Hey guys anti-buddha here.
Just a friendly cognitive superlative reminder that ubuliant meditation is irresponsible for metapsychotics who describe it without self-referential dissonance to the PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES of metacognition.
Obviously I am well informed on the procedural subjective nature of meditation. Obviously I am a master of meditation despite raging hard in every thread I contribute to. Also, by making reference to PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES I don't make myself look like a fallacious ignoramus parastoprimer who doesn't even know the fundamental mystery of the mind that anyone with a modicum of understanding on the subject would be exposed to before anything else.
Don't even try accuse me of being a pseudo-intellectual, fedora tipping, new atheist, otherwise I will shout you down with meaningless terms and phrases that sound smart.
TL;DR
>concepts are inherently meaningless
>the free will fallacy
>>24773699
I don't know what your game is friend but I think it'd be best if you's leave now.
threadsMadeAboutMe++;
Everywhere, dicks.
>>24773723
>game is friend
OH LOOK!
ANOTHER "FEEL GOOD BUDDHIST" WHO USES MEANINGLESS PHRASES!
Omg, when will you polyunsaturated monoglobs learn that you can't talk about meditation without reference to the PHYSICAL CONSEQUENCES!
fnord
>>24773699
Also, I think I mentioned once or twice over the threads/the years that I dislike the prefix meta-, it quite leading me to prefer 'self-referential thoughts' over 'metathoughts' to describe the consequences of 'meditation' even though it's slightly less correct.
What do you have against mommy?
>>24773699
Yeah the guys a super autistic faggot who lacks basic communication skills but making this thread just shows how butthurt you are dude.
>>24774280
>making this thread just shows how butthurt you are dude
Please, don't make ad hominems towards Buddhists, I want to let them feel unique for using them.
>>24773894
> it quite leading me to prefer 'self-referential thoughts' over 'metathoughts'
OMG!
IT REALLY IS HIM!
>>24774333
>>24773894
>using the term Buddhist as a straw man
>making no fucking sense at all
The anti-buddha has joined us again.
>>24774374
Not a strawman; just justified genericization. The way, for my lack of a better example, 'luddite' has been genericized from a specific historical term into a shunner of technology, 'Buddhist' properly refers to a religious person partaking in deflection of questions typified by the Buddhist doctrine, such as intellectual nihilism of 'don't be so convinced that you are right' or ad hominems of 'look what you are doing with your time', which in fact are pretty absent from any other religion.
>>24774459
>deflection of questions
*deflection of statements in general in fact
>>24774459
In other words, genericization is a natural linguistic process, and I am right to make the term 'Buddhist' refer to, instead of self-definition of a rather heterogeneous group of people who for whatever reason chose to identify with the faith, a consistent cluster of behaviours which define that faith. I am increasing that term's validity.
>>24773774
I'd say improve your English, but your teacher is already telling you that.
>>24774762
He is satirizing mine.
>>24774673
In yet other words, people who define themselves as Buddhists are far from being the most attracted to its doctrines (which is owing to Buddhists' dislike of definition, incl. self-definition, in the first place). One can hardly predict anything about a person from the lone fact that he/she defines as a Buddhist; but one can definitely predict that a person will partake in ad hominems of 'observe your mind', implications of 'language is flawed', context violations of 'why are you still discussing', or assertions that 'intellect is not everything' from the lone fact that he/she makes, for instance, a typically Buddhist, doctrine-enshrined figure of speech such as 'every understanding begins with understanding oneself'.
>>24774933
This is easier to understand when you substitute 'Buddhist' for, say, 'molester'. No one self-identifies as a molester; and people who do, do it humorously or out of self-vindication. But as soon as we dismiss self-definition, it refers to a real behavioural cluster.
I like..get you maaaannn. Once you call yourself enlightened yous ain enlightened no mo'.B)
>DUDE ENLIGHTENMENT LMAO
>DUDE DRUGS DONT ACTUALLY PROVIDE ANY INSIGHT THEY JUST MAKE THE MUNDANE SEEM DEEP LMAO
>DUDE EGO DEATH IS A MEME LMAO
>DUDE DRUG INDUCED EGO DEATH IS NOT REAL BECAUSE NOTHING CAN SEPERATE US FROM THE SUM OF OUR EXPERIENCES WITHOUT PERMANTENTLY DAMAGING THE BRAIN LMAO
>>24774333
an ad hominem isn't simply a personal insult. it is an attempt to use someone's personal attributes to discredit someone's argument, despite the argument holding on its own.
>>24775204
>Once you call yourself enlightened yous ain enlightened no mo'
This is just Buddhists' vapid, vain preoccupation with self-reference. 'I want my pet term, here: enlightenment, to be special, so I'm going to arbitrarily make it sound as close to self-referential and paradoxical as possible ("if you apply the term x to yourself, you are not x", which I might in fact even erroneously oversimplify as "if you are x, you are not x", because who cares about distinctions like that), hoping that some feeble-minded followers will be attracted to it and find me more profound than I am'. Worthless.
>>24775356
After some time, you see that 100% of Buddhism is either tautological or arbitrary like that. 'You are not enlightened until you arbitrarily come to routinely remember about your thoughts, or until you arbitrarily realize that "this or that is not everything", or until you arbitrarily realize that "thinking is not doing", or whatever. Why? Because I arbitrarily said so.' It's all a joke.
>>24775356
>>24775401
(The reason Buddhism/Taoism relies on arbitrary paradoxes so much is because it shamelessly preys on human assumption of honesty, namely 'if what he says, e.g. "true learning is unlearning", sounds paradoxical, then surely he must, like, REALLY know what he's saying, otherwise he wouldn't have risked saying something as apparently nonsensical -- there must be something to it which he's really thought through'. Wrong. It's just a depthless platitude.)
>>24775501
>assumption of honesty
*presumption; sage
Meanwhile, it is late and I am tired. Bye soon.
So was this guy molested by a buddhist or something
>>24775580
The cases of Buddhist monastic molestation which manage to be publicized in the media hardly tend to result in exposition of Buddhist doctrines, so no, I don't think so.
>>24775689
>publicized
*mentioned; hardly a flaw of Buddhism is 'publicized'
couldnt u like..... make this easeir to understand
>>24776501
He could, but he wanted to sound smart. If you have the vocabulary, you'll realize that his word usage is awkward as fuck. He's really reaching to try and sound technical.
Basically, it's what it sounds like whether or not you actually understand what he's saying: bullshit.
