I'm trying to understand this religion but it seems so fucking sad and nihilistic

some buddhist rethoric could seem to asethic or sad, but that's just that, a form of rethoric, buddhism is the opposite of sad, it path is to overcome ontological suffering and sadness, and achieve that by embracing life, the good and the bad, the opposite of nihilism

Stop being a whiny bitch,
Over come your suffering,
Follow in my footsteps
-buddha

Its only people who are severely attached to their ego or idea of themselves that think this. Let go and see for yourself the freedom it offers.

It says sad things but it hits different

You're basically a sheltered western pussy and discussion of reality scares you

It's for incels who got filtered by Christianity. It's just a phase.

Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, and Eastern traditions in general were created by human beings.
Abrahamic traditions were created by extraterrestrials like Jenovah or maybe a Computer AI communicating from the future (Solid State Intelligence).

"Nihilism" comes from a few different readings. One is the Nietzschean, which interprets a general notion of Buddhism in alignment with Schopenhauer as a pessimistic doctrine of rejecting the world and thus considers it nihilism. But Nietzsche doesn't really care what Buddhism is per se and is using it as an example of world denial without ressentiment, to be contrasted with the Christian world denial, which is based on ressentiment. Nietzsche doesn't have access to substantial Mahayana literature that would expound on the non-duality of samsara and nirvana either, since this is decades away from getting translated and disseminated by indologists studying the prajnaparamita literature or by Japanese advocates of Zen. Understanding this, one would see it is not world denial, and there goes one form of nihilism.
Another nihilism charge is that of the theist opponent of the Buddhist. This should be extremely familiar, as in the West, extant Christians assume atheists are nihilists because they deny the ultimate reality of god. In Indian discourse this is Brahma(n) or Ishvara. The specifics don't matter much, it's enough that Buddhists deny a creator of the universe to be labeled as nihilists. This is a very foul smelling argument because it would suggest the theist only believes in god to avoid being called a nihilist. So if you want, you can pick up Nietzsche here even though he doesn't agree with Buddhism and use him as cudgel, since they were both arguing with some of the same priestly people who had ceded their power to evaluate to "God."
Finally there are negating or apophatic doctrines like anatman or sunyata. Anatman is in every form of Buddhism and denies a permanent ego-substance or own self-nature. As you may recognize if you are familiar with Platonism, immortal souls and immortal God go hand in hand, so Buddhists are totally consistent here in saying no to both rather than picking and choosing. Madhyamaka is the school that makes sunyata its core and influences the rest of Mahayana Buddhism. This "emptiness" doctrine is really just an elaboration on anatman in its most basic sense, nothing has a self in the sense of that permanent enduring substratum. Nagarjuna is taken to be the founding thinker here, and for him and his tetralemma methodology, we cannot say of anything that it is x, not x, both x and not x, or neither x nor not-x, and this has been a nightmare of doxography ever since, with a long list of Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, and also Korean Buddhists attempting to say "yes, but how do I explain non-dualism using language?" The consistent denial of any objects of discourse to be ultimately real is what gets this Buddhism called nihilism. But all Buddhists disagree that this is nihilism and provide many arguments to the contrary, generally to the effect that appearances are affirmed as appearances and that any theory beyond that is unsatisfactory, leading to errors.

Attached: 1649864294991.jpg (268x325, 27.62K)

Buddha, a whiny bitch,
Stop being in my footsteps.
Overcome your follow suffering.

getting "filtered" by christianity is a good thing, larper

>Extraterrestrial tarded stories
Goddamn nigger cattle love their branded nigger cattle stories of nigger cattle rustlers.

Filtered thing
is getting larped
by a good Christian

Why is he always smiling then? Buddha was the happiest religious leader after maybe Laozi

"If you see the Buddha on your path, kill him" - Chinese monk

Look up the vinegar tasters, retard

Niggers are far more admirable than Abrahamists. West African Bantus would have never industrialization. All of Abrahamism was created by extraterrestrials, most likely from Saturn, as a form of predictive programming for industrialization and now the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The black rock Muslims circle most likely emits certain unseen frequencies to control them and the Christians enact the ritual of cannibalizing one of the extraterrestrials that is not purely localized by time and space.
There is no way Abrahamism originated from this Earth *unless* the Earth itself has a suicidal impulse, which I do not accept. It came from some kind of Jenova entity. Destruction of old growth forests and oceans was always in the telos of Abrahamic traditions. The eventual industrialization was likewise in its telos.
It's possible most of West Eurasia's chronological history is fake.

Ignore typos.
>industrialization
industrialized*

Remarkable and RHesus negative pilled

It's impossible to be an authentic Buddhist and go on Yea Forums.

It's impossible to be an authentic [any religion] and go on Yea Forums.

>Why are people getting into it? It's pure nihilism.
They have an emotionally-rooted antipathy towards 'being' , typically because they suffer from inwards flaws that make them seek to disassociate them from themselves, to metaphysically 'cuckold' themselves out of existence as it were.

You've never known being, but certainly ressentiment from the look of things

that's where you're wrong kiddo

Attached: 16-167687_cldamk2-pepe-the-frog-jew.png (820x730, 263.3K)

>You've never known being
knowing is being, so in the act of knowing I am being, "I know therefore I be"

we're all jews here

we have to get as much posting in before Shabbat starts at sundown!!!

Give me a QRD.

>being is having passing thoughts
big if true

Is it forbidden to type on the sabbath? What if I dictate my degeneracy-promoting shitposts via speech to text?

My gf is a shabbos goy. She reads posts for me and then I dictate my funposts.

we cannot use electricity Chaim!
>What if I dictate my degeneracy-promoting shitposts via speech to text?
find yourself a shabbos goy from /pol/ to type out all your texts and you will be kosher

why is that

jewish meme magic

For me
>thinking about God/Christianity
>seems pretty retarded, just a sect of Judaism, which is even more retarded
>hm what other religions are there
>read about Buddhism
>self is an illusion, all creatures stuck in a cycle of birth and death (samsara)
>you can go to heaven through good deeds, but even that isn't eternal and Gods are stuck in samsara too
>makes sense, how do I escape?
>bro just meditate and live the spiritual life, one day you will be enlightened
>don't even half to cut my foreskin off? Sign me up

Attached: 1650652615366.jpg (1125x1108, 206.76K)

You have to school the Devas to get good grades in order to fulfill the final life

Black and
Shamanic iboga pilled

Sounds like something for the lazy and intellectually stunted.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Self,
is in fact, dependently originated anatman, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNot Self.
Self is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component
of a fully functioning Gnosis system made useful by the epistemological five aggregate phenomonen, nouminal
utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by Aryastangamarga.

Many conscious beings run a modified version of the GNot self every day,
without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNot Self
which is widely used today is often called "self", and many of its users are
not aware that it is basically the society of spectacle, developed by the Gnuddha Project.

There really is a Self, and these people are using it, but it is just an ephemeral contrivednpart of the system they use. Ego is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run.
The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself;
it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Self is
normally used in combination with the GNot Self operating system: the whole system is basically GNosis with Self added, or GNowing thy self. All the so-called "Self"
distributions are really distributions of parinirvana catsukoti of all samsara.

Attached: tradition-modernity-18970440.jpg (600x900, 92.26K)

*Developed by Maya and Mara

Neobuddhist cult blending theravadin teachings with late 20th century CS terminology when
Aum Shinrikyo ended up being disappointing

Attached: 1642565325181.jpg (1080x1350, 101.63K)

some peopel liek Bob Thurman call it the relative self, i think is a good enough name

First draft m8 give it time

the awareness which reveals them is unborn, constant, non-arising, non-ceasing, unchanging and always spontaneously present

>unchanging
how does it think then? Or become wiser?

One of my fucking favorite one liners to be coined after the election

>unborn
because it is empty or because the poopeepeeshads say so?

For me it's (You)NIX

I will turn the wheel of DARPAchakra with my big brain

TETSUO!!!

not really, the awareness needs to change in order to keep up with the rest of the skandas, all of them seem substancial since all of them can be victims of abstraction in themental process, that is, i think awareness is constant and the same because the different moment of awareness let me create the idea of a pure awareness, but the same can be said about , feelings, mental compositions and matter, all of them create this illusion of necessity, but taht's just how the mind works, throught the process of abstraction everything seems unborn, constant, non arising, non ceasing, unchanging etc, but then you end up in a world where movement is impossible, that is a false world

SIDDHARTHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Attached: 1635917940176.jpg (1000x562, 107.34K)

>how does it think then? Or become wiser?
Just like how a lamp reveals changing objects while remaining unchanging itself, different thoughts about different subjects including wisdom are revealed in succession to the same unchanging awareness before being replaced with thoughts/sensations about something else, just like how an unchanging lamp can illuminate and thereby reveal 20 different changing and moving objects in the span of an hour, all without itself changing.

Because it never emerges but is instead always present as far as we can tell. Something that was always present is never "born". We never have confirmation of it emerging or being born in experience.

>not really, the awareness needs to change in order to keep up with the rest of the skandas,
This incorrect claim is refuted by the empirical example of the lamp. Lamps can reveal changing objects while remaining unchanging and this empirical example of this phenomena provides an illustration of how awareness does the same thing. There is no non-dogmatic reason to assume awareness has to change too.

Attached: phone.jpg (1122x900, 60.51K)

So it's an energy transforming system itself? Because a lamp just takes electricity and turns it into light (failure of light bulbs not included). How does that constitute a conscious mind, when really it's just a fancy consciousness made conversion mechanism? How does this deal with the problem of eternal attainment of stream consciousness for example?

>Because it never emerges but is instead always present as far as we can tell. Something that was always present is never "born".
You were born. Awareness is something you have. So it is not unborn. You have to rely on your scripture to go any further and this thread isn't about your religion

You're complaining about memory not awareness.