Any buddhists here to explain to me why would anyone voluntarily undergo lobotomy known as Nibbana...

Any buddhists here to explain to me why would anyone voluntarily undergo lobotomy known as Nibbana? I appreciate the value of tranquility but it's all simply perverse.

Attached: roze.jpg (894x894, 397K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=FZOxv6tf2rE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Well, Nibbana is the death of the ego, the sense of individual selfhood, which is a limiting factor. So Nibbana means becoming, in essence, less limited. Doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Nirvana is having no thought. No thought=No pain. It doesn’t mean you’re lobotomizing yourself, just means you’re removing most thoughts which are destructive and not useful at all.

Nirvana is death

But nibbana is also extinguishing of desire. So why Buddha went on teaching after enlightenment? Doesn't it require desire for awakening of other sufferers? Where did his compassion come from?

you misinterpret desire to mean all intentions and not just the emotional aspect of craving.

Look up the Boddhisattva doctrine. But keep in mind it runs much deeper than Wikipedia summaries will tell you.

Disillusionment with contingent being founded on the belief that contingent being cannot be 'redeemed' as a positive end (it is, in fact, no being at all) and must inevitably resolve into non-being or illusion. If this is so, then all finite and particular being is ultimately empty and unsatisfying. Nirvana is thus a restoration of the true undifferentiated order of things.

The West tends to have a different view- contingency can be reconciled to infinity, without losing itself. Creation is 'very good,' the Kingdom of God is a city, and the resurrection is bodily.

>but isn't the doctrine of awakening a philosophy of redemption?

If it is a doctrine of redemption, it's not a redemption of contingent being. One 'awakens,' as I understand it, to the unreality of the conditioned world. One thus consigns that world to 'illusion' and 'impermanence,' rather than tries to envision it as any kind of existentially satisfying end.

Think of Buddhist thought as a how-to for getting out of your own way. Basically, if you let your ego have the reigns, you'll fuck yourself over worse than any enemy could. Haven't you seen people's desires get the best of them? Buddhism's all about putting a stop to that.

Yes; it does make sense to think of it as a soteriological doctrine, but not quite like those we're familiar with in the West, for the reasons you stated.

because you have to realize that buddhist monk are generally reviled in Asia for being deadbeat neet failures who sucked so bad at navigating the world that they gave it up to go live in stasis in the monastery. westerners viewing them as venerable figures is decidedly...western

Who is this jizz mizz?

I'd just rather have the lobotomy.

This is one of the stupidest threads I have ever seen, and there is a lot of stupid shit on here.

is the classical notion of eros compatible with the buddhist path and the ultimate goal of ridding oneself of desire?

youtube.com/watch?v=FZOxv6tf2rE

>classical notion of eros
what do you mean? if you mean a descriptive notion of eros than it is neither compatible nor incompatible. but if you mean some perscriptive ethos related to eros than you will have to tell us which one

>a philosopher asks the Buddha "can you tell me the truth without words?"
>the Buddha sits in silence
>the philosopher bows, thanks the Buddha, and leaves
>a monk who saw this go down is like "hey, Buddha, what the fuck just happened?"
>the Buddha says "a good horse runs at seeing the shadow of the whip"
The Buddha was based as fuck.

i mean eros as described in the symposium, that urge moved from the sexual impulse but ultimately aimed toward the highest truth, which is the beautiful.

Sounds like Vajrayana to me.

sounds like a type of "upaya", using beauty as a "skillful means" of attaining enlightenment. Buddhism is very much a whatever works philosophy, attaining enlightenment by hook or by crook. So yeah, I'd say it's compatible.

its just a concept

ace, ty

Is it immoral to pursue monastic life? I have wondered this for myself. I would enjoy the environment of such a lot, but I feel like an absolute deadweight to society for doing so. I want to spend each day in service of others, even if that means time away from my personal spirituality, because that service IS itself of greater spirituality to me. Being in and contributing to society is more spiritual to me than confining myself to a private spiritual sanctuary. Am I wrong to think like this? Does anyone else feel similar?

My theology professor would always say: "Anyone can be holy in a cave."

It's not about lobotomizing yourself, it's about not letting thoughts get in the way of what's actual. It's the opposite of lobotomizing yourself because your awareness is actually increasing

dubs and i post roze‘s feet

high IQ posts

I'd add that the "undifferentiated order" of things coincides as a maximally differentiated order, because everything becomes "the supreme case of itself" that the universality of essences is unable to latch onto anything

Is the whole process of achieving enlightenment just an exercise in extinguishing the reptilian parts of our brains?

why has someone edited this picture of rose?

I'm a brainlet, can you elaborate this please? Does it agree with what I'm saying, in that greater spiritualness can be enacted by living and working in the world?

what?

He didn't want to. He expressed that teaching was stressful and hard to do, but he was asked to teach to those willing to learn and to allow his disciples to further pass on his teachings for him.

Not just reptilian, but the prefrontal lobe, the tendency of rational consciousness to mistake the immediacy of perception for real, existent "things" or substances

Hm. Wont make much sense if you haven't gotten a bit of practice under your belt, but basically: there are no concepts and essences to reify and mistake for the real thing if, in a "nirvanic state", everything is simply itself, if the tendency to reflexively mark these things as themselves is extinguished. Ironically, it is universals that differentiate reality, when you'd naturally assume the opposite. The tree becomes absolutely itself, no longer a member of the set of all trees - hence, it is undifferentiated, but because it is undifferentiated in this sense, it is also maximally differentiated, maximally itself

Very strange post desu

> because that service IS itself of greater spirituality to me

then that is your calling, monasticism appeals to a different type of person. neither form of spirituality is superior to the other. as far as i know most monasteries encourage lay practitioners to stay for short periods of time in order to experience the lifestyle, so you can alway try it out with out fully committing to it.

most of Yea Forums would benefit from a lobotomy

To see how much we lost because she didn't stay with mousey brown

Nirvana is the classical metaphysical view of a teleo-eschatology; on the other hand, there is the principle of difference and repetition, the eternal return, in other words, samsara.

Most of sin, whoever conceptualizes it, revolves around social interactions. Don't lie, don't murder, don't have premarital sex, whatever.
In a cave you can still try to not lie to yourself, not commit suicide and go on nofap, but really as long as you can stay in the cave it doesn't take that much effort. You are sheltered from most of the pain, from responsibilities. Only around other people these virtues can turn into heroism, martyrdom.

Decidedly untrue. Have you ever been to Thailand, where monkhood is rite of passage for most men?

So the idea is that the classification of things diminished the experience of these things? That you should seek to approach the immediate experience of things, without framing it in the context of universality?

In all honesty though, what if the immediate experience of life sucks?

hey guys, bodhisattva here, just wanted to let you all know that I'm cringing at this absolutely pseud-tier thread. even for Yea Forums this thread achieves an exceedingly high degree of faggotry. it does exemplify tsongkhapa's presentation of emptiness, however, since it is entirely void of any content expertise whatsoever. keep sucking alan watts' dick and make sure you never learn sanskrit or classical chinese or you might end up knowing something about buddhism

Enlighten us, O Triumphant One.

no lol

Why not?

more or less, yes.


things can suck, but what really makes them suck is your narrativization of ... the sucking. "the complete elimination of pain is impossible, but suffering is optional"

ok, u r now enlightened (ps u already were enlightened)

Attached: 1308170626001.jpg (377x398, 44K)

>thailand
>men

lol

it didn't work
I'm still suffering
:(

dont remind me of her OP....

Attached: rose book.jpg (450x360, 129K)

she a thot though, dime a dozen in every college/university

That's the point, bucko.
That's what liberation from Samsara is.

its true, as i've said before - "thots with a different character skin"

Attached: 11-03-14_1.jpg (900x720, 268K)

It's the only girl I truly can't forget. Didn't know it was possible.

she slips my mind until i reach a bad place then i re-find her videos and watch them for comfort

probably a problem

>implying jungle niggers are people
im talking about the important parts of asia not the parts inhabited by denisovian leftovers.

The hilarious part about Buddhism is that to get yourself enlightenment you need to get rid of everything that makes you "you". It's a self-defeating procedure.

If you define yourself by your desire or ill will then maybe.

Have fun being cucked by your ego your whole life, buddy.