Hi Yea Forums

Peace be upon this jeet

So anatta is a tylenol. My understanding of sunyata is sunyata (0)

I think so. Basically the argument goes that there is neither atman nor anatman. Both concepts are sometimes instrumental, but neither one is true, at least in the way that Westerns tend to understand anatta (hardline non-self).

I'm not really an expert, but to me it's much easier to understand Sunyata if you already understand dependent arising. The amount of discourse on Sunyata, from every possible tradition, is huge and fraught. Much easier if you have a little background in the ontology.

This may help: ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Early Meanings of Dependent Origination_Shulman_JIP_2008.pdf

reject buddha
embrace christ

Attached: JesusForgives.jpg (960x918, 60.87K)

>forgive
"Against remorse. - The thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions, as seeking explanations of something: to him, success and failure are primarily *answers*. To be vexed or even to feel remorse because something goes wrong - he leaves that to those who aet because they were ordered to do so and who expect a beating when his gracious lordship is not pleased with the result." (Nietzsche, Gay Science, #41)

>who aCt
*typo in the text

>यद्रूपं सा शून्यता, या शून्यता तद्रूपम्।
form in emptiness, emptiness in form

Bruh I'm not reading something quoted from "Gay Science"

Ew.
>"This is one of their [the Christians'] rules. Let no man that is learned, wise, or prudent come among us: but if they be unlearned, or a child, or an idiot, let him freely come. So they openly declare that none but the ignorant, and those devoid of understanding, slaves, women, and children, are fit disciples for the God they worship."

Attached: images.jpg (324x500, 17.84K)

Wasn’t Nietzsche a syphilitic cuckhold?

>Modern philosophical schools of Buddhism are all more or less influenced by a spirit of sophistic nihilism. They deal with Nirvāṇa as they deal with every other dogma, with heaven and hell: they deny its objective reality, placing it altogether in the abstract. They dissolve every proposition into a thesis and its anti-thesis and deny both. Thus they say Nirvāṇa is no annihilation, but they also deny its positive objective reality.

>According to them the soul enjoys in Nirvāṇa neither existence nor non-existence, it is neither eternal nor non-eternal, neither annihilated nor non-annihilated. Nirvāṇa is to them a state of which nothing can be said, to which no attributes can be given; it is altogether an abstract, devoid alike of all positive and negative qualities.

>What shall we say of such empty useless speculations, such sickly, dead words, whose fruitless sophistry offers to that natural yearning of the human heart after an eternal rest nothing better than a philosophical myth? It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.

- Ernst Johann Eitel

Sounds like some weird missunderstanding of Mahayana Chen Buddhism.

The Lion's Roar, apologetics for Buddha
43. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell. Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.
accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

Attached: 1648333625467.jpg (576x1024, 46.03K)

>he's wrong because he disagrees with me

how does that show that Nirvana isnt nihilism?

Buddhism is nihilism and refuted by Shankara (pbuh)

Meant to reply to

>you can be anything
>but its temporary and impermanent
>embrace the truth; being the ability of being anything
I think it's basically saying "focus on the mechanism rather than it's results".

Superhuman powers man not just superhuman powers, we have abilities in tech and industry that would mog them but they are fulfilled and tapped into an experience beyond human doubts and fears and nonfulfilled unwholesome states of mind like nihilism.

Buddhism is Reddit; Reddit is Buddhism

Attached: 864C810A-AB31-4560-8A53-ACE45638E957.png (69x97, 8.44K)

Given how reddit is infatuated with shrine, reddit is pure hinduism.

(you) is gay, gay is (you)

>>I think it's basically saying "focus on the mechanism rather than it's results".
that's exactly the opposite of what the buddha teaches lol

the buddha sticks to what works and dumps anything which doesn't work, like the 2 kinds of thought
suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false

This guy eitel missed the whole point. He understood the words but the entire thing went over his head.

I don't know what grammar is appropriate for it but isn't my example, in the case of 2 kinds of thought, the equivalent of realizing the essence of the arising? Ie the mechanism of the mind that divides between the "safe" thought and the "unsafe" one, and to not go with either but rather realizing what drives both?

>>you can be anything
>but its temporary and impermanent
>embrace the truth; being the ability of being anything
>I think it's basically saying "focus on the mechanism rather than it's results".
What does any of that have to do with Nirvana though?

>This guy eitel missed the whole point.
What is the whole point?

kek

I'm entirely guessing but I assume it's attempting to point to the idea that, with practice you can yourself experience what Nirvana is supposed to be like and realize it isn't nihilistic, rather the idea stems from isolated theory and no practice.

>Given how reddit is infatuated with shrine, reddit is pure hinduism.
Every single Buddhist temple on the planet contains a shrine

When you realize all things are empty and without self. They depend on your mind and vice verse. They are empty of themselves but it is your mind which gives them meaning and significance. But your mind only arises to give them meaning based on percieving them. An object only exist because there is an observer to perceive the object and the observer only arises when there is something for it to perceive. With no observer there is no object and with no object there is no observer.

"Enlightenement" is to return to the unconditioned absolute mind that does not depend on anything else. Where there is no such thing as a buddha and no such thing as a non-buddha. Where there is no such thing as being enlightened or unenlightened. Where all the waves of the ocean realize there was never such thing as a wave they were always just the ocean itself.

Attached: 86158-middle.png (900x573, 103.44K)

>I'm entirely guessing but I assume it's attempting to point to the idea that, with practice you can yourself experience what Nirvana is supposed to be like and realize it isn't nihilistic,
What about Parinirvana though, which is after the body dies, which is what the actual critique is directed at? You can’t experience Parinirvana or verify that its not nihilism if it involves the destruction of the aggregates of thought, sensation, awareness etc
>oh but we just take it on faith that this isnt a nihilistic extinction but cant really explain why
….

>An object only exist because there is an observer to perceive the object and the observer only arises when there is something for it to perceive
If A depends on B for its arising as a precondition of its existence
And if B depends on A for its arising as a precondition of its existence
Then never will ever arise at all to begin with and they wouldn’t existent or even appear at this moment, because the conditions needed will never be met because of the regress
QED

So if you make waves they exist and if you don't make waves they don't exist.
And the answer for going from the first to the second isn't "not making them" aka ceasing them, it's going from seeing waves as separate objects of the ocean to seeing them as disruptions of the ocean without waves that doesn't need them.
So if you can realize this without going into the second state, what even is the point of the second state being permanent?

>Then never will ever arise at all to begin with and they wouldn’t existent or even appear at this moment, because the conditions needed will never be met because of the regress
This posits Nirvana as inaction which only Jainists believe, it is a lack of what can be described as unskilled and codependent action. My guess is you could have gotten into Samsara of codependent action using independent action. Karma in Buddhism, from what I understand, is disturbance in your mind and understanding that leads you to more codependent action, not something external.

>involves the destruction of the aggregates of thought, sensation, awareness etc
Buddhism does not believe in Nirvana as a hard-to-achieve annihilation as you describe it. If there is something to destroy, there is something that can be created, if there is something to cease, there is something that can arise. There are permanent things besides primordial-yet-tainted-nature (such as Buddha nature? correct me if I'm wrong) in Buddhism.

Yes.

No such thing as a permanent state friendo. And why do you need to see waves as disruptions of the oceans? Why do you have to see waves at all? Why cant you just see the the ocean?

Attached: f91.jpg (457x494, 24.9K)

>All things are empty:
>Nothing is born, nothing dies,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You believe this? Holy crap this is the funniest thing I have ever read

>There is no ignorance,
>and no end to ignorance.
Holy fuck dude this is the most pathetic thing a human being has ever thought hahahahaha

>When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.
Here we go - posting live reactions to this

>No such thing as a permanent state friendo.
Nirvana or stream entry are both permanent?
>And why do you need to see waves as disruptions of the oceans? Why do you have to see waves at all? Why cant you just see the the ocean?
That's basically what I described except ignoring the process. Just transitioning from a separation of the primordial and it's essence disrupting action back to the primordial itself, but with a process in mind (removing subject-object relationship followed by removing the objects action that would lead it to wanting to differentiate that way). Or you can do it caveman style and just say "Waves aren't real" in the face of waves to negate waves.

>To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
prevarication at its finest
>The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
Cute
>So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress.
This could be profound if you are starved from God but it's really just pathetic. The self exists as a relationship to the other as oriented to infinity or nothingness - to say there is no differencr is all Budhha is doing and thus avoid the question because his non-answer is his figure. He is the mute before Christ - the one whose only act of belief is death.

Probably this means that Vacchagotta would have interpreted the Buddha’s denial as a rejection of his empirical personality, which (on account of his inclination towards views of self) he would have been identifying as a self. We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare, “There is no self”: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.

So you understood it perfectly? Can you explain what it is saying? You must have understood because you felt capable of making judgement on it. Theres no way you would have done something as dumb as judging a work you didn't understand. That would just be silly wouldnt you agree friendo?

Attached: pepe-clown.gif (496x498, 1.99M)

To be clear, the annihilationist view is that there is a self, but that self is destroyed (usually at the time of death). Clearly this is not what we mean when we say in English that “the self does not exist”.

Guys the Heart Stura is Mayahana drivel in the first place. The Buddha never taught it.

>For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha - dude this is kino
>To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience:
Buddhism should be defined as "I don't want to believe anything."
>four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation.
Bad feelings are more important than knowing if you exist? Poor baby doesn't like the sad no good feelings oh my God

This proves the first box of the meme correct lol

You can question if God is or isn't real all your life, with ideas that sometimes say yes and sometimes no and still waste time suffering on it lmao. W*stoids need to realize Buddhism is oriented around truth of the individual and their independence and not truth of the external universe and all possibilities that are still dukkha.

Thanks for the good reply!
>not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege)
He doesn't?
>Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
The oversoul remembers itself in all its fractal creations. You have to remember that you approach the most fundamental question of "Is there existence? Is my own existence real?" with a scaple of nuance that is just horrific. The answer is yes or no to both. From what I can tell, Buddhism answers neither because it quite frankly doesn't know.

>W*stoids need to realize Buddhism is oriented around truth of the individual
Name one thing true about you that also denies your own selfhood lmao

> The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one.
Phenomena means “what appears”, as in “what appears to the knower”, so saying “all phenomena are not self” doesnt amount to saying “the knower of phenomena is not a self”

>Name one thing true about you that also denies your own selfhood lmao
I see it as this:
Go to sleep, wake up and see how quickly you reacquire all things you deem yourself or described as self in Buddhism. Is there even a single nanosecond or moment before that happens? Then it is not a necessary fundamental aspect of reality.

I do. Buddha is saying that the accidental self of identity has nonbeing because it is situated and if we use this self as a measure to the infinite we cannot approach it because of our situatedness in bodily nonbeing. He is right without Christ and probably offers the best insight to humanity if not for Jesus. Unfortunately, there's Christ.

>Then it is not a necessary fundamental aspect of reality.
You have no grounds to say this because you're already in the reality trap Buddha specifies. Fleeting mind is fleeting.

>it's another 4channer pretending to be a Christian fundamentalist in a Buddhist thread episode

Why aren't the buddhists needing to pretend? Oh right, you only lie with reference to the truth. Keep trying.