Buddhism and the Indeterminate Questions (Origin of the Cosmos, of Karma, etc.)

Why couldn't you have just agreed with him that the Buddha didn't threaten people then?

It takes two (and many more) to tango if you want a reasonable thread.

Except he literally did.

t.Christcuck

This

You are in hell, fool. Buddha offers escape.

You see him This is the average Baboondhist westerner, they don't study the Pali canon nor the commentaries while striving to reach Nivana, they use Buddhism as a way to criticize christianity, basically fedoras 2.0

I'm not a Buddhist...

But it's extremely annoying when a thread about academic discussion of Buddhism gets derailed because asspained Christcucks come on and start posting their idiotic drivel.

>my way is literally the only way to the cessation of suffering t. Gotama
>if you don't follow my way you will literally have to spend a trillion years in a hell realm after you die before you can have a go at it again here in the human realm

Yeah wew lad, that's totally different.

Buddhism is a fake religion
>denies God
>no Repentance
>whilst Christ came for the "sword, not peace", Buddha came for Nirvana aka Death
>no Theology, no Logic
>literally stagnated the country while Christianity BUILT EVROPA

lmao, yeah Nah know what you're talking about first before you shittalk

>nirvana is death

lol westerncucks

>lmao, yeah Nah know what you're talking about first before you shittalk

Sick counter argument bro.

I bet you're a secularist shitter who gets his info on Buddhism from Alan Watts.

Lol western cucks? Is that your argument, child? "Life is suffering" is the core of Buddhism. Oh wait, you deny that life is suffering? No? Then Nirvana is impossible for the living.

>inb4 you don't like logic because you are a buddhist

The Shakyamuni literally said that one had to find their own path to Enlightenment, and that while wise people could be inspired and guided by people such as the Buddha or arahants, Enlightenment had to be achieved by the individual with persistence, discipline, and introspection: nobody - not even the Buddha - could lead an individual to paranirvana, since that was something the individual had to reach on his own.

Regarding your statement about the Hell-realms, you're an idiot. Pretty sure you don't know anything about Buddhism. There is no "penalty" for not "accepting" the Buddha. One could just as well be reborn in the human world or the Heaven-realms, since this depends on a person's actions, not on what beliefs one accepts to decides not to accept.

Buddhism is a fake religion pushed by crazy people that want to destroy Christianity in the west.

>A Buddhist describes Christianity with his a Buddhist mindset
>ENLIGHTENED, DEEP, TRUTH, SINCERE

>A Christian describes Buddhism with his Christian mindset
>RETARD, IGNORANT, EVIL, NAZI, WRONG

what, the symbol of the darma is a wheel, because if you accept its axioms, the mind naturally "turns" to its conclusions

As in, suffering, dissatisfaction, unease, worry, etc. is an unavoidable part of life. Don't talk about logic if you're contest such an obvious point.

Buddha doesn't give a shit if you follow him or not. You can do whatever the hell you want, but actions have objective consequences.

Nirvana is described to be finally attained at death, from when no more reincarnations happen. Meditation is an emulation of death. If you start meditating Anapanasati now, Buddhists say it will be a "straight road to enlightenment", taking only a few life times. According to the buddhist apes, the final realization that indicate you are enlightened is "life is suffering", which will lead you to stop the cycle of life and death and to never be born again. Correct me where I am wrong

I don't contest at all. I just don't like someone who brings Nirvana aka Death. I completely accept that life is suffering, I completely I agree that simple pleasure is only the cessation of pain, and desires are painful. Why did you think I was contesting this? I just don't think that a God like character should bring "Peace instead of the Sword"

>Nirvana is described to be finally attained at death, from when no more reincarnations happen

You are looking at life/death duelisticly, which Buddhists do not do. At the highest level there is no clear distinction between nrivana and samsara.

There are many types of meditation, and some of them are quite active, using imagery and the like.

So your wrong on both those points

Meditation is an emulation of the unconditioned state that precedes and is the ground of samsaric existence. Nirvana isn't the death of consciousness but the expanding of consciousness, transcending what is conditioned and impermenant. Which is why the enlightened consciousness is compared to an ocean and a sky that non-judgmentally accepts anything, no matter how impure, that is put into it. But you'd know this if you weren't talking out of your ass

...

>There are many types of meditation
Anapanasati is The meditation taught by Buddha
Seems like you are talking out of your ass

>Anapanasati

Buddhism is not limited to the teachings of shakyamuni

And in any case the dead do not focus on their breathing,

>their own path to Enlightenment

Yeah no, the 8 fold path is the only way to the cessation of suffering. That's why Buddha didn't belong to any other contemporary traditions like Jainism, or some Brahmanical traditions. Buddha explicitly shits on his contemporaries. There is only 'their own path to enlightening' insofar that the individual needs to put in the work. The framework inside of which that work needs to be done is already established by Buddha.

>There is no "penalty" for not "accepting" the Buddha

There is a 'penalty' for like not living an meritorious life. A meritorious life, within a Buddhist context being, following the 5/8 precepts. Meaning that there is very much a moral framework that must be adhered to. If you don't strictly obey the precepts you're pretty much guaranteed a shit rebirth.

>One could just as well be reborn in the human world
Human rebirths are extremely, extremely rare. You'd have to life a very meritorious life, a life that is in line with the 5/8 precepts, if you want even so much as another chance at a human rebirth.

>You can do whatever the hell you want, but actions have objective consequences

Those consequences being a rebirth in a lower realm, which is exactly what I just said.

Fucking Westerns with your feel good new age bullshit conceptions of Buddhism.

I don't see any relation between my post and that one.

>Buddhism is not limited to the teachings of shakyamuni
>implying anything outside of the Tipitaka counts

Mahayana fags pls go.

Actions having objective consequences =/= the Buddha threatening you with Hell

>n-nuh-uh!!

Great argument. Nirvana is not absolute nothingness you mong, you're wrong, end of story

>claim you don't like nirvana being death
>quote a post explaining the real nature of nirvana

Come on man.

You go

I never said Nirvana is nothing, I said it is not life, because life is suffering.
>you're wrong, end of story
I was wrong about what I haven't said? Seems like you are unable to read simple text and talk

Great, another thread ruined by Christcucks.

You're right nirvana is not life, it is what is more-than-life.

Your whole argument hinges on what is not life being intrinsically bad, which I've spent like 5 posts explaining why exactly your understanding is flawed and just a knee-jerk reaction to something you have no conception of.

This

You know you're school was cucked by hindus

I don't see how that refute what I have said, it seems just parallel esoteric bullshit pulled out of his ass: "an ocean and a sky that non-judgmentally accepts anything put into". Put by who and what? If there is something putting things here, this is the essence, not the sky. And if you putting things, you are choosing, and if you are choosing you are judging, so this Essence judges.

He also implies that meditation is an emulation of nirvana, while Buddha himself meditated until he realised life is ESSENTIALY suffering, which is the first of the Four Noble Truths.

You are the ones turning off parts of your brains and eating bullshit. Pardon me for sounding rude.

>you're

I am not a Buddhist, I simply like the Mahayana tradition more. Its a fascinating way of looking at reality, while most Hinayana people Ive talked to seem super rigid and rest everything on the idea their teachings stem only from shakyamuni.

>more-than-life
It can only be life because that is how we define LIFE from the subject perspective: an experience. Firstly, we only accept the existence of life and death, nothing more in this context. In every sense anything more than life should contain life, thus should contain suffering. A third position is logically impossible in any binary affirmation, it is either Yes or No for any consistent definition. Is it not life? Then it is death. Is it more than life? Then it contains life, it is life.

Yo what is it with cucks like you and having such a hard time understanding such simple fucking imagery? The Buddha didn't need to meditate to understand life is suffering, he knew that before he even left his former life to become an ascetic you dip.

>trying to apply binary logical categories to what is beyond them by definition

lmfao

I believe the reason Christcucks find Buddhism so hard to correctly comprehend is because the philosophy and concepts are much more intricate and complicated than those of Christianity.

Of course, this is the reflection of the respective religion's messages: Buddhism places much more emphasis on discipline and self-betterment and on introspection, whereas Christianity places all its emphasis on Jesus as a be-all and end-all to everything, which, realistically, is much 'lazier'. In one belief-system, one has to actively seek out the path, whereas in the other, one merely has to accept the path (Jesus), and after that, no other action is needed. Now think: which one would foster a more intricate thought-system?

>what is Pure Land Buddhism
You're creating a false dichotomy and apparently have no appreciation for the depth of Christian philosophy.

No, he discovered Dukkha after years of a privileged life, and then asceticism. If he realised Dukkha so early he wouldn't had tried asceticism. He literally realised ascesticism was flawed with meditation. Perfect Nirvana is impossible for living things, we can only reduce suffering, and this knowledge is what made him enlightened. I am not even mentioning his alleged magical powers here.

Please understand that I do think Dukkha is a Noble insight, if not the THE Noble insight. We are busy telling ourselves and each other how happy we are, but it is all an illusion. What I don't agree with is the godless path towards Nirvana and the supposed end of rebirth. Buddhism creates a generation of unmotivated cucks.

Just say 2 is 3 and call it a definition then. I am saying these axioms are inconsistent, this "definition" is an illusion of your ill brain. Refute me properly if I am wrong, I don't want to laugh or mistreat you at all, so don't be afraid.

Even Pure Land practices require much more than simply 'praying' to attain entry: there is still much meditation, contemplation, and visualization that is involved.

>Christian philosophy

I'm sure you meant Greek philosophy.

He realized the mechanism of dukkha, not the fact of it. He already knew about suffering, what he wanted to understand was its nature and how to end it.

Nirvana is beyond God, in that God is a being and thus still conditioned in that respect.

>Buddhism creates a generation of unmotivated cucks.

Back in my day, trolling meant something. This is just lazy.

>much more intricate and complicated

Had you said "different" or something to that effect, you would have been correct.

>contort these already well-defined concepts to fit my rigid logical categories or you're wrong

Do you really not understand "nirvana is what is beyond all dualisms" or what? Lawd

Also, sleep. Sleep is neither death nor life if we define life as experience. There's your third option. Eat shit.

Dukkha is literally the realization that "Life is suffering", it is not just knowing about suffering. Re-read my post, you are that crazy poster from before, aren't you? "The usage of the term "enlightenment" to translate "nirvana" was popularized in the 19th century, due, in part, to the efforts of Max Muller, who used the term consistently in his translations.". Buddha died in pain, he didn't reach Nirvana as in the complete end of suffering until his Death.

Feel free to show me how Buddhism is productive.

If we define life as experience sleep is death, dumbarse. Are you mentally impaired? Christ even said that his dead brother Lazarus was "sleeping"

Mate you really trying to tell me nirvana is a function of whether or not you're body is sick and your pain nerves are firing, and not, you know, what the Buddha is always talking about, which is controlling one's reactions to misfortune and adversity? Lmao you think the Buddha being sick disqualified him from having achieved nirvana?

Nirvana is just parinirvana as it is manifest in Samsara.

>nirvana is controlling one's reactions to misfortune and adversity
And now everyone can see how stupid these internet buddhists are.

Dude who cares, intellectualizing this bullshit gets you nowhere. you'll never understand talking about it. You just won't. Either study and make a real effort to try to understand this stuff experientially or keep shitposting about a system you have no personal experience with on the weekend I guess

I have experience with this stuff. I intuitively understand what is meant by aggregates, by attachment, by impermanence, by anatman, conditioned genesis, nirvana, renunciation, etc. You don't.

No you dumbass, nirvana is a function of one's state of mind and how pure it is, not whether or not your body is ostensibly "suffering".

Is sickness suffering? Is pain suffering? No? Yes? Yeah, we defined Nirvana as the end of suffering, my friend. We are talking in these terms, not others, otherwise you are no refuting, and more interestingly, otherwise nirvana has nothing to do with dukkha to you. Anything else

>you'll never understand talking about it
Then it is meaningless. I will take the words of Buddha over you: I won't really believe in something until I understand it. I am doing my effort here, in fact, I have done it for years. And it is WRONG. W. R. O. N. G. If you care to discuss it properly instead of talking like a californian hippie. I also have "experience with this stuff". I also have "intuitively understood" stuff, what I am asking is if this is CORRECT, if this is CONSISTENT, LOGICAL, do you understand? You have failed to refute me, and now giving me the worst bullshit, I just can't tolerate it

see

>Feel free to show me how Buddhism is productive.

Feel free to show me how Christianity is productive. The same religion that demands constant absolution from a deity (who never shows himself) and that requires an emotionally-charged relationship with this deity. Sounds like a gateway to self-loathing, frustration, and mania.

>(who never shows himself)
Pagan, please

Take a look at... CHRISTIAN EVROPA. Take a look at how productive it was compared to the rest of the world. Take a look at how things degenerated now that Anti-Christians rule the media. Look at Physics, it is stuck since the last century. Look at how much people party these days, they think highly of themselves and won't work and develop their own brains. Take a look at old culture, at the days of chastity. Compare it with modern trash culture. Compare Europe with China. Compare it with Japan. Compare it with all the Pagans. Compare it with the Buddhists.

Suffering is produced by attachment. Attachment can either be desire or aversion.

The fact that you think sickness is, in and of itself, suffering instead of just being suffering because is one is attached to his body, his life, averse to pain, etc. tells me that, no, you haven't intuitively understood anything. For the vast majority of people, sickness is indeed suffering for precisely these reasons. For Buddhas, no, it isn't, because attachment and aversion don't apply to anymore. I mean wow lol.

I can't believe you've been "doing Buddhism" for years and having this much trouble grokking that the Buddha would have remain detached from the fact of his sickness instead of feeding it with emotion and ego-narratives.

I've been trying to discuss this shit properly but you have serious trouble understanding very basic doctrinal points. Git gud already

>intellectualizing this bullshit gets you nowhere
The religion of reason, everybody

>never actually do it, just talk about it!!!

Westerncucks everyone

>Westerncucks everyone

Ahmed buddhist version everyone

Dude? The things that made europe successful after the middle ages had less to do with religion and more to do with getting a head start on colonization. To be blunt, europeans were blocked from access to their traditional trade routes with india and east asia and started looking for ways around the ottomans, that in turn eventually led to the discovery of the Americas and that in turn led to europe getting very fucking rich.

Oh and one other thing, the polytheist roman empire built an impressive and powerful empire long before christendom ever became a thing. There is no reason to assume that euro polytheists couldn't have built another impressive empire or two if christendom hadn't existed.

So in a few words, you are saying that pain is not suffering. Was that so hard to explain? Let's calm down now. Let me ask you a few questions: if someone is in pain, would you rather give him analgesia(let's say through the chemical action of an anesthetic) or try to treat his actual problem? Another: Let's hypothetically say everyone became Buddhas, would we ever treat ourselves? Or would we just "Not Suffer" in pain until death? Why would we even breathe? Breath is regulated by desire for air, would we never breathe again? Why would we eat, work, and have families? These are all painful desires that Buddha could simply "Not Suffer" with. Thus, there is a great contradiction in saying one can feel pain yet not suffer, because these words were once synonymous, and our reaction to them is conscious, and unless you are talking about a pain that doesn't hurt, you are just confused here. Thus the complete detachment from pain cannot mean anything but the absolute lack of reaction, and a moderate reaction implies a pain, and some attachment. Your "Nirvana", as you defined, is thus subjective and incomplete: for every small attachment that you have, leading to a moderate reaction, there is even a smaller attachment you could pursue. And eventually no reaction would happen. Now, if you mean not reacting Whilst feeling pain is nirvana, then certainly you still feel pain, and I would argue that is more important than not reacting. You only breathe because you feel pain if you don't. What pains can I react to? Is it not enough that I have the ability to not react instead of actually not reacting to stimuli? You see where I am going here?

Buddhism is the equivalent of treating health problems with Anesthetics. While Christianity is the equivalent of Healing them. Right now you are going to treat the logical problem that I presented you with your buddhism, as in, you will completely ignore it until you die.

You're an idiot.

Buddhism does not delude itself with the notion of 'eternal bliss'. There are Heaven-realms where beings exist in states of perpetual bliss. However, they also suffer from attachments: they are vain and proud, and themselves impermanent, still subject to desire.

One cannot exist and be free from pain and suffering. The Christian conception of the best reward being eternal existence is flawed: this is not 'treating' anyone.

I am talking about Christ healing the sick.

Not all attachment is suffering, but all suffering is attachment.

>Buddhism treats the symptom, Christianity cures the disease

Lmao more like the other way around.

You have a very sophomoric and absolutist understanding of Buddhist doctrine. I mean come on, Buddhism is just about ignoring pain? Lnao

All this tortuosity about what is or isn't suffering and nirvana and blah blah blah is the complete antithesis of the enlightened state of mind.

Not to mention one can act without being attached to the outcome. Are you kidding me with this shit

>Lmao Lmao
>ll this tortuosity about what is or isn't suffering and nirvana and blah blah blah
BUDDHISM, THE RATIONAL RELIGION, EVERYONE
>one can act without being attached to the outcome
What is the relation of this and what I said

Because you literally said action implies attachment, that if one has a moderate reaction to something, he should go lower, which would be a great argument if attachment to outcome isn't like th first thing to go on this path.

Not everything you don't get is a meme

If you are going on this road now... and I will completely ignore the pulled-out-of-your-ass stuff of "Not all attachment is suffering", it gets even more confusing.

This argument started because I said Buddha died in pain, therefore he wasn't in Nirvana. That Nirvana is not Enlightenment.. Then you, or some user, said that pain is not suffering, and that nirvana is not reacting to pain because pain is not necessarily suffering. But Buddha did react to his pain while dying, but my argument went in the direction of Pain=Suffering, and I eventually said that Buddhism is not about healing sickness, compared to Christianity.

I also said that every painful attachment implies a reaction of same value. I didn't mention attachment to outcomes specifically, but simply implied bodily attachment in the case of hunger, breath, sickness etc. But now you say: - It is possible to consciously move your arm without wanting to move your arm, is this what you are saying? Because it literally doesn't make sense, some part of the outcome Must be intended, even if it is just electrical output of your brain: the output of a system is what the system intends to output. I don't know what you mean by "just meme", but I guess you are using it as if it means "something false that is repeated".

My conclusions so far are: you are confusing Buddhism with Stoicism. You are not addressing all my points, at all. You are not ashamed of being dumb. You are rhetorical and confused. And finally, there is no reason for you to go on with the rejection of my argument if you can't refute it and if you posting anonymously. You should shut up, get the fuck out, and consider what I said like a proper civilized human. Fuck you

You think I pulled the "not all attachment is suffering" shit out of my ass, when the Buddha takes pains to distinguish between desire for the wrong things and desire for what is wholesome?

You've been practicing Buddhism for years but you're still hung up on this sophomoric evaluation of all desire as inherently bad, when Buddhism is pragmatic and only cares about whether or not a desire leads to wholesome or unwholesome states?

I don't give a fuck what you think it do m8. Peace

I am saying every desire is Painful. You are hallucinating again, mister rational meditator

It isn't, and neither does the Buddha say that.

All these christfags are really so annoying and full of shit. Definitely should feed them to lions like in the olden days.

I agree with that, completely. But, you and I clearly both know that a statement like that would commence the shitflinging. See this thread, for evidence.

>Guy interested in the finer points of Buddhism tries to reach out and learn more
>Christians commence shitflinging and everyone else fills in to fling back

Christians need their own board. Segregate them, put them in the ghettos.

They already have /x/ but they refuse to stay there.

In fairness the American Protestants on Veeky Forums do provide excellent comedy value.