Buddhism is the Stirner killer

>But I think this doesn't really hold true if you consider the current life to be the only one, in which case a kind of stoic Amor fati, seize the day perspective seems more appropriate

how do you come to that conclusion? "This is the ony time that X, so I have to enjoy it" isn't universally true. Explain why it is with life.

It is not universally true but the only consequences of having desires that go unfulfilled is what you have to deal with consciously and presently. If you accept that, then you can live experiencing what you like without the burden or obligation of attaining nirvana. You may spend your whole life trying to free yourself from dukkha and yet never doing it, in the hopes that your next rebirth will at least be closer to attaining nirvana.

oh, I don't think we're talking about Hinduistic Tibetian Buddhism here, rather Zen and other Mahayana forms which set enlightenment as a temporary peak of a generally enlightening journey through Zen practice.

Of course the diamond way with substantial rebirth and gods and whatnot is a very easily dismissed form of it.

Ah, I'm not familiar enough. I have only a very rudimentary understanding of Buddhism in general.

why don't buddhist kill themselves ?
serious question

Because you'll just get reincarnated into a tree or an african land snail or something.

Only way you wanna move is up the cosmic hierarchy; one day you might incarnate into a form with multiple sets of genitals; how about that?

so they just deny the logical conclusion of their philosophy with some magical woo woo

Welcome to religion; would you like a complimentary towel?

Spooks are a spook desu if Stirner thought his philosophy through there would be no need to blame the establishment, God etc. for bad feels

because they don't want to ??

okay no, this thread clearly deals with Tibetian dogmatic buddhism

Waste of time then, arguing against the most overtly bullshit version of a philosophy

O /10

>>Waste of time then, arguing against the most overtly bullshit version of a philosophy
it is the best for women

>Please criticise my criticism.

Its really bad. Like stop posting bad

yes, now please criticise it.

Others already have, I was just giving some words of encouragement

no there was one divergent conversation about a particular point I made but it ended when there was a distinction made between two types of Buddhism I didn't know enough to comment on, and one of which the other poster felt connected to and the other he didn't

No your very chain of thought is retarded no your references. Looks like you're still muddled up in contrite cliche thinking you develope
The fact you assume in any school of Buddhism that the status of mortality affects what is a system oriented around the ontological nature of the libidinal economy. Fucking get a grip

Doesn't it? Suffering is considered a negative, which is why Buddhists act with compassion for other beings, right? Relieving suffering, ignorance, and so on. The elimination of suffering is a preferable ultimate end of your deeds. The deeds and doctrines and lifestyle of the Buddhist are centred around the elimination of rebirth, which, if I'm not wrong, is considered a "good" end. If there is no rebirth to be eliminated, the practices that are meant to occasion it are obsolete.

>The deeds and doctrines and lifestyle of the Buddhist are centred around the elimination of rebirth

Wrong

They're centered around the elimination of suffering, the end of the rebirth cycle is simply an extension of that central.
Seriously this is just the most basic precept of Buddhism, read more before acting like you have any right to postulate here when it brings down the boards quality

Does anyone else feel like Stirners philosophy finds a fuller expression in Jungian psychology?
I feel like he ventures out of his own scope when he tries to fit his thoughts into a sociological framework. The main idea I drew from The Ego was the transition of spirituality (or other spooks/symbols of spirituality) from something without to within, fully my own, which seems to be one of the main tenets of Jungians.

>I can't control my thoughts
What kinda Buddhism is you reading boy?

0/10

Why would a Buddhist kill himself?

This dude knows whats up.

From what I have read, the end of the rebirth cycle is the principal means of achieving the complete cessation of suffering. This makes sense, since you cannot completely escape suffering while you are alive. Even being alive is in itself a kind of dukkha, is it not? A transient, unsatisfying thing that cannot be held on to forever. Everything I have read or heard says that liberation from Samsara is the ultimate goal of Buddhism.
By the way are you a triggered Buddhist or just someone upset at poor argumentation? I would take pleasure in cruelly berating you for your worldly display of rudeness and lack of compassion if the former is true.

I agree OP.

Being enlightened or practicing Buddhist precepts diligently isn't masochistic like some people imagine it is. Some people get the idea that it's like torturing yourself and that when you don't engage in hedonistic stuff that you are missing out on something really important but in truth when you practice Buddhist precepts very closely what happens instead is that you just feel blissful all the time.

You don't care about not engaging in hedonistic stuff as much because the temporary enjoyment they provide is incomparable to feeling blissful all the time. Also, if you put a lot of effort into it you can still do that while living a relatively normal life and while having a GF/wife etc that you have sex with.

This

It is wrong to say Buddhism centers around the extinction of rebirth. It is oriented around transcending suffering and reaching enlightenment and the ending of the cycle or rebirth is just seen as the natural result of fully doing that. In the records that exist of Buddha's speeches he would not tell people that they should follow his teachings in order to end the cycle of rebirth, he just told them that it would allow them to not suffer anymore and to gain control of themselves (self being used here in a colloquial sense). As part of fully explaining his teachings he would mention how it could end the cycle or rebirth but he never used them as far as I'm aware to enjoin someone to start following his teachings.

99% of Buddhism has little to do with ending the cycle of rebirth. That is just regarded to be what happens what someone successfully reaches enlightenment and loses their attachments and no longer generates karma. Buddha taught his teachings to people so that they could benefit from it and not just so they could end the cycle of rebirth. Practicing Buddhism can bring immense benefits to people even if they do not end the cycle of rebirth because of how it helps them control their thoughts and emotions. There is implicit recognition of this in his teachings when he taught how with the right effort people can reach the various stages such as stream-entrant, once-returner etc.

Thank you for the informative post user. So would you say I was mistaken in my conception that Buddhism wanted to eliminate suffering by eliminating life, but a more accurate summary (as accurate as summaries of vast religions can be) is that the Buddha has given advice on how to live a good life and minimise contemporary suffering - which also prevents the suffering of future persons by rebirth because of lingering attachments.

*but he never used that as far as I'm aware to enjoin

>helps them control their thoughts and emotions.
they don't control their thoughts and emotions

Sitrner didn't identify the Unique One with the mind.

Afaik Jung draws directly from Nietzsche. Though there are rumors that both Nietzsche and Freud drew from Stirner, so there's that.

Fuck off, Leonardo

>So would you say I was mistaken in my conception that Buddhism wanted to eliminate suffering by eliminating life

If by "life" you mean self/soul, according to the Buddhist worldview this never even existed in the first place so instead of eliminating it with ascetic practices it's more about just waking up and realizing that it just doesn't exist.

>but a more accurate summary (as accurate as summaries of vast religions can be) is that the Buddha has given advice on how to live a good life and minimize contemporary suffering - which also prevents the suffering of future persons by rebirth because of lingering attachments.

Yes, basically. His teachings bring benefit that are commensurate with how much effort one puts into following them. Someone could not try to reach enlightenment but still follow some Buddhist practices and be mindful and it would help them live a life with less suffering and stress. Someone else could get pretty seriously into it by practicing Buddhist precepts and being mindfull all the time and by spending lots of time at meditation retreats and that person could have a nearly suffering-free life and become a once-returner or one of the other stages and be reborn into a life more conducive to reaching enlightenment. Someone else could go all the way and become enlightened.

>they don't control their thoughts and emotions

What do you mean?

Buddhism is just antinatalism for people who believe in magic.

Also:

>there is no self but try to not let your self be reborn into another life

Top kek!

Well, they don't. What do you mean when you say they 'control' them? It's not like they only chose to have positive thoughts, or remove entirely any negative thoughts. They just are not attached to them

>hating on buddhists because of that one religious thing

Identification of what with the mind?

That's a "I haven't even read the wikipedia page for Buddhism"-tier understanding

I didn't mean it too literally in the sense of "I am not going to have those thoughts and I am going to choose to only have these thoughts". I just meant it in the general sense of how Buddhism teaches one how to have a better handle on their thoughts. A huge part of Buddhism is being aware of one's thought are, what gave rise to them and whether they are the result of any ego/attachment/craving-related stuff. The message is that once you understand that stuff you can let unhealthy/attachment-driven thoughts fall away.

In Buddha's speeches and sayings he seems to have acknowledged that there was some level of conscious control over thoughts and that they were not totally out of our control and there are multiple cases of him recommending to some degree that people use this control for beneficial purposes by not allowing unwholesome ones to arise etc.

>I didn't mean it too literally in the sense of "I am not going to have those thoughts and I am going to choose to only have these thoughts". I just meant it in the general sense of how Buddhism teaches one how to have a better handle on their thoughts. A huge part of Buddhism is being aware of one's thought are, what gave rise to them and whether they are the result of any ego/attachment/craving-related stuff. The message is that once you understand that stuff you can let unhealthy/attachment-driven thoughts fall away.
Do you hate yourself?

>Do you hate yourself?

No, I don't hate myself. Why would you ask that?

The aesthetic of buddhism threads is always all about self-loathing, intrusive thoughts, the _horror_ of being alive and so on. You ever notice this?

Buddhism really is a religion for jaded, boring neurotics. Ask yourself have you ever met an interesting buddhist? Let me tell you folks they're all half dead.

Really wish they could stop proselytizing.

>The aesthetic of buddhism threads is always all about self-loathing, intrusive thoughts, the _horror_ of being alive and so on. You ever notice this?
this

emotions matter to hedonists who think hedonism is a good life style. Even better, hedonists will do anything to think that they are as hedonistic as they are and they even arrange moments in their life where ''it is wrong to display hedonism'' and where ''it is right to display hedonism'', so that they can feel both like saints and animals regularly.

But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist.

In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death

hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

>Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.
Which is a neurological phenomenon. No woo woo needed.

Also most people don't have the fucking money to be hedonists you know that right?

you're saying what people feel and think is irrelevant?

you're just proving buddhism to be the art of detachment that it is. of course when you detach yourself from life you'll be at peace, except unless you want to retreat to a monastery those things will forever be in your vision which is usually the point where western buddhists start to experience cognitive dissonance.

buddhists on life support

(not even memeing, 100% share your opinion)

Buddhism is the dyed-in-the-hair feminist's religion of choice, barring atheism and wicca memes

actually youd find many similarities between stirners and buddhist thought if youd actually read him but thats of course too much to ask

When I want to criticise buddhism, I just say "You follow your desire to be rid of desire, hypocrite that you are."

>X religion BTFOs Stiner

Uh oh, I don't think so, my property!

>buddhists start to experience cognitive dissonance.
why?

You have to get started somehow

>the hypocrisy spook

I'll be more accurate:
"You believe all your desires to only be capable of leadin you to harm, yet you follow this desire to attain enlightenment and rid yourself of desire, expecting it to bring you anything but the harm you think comes from desire."

>You believe all your desires to only be capable of leadin you to harm
no?

okay since i hate getting one word answers, i don't want to do the same to you - i've never read 'all desires lead to suffering' written anywhere. Maybe you can say 'all suffering comes from your desires', but the opposite? i think not

Really? Refrasing incoming:
"You believe all suffering comes from desire, yet you believe the path to nirvana, fraught with the desire to rid yourself of such, is one worth walking."

all suffering comes from desire - not all desire leads to suffering. yes, maybe you have to trust that this one desire is worth chasing.

You don't know what a spook is because you haven't read Stirner

What book do I start with?

Start with "What the Buddha Taught" (revised and expanded edition) by Walpola Rahula. It's a really good intro book that would be helpful for getting into the more lengthy books and will help you understand them better from the beginning. After you have read it I would recommend the Eknath Esawaren translation of the Dhammapada and also "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikku Bodhi.

Purdue has a free PDF copy of "What the Buddha Taught" online. It's only around ~130 pages with not many words per page and can easily be read in two days.

web.ics.purdue.edu/~buddhism/docs/Bhante_Walpola_Rahula-What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

If you desire enlightenment you will not attain it. There is no hypocrisy of desire of one who achieves enlightenment.

>Why would a Buddhist kill himself?
because it's literally mortal life is shit you need to become a living vegetable aka enlightened the religion

>hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy.
really nigga? can you be any more contradictory?

>western buddhists
can you read?

>>you're saying what people feel and think is irrelevant?
to be happy yes. but until you get to full awakening, your experiences is all that you have, like you always had, and you must manage them until nibana.
The way to nibana for anybody is precisely what people call the noble 8fold path. Once you want to reach nibanna, you spend you time discriminating your experiences to always get more stillness, appeasement from what you experience, equanimity towards what you experience.
First, you do it with respect to what people call ''reality'', like your job, people in the street, the food, the weather, whatever. This leads to you to right livelihood. Then you continue to always get more stillness wrt to what you experience, and since you already did what must be done ''outside of you'', you must deal with what remains: what is ''inside of you''. People call this introspection. you have jhanas, and since you have right view from the beginning, the jhanas+right view gets to nibanna.

>misses the point

Happiness doesn't just mean sensual pleasure.

Hedonism really just means working toward your own happiness, in the sense user means I think, not just "fuck everything that moves 0 discipline woo"

>misses the crucial distinction

>thinks wrong things

whats a spook

you are supposed to care the same about Soros, Hitler and your mother, i.e. not care, thats true transcendence, i.e. road to englightement

Unrelated but how similar is Schopie's philosophy to Buddhism?

Because enlightment feels like life is constantly sucking your dick. Think of it. When you're getting head, it's not only the sensations on your cock that make you feel good. It's largely that you get to witness a girl submit to you and suck you from where you pee. It makes you feel powerful, and most importantly, for a moment you're not thinking about women or loneliness because you're with one and for the moment she loves you.

Being enlightened is not needing any damn thing. Anything else can add to your experience, but you don't need it. It really does feel like life is sucking you off wherever you go. And even when something bad happena in your life, you'll feel like it's just the whims of nature flirting with you or teasing you. That's why us meditation bros don't an hero

Shopi is the typical guy who failed to see the dhamma as the solution to normie life as pain-boredom, but at least he understood this.

the lesson to retrieve is that your intellect/imagination is not what gets you to nibanna. Your imagination gives you at best depression, because you see that nobody, not you, nor strangers, not your family and so on, can retain some pleasures over a long period of time, without your intellect giving you the solution.

To see the solution, you must go to a higher degree of reflexivity, which is, for most people, only attainable through jhanas and only after they heard what to look for.

...

Basketball players that were grimly reminded of their own inevitable demise before playing took more shots and scored more points in a study published in an upcoming issue of Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. The researchers behind the experiments hypothesize that the pep-talk tactic fits with the established "terror management theory," which proposes that humans are motivated to seek self-esteem, meaning, and symbolic immortality -- in this case becoming a famous athlete -- in order to manage their fear of death. For the study, Helm and colleagues first recruited basketball players to play two back-to-back, one-on-one games with lead researcher Colin Zestcott, another psychologist at the University of Arizona. (The players didn't know that Zestcott was a researcher; they thought he was another study participant.) After the first game, half of the participants were randomly assigned to take a questionnaire on how they felt about basketball. The other half took one about their thoughts on their own death. Those that took the spooky survey saw a 40-percent boost in their individual performance during the second game as compared with their first. Those that took the non-macabre survey saw no change. In a second experiment, participants were given a basket-shooting challenge, which a researcher described to them in a 30-second tutorial. Based on a coin-toss, half the participants got the tutorial while the researcher was wearing a plain jacket. The other half saw the researcher in a T-shirt with a skull-shaped word-cloud made entirely of the word 'death.' The participants' performance on the shooting challenge was then scored by another researcher who didn't know which players saw the death shirt. In the end, players who did see the shirt took more shots, and outperformed by 30 percent, those that just saw the jacket.

Then, on the attainment of arahantship, this thought occurred to Ven. Sona: “What if I were to go to the Blessed One and, on arrival, to declare gnosis in his presence?” So he then went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: “When a monk is an arahant, his fermentations ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis, he is dedicated to six things: renunciation, seclusion, non-afflictiveness, the ending of craving, the ending of clinging/sustenance, & non-deludedness.

“Now it may occur to a certain venerable one to think, ‘Perhaps it is entirely dependent on conviction that this venerable one is dedicated to renunciation,’ but it should not be seen in that way. The monk whose fermentations are ended, having fulfilled [the holy life], does not see in himself anything further to do, or anything further to add to what he has done. It is because of the ending of passion, because of his being free of passion, that he is dedicated to renunciation. It is because of the ending of aversion, because of his being free of aversion, that he is dedicated to renunciation. It is because of the ending of delusion, because of his being free of delusion, that he is dedicated to renunciation.

“Now it may occur to a certain venerable one to think, ‘Perhaps it is because he desires gain, honor, & fame that this venerable one is dedicated to seclusion’ ... ‘Perhaps it is because he falls back on attachment to precepts & practices as being essential that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness,’ but it should not be seen in that way. The monk whose fermentations are ended, having fulfilled [the holy life], does not see in himself anything further to do, or anything further to add to what he has done. It is because of the ending of passion, because of his being free of passion, that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness. It is because of the ending of aversion, because of his being free of aversion, that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness. It is because of the ending of delusion, because of his being free of delusion, that he is dedicated to non-afflictiveness.

“It is because of the ending of passion, because of his being free of passion... because of the ending of aversion, because of his being free of aversion... because of the ending of delusion, because of his being free of delusion, that he is dedicated to the ending of craving... the ending of clinging/sustenance... non-deludedness.

“Even if powerful forms cognizable by the eye come into the visual range of a monk whose mind is thus rightly released, his mind is neither overpowered nor even engaged. Being still, having reached imperturbability, he focuses on their passing away. And even if powerful sounds... aromas... flavors... tactile sensations... Even if powerful ideas cognizable by the intellect come into the mental range of a monk whose mind is thus rightly released, his mind is neither overpowered nor even engaged. Being still, having reached imperturbability, he focuses on their passing away.

>nibanna

>Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding.
(from the Mulapariyaya Sutra in Majjhima Nikaya)

Buddhism is not only about detaching from your body, it is about detaching from everything. So just killing yourself won't change a thing if your soul is still bound to existence. Porphyry says something similar in his Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligible Nature:
>8. That which nature binds, nature also dissolves: and that which the soul binds, the soul likewise dissolves. Nature, indeed, bound the body to the soul; but the soul binds herself to the body. Nature, therefore, liberates the body from the soul; but the soul liberates herself from the body.
>9. Hence there is a twofold death; the one, indeed, universally known, in which the body is liberated from the soul; but the other peculiar to philosophers, in which the soul is liberated from the body. Nor does the one entirely follows the other.

That is to say, one thing is getting ride of this particular body, another is getting ride of the "desire" that made you get into a body in the first place.