It’s unwise to think of Buddhism as a primitive philosophy

Stark_Naked
Stark_Naked

It’s unwise to think of Buddhism as a primitive philosophy.

There is the Buddhist notion that there is no self, which science has now proved to be unreasonably accurate. In Buddhist thought, we are the composed of five different “elements”, that individually are impersonal. It’s similar to how we are composed of impersonal, interacting quantum fields. The important idea is that there is no soul. In science and Buddhism, there is no permanent entity separate from the body; there is no fundamental element that is self-sovereign. This is an advancement that Buddha made on the Hindu idea of “soul” and “self”, because Buddha recognized that in order to have a soul, you must have free will. In the Buddhist view we do not possess free will, and you must agree that in the context of subatomic particles, there is no free will as all decisions are based on physics in this context.

You might argue that there is a self, it is an abstraction based on the particle waves that make you up, but that abstraction can only ever be the effect of a cause. And you have zero influence on the cause and therefore have zero influence on the effect.

The Buddhist metaphysical view is one which only accepts the underlying base reality as truth. Abstractions based on that base reality are not real. Quantum fields, or whatever is underneath that, are the only thing that exist. A seed is not real, a tree isn't real, the economy isn't real, only base reality is real. Buddhists don't explain this in terms of abstractions, but making the difference between that which is permanent & unchanging, and that which is impermanent & changing. By necessity, base reality is permanent and all abstractions on top of that are impermanent. A seed must die to grow a tree. An abstraction, such as a seed, contains less information than the base reality, and therefore can only be permanent in its own context level, but in the context of the total reality it will be impermanent.

If it is impermanent, like the “self”, it is not real. Now if there is no self, do you still get insulted? What is the use in protecting an ego that doesn't exist? Do you still feel self-conscious? Do you still feel like you're not man enough? Do you still feel disappointed in yourself? If you need to destroy your “self” to become enlightened, do you still run towards the light in full sprint?

All urls found in this thread:
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/06/spiritual-virility-in-buddhism/
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html
King_Martha
King_Martha

science has proven
Fuck off, redditor

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@Stark_Naked
Your view is contrary to itself. Quantum fields, or rather any supposed "bottom", is an abstraction by itself. Size and subtlety have little to do with any of it.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@Emberfire
OP.jpg

King_Martha
King_Martha

@Stark_Naked
If there's no soul or self, what is reborn? What achieves enlightenment and parinirvana?

askme
askme

@King_Martha
Don't engage brainlets

iluvmen
iluvmen

Pretty good post overall, you seem to understand the Buddhist doctrine of everything being "empty" and the doctrine of "no self" (in "you" or anything or anyone else).

idontknow
idontknow

@King_Martha
Sh-shut up

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Stark_Naked
which science has now proved to be unreasonably accurate
[citation needed]

DeathDog
DeathDog

@Stark_Naked
what if the pop-Buddhism with 'scientific' trappings, so beloved to bugmen and californians is actually just capitalism? You know who also loved 'Buddhism'? the fucking Nazis, they even tried to trace the Aryan race back to Tibet. I want to reach new levels of self-awareness, I want to fashion my whole reality into a mindblowing work of art, i don't wanna spend the rest of my life consuming idiot commodities in a state of oriental stupor.

Lunatick
Lunatick

@King_Martha
is metaphroic

Garbage Can Lid
Garbage Can Lid

@DeathDog
mainstream Buddhism in the west is pure ideology for tech and information heavy society.

Techpill
Techpill

@Stark_Naked
You've misunderstood what metaphysics is.

Buddhist metaphysics isn't talking about quantum physics, which is describing sub-physics, not metaphysics. The ground of reality or whatever isn't in the sub physical, but in the pre physical.

DeathDog
DeathDog

@King_Martha
The 5 aggregates.

It would be more correct to say that at our level there is no self or soul, our normal self is an automaton that thinks it's conscious but isn't really. However you can "attain" a soul, through spiritual practices, which are the 3 higher bodies described in Buddhist literature.

CodeBuns
CodeBuns

@BinaryMan
If it really is the bottom, then it is not an abstraction of something else.

Abstractions based on reality are a representation of reality using less details.

If you have an idea of reality that contains every detail of reality, then that is not abstract, it is just the real thing.

Methshot
Methshot

science has proven there is no self

subtle p-zombie bait thread

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

@CodeBuns
The bottom as opposed to what, the top?

Abstraction doesn't use less details, it uses less contingencies. This is vastly different.

Supergrass
Supergrass

@DeathDog
The 5 aggregates.

Lmao shut the fuck up

Emberfire
Emberfire

@BinaryMan
What are you trying to argue?

The abstraction of atoms has removed details from the abstraction of quarks. The less abstract, the more information.

cum2soon
cum2soon

@DeathDog
You know who also loved 'Buddhism'? the fucking Nazis, they even tried to trace the Aryan race back to Tibet.
wtf i love buddhism now

likme
likme

@King_Martha
consciousness and all the mental attributes persist through reincarnation, but they are not the self or the soul

Playboyize
Playboyize

@cum2soon
Evola loved it too:
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/06/spiritual-virility-in-buddhism/

Skullbone
Skullbone

@Playboyize
"The Western friends of Buddhism have been almost unanimous in appraising it as a sentimental doctrine of love and universal compassion, a doctrine composed of democracy and tolerance, to be admired also for its freedom from dogma, rites, sacraments: almost a sort of secular religion.

It is true that these distortions appeared quite early in the history of Buddhism. But though it may seem audacious on our part, we have no hesitation in saying that this is a falsification of the message of the Buddha, a deteriorated version suited not to virile men, standing with head erect, but to men lying prostrate in search of escape and spiritual alleviation, for whom the law and discipline of a positive religion are too severe...

It is known that in the beginning the Order of the Ariya, the noble “sons of the son of the Sakyas,” was restricted, even if not by extrinsic limits. Thus for instance, the Buddha objected to the admission of women. And those who like to see in the attitude of the Buddha towards the conception of caste and the exclusiveness of the Brahmanas, evidence of an equalitarian and universalistic spirit, are much mistaken. They confuse that which lies beneath the differences and limits proper to every sound hierarchy (as is the case with democratic equalitarianism, whether social or spiritual) with that which lies above such differentiated structures, as in the case of the really awakened Buddhist and of the initiate in general. The comparison drawn between the Awakened One and a flower that rises miraculously from a heap of dung[1] is pretty eloquent on this point, even if it be not edifying to those who indulge in a democratic and humanitarian interpretation of Buddhism...

In no spiritual tradition more than in Buddhism is the purely instrumental and provisional character of morality, of sila, so strongly stressed. As is known, the whole body of moral rules, with good and evil, dhamma and adhamma, was compared by the Buddha to a raft that is built for crossing a river, but which it would be ridiculous to drag along when the crossing has once been made...

Need_TLC
Need_TLC

And you wonder why asians are soulless automatons who do not have a single creative bone in their body and you wonder why their civilization is built on copies of copies of copies of others and then collapses and is built and collapses and is built and collapses throughout the entire history of man. Which, I would honestly hesitate to call them "man" considering a fundamental principle of the definition of "man" to the western mode of thought and philosophy is the concept of the soul. But that's an entirely different discussion, altogether.

Fucking asians, I swear.

Spamalot
Spamalot

@Stark_Naked
he Buddhist metaphysical view is one which only accepts the underlying base reality as truth
where did you get this interpretation of "Buddhism" from? This sounds like Western New Age shit

New_Cliche
New_Cliche

@Spamalot
If considering fundamental buddhism, not the pile of shits heaped on afterwards. Then it's roughly true.

Spazyfool
Spazyfool

@CodeBuns
Not really. Everything is an abstraction, there is no 1:1 conceptualisation and representation of reality to be ever found. Nothing more so than science, as abstraction is powerful.

SomethingNew
SomethingNew

@King_Martha
Science has proven many things, you fucking brainlet

@King_Martha
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

@Playboyize
Funny, how after few good points he presents Zen as non-degenerate.

@Spamalot
Reality in buddhism is reality governed by cause and effect and stuff you can verify for yourself. Masters who questioned the existence of other realms, rebirth and magical powers are not modern invention. Even one of 3 fetters abandoned by person attaining first level of enlightenment is Attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) which includes belief in external powers beyond cause and effect, so an enlightened person abandons all kinds of magical thinking not rooted in reality

WebTool
WebTool

@DeathDog
that thinks it's conscious but isn't really.

Contemplating such ideas requires an immanent Self.

PurpleCharger
PurpleCharger

@Stark_Naked
"There's much that I've learned that I've not told you. And why is it that I've not told you? Because my disciples, it brings you no profit, it does not conduce to progress in holiness, because it does not lead to the turning from the earthly, the subjection of all desire, to the cessation of the transitory, to peace, to knowledge, to illumination, to nirvaana : therefore have I not declared it unto you."
"There is an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, an uncompounded; were there not, O mendicants, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the originated, the made and the compounded."
"There exists monks that sphere (Ayatana) where there is neither solidity, nor cohesion, nor heat, nor motion, nor the sphere of infinite space, nor the sphere of infinite consciousness, nor the sphere of nothingness, neither the sphere of neither perception nor non perception; neither this world nor a wolrd beyond, nor both, nor sun and moon. There monks I say there's no coming (agati) or going (gati), no maintenance (thiti), no decease (cuti) and rebirth (upapati); that surely is without support, it has no functioning, it has no object (appatitham appavattam anaranmanam) - that is just the end of suffering (dukha)".
"A man is hit with a poisoned arrow and his friends hasten to the doctor. As the latter is about to draw the arrow out of the wound, the wounded man however cries, 'Stop! I'll not have the arrow drawn out until I know who shot it; whether a woman or a brahmin or a vaishya, his lineage, his physical description etc and so on. What would happen? The man would die before all these questions were answered. In the same way the disciple who wished for answers to all his questions about the beyond, would die before he understood the four noble truths."

Dreamworx
Dreamworx

@DeathDog
oriental stupor

Booteefool
Booteefool

@DeathDog
the fucking Nazis, they even tried to trace the Aryan race back to Tibet.
tried
don't be a retard, the proto-indoeuropeans are real and they raped their way around all of europe (except Sardinia), and india all the way down to tibet, doesn't mean the nazis weren't just a meme but one thing doesn't negate the other

cum2soon
cum2soon

@Stark_Naked
Nobody thinks buddhism is a primitive philosophy, It's spot on on most things.
The rest of your post however is trash.
science demonstrates that We have no self
Reads: biology majors with no idea of What they are talking about started philosophizing on their latest discoveries, tripped right into metaphysics without noticing and concluded that we have no self.
It's the kind of thing that's self contraddicting on the onset and requires Socrates tier thinking to show why. Who has no self? What is self and how does your discovery disprove it?
impersonal, interacting quantum fields.
You keep using This word "quantum" But You misapply it. You and many people besides, so I won't make a fusa about it; but still This kind of argument can be applied to atoms (We're all made of matter that's not actually matter so there can be nothing metaphysical about us) cells (we are all made of micro organisms in symbiosis so there's no "We") and so on. Again, Socrates would pat You on the head.
In the Buddhist view we do not possess free will,
Wrong on the buddhist point of view most school of buddhism do in fact recognize free will. It's more correct to say that the distinction is irrelevant. Free will or mechanicism You still go around doing things you'd do because You are You. Wether You is an illusion or not It's a matter of metaphysics wich biology or physics majors are unprepared to answer.
Then You go on saying:
If it really is the bottom, then it is not an abstraction of something else.
You are assuming that there is a bottom, and that "you" can know it, but you don't believe in any "you", in any "knowledge" or in any "bottom" by your own previous post. You see What I mean?

Inmate
Inmate

@Stark_Naked
What do you mean by unreasonably accurate?

Poker_Star
Poker_Star

@Stark_Naked
Give me an analytic def. of primitive boy and then we can talk

@King_Martha
Also this. See you the same guy posting about deconstruction, or is it just sheer coincidence that we're full of /sci/ (read: people with absolutely no understanding of 20th cen. philosophy) today?

TalkBomber
TalkBomber

@Inmate
It's the same term that's used in mathematics, except misapplied.
Mathematics does model reality in a unreasonably precise way. We invented it litteraly to know how much food We could eat from our depots on the bottom of the cave each day without die of starvation This winter and yet We could use it to discover Pi and e, wich are universal constants that actually exist and that the universe follows.
He's using it as pseudo validation of the philosophizing some biology and physics majors do when confronted with new datas.

Nojokur
Nojokur

@Stark_Naked
there is no self, which science has now proved to be unreasonably accurate.
the self has no place by design in science, no wonder that if you start with no self as an axiom you get to no self as a result

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page