Did he 'Figure everything out'?

shut the fuck up relativist scum

I find relativism a bit cunt-and-dry. Just saying, he thought it was true. Probably some cracked-up bullshit.

Is this a rare Pepe thread?

Didn't start that way.

You seem honest so I will give you some advice: The "ultimate truth" of Buddhism is not found in some special formulation of words or even concepts. Being, our most ontic self, is the dwelling place of this truth. Language endlessly evades and defers to direct experience. The truth of the Buddha is a practical set of techniques and metapsychological frameworks enabling one to "clear" certain cognitive or behavioral subroutines that are contradictory or malformed or otherwise contrary to our simplicity of soul. When the mind moves as a single muscle then all power is restored to the mind. This is the starting point and the end goal. Try and have fun.

How many rare pepes did the Buddha possess?

>muh magic yellow brick road to enlightenment
>Just gotta like trust me man its totally this way
>Not there yet? You need to try harder

Horseshit

daily reminder taoism is goodbuddhism

>Horseshit

Not him, but meditation clears you're head when you get good at it, in a very good way.

Not sure about enlightenment and all that shit. But there's at least something in it.

Yeah I have no doubt it lowers your blood pressure and helps clear constipation but ascribing to it the ability to input metaphysical insights that are otherwise unexpressible in philosophic discourse is both anti-intellectual and Scientology tier disingenuous

this
rationalists are unable to see how stupid they are to cling to their imagination

No, it complements it. Read Guenon.

>Don't get x
>Fail at x
>x is Horeshit [1]

[1] tip fedora if religion related.

>but ascribing to it the ability to input metaphysical insights that are otherwise unexpressible in philosophic discourse is both anti-intellectual and Scientology tier disingenuous

It's more about internalizimg through evidence very simple truths that humans are not avle to live with without some serious meditation.
Most atheist anons in this thread will agree with the statement "there is no self", but birtually no one has the insight necessary to live by this statement. Still, if you'll experience enough this lack of self it will get into your istincts, and more in general into your most basic outlook on life.
To say that there is no self is a speculation for you, it's not for a Buddhist monk. He does not have to stop and wonder like you do, at this point he just know it in the same way you know how to type on a keyboard without looking at it: it's in him.

It's way more pragmatic than you might think.

>Most atheist anons in this thread will agree with the statement "there is no self"

Again horseshit, I do not agree with that statement whatsoever and I find your assertion of it based on unverifiable prescribed ritual to be dogmatic in the extreme especially if you think its any less speculation for this hypothetical monk just because he's plugged into his emotionally invested theology.

Not sure if it "subverts" but Indian philosophy in general goes against many aspects of traditional western philosophy. One example: ideas from ancient Greece and later Christianity about the soul aren't present at all, the focus is on the *lack* of an indivisible self.

Some practices are similar to stoicism like self-control, but the philosophy behind doing them is very different.

You are very stupid.

ho shit you are the buddha hater from last time

>I do not agree with that statement whatsoever and I find your assertion of it based on unverifiable prescribed ritua

Can you prove the existence of the self through verifiable means?

>ideas from ancient Greece and later Christianity about the soul aren't present at all, the focus is on the *lack* of an indivisible self.

A lack of self is unverifiable bullshit but the existence of soul is fine with you? Seriously?

>Can you prove the existence of the self through verifiable means?

To myself yes, its literally the only things I can be sure of. Whether there is such a thing as a "soul" is irrelevant

Damn right I am, and I wont be done until you're all driven into /x/ where you belong.

banana terracotta pie.

>To myself yes, its literally the only things I can be sure of. Whether there is such a thing as a "soul" is irrelevant

So now we're talking about personal truths? But verifiability was the core of your previous point.
And do you believe in it only because Descartes said so? Many other philosophers re-analyzed the cogito ergo sum statement, reaching very different conclusions about the nature of the self: why are they wrong and Descartes is right? How can you prove it?

By rhe way here's 2 quotes by Nietzsche on the matter

>we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is.

>With regard to the superstition of the logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact … namely, that a thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “thinks.” It thinks; but that this “it” is precisely the famous old “ego” is … only a supposition,… and assuredly not an “immediate certainty.” After all, one has even gone too far with this “it thinks” – even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: “Thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently”…. Perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, including the logicians, to get along without the little “it” (which is all that is left of the honest little old ego).

And, cherry on top

>Descartes was not deep enough.

>Can you prove the existence of the self through verifiable means?
Quantum mechanics relies on observers; the self is just me as an observer. Many people misinterpret quantum physics, saying things like 'observation is just an interaction of particles!', but that is clearly untrue (not all interactions cause collapse, if they did particles would never behave like waves). On observer is an irreducible assumption of quantum physics, and humans are certainly observers.
So to answer your question, yes, our existance is verifiable.

You have no point here other than a feeble grasp at the problem of ontologically grounding the nature of thought and existence for which I do not claim to have any authorative answer.

Regardless the mystery in describing the mechanism which produces the phenomena does not in any way dismiss the phenomena itself. Which of course still remains self evident.

Trolling aside, do you REALLY believe this semantic is a proof for the existence of the self?

If you don't please, conjure an actual, coherent argument.

>he doesn't understand quantum physics

>Regardless the mystery in describing the mechanism which produces the phenomena does not in any way dismiss the phenomena itself.
I have no problems with it, but that was your first objection: Buddha saying that there is no self (and he has not been the only one) is unverifiable, therefore it should be ignored and criticized. Yet your solution to this problem is saying that your stance is

>self evident
But apparently it's not , hence why we're debating on it.

I'm not arguing against the notion of the self, rather I'm arguing against your scientism applied to questions as abstract and human as these ones. You can't prove shit.

Simple experiments can be automatically conducted and analyzed by a computer: are computers individuals.

*are computer individuals?

>he thinks he understands quantum mechanics

Its unverifiable only in so far as you can verify it to others. The fact I am experiencing is undeniable to my self.
You can point to people who have attempted to deny it as much as you like but they have no such legitimate recourse to anymore than those who deny climate change

Of course you can never find absolute proof of anything in the real world. How would you even define 'proof' in experimental terms?
We have discovered -- and experimentally verified -- a theory that describes reality more successfully than any piece of literature or philosophy you'll ever read, but you keep fighting against enlightenment because it doesn't sit well with some trash you read in your formative years. Why?

But there is no mystery to Buddha about the essence of consciousness. He doesn't concern himself with how it works but what it is. He describes the self as a mental formation and therefore subject to the laws of impermanence. He is explicitly speaking against a soul.

If you are arguing against this then you are arguing for some form of dualism.

You specifically proposed "there is no self" not that there is no permanent immaterial soul.

Though I know you Buddhists like to play this dishonest game where you begin with big mystical claims then skuttle back into a safe corner when pressed on them and pretend that was your point all along.

So you're still saying that your unverifiable truth is just self-evident? Is this how you argue all of your points?

>The fact I am experiencing is undeniable to my self.

>we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is.
(Since you've decided to ignore these objections earlier)

>You can point to people who have attempted to deny it as much as you like but they have no such legitimate recourse to anymore than those who deny climate change
Sure, because they're not using le rational science to prove the existence of their souls, right?

I'm not the one here sperging out because a theory about consciousness I disagree with is "unverifiable": of course it is.

buddhism is a nihilistic suicidal death cult made for indian street dwellers whose lives are so awful they want to cancel the possibiltiy of any and all future lives

there are no future lives, therefore there is no reason to do all this buddhist bullshit

also cheer up buddhist sadfags, life isn't that bad you have to devote your entire existence to never existing again

and if you really want to reach nirvana, just kill yourself, that's all 'enlightenment is', it's just death

Why would I derive the notion of a permanent soul from the notion of a lscking of one's self?
It looks like you just want to prove there is a soul or a self, independently of what is the reality of the world.

Also I'm not that guy you were talking with earlier.

You have the issue misunderstood. When you experience something, there is no "you" that experiences. Just experiences. You don't see sights or hear sounds or feel feelings. It is a trick of language that asserts this distinction. Like when I say "it is raining" I am forced to say there is an it that rains, but really, there is just rain. Do you ever experience you experiencing experiences? Or how about feeling you feeling feels about feeling feelings? Why not just say there is no doer that does just doing?

Nietzsche's objection is stupid, all he does is speak of the I as It whereas they are not at all mutually exclusive pronouns. Proposing "it is thinking" does not at all open another possibility from the proposal that "I am thinking"

Anyway there is a different between something being verifiable and something being self-evident note the first word there SELF-evident being key.
Now you might not actually exist as far as I know and you can feel free not to but for the sake of politeness at the least I imagine you are experiencing same as me.

Before all this talk about selves you should have defined it clearly to avoid the back and forth.

This always happens when people cant argue worth a damn.

Computers are observers.
See:
motls blogspot co uk/2013/01/quantum-physics-doesnt-depend-on.html

Follow up:
motls blogspot co uk/2015/06/is-quantum-reality-personal.html
motls blogspot co uk/2016/05/learning-of-information-not-interaction.html

I have misunderstood nothing. And no I do not experience myself experiencing unless we use the words as merely tautological. Which is the entire point, it is the unified central point of being.

You say that as if its a simple thing to do

Which is why Veeky Forums understand the world better than Veeky Forums.

>introduce a concept
>define it clearly
>then begin the debate

Its all about not being in such a hurry to play "gotcha" with the other guy and just have a discussion.

>I am forced to say there is an it that rains, but really, there is just rain
No, you are saying 'I, as an observer, have observed that it is raining'. There is no objective reality independent of personal, subjective observation. This is the central tenant of modern physics.
No amount of philosophical babble can make up for a good physics education.

This is the problem and the mystery of the self however. I can't define it as its the center point from which everything else is defined. It simple is. If I attempt to define it I end up in tautology.

So why are you trying to argue about it?

That isn't a problem. Reality doesn't require you to define the 'self', it just tells you what to do with the information the 'self', whatever that may be, gathers.

That its totally absurd to claim it does not exist much less that such a claim is popularly held whatsoever.

>Reality doesn't require you to define the 'self'

Reality might not but this faggot does which is what I'm trying to get across.

And would you call that unified central point of being you? Because if so you have just given it a name and called it personal but we are talking about something that happens outside of you.

If you agree that you do not experience experiences, the you agree that there is no observer. This leaves you with the observation.

Why do personal and objective realities have to be distinct if they only exist together?

So let's me summarize this debate: you hate Buddha because he says that something you can't define nor prove does not exist, and he says so without offering any sort of actual scientific proof, but at the same time the justifications for your beliefs are, in your mind, self-evident, and this is apparently enough.
Your epistemology is all over the board my friend: get a grip.

are you the undergrad watching popsci ?

Before we go any further it might be good to source exactlt where the Buddha said this and in what context.

Eastern religions are difficult for Westerners as it is due to translation errors, this type of thing should be handled carefully.

Stop, you're embarassing yourself

>he's actually trying to apply quantum-based pseudoscience in a debate about consciousness on Veeky Forums

You're a walking clichè

>This leaves you with the observation.

Except thats nonsensical, the two are not divisable.
I call the central point myself because doing so gives me way point to actually call anything anything. as has pointed out. Nothing to me happens outside of me.

>You can't know nuffin!
Fuck off buddy

>literally zero (zero) arguments

So you call it you as a tool but that tool is not real. That is my point. "The two are not divisible". That is my point.

If I'm looking at a black square I call it one thing. The color and the shape help define the object but without one there wouldn't be the other. They are indivisible because they are coming together as one being.

What I'm saying is that if you want to use the verifiability/falsifiability schtick, you should apply it to your arguments too.

You think that the existence of a self is self-evident: Buddha after having gazed at the most intimate processes of his consciousness stated exactly the opposite, and most people who have followed his teachings, or have at the very least tried meditative and yogi techniques, reached the same conclusion, which means that it was self-evident to them.
How do we resolve this conflict? We could start by stop saying that your favourite personal truth is self-evident, and maybe start conjuring up some arguments in defence of your thesis.

You're the one advocating for a arbitrary hierwrchical order of personal truths here.

To people claiming there is a self. What is it?

>The color and the shape help define the object but without one there wouldn't be the other.

Except we're talking about actions not objects. There is the observation so there is the observer. There is the predicate thus there is the subject.

Who the fuck knows, it just is

It is the thing behind my eyeballs. Duh.

>at this point he just know it in the same way you know how to type on a keyboard without looking at it: it's in him.
this means you are get used to it. the first impact when you learn something precede a loud layer of waves til the moment when you finally dont see what you are doing like a compertimentalized and complex experience. it´s not something grandious in there.
but why you decide to this type of "experience"?, why a buddhist monk believe in this?. why he don´t see the speculation of the no self?, why he needs the no self?.

>this means you are get used to it.
That's why I've used the word "internalized".

>but why you decide to this type of "experience"?, why a buddhist monk believe in this?. why he don´t see the speculation of the no self?, why he needs the no self?.

Monks do not sit down and think "there is no self" for days, in fact Buddha himself said that these questions are fundqmentally useless.
The lack of self is a certainity that emerges out of many other elements, and more in general, from the deepest form of sel-analysis there is.

Can't believe I'm taking the bait but here. Not even asian.

That image always fucks me up.

He's on fucking FIRE. Burning to DEATH. Just sitting completely chill.

The point of the metaphor is to explain that you call something one when it is made of indivisible parts.

If I am running then there is a runner running. Or there is a runner-ing. The it is raining but was meant to explain the forced need for a subject in an English sentence. I can't just say "rain" while pointing at the sky. That means because of sneaky maneuvers "that is rain" or "it is rain". Supposing there is something that is outside of time that does verbs is strange when time is always moving. Existence itself is a verb. Be. Exist. Not I be or I exist.

>Existence itself is a verb

It's a noun, actually.

Har har. You do see my point though don't you? Existence the idea not the word is a verb. Existence happens, it moves, it is action.

the lack of self is hypocrytical. it´s a question open and with no need to answer totally in contradiction with being alive.

why a monk make a living of the no self?. he is not aware of this?. he can`t see he is making a self of the no self?.

>from the deepest form of sel-analysis there is

how can you achieve this without thinking for days?. (not only one obsessive question, i know this)

You make no sense man. English obviously isn't your first language. Do you think that self is ego? Because it is not.

I agree, but. They may not mean the same thing we do when we speak of 'self'. Ego death is a thing, too.

>Ego death is a thing, too.

No it isn't, its a bullshit myth propagated by delusional junkies. Like people who get resuscitated and start telling people they seen heaven

you can enlighten me. what is the main difference between ego and self?.
>sorry for the english. i try my best.

Define Ego here for christ sake, are you speaking in Freudian terms or what

I was speaking in Freudian there yes.
It is fine I don't mean to be rude I just am not sure what your point was.
Ego is often associated with the way someone sees themselves. As in big ego. That would be someone who thinks they are superior to everyone. I figured you meant that a Buddhist says he has no ego therefore is not obsessed with ideas of himself, but to prove he isn't he builds this life around seeming as selfless as possible. This is brought up but is a different issue then the idea of self.

The self that is being argued around in this thread is the experiencer as distinct from the experience . The buddhists have a better word "atman" which is like your deepest truest self.
The important quality we are discussing is whether "you" are yourself or whether this self is not personal. It is tough to take in my meaning.

If you have ever meditated for a while, you realize your thoughts go on forever and they never stop babbling about random topics. Then you think "I am aware of my thoughts". Then you focus on your breathing and there is just breathing for a while. Then you think again and your thoughts become your consciousness and you think "I was aware of my breathing". Then later after much meditation and running through these kinds of things you say "I am the thought that thinks, I am the breath that breathes".

Ego death is real, but as you said only in unusual states.

Or you fart in the middle and get distracted or you have a completely different conclusion. This teleology of dialectic through ritual is pathetic

Delusionally believing your ego has died is not ego death. The only true ego death is dying

Would you talk about painting a mountain before ever lifting a brush? I'm not saying these thoughts are going to happen like clock work. It is part of a process that you learn through experience. Have you ever meditated for over 30 minutes?

Also I'm beginning to think you just are out to make complaints. Every time I post you misunderstand my point and project all these simple issues into my ideas as if they debate my actual argument. They don't. You really have not said anything that supports your position or goes against my actual point. You seem to be out to only make me wrong not my position.

>you can enlighten me. what is the main difference between ego and self?.
Ego is a program. You are the user.

Have you ever become the universe while laying in a comfy chair? If one drop of water suddenly realizes he is in the ocean doesn't that mean something? You are not " you" anymore for sure. Maybe you should think of it not as ego death but as ego expansion.

>Then later after much meditation and running through
this is the main problem. why you make this?. why you decide this is important?. why you decide this and at the same you think is something superior to decide?.

Fucking cry more faggot. This is about you asserting a mystic destiny in what are your mere opinions. A pompous and narcissistic delusion. Your actual assertions themselves I find predominantly dull its simply the pretentious unawareness you have of the absurdity of your own epistemology I find disgusting.
I have my own opinions and I will stand by them but I will not prescribe to others when way I was leaning on my ballsack the day I came up with them.

>Ego is a program. You are the user.
lmao, no

this was not me.

i am this

>Have you ever *had the notion you* become the universe while laying in a comfy chair?
>If one drop of water suddenly *had the notion* he is in the ocean doesn't that mean something?

Again at no point do you ever stop becoming a subjective observer eternally restricted to your own singular perspective. You can not escape the ego. All you can do is let yourself imagine in your own egocentrically framed imagination what it would be like if you escaped your ego and then by accident you are unlucky enough to believe in your own imagination.

pretty sure all buddism boils down to realizing you are not a separate entity from the universe itself, but you are the universe as well as everything.