Why don't more robits take up Buddhism? It teaches you not to crave material things and to be happy with yourself.
Spoonfeed me where to start. I could use some spiritual healing.
>>24648742
cos I'm not a fucking tard and I'm not interested in separating myself even further from earthly matters
I wonder how long it will take for the anti-Buddhist autist to show up.
Any "philosophy" that requires a dogma to function is fucking retarded.
>>24648837
This.
I really admire people who can just take up Buddhist philosophy (not beliefs) and then be happy. I'm so afraid that if I lose the few things I care about I won't stand life ever again
>>24648813
I started with the book in the image. It's a study of Buddhist scripture from the perspective of a westerner. It's a bit dense but quite good.
>>24649112
>Tibetan
You have a better bet finding something worthwhile in a trashcan.
Not that this book doesn't belong anywhere but there.
>>24648742
Because I like what I have. I'm not going to throw all my shit out because some fat fuck told me to.
>>24649092
I used to think in a similar fashion but it is the complete opposite. The deeper I go, the more I lose my ego, the more beauty and joy I find in the world around me.
Trust me, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
>>24649065
An essential part of the dogma is to constantly remain skeptical and question everything you learn.
>>24649152
You don't need to totally remove all comforts and material sensation from your life. It trains you not to crave them by giving you something even better.
>>24649243
Such as reincarnation, huh?
You're not supposed to question that, the moment you do, it all falls apart at the seams.
>>24648742
>It teaches you not to crave material things and to be happy with yourself.
Precisely because that.
The moment I become happy with myself is the moment I stop developing as a person.
>inb4 the right and wrong kind of dissatisfaction fallacy
>>24649186
If you put it that way, I might give it a try...
Btw, is this website legit ?
http://howtonotgiveafuck.com/post/32157343136/how
>>24649274
Not all Buddhist schools believe in reincarnation though.
>>24649319
>>inb4 the right and wrong kind of dissatisfaction fallacy
Oh, wait, it's been committed already: >>24649186 and >>24649243.
>>24649243
>An essential part of the dogma is to constantly remain skeptical and question everything you learn.
Pity than that the entirety of the Buddhist brainwashing results in the opposite.
>>24648742
But Anon, my fedora won't allow me to accept any religion. Even if there's no gods it still implies that you reincarnate and that there's all this mystical energy or whatnot.
The best way of reaching clarity and peace is working on yourself alone, with no external help or rules to obey. Of course reading about different religious approaches to life will be beneficial, but takin a religion up shouldn't be an option. At least that's how I figure out life.
There's never a justified reason for chaining yourself down with a closed mindset and promising yourself a reason to live. There is a justified need, but not a justified reason.
>>24649483
In other words, in a world where every human being alive would tell you to 'be skeptical' and 'question', you have to be a special kind of retarded to think that it alone warrants trust. (Or a Buddhist.)
In fact, the more someone tells me to 'be critical', the less I'd trust them, because this means that they're trying to make me trust them with declarations ('I am rational, I have nothing to hide') and with the merit of their words.
>>24649538
>and with the merit of their words
*and not with
>>24648742
>in b4 that guy who always writes 8-paragraphs posts full of scizophrenic nonsense about how much he hate Buddhists
I just feel sorry for him now really
>>24648837
>>24649092
>>24649186
>>24649152
>>24649319
I'm a generic Buddhist, and "It teaches you not to crave material things and to be happy with yourself" is not really true. Craving material things is all right, it's technically natural as humans, things are fun and neat. You should enjoy them
>in b4 wall of text
going with an example, say you get into collecting cards as a hobby. That gives you joy and some meaning in life and something to look to. What Buddhism teachers is that you shouldn't throw away your other obligations as a human and ignore other people just so you can focus more on your card collection. Your card collection shouldn't be your only reason to wake up and go to work for either.
And when, rather than if, you lose your card collection one day, there is no point in being sad. The joy that you got out of those cards was within you, you can apply those feelings to anything else.
TL:DR: Buddhism is about enjoyment, but not attachment. people confuse monastic Buddhism with regular-people Buddhism.
>>24649569
I'm really surprised that guy hasn't showed up yet. I'm hanging around in this thread just to fuck with him if he does.
>>24649569
>>in b4 that guy who always writes 8-paragraphs posts full of scizophrenic nonsense about how much he hate Buddhists
>>24649538
>>24649361
>>24649319
More like in after, I guess.
I wonder if this guy ever takes a day off and just reads a book on his porch or learns to play guitar or something.
>>24649569
>>24649596
he is here you just can't see him because you lack perception.
>>24649274
You are supposed to question it.
>>24649320
Good website. Don't think of it as not giving a shit, but rather being aware of where your emotions arise from and having control over them.
>>24649569
You are an idiot. You let a religion's tautologies ('let go, but in moderation') obscure awareness of consequences of exposure to those tautologies. In short, you don't want to discuss reality, and you believe that as soon as your master tells you 'don't worry, you won't come not to enjoy things as much anymore, the degrees and objects of your interest will depend on you', this is what will happen. I haven't used this term for some time, but you are a sheep.
>>24649569
>scizophrenic
Buddhists: the word.
>>24649683
>You let a religion's tautologies ('let go, but in moderation') obscure awareness of consequences of exposure to those tautologies. In short, you don't want to discuss reality, and you believe that as soon as your master tells you 'don't worry, you won't come not to enjoy things as much anymore, the degrees and objects of your interest will depend on you', this is what will happen. I haven't used this term for some time, but you are a sheep.
And again, before I managed to post: >>24649670's 'Don't think of it as not giving a shit, but rather being aware of where your emotions arise from and having control over them.'.
This is just hilarious. 'Mommy told me it's not gonna hurt.' 'Master told me it's not gonna harm.'
>>24649596
Looks like he's posted a few words here and there
He always buzzwords about how Buddhists are lazy and want to poison your mind, despite proof of the contrary
>>24649719
>Buddhists are lazy and want to poison your mind, despite proof of the contrary
That proof being no less than them saying said contrary?
>>24649505
Buddhism teaches to embrace other religions and see the truth that all of them have in common. It's not exclusive, just most people choose to follow Buddhism exclusively of their own volition.
There aren't 'gods' in the sense that is common in our culture. It's hard to describe in words but the super-natural stuff is just poetic ways to describe abstract concepts that conventional language isn't really designed to do.
>>24649758
>It's hard to describe in words but the super-natural stuff is just poetic ways to describe abstract concepts that conventional language isn't really designed to do.
'I-it's a metaphor! It's not nonsense! It's a metaphor!'
>>24649683
>don't worry, you won't come not to enjoy things as much anymore, the degrees and objects of your interest will depend on you
literally nothing to do with Buddhism, keep on screaming at shadows that aren't there.
>>24649569
Sounds legit, indeed.
>>24649670
Sounds better than just not giving a shit
>>24648742
Because it's stoner-babble fucking bullshit.
>>24649780
This is literally what every single Buddhist site says, you... well, all Buddhists are retarded.
'Become less attached, but not excessively.'
'Give up desire, but only the bad kind of it.'
'Let go, but not of that which is important.'
'Don't pursue, but I only mean the ego-drive kind of pursuit, the right kind of pursuit, namely ego-less, is okay.'
This is all literally 'rape is fine as long as it's consensual'. Can't you REALLY see this? D:
>>24649319
Option C:You can be happy with yourself and how much you strive for improvement
>in b4 air quote around things I never said and more angry nonsense
>>24649846
You know if you're going to argue with yourself and quote things that aren't said by me, I'd appreciate if you didn't reply to my post, since you're not actually replying to anything I say, and let me out of your discussion that you're having with yourself. Thanks.
>>24649926
Myths.
Fairy tales.
Literally no better than belief in celestial afterlife.
'You can! Lalala! Let's talk about what can be! Who cares about empiricism! Who cares about relating your words to consequences in reality! You, you there, you can be perfect! You there, you can perfectly let go of this or that! You there, you can experience perfect balance! You, you can be in perfect harmony! What do those mean? What do those translate to physically? Doesn't matter! There is perfect this and that and it can be! Who cares about materiality of terms! Who cares about correlations between hearing those claims and actions! Let's just get people to meditate because something something CAN happen! This is truth too! I'm going to invent some imaginary perfectness and balanceful harmony and imply that it's relevant!'
>Buddhism is a science!
>>24650020
>>24649926
In other words, Buddhists are not interested in reality.
They are not interested in the human mind.
They are not interested in removing suffering.
Because those are empirical subjects.
Buddhists just want to talk about neat pretty symmetrical concepts that would look pretty on a graph, 'if perfect happiness this this and embrace of duality that that and ego this this under this and that, then perfect this and ultimate that will be achieved'.
It's a joke.
>>24650020
>>24650090
You can make yourself have an asthma attack, why shouldn't be able to cure your anxiety?
>>24650020
WHO
ARE
YOU
QUOTING
I'm more amazed than I am disturbed or troubled at this point
I say one thing and you reply to my post with a whole completely utterly different set of words and sentences that exist in your mind, and argue against those.
Just what are you doing? Take a breather man, drink some water or something.
>mfw everyday with this guy
Amazing. Just completely incredible and amazing.
>>24650119
'Lalala it's not that your ailments depend on a fuckton of environmental, genetic, epigenetic, whatever the fuck the buzzword is causes! Let's not how occurrence of diseases depends on latitude & longitude, how it is related to stressors or industrial pollution or respiratory or circulatory system! Let's just use the word CAN! CAN CAN CAN! You CAN perfectly control all that's perfectly controllable by you! Perfection! And capacity! Concepts! Shiny! Wheeee!'
>>24648742
Hehe! That's it! Take up Buddhism!
>OP's face when you kick the bucket
>>24650132
>I say one thing
You said no thing. You spouted a meaningless AND harmful cliche about free will whose predictive value is nil. Which is what makes you religious, just as religious as a devout Christian.
>>24650171
the human mind and suffering are both concepts. you gotta slow down a moment and take time to understand the meaning of the words you use.
yfw the crazy asshole is actually secretly a Buddhist reincarnation sent back to earth to test the compassion of Buddhists, because even the mentally retarded screaming idiots deserve compassion
well played.
>>24650230
Buddhist spew has no significance. It all has the value of 'things can be okay', of 'nothing bad will happen if you don't let bad things happen', of 'you can have no bad things and only have good things if you work to only have the good things, and also if there are some bad things that must be had, then you must accept the bad things'. It at no point touches reality. It is for people on literally the mental level of children.
>>24650208
and you were completely and utterly triggered by it, which makes you a candy-coated caramel crybaby faggot.
can someone just tell me what the point of it all is?
is it that there is no point in improvement because i'll always be a loser weakling or anything because in the end we all die and it wont matter so don't even bother?
I don't even know anymore. halp
>>24650307
The difference is that I pointed your religiousness at the point you explicitly brought the subject to yourself, while you have begun to insult me before I even opened the thread.
>>24650300
>Strawman argument: the post
Your use of apostrophes as quotation marks also reveal your lack of education & intelligence.
>>24650317
Unlss you enjoy being a loser wealking, you should strive to make efforts to change for the better. Not to get the girl or ot make mom & dad happy, but for your own sake.
>>24650300
What about suffering and the human mind, can you define either of those?
>>24650341
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/quotation-marks-american
>In British English, the usual style is to use single quotation marks, while any associated punctuation is placed outside the closing quotation mark.
>>24650330
I'm not even Buddhist, I'm just completely amazed at how much you give a shit and are upset at the fact that some people.
Also
>>24649846
>all Buddhists are retarded.
You started flinging shit first. Cry some more.
>>24648742
the essence of buddhism is mindfulness meditation, which would benefit all of you robots
>>24650420
>Being British
>being mad at Buddhist on the internet at 1 in the morning
>>24650366
but as far as all of this goes with god and ways of life, meditation, all that crap. I don't understand which way to go
>>24650434
please no stop don't say those two words now he's really going to start arguing with himself and be really extra angry about it too
I wonder if either party is aware of what they are doing.
>>24650465
meditation is great but it's also bit of a meme. All that meditation is, is clearing your mind.
You can sit down with your legs crossed and eyes closed, sure, but that's not for everyone. Kung Fu and Karate and martial arts are meditation. Going for a walk is meditation. Riding your bike is meditation. Painting and drawing is meditation, etc.
I can't draw or paint for shit lol but I do practice kung-fu and go out for walks a lot, I do sitting meditation for only maybe an hour a week. Active meditation is much better IMO.
>>24650379
Wow, a question? In a Buddhism thread? I take it you are not a Buddhist.
Happiness/suffering... those don't exist in the robes-on-head retarded Buddhist sense and are in no way 'eliminable' or 'controllable'. This is gibberish. Happiness and suffering are essentially inherent ad hoc valuations involved involuntarily in decision-making. Imagine a literal robot. Or, even better, a pathfinding algorithm. When the algorithm considers two paths, it computes their desirability -- distance, inclination, terrain. The positive scalar values are happiness (desire). The negative values are suffering (avoidance). The path with most happiness is chosen. Same with human beings, except here the algorithm involves infinitely more factors and decisions to make. Happiness/suffering is a property of a choice. It is not a state; human beings are not happy or sad, they are just dead matter. Matter is all that exists. Happiness and suffering exist as much as, say, the property of some numbers being prime or negative.
Which leads us to mind. I (obviously) don't understand the specifics, but the mind is an abstract that does a certain set of definable functions. The concept mustn't be marred by Buddhist crap about 'the mind being you' or 'the mind not being you' or 'the mind (not) being your thoughts' or 'the mind being reality' or 'the mind being this-or-that' of reality' or 'the mind being like...'. It is simply a, can I say, abstract structure. I only conceive of two more mental functions confidently: definition, which is recognition of a pattern, e.g. a cat or hostility or sentience or a number, an instance with a class (again cf. AI algorithms) and prediction, logic-connected imagination of outcomes based on probabilities etc., also used in decision-making.
The mind has a very specific definition, which is why it hurts so much to see Buddhists authoritatively shit on it.
>>24650706
that's a lot of words just to say "I don't know"
>>24649683
None of that even has to do with Buddhism mate, it just sounds like the incoherent ramblings of a schizophrenic.
>>24650706
In other words, computer programs that implement a certain interface are literally minds.
>>24650317
>>24650465
In the context of Buddhism, the easiest way to know if it's the path for you is to learn how to meditate properly and give it a serious try. It's not hard and it doesn't take very much time.
You'll die in the end, sure, but meditation will give you the tools to deal with it in a more skillful way than most people. You can't prevent death but you can make the time you spend alive much more pleasant and by spending your life working at a noble purpose, you can take much of the sting out of death and be prepared to accept it comfortably when the time comes.
Don't take the people talking shit about Buddhism/meditation too seriously. There are many schools of Buddhism, many of which have some very strange and incorrect beliefs. Meditation is an even broader term, used by hundreds of different groups to mean hundreds of different things. People meet a weird Buddhist sect and decide that all Buddhists are the same and come to threads like this to bash them. Would you be well educated on Christianity if the only Christians you'd met were Mormons?
Do your own research before listening to random anons.
>>24650706
And, in fact, yes, I just realized that it is literally not possible to say that someone is happy or sad. It would be extremely arrogant to say that this is my elephant in the room moment, but I admit I am tempted.
>>24649775
That's exactly what it is though. Even the bible is metaphors.
>inb4 samefag
>>24649846
The quotes that you pulled out of your ass are basically saying "Live a balanced life".
>>24650426
>You started flinging shit first.
>Buddhists can't tell an insult from a fact
>Buddhists can't tell a statement in itself from a statement accompanying
>>24650434
>mindfulness meditation
There is no such thing. 'Mindfulness' makes you less aware of your environment (there are literally no studies proving it), and 'meditation' involves no contemplation of a subject.
>>24650591
>All that meditation is, is clearing your mind.
No, it is actively getting your brain to have self-referential thoughts at the expense of externally denoting thoughts.
>Kung Fu and Karate and martial arts are meditation. Going for a walk is meditation. Riding your bike is meditation. Painting and drawing is meditation, etc.
This is an extremely common manipulation and extremely vile. No. Those things all involve an external focus, an external denotation.
>>24650464
I am not British.
>>24650836
>can
>can
>can
Them being religious, it will never occur to Buddhists that the question to ask is the empirical 'to which degree will it tend to contribute to'.
>>24650967
>self-referential thoughts at the expense of externally denoting thoughts.
fwooooosh
> Those things all involve an external focus, an external denotation.
So does regular (sitting) meditation.
>I am not British.
Okay so you're just pretending to be one? Why use British quotes?
>>24650706
>I take it you are not a Buddhist.
that'd be a first.
>inherent ad hoc valuations
what is an inherent ad hoc valuation?
>Happiness/suffering is a property of a choice
define property.
>human beings are not happy or sad, they are just dead matter.
define alive.
>Matter is all that exists.
Define matter, define exist.
>but the mind is an abstract that does a certain set of definable functions.
This definition is extremely vague.
>definition, which is recognition of a pattern, e.g. a cat or hostility or sentience or a number, an instance with a class (again cf. AI algorithms) and prediction, logic-connected imagination of outcomes based on probabilities etc., also used in decision-making.
So making you feel an urge would not be a function of your mind? Why not? Would the urge be a property of a choice or possibility that has not even been conceived of?
Buddhism is stupid and anyone who practices it is stupid.
Christianity, hedonism, stoicism, eatingpoopooism, literally anything would be better than nihilism-for-slant-eyed-faggots.
>>24651046
I hope this is bait.
If it isn't, it's no surprise you're miserable on /r9k/
>>24651025
>>Those things all involve an external focus, an external denotation.
>
>So does regular (sitting) meditation.
>focus on your thoughts
>focus on your fucking BREATH
>external denotation
I deeply hope that it is the word 'denotation' that you don't understand and not 'external', anon.
>>24651025
I use British English because American English e.g. reduces words ('through' -> 'thru', 'colour' -> 'colour'), and I think it is better to stay on the longer, more explicit side of things. I also just prefer the original dialect.
>>24651132
>I also just prefer the original dialect.
I mean, *I prefer the dialect that is original.
>>24651095
>I hope this is bait cause i sure got butthurt
H e l l o
R e d d i t
>>24651132
The external focus of sitting meditation is to be one with the world, to be as still and as quiet as the trees :^)
Besides, things like karate katas, walking and jogging, and most physical exercise aren't about external focus at all. You're just moving your limbs around until they're on autopilot and you're left to focus on your breathing - just like sitting meditation.
Buddhism is absolutely fucking retarded. Its whole purpose is emotional lobotomy.
Hinduism is pretty legit, though. The reason people have shitty lives is because of bad karma caused by the planetary influences. The way to burn off this karma and achieve moksha is to use Solar mantras and kundalini yoga.
>>24651373
Don't forget to poo in the holy Ganges river!
>>24651396
my family is polish so idgaf
>>24651040
Friendly reminder that the spite in which you made this post goes into the archive. Better hope that your style in it, e.g. your inconsistent capitalization, doesn't identify you.
Even if one took that post seriously, your questions are worthless. Being 20, you are still under the impression that definitions are dictionary, that they are are some special strings words associated with other words. This is not the proper approach. Correspondingly, your questions didn't work the way you hoped. Outside of the network of physical definitions ('a cat is an animal with four legs', 'a leg is a motor appendage'), asking for definitions is more of (more of -- far from entirely) a request for elucidation. Your spiteful questions intended to imply that I 'don't know' my definitions, or that 'I don't have any', so as for you to be able to proclaim a binary victory, 'you lost'. Not so. The proper way to reply re., e.g., 'ad hoc valuation', would be explaining how values are not permanent, but shifting from one infinitesimal moment to another; to 'alive', about the delusion of free will and the autism-allism scale. The correspondence of the set of words one uses and the set of concepts one references isn't, contrary to how you might feel in a year or two, one-to-one; concepts are perfectly elucidatable, and perfectly definable, but you can't just take every single literal word you see on the screen and ask for the definition. It is as if you implied that a sentence is meaningless until one provided the definition of every single consonant and vowel in it.
>>24651487
In other words, your post is comparable to someone saying that a certain class or type or whatever of numbers are numbers that..., at which point you'd interrupt and ask, 'what does "to be", as in "are", mean?'. Particular functions of function words differ depending on the context; often isolating them makes no sense at all, as when you asked for a definition of 'property'. Last I checked, it was a Buddhist 'philosopher' that concerned himself whether entities' properties exist separately from entities themselves.
>>24651487
verbal fallacy: the book
>>24651487
So when I ask you to clarify the keyterms you used to define suffering and the human mind, you accuse me of believing that all language to be circular(basically not understand the concept of meaning).
Is this perhaps to mask that you can't elaborate?
You shouldn't start something you cannot finish.
>>24651583
>Last I checked, it was a Buddhist 'philosopher' that concerned himself whether entities' properties exist separately from entities themselves.
Was it?
which one was that?
and apparently you don't see the problem with your vague definition of mind.
>an abstract(---> concept) that can perform functions
A program is an abstract that can perform functions.
>>24651095
Who said I'm miserable? You're the one basing your life on the ravings of a depressed emo chinaman.
>everything is suffering
>life sucks
>boohoo poopoo
>>24651644
>when I ask you to clarify the keyterms
First, don't lie, Buddhist. You did no such thing.
Second, what?
The only thing that is 'circular' about language is the trivial circle of it always being possible to ask for a definition (or say 'prove it'), which you partook in, which is a mere artifact of the human brain, and which is approximately the intellectual equivalent of 'MOAR'. Literally all you did was cried 'MOAR' a couple of times. This is fine, or rather, would have been if it were honest, and I would have shifted the subject appropriately, but it has only indicated things about you, not my claims. There are many subjects which are complete in some sense or another. Regardless of any buzzwords of incompleteness you might throw at me, most conceptual systems are 'complete' in some sense, as long as tangential subjects are not included in them erroneously ('logic is flawed because we will never know answers to all questions about the physical world, which are only answerable using logic'). Logic or math, physics or linguistics. Such was my delineation of happiness/suffering/mind, too. The fact that it is open to elaboration doesn't make it flawed.
>>24651700
I only answer questions, Buddhist. If you want me to answer, you need to ask.
That said, for the last time, I shall reply. Give me a couple of minutes.
>>24651965
When you use words that have many different interpretations and usages, like: property, dead(as a 'property' of matter apparently), matter(which is what? a variable in an equation?) exist(what is the criteria for something to exist?), you are going to have to clarify.
Otherwise how can you say that you have made any effort at presenting your thoughts in a clear manner? Since I don't know what you mean I cannot respond to whatever point you had(or thought you had).
>>24651700
It might have been this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory#Bundle_theory_and_Buddhism
Now proceed to saying that the guy was not a Buddhist, or that it is not 'philosophy', or that it is not about 'properties', or whatever crosses your clear mind.
>>24652110
Ah, I see.
You just needed me to say whatever so to then say I am rambling.
Well, this is not the worst tactic Buddhists have used on me. Three posts of elaboration are enough to demonstrate your disruption to anyone who should notice it.
>>24648742 (OP)
>Why don't more robits take up Buddhism?
Because as a Wizard I was taught a different way.
Please note that I'm not saying that they're wrong and I'm all right, I'm saying that following two different paths isn't the best way to go somewhere.
I just feel that my way matches me way more than buddhism does.
>>24650264
You know the teaching about the drunk master who spat on his disciple? Probably. The one where the monk meditates 20 years on perfect patience but takes the b8t of a new monk and gets angry? Good but unsurprising.
So let's try a new one.
> Man goes to a wise monk.
> Says he's depressed.
> Says life seems harsh and cruel.
> Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain.
> The monk says, Treatment is simple. Buddha is in town tonight. Go and hear him. That should clear up your clouded mind.
> Man bursts into treats.
> Says, But... I am Buddha.
>>24652110
In other words, you are a bit like the guy who, when explained to that free will doesn't exist, insists that one should define 'free' and 'will'.
tbqh buddhism is generally pretty trill. theistic religion is for faggots
>>24652204
Because you are rambling. I guess you think you make sense because you get taken seriously in these buddha threads, but that's honestly because buddhists are just as prone to rambling as you.
>what? I don't have to define exist, everyone knows what existence means, you are just being pedantic. now let me talk about how these other guys are shit for only speaking vague illusion/maya/concept/abstraction).
>fallacies are okay when I commit them
>>24652297
Yes. and exist now that we are at it.
Otherwise it is a completely meaningless statement.
>>24652363
It depends how you define meaning to be quite sempai desu.
> Wittgenstein would beat us to death with a metal pipe while yelling about "language games" if he was still alive
>>24652327
Your fallacy, or rather, your pretension, because you are fully aware of your manipulation, is... how to put it... you confuse the room for an *explanation* of a subject (or a mere statement of it) to engender elaborations for its *being flawed*. Again, you think that as soon as you asked 'what does it mean for mathematical quantifiers to say "there exists"?', this proves something about math. No; it is just changing the subject. You just changed the subject. My word 'exist' you pretend is central to judging my model was just a function word to introduce the distinction between claims referring and not referring to matter. My use of 'dead', which you pretend was relevant as well, was, again, just a hint at the two ways in which brains react to environment. One can, arguably, call your tactic meaningful. But has zero intellectual value; one could just as well write a parser program to ask one such questions about one's texts.
>>24652467
It was a poker, not a pipe, wasn't it?
>>24652589
I just thought of another analogy (>inb4 I am a hypocrite for using analogies; unlike Buddhists, I use analogies after the explicit explanation, not *instead of* it). You are like a person who thinks that by pointing out a 'lack of definition' of the word 'to be', you proved meaningless every single statement that used it.
>>24652467
Meaning: awareness of one or more relation(s) between objects.
Aware: My language is not adequete to fully clarify, but it's a kind of observation bound to meaning.
Observe: here an example is gonna have to make do, you are observing this right now.
Object: that which has shape
>>24652589
>a function word to introduce the distinction between claims referring and not referring to matter.
"matter is all that exist" "exist is a function word"
no, exist is a verb. to exist. but if you aren't going to distinguish between the two, define matter.
>>24652689
>You are like a person who thinks that by pointing out a 'lack of definition' of the word 'to be'
I think you can make a distinction between what is and what is not(name nothing).
>>24650706
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/functionalism/
I suppose I should read this article. Not that I think that anything in it would convince me I was wrong.
>>24652987
>(name nothing)
namely*
oh haha look it's a shit storm in here just like every buddhism thread
>wahhh wahhh I love my suffering fuck off sangha REEEEEEEEEEE
>>24648742
It's pretty useless and wasn't developed with the intent to be a religion desu.
>>24652771
I don't want to be the Diogenes in your Plato, but are you saying that statements have shapes?
If statements are shapeless, they're meaningless as we cannot observe their relationships.
> Joke aside, I thought you were talking about meaning in the linguistic sense, as in "what he intended you to understand"
>>24653065
>wasn't developed with the intent to be a religion desu
so don't treat it as one? i'm not a buddhist but i got a lot of what i believe about suffering and human nature from them.
>>24653102
That which has shape is an object. You can't a draw a statement. You can send a drawing to someone as a statement, but they would have to interpret what you meant to state(your statement) from your drawing.
>>24652987
Listen, Buddhist, as I said, if I wanted or needed a dumb machine to tell me to define my terms, I would write myself something like javascript:(function(){var x='What is your definition of...'.split(/\s+/);for(var i=0;x[i];i++)prompt('Define \'' + x[i] + '\'.');})() ... oh wait.
>>24653200
Poor attempt at humor in my opinion. I would be embarassed on your behalf, except I don't get embarassed.
>>24653246
>except I don't get embarassed
That is definitely one of the first things one notices about Buddhists, yes.
>>24652589
>It was a poker, not a pipe, wasn't it?
Wittgeinstein was known for hitting on his young students with a ruler if he felt that they didn't take his mathematics lessons seriously. He was pretty rad about his stuff, I guess.
>>24653035
Basically yes, that sums it up. And I'm saying it in a positive way, the Robot's way of enjoying its sadness and anger is a good challenge to buddhism, which is old and not postmodernist. It's 2016. Why don't more buddhists become Robots? It teaches you to crave material things and be unhappy with yourself.
>>24653275
Have you ever read Dostoevsky?
>>24653297
>It teaches you to crave material things and be unhappy with yourself.
You should be honest with youself. It's likely no one else is ever going to be.
>>24653275
>>24653246
Also it is not humour, but just pointing out your vapidity, if it were serious and not just a fully aware attempt to discredit me in the eyes of the few Buddhists out there that are even more retarded than you, and who may buy it. Your tactic would be just as 'meaningful' if it were applied to, off the top of my head, weather prediction: 'What does it mean to model'? 'What is a change?' 'What is a pattern?'. You are just too retarded to even realize that it could be used there.
>>24653314
I think it is irresponsible to waste one's time on fiction.As you should have been able to tell already from my posts in this thread.
>>24653421
>your vapidity,
my vapidity.
your posts are 90% insults. it's hard to get through your donkey brained skull and get you communicate.
i guess i put too much pressure on you by asking you to clarify all that shit.
>>24653421
Dostoevsky didn't just write fiction.
>>24653372
There's power in my dishonesty.
Changing the way I think is hard. A lot of bias are there.
If I lie and pretend to think differently, then it's easier to take distance from my first way of thinking. Very easy to give up my lies as I knew all along I was trolling myself.
That's the thing I like the most with the Robots and Wizards memes, they describe the world in a way so ridiculous that you can adopt it without ever being afraid to falling for that shit. Not so true with an ideology from the real world.
>>24653188
English isn't my first language. In my mother tongue, an object can be mental, like "the object of my affection/my thoughts/my desire". Guess I'll have to be careful with that word.
>>24653596
we can distinguish between hypothetical(imaginary) and physical(has a physical location) objects.
>>24653466
>'Free will doesn't exist; there are just physical factors that affect your thoughts and values, and one's choices don't depend on oneself.'
>'Define free! Define will! Define physical! Define choices! Define factors! Define affect! Define and!'
Some statements are introductions, for instance the statement introducing the notion of abstraction, when a child learns for the first time that there is such a thing as a function, with an input and an output, which is the general form of an infinite number of entities, particular functions calculating the likelihood or magnitude of something (something happening, or a physical quantity, or...). My original post about happiness/suffering/mind was like that; it introduced a mere perspective, whereby the mind is conceived as a, more or less, mathematical structure. For instance, where cognition is considered as a relationship between a set of patterns to recognize and the pattern being recognized. Or, where decision-making is considered as a graph (?), if then if.
That said, it is for other readers, obviously, that I have been writing, and not for you, Buddhist.
>>24653505
Oh? I imagine; I imagine he must have been a journalist at least. Still, what's your point? Want to recommend something else than that 'Letters...' thing?
>>24653779
nigger no one in the world can follow your donkey brained nonsense.
You do not understand how to make rational, non-circular definition.
The truth is you cannot define the terms I asked you to. Because if you do the contradiction in your rationale becomes apparent.
and btw mister mister, the tally is now 5:0.
>>24653853
>The truth is you cannot define the terms I asked you to.
I have already explained most of fallacies of yours which underlie this accusation. I have nothing else to say. That said, you have won; you will have a post to point to whenever you'll need to say 'he doesn't define his terms'.
>>24653925
Name a single fallacy that "underlie" my request.
Did you pull these fallacies out of your ass?
>>24653925
>you will have a post to point to whenever you'll need to say 'he doesn't define his terms'
Though then, I don't really understand why you went through all the effort. Buddhists have been calling me schizophrenic for years; why would they suddenly need a thread to refer people to, especially one in which I actually explained something new as opposed to Buddhists' same tired belief in free will and immaterialism?
>>24654016
I make an effort because I see some potential in you. You make an effort, but the effort is not to be honest with everyone, but rather to make others(and by extention yourself) see you in a certain to benefit your self-interest.
Not being able to lie directly to yourself you want to believe the lies you help others invent.
>>24654104
>I make an effort because I see some potential in you.
I remember the last time a Buddhist told me that.What he called me before that is impossible to cite civilly He lied the usual Buddhist fare about me, too: schizophrenia, being a 'shut-in', that I intend to ruin /r9k/, that I create several kinds of threads which I hardly/never created, and so on. As I explained to him in that thread, he was just playing bad cop good cop. Having seen that insults, lies, and threads didn't work, he finally reached for compliments. The thread should be in the archive if it has been archived from archive.moe already.
>>24654193
I don't know if you misuse the word buddhist on purpose or if you genuinely believe everyone who speaks to you in theses threads to be a buddhist.
I often times employ insults to get a certain reaction to happen internally in the one I am insulting.
I notice that you are quite aggressive in your manner of communication, so I figure you I need to insult you a couple of times to actually get you to pay attention to what I say.
>>24654285
You say nothing.
Also.
>>24654285
>if you misuse the word buddhist on purpose or if you genuinely believe everyone who speaks to you in theses threads to be a buddhist
Neither. For instance, in a recent thread there was an anon who pointed out that Buddhist insistence that 'the cause of one's suffering is in one's perceptions' is mislocating its cause. I've never noticed that myself. I agreed, and elaborated that it is basically a cowardly way to blame the victim of, for instance, violence. The example he gave was Nazi crimes. (Hi, anon, if you're reading this.)
>>24654301
Communication needs a shared(agreed upon) understanding of terms to be clear.
You spent a lot of time talking about the problem that comes from a lack of clarity, but when you get the opportunity to frame the issue you feel threathened and clam up.
You suspect that I am insincire in my question, that I am trying to get you to make some admission I can quote out of context.
>>24654370
>[...] Buddhist insistence that 'the cause of one's suffering is in one's perceptions' is mislocating its cause. I've never noticed that myself.
I mean, I've always known that Buddhists believe in free will, but not under that particular angle of justifying injustice.
>>24654421
Your definition of justice: how you think things should be.
My definition of justice: how things are.
>>24654374
If you understand that physical phenomena have the forms of vectors, or probabilities (not even referring to quantum phenomena, no), or, again, any types of functions, or anything at all that's expressible numerically, then you really shouldn't take offence to my definition of the mind as a phenomenon of the form characterized by mathematical concepts as well, as I described. Of course, you *didn't* take offence to it at all; you're just pretending you did.
>>24654510
Gibberish, both parts.
Justice is the property of applying to members of a set one function as opposed to more than one. This is literally justice.
>>24654581
>Justice is the property of applying
*is applying
>mfw this dude is still going at it
Sounds like attachment to arguing online is the source of your suffering, and you could use some mindful meditation and living in the moment! :^)
>>24654640
One day, the singularity will judge that man.
I won't live to see it.
>>24654581
>This is literally justice.
no that's actual gibberish.
>>24654581
>forms of vectors, or probabilities
You don't seem to be able to seperate natural philosophy (science) from math which is tautology.
>>24654669
>>This is literally justice.
>
>no that's actual gibberish.
No, it is not. Justice is literally treating everyone equally. This being properly, parsimoniously abstracted, 'one' becomes a member of a set (because it would be ridiculous to limit justice to humans only), 'treatment' becomes a function, yielding, for instance, a punishment or a gift, and 'equally' means that while the function might contain criteria re. the entity, such as severity of the crime or one's height or weight or whatever, no arbitrary exceptions are being made, i.e. the same function is used to everyone.
This is the definition of justice, Buddhist retard. 'How things are' means perfectly nothing.
>>24654767
Of course, like the vast majority of Buddhists, you have the schizotypal personality disorder in addition to retardation; so it is understandable.
>>24654767
>>24654818
>delicious world salad with salty tears on top
>>24654767
Or, perhaps a better formulation would be that the function's outcome does not depend on properties of the set's members specially designated as identity. I.e., that, for instance, that it is fine for it to depend on (severity of crime, contribution to the thread, amount of cookies one made), but not on (name, poster id, physical identity), both lists being of course arbitrary.
>>24654767
>Justice is literally treating everyone equally
That is neither possible nor is it what you do.
Making yourself the judge and then inferring from somone's behavior how to judge them, that's what you do.
>'How things are' means perfectly nothing
it does mean something. it means that I think everything that happens is just.
What you are missing in your superficiality, is the implication of that statement, namely that humans are incapable of making valid value judgements.
The only validity your values have is the how true the foundation is. Objective reality being the truest foundation.
This time I'll be the one to say goodnight.
maybe we can continue another time.
>>24654946
var justice = function(object, treatment, identityProperty)
{
objectToConsider = object; // a copy
objectToConsider[identityProperty] = null; // justice is blind!
return treatment(object);
}
for(var object in [{name:'Tim',guilt:123},{name:'John',guilt:999},{name:'Sam',guilt:321}])
justice(object, function(object) { return (object.guilt > 200) ? 'guilty' : 'innocent'; }, 'name');
>>24655102
It is pointless to wish for a world in which this is impossible.
>>24655172
It is trivial, I hope, to see how it corresponds to real life trials. A judge must nullify all identity information such as, for instance, personal bias against a person, their individual appearance, their individual, so on. In fact, a whitelist would probably be better: to define the relevant properties and not irrelevant. But never mind.
>>24650090
What are you talking about?
>They are not interested in the human mind.
>They are not interested in removing suffering.
That is the main point in the teaching. Please don't confuse the actual teaching of the historical Buddha with the modern "If you just accept stuff, then you'll be ok." That is not Buddhism.
Buddhism, as I have come to understand it, is the ability to end suffering through your own human actions, not through the will of some higher being or by following a religion. Buddhism is a set of teaching that teaches you how to best use your free will to end suffering. You don't need to believe in reincarnation. You don't need to just accept things. In fact, the only "dogma" that Buddhism could be considered of having is the fact that you need to believe that you have free will, and that your actions are capable of ending suffering. That's it.
>>24655626
There is not an ounce of trace of desire or interest to remove suffering in what you said.
Oh, and 'no true Buddhism'. But that's nearly insignificant.
>In fact, the only "dogma" that Buddhism could be considered of having is the fact that you need to believe that you have free will, and that your actions are capable of ending suffering.
Wonder what makes this claim more interesting, the fact that Buddhists declare that they reject free will, or the fact that it is a profoundly harmful concept that causes suffering in LITERAL terms, as in physical injuries and physical illnesses.
>>24655626
>That is not Buddhism.
In fact, how can one even type this out without thinking of all the parallels?
'This is not feminism.'
'This is not nationalism.'
'This is not racism.'
...
>>24650165
This. Op is obviously posting this as some sort of cathartic action to address something in himself. Pretty sad desu
>>24655861
>>24655693
>>24655626
In other words, the absolutely overarching quality of religion, of which Buddhism is most schizophrenic, is the desire to discuss concepts and the repulsion at the thought of discussing reality.
You want to say 'embrace free will'.
You don't want to discuss how belief in it hampers scientific progress because 'he just did it'.
You want to say 'everything in moderation'.
You don't want to discuss how you employ this truism to reject responsibility for whenever someone does something you often, loudly recommended, and hurts himself.
You want to say 'enlightenment is...'.
You don't want to discuss how you use this as an arbitrary carrot-and-stick term whenever you want someone to believe in some garbage about ultimate this or that.
You, again, say 'suffering is your own creation'.
You, again, don't want to discuss how you use this to avoid the responsibility to face evil wherever it really comes from.
You want to say 'meditation increases awareness'.
You don't want to discuss how it impairs perception of things around you and alters your definition of self-improvement.
You want to say 'true knowing is knowing how much one doesn't know'.
You don't want to discuss how this impairs people's drive to learn cerebral and computational (e.g. in terms of RDBs or something) data representation... and learn in general.
You want to say 'be in the present'.
You don't want to discuss the tautology whereby 'being in the present' can always be conveniently argued to mean 'doing the right thing' whenever this gets somebody to think less about the past and the future.
And more, more, literally hundreds more.
Buddhists are cowards. Cowardly, irresponsible low-lifes.
>>24655693
>the fact that Buddhists declare that they reject free will
Name a good teacher who says this.
>There is not an ounce of trace of desire or interest to remove suffering in what you said.
There is desire to remove suffering. I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Are you talking about in the exact words that I said in that response, or do you mean Buddhism in general?
>Oh, and 'no true Buddhism'. But that's nearly insignificant.
What does this mean? I don't understand if that was an actual statement about something, or a type of rambling.
>or the fact that it is a profoundly harmful concept that causes suffering in LITERAL terms, as in physical injuries and physical illnesses.
What is a profoundly harmful concept?
When you say literal terms, you mean physical damage, yes? I will interpret this as such. In response, here is a link to a sutta about a central message of the teaching.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html
To condense that, physical pain is the pain when you are shot with the first arrow. Now, typically, people surround that pain with even more mental pain. This is where the shoot themselves with the second arrow, but in reality, it's more like 100 arrows. Those extra 100 arrows are the stories and thoughts the mind creates about the pain. "This hurts so much! I hate this pain! This shouldn't have happened to me, why did I get shot with an arrow!" etc. are some of the thought built around that pain. A central teaching, and possible the main teaching in Buddhism is to remove that 2nd arrow from the equation, So that you feel the pain of one arrow, not more. In fact, the end result of the practice is to be able to separate the mind from pleasure, pain and neither pleasure or pain, at ones own choice.
To sum up the whole goal of Buddhism, again, as I understand it, is basically freedom. Freedom from even the most basic concepts that make up fabrication.
>>24656181
>the end result of the practice is to be able to separate the mind from pleasure, pain and neither pleasure or pain, at ones own choice
Delusion.
This cannot happen.
And you are literally delusional for thinking that the brain can be dissected like this.
This, getting oneself to care about what 'should' be cared while simultaneously ignoring what 'should' be ignored, is about as possible as consciously developing hemispatial neglect. Namely, not.
It is literally built on a lie.
>>24656247
which is why their god is the only one who managed to achieve it
>>24656297
I chucked.
>>24656304
*chuckled (this will probably need a blox)
>>24656181
>Name a good teacher who says this.
Literally any who disingenuously preaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratityasamutpada ?
Either you are dishonest, retarded, or just have no handle on your own religion at all and what its own tenets imply. I just don't know at this point.
>>24656450
Oh, and >inb4 that's not about...
The formula for a Buddhist claim is >the opposite of (whatever I quote verbatim another Buddhist had said). In other words, I could amuse myself endlessly by playing Buddhist bullshit against itself, by quoting verbatim one 'teacher' and then having one 'student' or another say 'no, literally no teacher would ever say that, where did you get that from'.
>>24650836
Desu, no bully Latter day saints.
Good people with good intentions.
You really do seem nice, so maybe I read it as an offence instead of a neutral (towards Mormons) comparison.
>>24656496
>and then having one 'student' or another say 'no, literally no teacher would ever say that, where did you get that from'
And, when I reply, having them say 'no, he/she is not a true teacher' or 'no, his/hers is not a true school'.
In fact, one could automatize it and, with random sampling of scriptures, texts, interviews, etc. determine the most inconsistent claims of the whole mess.
>>24656074
>You want to say 'embrace free will'.
I never said this.
>You want to say 'everything in moderation'.
I just said that that is what it is NOT about.
>You want to say 'enlightenment is...'.
No, I didn't mention that anywhere. Also, I don't want anyone to believe anything, though it's true that I probably shouldn't try to interact on this board, because it is pretty clear that I will be lumped in with other, or with things I've never said.
>You, again, say 'suffering is your own creation'. You, again, don't want to discuss how you use this to avoid the responsibility to face evil wherever it really comes from.
What do you mean by facing evil? I am trying to end suffering, that is the point. I am ending evil in myself as part of that path by following precepts that I know for myself, have examined myself, to be good.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html
A small simple list that will keep down around 99% of evil.
>You want to say 'meditation increases awareness'. You don't want to discuss how it impairs perception of things around you and alters your definition of self-improvement.
Please explain in more detail.
>You want to say 'true knowing is knowing how much one doesn't know'.
Well, to be honest, if this is the perception of what Buddhism is to a handful of people, I can see why you would completely dislike Buddhism. That is not what I practice.
>You want to say 'be in the present'.
"be in the present" sounds like a stereotypical teenage response to how drugs make people. Something I would hear in a movie, not in real life. That is not Buddhism.
>>24656247
"As I understand it." was said multiple times. I will take into consideration what you have said here and i would like you to explain how it is delusional and completely and utterly impossible.
>>24650836
Pretty solid points here. This is basically what I follow in a nutshell, so I guess I follow this school, or this type of teaching.
>>24656853
You are pitiful.
The whole mix. Your enormous ego getting you to fail to even entertain that my 'you' might have been plural. Your pathetic 'that's not Buddhism is about, Buddhism is about being nice' as if such impotent declarations mattered in the slightest when it comes to judging it. Your utter disacknowledgement of my points betraying that you either lie or don't read at all.
>>24656853
>Please explain in more detail.
It increases self-referential thoughts, which displace externally denoting thoughts and mind-wandering.
>inb4 magical fairy self-control that allows one's mind to wander at will
>>24656943
In other words, trying to expose Buddhism is the same drudgery as explaining 'psychedelics', 'meditation', 'IQ is meaningless', and every other religious belief.
One example out of thousands...
>'Buddhism is anti-intellectual by teaching people to interrupt other people with ad hominems to the effect of "observe your mind".'
<'I didn't say that.'
>'Buddhists say that.'
<'That's not true.'
>give citations
<'Almost nobody says that.'
>give more high-profile citations
<'This is not true Buddhism.'
>'It doesn't matter, a religion is what a religion says.'
<'But such claims are well-intentioned!'
>'No, they serve to decrease the standards of relevance of remarks, so that intellectual merit is no longer judged by competence, but rather by populist, emotional, irrelevant standards such as remaining calm in a discussion, so that talentless people can boast something ("at least my mind is calm!"), which penalizes talented people in comparison.
<'But you can use free will to ignore effects of such claims and not make them yourself!'
>'No, free will is not a thing and you're excusing immoral people.'
<'You're being a defeatist!'
One example out of thousands.
Well, I'm going to bed. Instead of attacking our arguements of the practice, why not give it a try yourself and next time attack the practice. I'll give you my best resource for the actual words of the Buddha, and you can be the judge of whether it is a practice worth following or not.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
I myself used to be on this site alot more, but after giving it a try with my old ways, I have found that this practice suits me well, and it shows me more then I used to see in my limited view of the world. I have already tested being a Robot before, and have rejected that path as being unsuitable for myself. "It is a pathetic live style" are my thoughts after coming out of that way.
