to demonstrate that happiness is, in fact, "The most insidious prison of all".
I will post two here as links:
https://intranet.stjohns.sa.edu.au/curriculum/eng/12engstudies/Text%20Response/Texts/V%20for%20Vendetta/V%20for%20Vendetta%20and%20Slavoj%20%C5%BDi%C5%BEek.doc
http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/108
If you don't read them, that's your business. But it is so unbelievably stupid and hypocritical to start shitting on some belief system with the manure that comes out of your mouth without even bothering to dig up relevant (and at least somewhat cited) literature on the subject.
>>24609113
I don't think you can simply induce that a certain type of behavior is selfless and correspond with brain activity in a certain region of the brain.
it's a way of begging the question..
Here is a nice Ted Talk if anyone is interested, I found it to be informative and interesting. I figured it was relevant to the ongoing debate/argument in this thread.
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en
>>24609145
>Unconditional happiness can in fact exist.
Never denied that.Obviously.
It is pretty much possible for a person to develop a sense of unfazedness and indifference one then can to no great objections define 'happiness' as.
All I said is that it is not possible to develop it without fucking up your desire for material things, competence, and so on.
>>24609221
How can you achieve real competence when you value your life?
>>24609184
'Selfish charity' = tends to co-occur with thoughts of one's own benefit as a result of the charity, for instance, as opposed to 'selfless'. It is a real distinction, which can be used for reasonings at least ('if it's selfless, then...').
>>24609280
No matter what 'valuing life' means -- pursuing intensity of experiences, pursuing variety of experiences, prolonging the lifespan, protecting one's body, caring about continuation of one's projects, it's ambiguous as fuck -- I see no reason for a conflict there.
>>24609480
Also sorry, post was probably bad, I'm very sleepy suddenly for a reason. Night, I'm afraid.
>>24609480
so how are you measuring people's thoughts? do you ask them to imagine participating in some hypothetical scenario you have decided is selfless?
sounds like there would be a lot of pitfalls.
>I see no reason for a conflict there.
When you only concern yourself with these very finite things you don't see the big picture.
You are viewing things through the lense of your self-interest.
It restrains your ability to understand other people, and remain unbiased and honest with yourself.
>>24600382
>non-feeling
wtf are you talking about?
