How can Buddhists be so nihilistic while maintaining love and compassion? Aren't they mutually exclusive?

non-attachment alone doesn't, you're right

but Buddhism includes practices which develop those qualities specifically

I feel you're misconstruing love in Buddhism. It's nearer to the concept of Chaucer's: "...remember love is free..."(Knight's tale). That concept of free love and the idea we are so infinitely small that even acts or kindness are infinitely easy to achieve, due in part to the smallness of us and love itself. Arduous love doesn't have a place in Buddhism

yes, its a relaxed and calm affection / friendliness not passionate love

Buddhism is not nihilistic. These meme needs to die.

No stupid. Learn to feel empathy.

It speaks volumes of the Western Mind's tiny scope when Buddhism is perceived as Nihilistic.

b-but how can any society flourish without muh monotheistic theology to build up for thousands of years, then wastefully demolish?

emptiness seen through ignorance is nihilism

emptiness seen through wisdom is nirvana

ITT: western buddhists who sit still for an hour a day and think that means jack fucking shit
staying still has benefits, thinking that equates to some deeper spooky understanding is fucking dumb.

who gives a damn. white buddhism is a cancerous meme

Why would you even feel the need to speak about something you have no knowledge of.

It makes you look like a retard.

Why would nihilism be incompatible with love and compassion?

>white buddhism

What did he mean by this?

>Chinese take Buddhism and change it
>Japanese take Buddhism and change it
>South east Asia takes Buddhism and change
>Everyone is fine with it
>Europeans take Buddhism and change it
>Hur dur you faggot, that's not REAL buddhism

Yeah, these pithy sayings are really proving OP wrong!

>its like, whoa...detached love. Like not really love, but like half love, without, you know, the meaning of love...

Why are lit Buddhist threads always so cancerous?

>>Europeans take Buddhism and change it
>>Hur dur you faggot, that's not REAL buddhism

exactly. there are too many differences between the continents. spreading buddhism as a white western male is cultural cuckoldry

Who is the buddhist Al-Khwarizmi, Euclid, Cai Lun, or Khayyam?

Which buddhists could be uttered in the same sentence as Ghandi, Luther, Solzhenitsyn, Louverture, or Beaumarchais?

Where are the buddhist Pasteurs, Leibnitzes, Turings, von Neumanns, von Brauns, Min Chueh Changs, Alexander Flemings, or Curies?

There are none to be found, because passionless peoples will never transcend and elevate history, merely coping with suffering than truly fighting it.

By no accomplishment of the buddhists will humanity become like gods or die trying.

>because passionless peoples
>merely coping with suffering than truly fighting it
>I don't know anything about Buddhism
I bet you think the Stoics think emotions are bad.
>Where are the buddhist Pasteurs, Leibnitzes, Turings, von Neumanns, von Brauns, Min Chueh Changs, Alexander Flemings, or Curies?
>Who is Kublai Khan
>Who is Wu of Liang
>Who is Kumārajīva
>Who is Bodhidharma
Seriously you can't even mention Kublai mother fucking one of the most important people in history Khan. Do you even know anything about anything?

You are the reason these threads are always awful. Not only do you know nothing about it you insist loudly that you know everything.

>implying negativity and pessimism is inherently nihilistic

>thinking buddhism consists of more than that
you can drape it in whatever bullshit syllables you want that's what it is, retard.

i think he means if the goal is to extinguish ones self and never exist again it is a little nihilistic

notice how everyone you listed is a historical character older than 500 years how hasn't contributed jack shit to the positive progress of humanity

your philosophers and kings have not cured diseases or contributed to our journey to the stars

>You are the reason these threads are always awful.

I simply listed a bunch of non-buddhists that have made spectacular contributions to humanity and you've failed to find any buddhists with similiar contributions

Being a nihilist simply means you don't have bets on a particular model to bring you well being. And if you don't have bets on anything bet what's already there you better start going along with other people.

Also, the concept of non-self doesn't have a clear one/other distinction, so affecting others is the same as affecting yourself. If you want to get some biology in there you could think of it as the self-preservation system going beyond the personal body.

Lastly, there is no salvation possible any way, so leatting yourself die or something similar isn't going to help you. Nihilism is at most neutral.

And one more thing, do you consider love and compassion to be necessarily dependent on meaning? If you had to choose between them (as you *can* distinguish them), which one would you prefer?

Notice how you never addressed me calling you out on your absolute bullshit on how you don't know anything about Buddhism.

>historical character older than 500 years
It's almost like that isn't important.

>contributed jack shit to the positive progress of humanity
>Wu of Liang
>Not contributing to humanity
Seriously? Please come back when you know something about the east. So Leibniz contributing to philosophy and maths is great but when a Buddhist does it it somehow isn't contributing to humanity? Your accusation against me isn't consistent with the examples you have given.

Not only do you know nothing about Buddhism you don't even know what your own position is. You just have this intentionally vague position so that you can move the goal posts whenever I mention someone who obviously shows you to be wrong.

have you read any of the Pali Canon?

>Aren't they mutually exclusive?
What was the intention behind this statement?

there are plenty of benevolent kings, it does not take much to be a good leader, though China's current state in human rights in comparison to countries with less buddhist influence does not bode well for your argument or Wu of Liang's "legacy"

still waiting for a nice long list of famous buddhist contributaions to humanity

>your philosophers and kings have not cured diseases or contributed to our journey to the stars
Shit, it's almost like people mostly living hundreds of years ago in Asia who specialize on psychological/spiritual problems DIDN'T give a shit about materialistic problems which were addressed in the scene of Western science many years later! I mean, it's not like there were OTHER religious institutions that dealt with those problems in those countries like Taoism or Hinduism, right?

Here's an example of Buddhism having already tackled logic problems the West couldn't even conceive for most of its history: aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth

PS: Nice spooks.

>it does not take much to be a good leader
I wanna see you run for president. I bet you'll take us to Mars!

>aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth

the tetralemma predates Buddhism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma

>people mostly living hundreds of years ago in Asia who specialize on psychological/spiritual problems

buddhists have yet to cure real neurological problems like schizophrenia or parkinsons; something that western psychologists have made enormous strides in

a person with seizures doesn't go to a buddhist temple or a pharmaceutical institution researched founded by buddhists, they go to one rooted in western science and get their medication

Firstly, I think that your way of seeking value based on arbitrarily chosen 'contributions to humanity' is mistaken, however, one could mention various Buddhist figures such as Dignaga, who was influential in developing Indian logic and Nagarjuna, who was important in developing forms nominalism way before Western philosophers. Then there is the whole Buddhist Abhidharma project, which could be arguably seen as the first analytical psychology and phenomenology. Important concepts of the early Buddhists include theories of unconscious processes, almost two thousand years before Freud.

Of course, the artistic, literary and cultural developments of Buddhism have been highly influential in east Asia and these cannot be denied. We are talking of people like Asvaghosa, one of the first great Sanskrit poets and dramatists and the great work of Chinese Tang poets like Wang Wei.

And now we are seeing that Buddhist meditation techniques are being widely implemented, so that the mental health of our society is being improved by these ancient practices preserved by the Buddhist tradition.

>buddhists have yet to cure real neurological problems like schizophrenia or parkinsons; something that western psychologists have made enormous strides in
>a person with seizures doesn't go to a buddhist temple or a pharmaceutical institution researched founded by buddhists, they go to one rooted in western science and get their medication

That's like asking scientists to cure our existential malaise, its a totally different area of inquiry mate

>I think that your way of seeking value based on arbitrarily chosen 'contributions to humanity'

They're not arbirtary if you're physically sick and need something buddhists never invented, like antibiotics or pacemakers; something the tetralemma (an invention you claimed was buddhist but originates in the Vedas) doesn't do jack shit about

>Buddhist meditation techniques

again, originated almost completely in Vedic/yoga techniques

but if meditation is the sole thing on that list I find it funny that the closest thing buddhists can claim among their contributions to humanity as a whole is a aristotelian-verifiable physiological technique invented by an older society : if meditation is /not/ a materialist technique for optimizing brain, circulatory, and metabolic functions, teach me how to do it without relying on my body

>They're not arbirtary if you're physically sick and need something buddhists never invented
>arbirtary
>spelt wrong
By this logic the Romans never did much for humanity. Clearly medicine is only a small part of what you are talking about because most of the people you mention are not involved with medicine in any way. You're idea about what constitutes a contribution to humanity seems either completely arbitrary or invented to prevent Buddhists from being included.

>again, originated almost completely in Vedic/yoga techniques

It's pre-Buddhist, but was developed and maintained by the Buddhist tradition

>if meditation is /not/ a materialist technique for optimizing brain, circulatory, and metabolic functions, teach me how to do it without relying on my body

There are many techniques that are not centered on the body...
Some are (anapanasati), others are not (cittanupassana). A cursory reading of the material would show you this.

Buddhist mental training / development (bhavana) is not just the kind of mindfulness style meditation we hear about, it includes contemplative / cognitive behavioral practices too.

there weren't any Romans in my list, nor have I been provided with a list beyond Neti Neti ;) logic (Vedic, not buddhist invention). and meditation (Vedic, not buddhist invention), any more?

>Clearly medicine is only a small part of what you are talking about

and yet you can't grant me even a match to that "small" field of contribution

>invented to prevent Buddhists from being included.

I'm just noting that a religion centered on detachment has oddly enough never been on a clear trajectory to detach itself from say, the limits of their body with something like genetics, or the limits of our planet with something like NASA

Why don't you actually read the article? It's not about the tetralemma on its own, but a further addition to it. And while we're at it, so what if it predates Buddhism? Do you expect these kind of things to pop out in a vacuum?

Your posts reeks of confrontation. You just can't stand those damn monks, can you? Just look at them, doing... nothing all day long! They're not helping anyone like this list of big, bad names! Man, aren't you glad you've been so benefitted by them only to go pick on the people who aren't like you?

You're also fundamentally misunderstanding what Buddhism's aim is. It's not supposed to live your life for you. It's supposed to fix some of your problems so you can go on with your life. You don't achieve trascendence in Buddhism but through it.

As for curing people: ı can't talk for the people, but Buddhism helped me. Therapy didn't work on me at all and ı wouldn't have standed swallow some insipid pill of God knows what chemical or being branded as a diseased specimen. My problems were destroying me but they were easily solved without neurology.

But then, ı probably don't matter, right? There's nothing in my little life story that can help you vicariously stroke your ego, is there?

>an invention you claimed was buddhist but originates in the Vedas
That isn't me.

So are you saying that the Romans contributed nothing to humanity?

>Cittanupassana, Bhavana

what are some advanced teachings on this, pretty much every religion encourages being mindful of your emotions and thoughts, and just about every monastic order is heavily based in contemplation

>Your posts reeks of confrontation.

Is that a bad thing? Do Buddhists have something against confrontation?

>There's nothing in my little life story that can help you vicariously stroke your ego

But user, you're literally talking to the void, what ego am I stroking? If ego's exist are they bad? Remember the tetralemma bro!

no the other post did, using the latin alphabet

>Is that a bad thing?
I find it to be quite ugly and time consuming.

>Do Buddhists have something against confrontation?
I wouldn't know. I'm not Buddhists.

>If ego's exist are they bad?
Depends by what you mean by ego and exist. Do mirages exist? Should they be disregarded?

>But user, you're literally talking to the void, what ego am I stroking?
It's yours, you tell me.

Because they're autistic, like other nihilists who haven't killed themselves.

i'll nightprowl u buddy

>and just about every monastic order is heavily based in contemplation
But your position is that a Buddhist monastery wouldn't even do that, because that would contribute to humanity which Buddhism cannot do.

Struggling with the concept there is nothing but the 5 senses and the mind. What is the watcher of the mind? I am aware of the mind, and I can calm the mind and rest into awareness. What is that that is conscious of this awareness and peace?

Also, metta meditation is the cultivation of loving kindness. How am I supposed to attempt to cultivate these feelings, without attachment to them. Also doesn't metta lead to identification with these positive loving feelings.

Finally, where can I go for these second level questions. I'm beyond the babies first meditation, but still need guidance.

>what are some advanced teachings on this

The Mahamudra and Dzogchen methods in the Tibetan tradition for one. In Southern Buddhism, the Mahasi method is widely taught.

Also check out : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_psychology#Self_development_and_cognitive_behavioral_practices

Cittanupassana and Bhavana come across and very interesting, what are some advanced writings on it or schools focused on it, what are some exoteric or esoteric pieces like the Lotus Sutra on those topics

>Struggling with the concept there is nothing but the 5 senses and the mind. What is the watcher of the mind? I am aware of the mind, and I can calm the mind and rest into awareness. What is that that is conscious of this awareness and peace?

There is no watcher, just various moments of awareness. Awareness is reflexively aware of itself being aware.

>Also, metta meditation is the cultivation of loving kindness. How am I supposed to attempt to cultivate these feelings, without attachment to them. Also doesn't metta lead to identification with these positive loving feelings.

Practices which balance attachment are meditation on death, unattractiveness of the body, and not-self.

>Finally, where can I go for these second level questions. I'm beyond the babies first meditation, but still need guidance.

Pali suttas, Abhidhamma, Mahasi's Manual of Insight, Scholarly literature (I really like the work of Ven. Analayo for instance).

>How am I supposed to attempt to cultivate these feelings, without attachment to them
by right view

>Also doesn't metta lead to identification with these positive loving feelings.
no
first metta is when you have the desire to make everybody on earth happy, so metta is really difficult to achieve.
the easiest way to begin with this, is to wish that your pet or you child is happy, has no problem in his life, has no barrier, no constraint. but it is not happyness about material things, it is happynessas in ''avoid dukkha'' like here
>Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.

then karuna is metta in action, which appears to people as ''being nice towards people''. Karuna is metta [=understanding that dukkha sucks for everybody]+the way to stop dukkha is to ''let go''

translating karuna or metta as compassion is bad, because compassion is passive and christians, whereas karuna is an action and metta is a feeling.

then Mudita. Mudita is the result of karuna. Mudita is inside you, just like metta (whereas you can say that, since karuna is an action, it is both inside you, in the subject, and outside of you, an application of a behavior [=let go] towards an object(of the mind or material, whatever is in front of you)).
Mudita is when you are happy that people approach right view, because you know that right view is the way to stop dukkha. Mudita has already plenty of ''equanimity'' compared to metta, even though metta is not disturbing itself.

then uppekha is the final result.

there is Punnaji who chose to explain the four as some jhanas
youtube.com/watch?v=JnxCTV9BXuI

youtube.com/watch?v=TdhXvfsxkPE
youtube.com/watch?v=hHv_S27GYNQ

>buddhists
>happiness

you fucking new age cuck

And you're dickriding dead people you've never met, and wouldn't want much to do with you. Funny how you haven't contributed anything to humanity other than shitposting. Good position.

By the way, there's literally Steve Jobs, a Buddhist, who popularized the smartphone format with a certain flagship product. You may have heard of it, if you ever had your head out of your ass.

Buddhism has done more to help mankind by aiding existential angst. For more information on why you're full of shit, see:
PS, not Buddhist, just a passerby who knows you're either a troll or an idiot.

Can you jump straight into metta and karuna without doing jhanas? I think it might have happened to me.

this is bad

boimp

what enormous strides have "psychologists" made in curing parkinsons

Ever notice how Buddhists are the most butthurt and passive aggressive posters on this board? Really makes you think

>Aren't they mutually exclusive?
Not if your goal is to come off as smug as possible.

Moving the goal posts this hard.

I don't think any of us are Buddhist, we are just people who understand it better than anyone else on this board. Which isn't saying much considering the sort of shit this board thinks about it.

Would being aggressive aggressive be any better?

I prefer people who are aggressively passive.

>positive progress of humanity
well spooked my good man

How about not being little cucks who have their egos threatened whenever someone criticises their religion
the problem is buddhists try not to identify with themselves so their identity is substituted with their religion

How about criticising without attacking people's identities, or not attacking period? You do understand by doing that you're only making them less likely to want to see it from your pov, right? And if you don't want people to do something and you know exactly how they will react, why do you keep doing it?

Is the diffrence between Christianity and Buddhism that Christ asks us to engage with the world while the Buddha asks us to disengage?

Christ asks us to live our lives for him because you are in hima nd he is in you while Buddha asks us to minimize our harmful actions for our own benefit and karma.

Fill in the holes for me.

It's pretty reductive but it's not entirely wrong. It'd be more accurate to say Christianity is about attachment (to the figure of Christ) while Buddhism is about deattachment. You're supposed to realize Buddhahood in yourself rather than try to achieve salvation through contemplation on Gautama the person.

"No one saves us but ourselves,
No one can and no one may.
We ourselves must walk the path
Buddhas merely teach the way."

As for your "own" benefit, it's kind of less clear due to the doctrine of no-self. Even if you only save yourself that's still one less person to help. Not that you should refrain from helping others, that's part of all of it (because again, if others are hurting, it'll affect you), but to do that you're supposed to get your shit somewhat together then.

There's a lot of other, more technical details to go on, because Buddhism is less of a... poetic(?) religion than Christianity. Its definitions tend to be a lot clearer because it developped in a context where that was necessary (India which was a core of philosophy in itself vs. Middle East which was in sphere of Graeco-Roman influence).

Is there a parrallel in Buddhism in the idea that through Christ we may bring heaven and earth closer together? Christ has reunited us with God and just as he has healed the bond; so may we with our fellow man. Pockets of heaven where the spirit thrives so to speak.

I'm going to be honest with you, any seriously determined Buddhist would not be on Veeky Forums. There are probably people here who have dabbled in it a bit, but a real Buddhist (Theravada or Mahayana) would have developed their time/action/circles in a more healthy lifestyle. Veeky Forums would not be in that lifestyle. I guarantee it.

I'm going to be honest with you, saying this is strongly indicative that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Maybe you are right, maybe not.
I only have a degree in Comparative Religious Studies from UCSB.

Buddhism and Christianity are just very very different. Unless you are talking about Pure Land Buddhism which is kind of similar to Christianity.

>realize Buddhahood

Protip for everyone: This is only Mahayana Buddhism, not Theravada Buddhism. Theravada Buddhism is closest the original Indian form of Buddhism.

Sorry forgot to add: A huge difference between Christianity and Buddhism is that Christianity professes an eternal "soul", Buddhism does not.

You're grasping a little bit m8.

Am I?

>I speak for all 'serious' Buddhists
>One of the largest religions in the world
>If you disagree with me you can't be a serious Buddhist
>Therefore whoever is on Veeky Forums and a Buddhist must be a bad Buddhist
I would say you are stretching a little.

>Talks about real Buddhism
>Things of Veeky Forums as an alienated thing with inherent, intranscient qualities
>Doesn't see folks fixing the site to be this way or another are precisely the problem

No there are plenty of people who identify with a religion, but not many who take it serious. Which is why I said, "seriously determined Buddhists"

There are plenty of fence sitters out there in every religion, which is why I stand by what I originally wrote. Buddhism is a lifestyle, and even if you read Mahayana or Theravada texts, it all points toward a lifestyle that easily not involve the bickering, sarcasm, arrogance, information, porn, ext, ext, that this website offers. This site is more a microcosm of western behavior, ideas, and practices than anything else. A buddhist who was, again, "was seriously determined to practice", would recognize this place for what it is:

An escape.
Really, that is Veeky Forums, it is an escape. None of here are undergoing deep introspection, we are here to gloat, brag, bash, insult, praise, or find whatever needs to fill.

A practicing Buddhist isn't trying to "fill" any need. Isn't trying to really find something through electronics. There are mostly head deep in their environments.

I know this, only because I've studied them as a grad student when I went abroad for a program at UCSB, first to Nepal, then to India, then to Cambodia, then to China, finally ending in Japan.

Interesting enough, my research deals with New Religious Buddhist Movements, but nevertheless, I am grateful to have received a little more awareness of, how did you put it, "one of the largest religions in the world?"

If you have questions, i'll answer before I go to sleep, or we can do this merry go round thing where I tell you something, and you say I'm stretching, yada yada yada.

>Really, that is Veeky Forums, it is an escape
To be perfectly honest this says more about you than the site as a whole. You are literally saying that no one has ever found this site useful and the only thing it has ever done has been to shield people from their own lives.

Your whole problem is that you say Veeky Forums must be x and that only people who are y would ever engage with it. You are saying that if someone disagrees with my idea-that they say Veeky Forums can do some sort of good-they are either lying or deluded. It's just an extremely arrogant statement. Just because there is sometimes sarcasm on Veeky Forums does not mean that it undoes what can be useful about the site. I come to to Veeky Forums because the people here read the sorts of books I like and it is a good source for recommendations. It has a concrete utility in my life. If I were a serious Buddhist that doesn't mean the books that lit reads that I like stop being important to me. It's like saying you would never see a serious Buddhist go to a shopping mall because it is a place that promotes and is filled by materialists where there it has a clear function which is undeniably useful for many people.

Escapes are usually good feelings. Hence why they are escapes. And again, it is indeed a microcosm of western behavior, ideas, and emotions. Even books/literature are a form of escape as well. Indeed, that's something you probably don't want to hear, but like I originally put it, the practicing Buddhist is not interested in escaping, they are not seeking entertainment, and furthermore, they have a keen filter to identify these escapes. For a lot of people (myself and yourself included) we are so in love with our escapes we see them as apart of us, we probably will never detach ourselves from our greatest interests; a real Buddhist can, and most impressively, does.

>Really, that is Veeky Forums, it is an escape
You said this, I explained why it doesn't have to be so and your response was just but you are mistaken, your reasons are themselves escapist. I'm not going to continue this conversation if your attitude is going to be I'm right, your wrong and I don't even have to respond to your arguments because I will just proclaim that they amount to my own personal definition of escapism. Look up the definition of escapism because you are not using the word in any normal sense.

>Even books/literature are a form of escape as well
You mean can be, not are a form of escapism. Again go look up the definition of escapism.

I'm not making the claim that Veeky Forums is a great place for promoting Buddhist ideas but I do go against your claim that no good Buddhist could ever find any use for anything, at anytime from this website.

>Want to take a holiday through Europe
>Go to the travel board to see what people have to say about that
You are making the claim that this person can't be a good Buddhist because they asked this question on Veeky Forums. Would it be different if they asked a friend? If they read a book? Or are those things just escapist too?

>>the problem is buddhists try not to identify with themselves so their identity is substituted with their religion

and what do you ''identity with themselves'' ?

>>the problem is buddhists try not to identify with themselves so their identity is substituted with their religion

and what does ''identify with themselves'' mean?

>((((((western))))) behavior
I've had up to here with this shit. You don't get to bitch about Westerners misrepresenting other cultures while claiming the West is this monolith which can never legitimately say anything, that doesn't have European fingerprints both inside and out, is or could be part of its identity! I'm tired of being told these amazing Eastern disciplines are way beyond my understanding purely because of my birthplace, while at the same time being DENIED any kind of mystification of them! You people are maddening!

What the fuck do you even want? If you see people getting wrong then correct them! Don't shake your head and walk away thinking you'll have the last laugh because those ignoramuses don't get the real (i.e. YOUR) vision of this thing! You're not helping anything!

So basically:
>who cares, baby!

Oh, and for the record.

Germany adopting a Hindu symbol on its flag? That didn't happen.

One of the most important philosophers of the 19th century being massively inspired by Buddhism and the Upanishads? Impossible.

Linguistics even being a thing at ALL thanks to Sanskrit becoming known in Europe? Nah.

The whole New Age? Pfft!

No, the West™ has nothing at all to do with Dharmic religions!

how embarrassing

this is the lowest IQ post I've seen in a while

>implying there is 'wisdom'

Wow, lots of educated idiots ITT. No such thing as wisdom? Give your heads a shake.

wtf

IMO this is precisely what redeems Buddhism. Also, You're getting a meme version of Buddhism in your head, not real Buddhism.

And on this point, any serious student of Buddhism would do well to look up the Greco-Buddhists and the Indo-Greeks. These people were a result of Alexander the Great conquering his way to India, and prove transfer of ideas between Greece and India. For example, Pyrrho, often called the first Greek Skeptic, learned from "gymnosophs" (naked wisemen, often supposed to be Jains) in Taxila while in India with Alexander the Great. Greeks in modern Afghanistan were the first we know of to create statues of the Buddha, who was usually represented aniconically by an empty chair before them, and they did so in a strongly Greek style.

The East and West are far more entangled than a lot of people realize, I think.