/r9k/ - the religion

Not even the same guy hypocrite

Nice buzzwords.

>this projection

>this faggot cry-baby little loser
He was a fucking PRINCE

...

>Samsara is also within one lifetime,

this is just western revisionism, because they find the notion of reincarnation unbelievable

>"For as long as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated, one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death."

>There are two stages in nirvana, one in life, the second is final nirvana upon death; the former is imprecise and general, the latter is precise and specific.[43] The nirvana-in-life marks the life of a monk who has attained complete release from desire and suffering but still has a body, name and life. The nirvana-after-death, also called nirvana-without-substrate, is the complete cessation of everything, including consciousness and rebirth
>including consciousness and rebirth

literally the same thing as atheist anihiliation

>Samsara is also within one lifetime, its not just the round of rebirths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

>Rebirth in Buddhism refers to its teaching that the actions of a person lead to a new existence after death, in endless cycles called saṃsāra.[1][2] This cycle is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful. The cycle stops only if liberation is achieved by insight and the extinguishing of desire.

The rebirth doctrine in Buddhism, sometimes referred to as reincarnation or metempsychosis, asserts that rebirth does not necessarily take place as another human being, but as an existence in one of the six Gati (realms) called Bhavachakra.[4] The six realms of rebirth include Deva (heavenly), Asura (demigod), Manusya (human), Tiryak (animals), Preta (ghosts), and Naraka (resident of hell).[4][6][note 1] This rebirth, state Buddhism traditions, is determined by karma, with good realms favored by Kushala (good karma), while a rebirth in evil realms is a consequence of Akushala (bad karma).[4] While Nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhist teaching, much of traditional Buddhist practice has been centered on gaining merit and merit transfer, whereby one gains rebirth in the good realms and avoids rebirth in the evil realms

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara_(Buddhism)

>Saṃsāra (Sanskrit, Pali; also samsara) in Buddhism is the beginning-less cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again

Samsara is nirvana
Nirvana is samsara
Both are concepts
Neither are ultimately real

t. Nagarjuna

Yeah it's called being dead

How can what is not ultimately real exist even from one moment to the next, let alone a lifetime or more?

What's the deal with all those anti buddhist threads lately?

Is it part of the hindutva invasion on Veeky Forums?

obscrunatist nonsense

fuck off with these kinds of 'asian philosophy' bullshit

>Samsara is nirvana
>Nirvana is samsara

yeah and cold is hot

>he would be on r9k

He was rich beyond belief, he could have had anything he wanted including girls without working a day in his life

R9k are poor ass mereyfats forced to slave off for their student loans or become bums when their parents kick them out, they also are fixated on muh gf and think it will solve all of their issues

You're not ready for that truth yet. Better to start with simple conventional truths first.

Yet, the Buddha and his disciples explicitly taught that it wasnt and thats an evil superstition. You need a proper understanding of dependent origination to understand what the cessation of consciousness means.

The suttas are the authority, not wikipedia or just one line from the suttas. Within one lifetime you are within samsara, not just when you die and are reborn. Samsara includes the lives not just the births and the deaths. Its a constant on going process

fuck off cunt you fucking idiot

source?

Wrong, nagarjuna explicitly calls this view as wrong.

The proper summary is, "samsara is nirvana, nirvana is samsara" The last two part is your own addition.

Please tell me how it is wrong

"Emptiness : Everything eventually becomes nothing."
Wrong. He totally missed the essence of substance, which the Hindus were on the trail of long before him.

That's not what emptiness is. Strawman argument, try again.

The part where you conflate both as ultimately unreal. The part where you consider both as mere concepts.

To Nagarjuna and to the Mahayana Buddhist (and buddhists), both samsara and the nirvana (ultimate reality) are real. They are the only real there is. They are not mere concepts but fabric of reality to them.

Alright, it is empty of an essential nature, but really how does one form an intuitive grasp of emptiness when it could be wrong. Maybe Hindus are right. Perceiving emptiness could be an act of imagination.

>To Nagarjuna and to the Mahayana Buddhist (and buddhists), both samsara and the nirvana (ultimate reality) are real. They are the only real there is. They are not mere concepts but fabric of reality to them.

Absolutely incorrect. Nagarjuna goes to great lengths in the mulamadhyamakakarika to demonstrate that samsara, nirvana, and any other concept including buddhist ones have no independent reality and are therefore empty not ultimately real.

It's not intuitive. It can be established logically and with direct perception for every phenomenon in existence including thoughts and matter.

You logically disproved Brahman, of which it is claimed you can also directly perceive?

You missed the whole part where having no independent reality is actually having a reality. The Buddhist claim is there are no objects out there with any independent reality. All objects therefore have dependent reality. This means they all have reality, one thats dependent but still a very real reality.

Nagarjuna isn't arguing for Nihilism/non-existentialism with his position. You are confusing the word "emptiness" as "non-existent". That's not what he's arguing for. Existence of emptiness is defined as existence of dependent origination.

Not me, but yes.

Go ahead. Prove it with deductive logic.

>You missed the whole part where having no independent reality is actually having a reality. The Buddhist claim is there are no objects out there with any independent reality. All objects therefore have dependent reality. This means they all have reality, one thats dependent but still a very real reality.

yes i understand and agree with this, this is what is meant by emptiness and codependant arising.

>Nagarjuna isn't arguing for Nihilism/non-existentialism with his position. You are confusing the word "emptiness" as "non-existent". That's not what he's arguing for. Existence of emptiness is defined as existence of dependent origination.

this is not what i'm arguing. the thing you're missing here is the 2 truths doctrine. conventionally samsara and nirvana exist, but ultimately, as with everything else, they do not. to quote siderits and katsura on nagarjuna:

>Since all things are, according to Nagarjuna, empty of intrinsic nature, it follows that ultimately there is no such thing as samsara. For in order for samsara to be something about which ultimately true claims could be made, there would have to be ultimately real mental forces that could produce it. And if all things are empty, then there are no mental forces that are ultimately real. Consequently, one cannot say that ultimately samsara exists, does not exist, and so forth. Note, however, that this says nothing about the conventional status status of nirvana and samsara. A Madhyamika can still hold it to be conventionally true that nirvana and samsara are very different states, that the former should be sought while the latter should be stopped, and so on.

The 2 truth is about samsara (conventional reality) and nirvana (ultimately) not samsara/nirvana (conventional reality) and nonexistence (ultimate reality).

Again you're mistaking nagarjuana's position. Nagarjuna and Buddha's were both against annihilationism/nihilist position.

cf bodicayavatara chapter 9

>The 2 truth is about samsara (conventional reality) and nirvana (ultimately) not samsara/nirvana (conventional reality) and nonexistence (ultimate reality).

again, this is not what i'm arguing. it is a very subtle point and difficult to understand.

both samsara and nirvana have a conventional and ultimate reality. as quoted above, conventionally they are real. ultimately, they are not. you seem to think, however, that the fact of their ultiamte reality = nonexistence. it odes not. again i quote:

>A Madhyamika can still hold it to be conventionally true that nirvana and samsara are very different states, that the former should be sought while the latter should be stopped, and so on.

nagarjuna says:

>this halting of cognizing everything, the halting of hypostasising, is blissful. no dharma watsoever was ever taught by the buddha to anyone.

the point is to stop conceptualising nirvana.

>Nagarjuna and Buddha's were both against annihilationism/nihilist position.

so am i.

>Nagarjuna and Buddha's were both against annihilationism/nihilist position.
>so am i.
Yet you're advocating a annihilationist/nihilist position.

How?

You've over complicated the matter of Nagarjuana's emptiness.

When you say both samsara and nirvana have ultimate and conventional reality, you have misunderstood his emptiness. When Nagarjuna says Samsara and Niravana are same, he is speaking that conventional = ultimate. Samsara is the conventional and Nirvana is the ultimate. There is no difference and no OTHER ultimate reality called "emptiness" out there. To mistake his emptiness as an entity apart from the description of reality is missing the point. The conventional reality part of emptiness is dependent-origination. The ultimate reality is emptiness. His emptiness is basically against the so called the "svabhava" or "own-being" or "grounds of being" or "the self" of things however because he argues against these things, he clarifies (as buddha had already said so) that because these things dont have independent origination or independent existence or they are empty of self, they exist through dependent origination. There is no advocating for the "other empty" existence position.

>samsara is the conventional and nirvana is the ultimate

Please show where he says this. Your whole argument rests on this incorrect interpretation.

I'm not asserting there is an OTHER ultimate reality called emptiness. Nagarjuna shows even emptiness is empty.

>just kill yourself to reach nirvana

Killing oneself is still killing and according to buddhism it will generate bad karma and you'll just be in a worse off place. There is no other way to end the supposed cycle of life and death, you'll have to follow the 8fold path.

>buddhism is just annihilationist

According to the pali canon, the buddha refuted this claim but gave no answer as to how its different from it. Modern buddhists/scholars say that annihilationism only makes sense when you assume that a person possesses a soul or an unchanging self. Without it, its meaningless.

well the buddha was basically annihiationalist but masked it with autism

whe asked what happens to one who has acheived nirvana at death, he said some autism like 'he neither exists nor does not exist'

he also said that monks ought not think about tsuch things

also there's a massive problem in buddhism to do with if there is no self then what possibly experieces the next life, *and* based on karmic value. if there is no self then what on earth accumulates karma

it's just an idiot religion like the rest of them

>also there's a massive problem in buddhism to do with if there is no self then what possibly experieces the next life, *and* based on karmic value. if there is no self then what on earth accumulates karma
what accumulates karma is whatever accumulates karma,
and what is the problem here?

the problem is annata

there's nothing to accumulate karma, the buddha explicitly said there is no self or ego

so what accumulates thekarma that affects the next life? what persists from one life to another?

karma is not accumulated, karma means good/bad intention and in hinduism the karma is pure good/bad action. the fruits of the intention can be imagined to be accumulated but it is stupid to focus on the fruits.

Anātman means, instead of retarded words involving self, ''not my business'', not me, not I, not mine.

>samsara is the conventional and nirvana is the ultimate
>Please show where he says this. Your whole argument rests on this incorrect interpretation.
My bad on this mis-presentation. I meant to say in the conventional world, we assume samsara and nirvana are different. In the sense that samsara is the conventional and nirvana is the ultimate. This was "two truth doctrine" many ascribed. However in the ultimate reality, samsara = nirvana. Nagarjuna wanted this distinction to close as it was dividing the Buddhist community.

The "other" emptiness ultimate reality is nonsense. First Nagarjuna wasn't applying emptiness to represent the other ultimate reality. The whole point of samsara = nirvana was THE ultimate reality. Nagarjuna wasn't trying to put forth a new position outside of Buddha's teaching, Buddha certainly didn't teach an existence outside of samsara and nirvana. One of the most frequent criticism of Nagarjuna is that he doesn't make any additional propositions for others to attack. What little Nagarjuna explained was basically expanding on the anatta doctrine to apply on universal scale and giving it a name.

Since Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible will one religion (if either are proven true) debunk the other?

If either is proven true (which is impossible), then the other will be false. Won't be debunked, but false since they live in contradictory system of the world.

Buddhism is harder to prove but Christianity could easily be proven false if you destroyed any major player in Revelations or became interplanetary. I mean, more than it's already been proven false by the face heat death of the universe is a thing; the Bible states Jesus will make his eternal kingdom on Earth (here in the physical world) so it's already been debunked unless he also puts an end to entropy but why create the universe with it in the first place but nobody mentions that.