If Life is suffering why do normies seem so happy?

Have you read The Last Messiah?

He is not talking about (bodily suffering, your own physical limitations, psychological trauma). Read it, perhaps you will find it interesting. Also, there is nothing spiritual about suffering.

Is anything except Messiah translated into English by him?

That's not suffering
Suffering is desire

We tend to compare our insides with other peoples outsides.

Most people are pretty depressed and unhappy most of the time.

That's the fucking Buddah, you spas.

Human existence is plagued with eternal suffering. You are basing your evaluation of people off very small, impermanent pleasures in which people indulge. These are as gone as soon as they are gained, and only lead to greater suffering when they are stripped bare.

Of all thinkers in history of world, Buddha alone stands at the top as greatest coward. His philosophy is least life affirming of all. He forever flees from any form of emotion so that he may never taste suffering. What a totalitarian death vision.

I know this is bait, but to say Buddhism in all of its forms (there are probably a few expectations though) is not life affirming is to misunderstand its entire point. Notice how Guatama Buddha also shunned the extreme ascetic lifestyle and established the Middle Way.

It is not a bait. Fundamentally, Buddha was simply wrong, his Middle Path is not life affirming in any possible way. If you state that all suffering is a result of desire and attachment, and that only by removing that desire and attachment, can you be free of pain, what is that if not death?

>thinker
>coward
all "thinkers" are cowards including your daddy neechee don't fool yourself faggot

In Buddhism, death only begins another cycle of suffering, wherein you will be reborn potentially in a lower cycle if you were a shitty person. Having a human life is one of the greatest treasures in Buddhism because only humans are capable of realizing Ultimate Reality and can become free from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. In Mahayana Buddhism - imo the best one - the real goal is to become a Bodhisattva in order to end suffering for all sentient beings, using one's precious human life to accrue good merit and offering indispensable help to other sentient beings while understanding True Reality (as distinct from Conventional Reality) through building bodhicitta and meditation.
In some understanding of Buddhism, enlightenment is a distant end goal due to the karmic bonds we have in this life; breaking these bonds results in negative karma as it only creates more suffering. So the object then is to accrue karma by tending to these karmic bonds in order to achieve a rebirth that is more advantageous to enlightenment (Pure Land is one of these sects, for example).
Stop thinking of Buddhism with a western understanding. You don't get one life; death is only spinning the wheel again. Tell me again how you think it's life denying.

Most people aren't happy at all, they're distracted.

Most normies aren't happy; they're just not depressed. I think they do a better job at living the type philosophy of Schoppy espoused than many of us (generalising of course).

Your brainwiring. Neurotypicals think differently.

Reincarnation is bullshit and the only way that shitty half religion sounds reasonable

Buddhism is akin to putting yourself in cryostasis for 80 years because it's kinda hot outside and then dying

Almost entirely what you wrote is composed of various mythologies in India. Concepts such as karma and wheel. As a atheist, all those things are validating to me as Garden of Eden is. But fair enough, mythology is rich and interesting.

I fail to see anything life affirming in what you wrote though, it is fundamentally a point collection system of karma so that you may escape from pain of everyday living into some future paradise where no pain exists. Yet from where our consciousness stems from? Pain of living. We are forced to ask ourselves "Why do I suffer" and thus we create various answers to that question. Everything is born out of that moment.

In other words, this. If you can not prove that reincarnation is real, Buddhism is simply empty. Islam, both Sunni and Shia affirms life far more than Buddhism.

>be good and you'll be reborn many times until suffering ends
>be good and you'll be reborn in heaven where suffering ends, otherwise be reborn in purgatory until you're good enough for heaven
wew so different from us silly Westerners

It's never anything else than a metaphysical justification for virtue.

Someone post that pic of the people standing on the piles of books that goes form happy, to sad, then happy again.

>Buddhism is simply empty
Buy a zafu and stare at the wall you fucking pseud

What is your definition of life affirming? Buddhism is largely focused on doing right in the present existence, and valuing life in all sentient beings.
> If you can not prove that reincarnation is real, Buddhism is simply empty. Islam, both Sunni and Shia affirms life far more than Buddhism.
Do you not understand the basis of religion, nigga? It relies upon an axiom to create an anchor or foundation of truth and authority. This is through a relationship with the transcendent; reincarnation is explained in the Dharma, which is the ultimate truth given by a transcendent being. Both Sunni and Shia cannot be "proved", because their proof assumes the Koran is the word of God delivered unto Mohammad (peace be upon him) by Gabriel. You fail to see their justification because you are thinking from outside their frameworks.
>Buddhism is simply empty
Buddhists beat you to it, m8
Yet it is focused on the current existence and experience. Christianity, for example, is life affirming as well despite its focus on the afterlife.
>a point collection system of karma
Thinking it of this way negates its benefit because you are attached to your own ego. You are not helping any being out of your own developed compassion and bodhicitta, but for your own selfish safety. Try again.
>escape from pain of everyday living
It doesn't escape from it, but effectively deals with it and minimizes it for the self and others.
>Yet from where our consciousness stems from? Pain of living
Consciousness isn't a thing, and "pain of living" is ultimately a product of that ungrounded "consciousness". It operates on what is called Conventional Reality. Understanding Ultimate Reality is the goal, remember.
>wew so different from us silly Westerners
I never said they were different; I said that user was applying a western perspective (permanence of death) on a framework that says death is impermanent.
>It's never anything else than a metaphysical justification for virtue.
It also establishes virtue. What is better than a virtuous existence?

Then the death in Buddhism is not the true death (as in ceasing to exist and to suffer, because existence is suffering) Achieving the true death is the goal of Buddhism. It's a death cult.

It's not death because it transcends life and death, which are illusions of conventional existence. Every Buddha and Bodhisattva, both past, present, and future exist in Ultimate Reality and thus are beyond life and death. They can still manifest in Conventional Reality, so how can they be dead?

Not that user but a couple of points. Also, interesting thread.

> You are not helping any being out of your own developed compassion and bodhicitta, but for your own selfish safety.

Compassion is a trait of evolution, forcing us to take into account other members of the tribe. Greed is selfish safety. Hoarding of resources due to fear of future crisis. Compassion is the very opposite of that.

>Consciousness isn't a thing, and "pain of living" is ultimately a product of that ungrounded "consciousness".

Both consciousness and "pain of living" are two sides of same coin. One does not come alone.

Also, what is Ultimate Reality?

>What is better than a virtuous existence?
Not being spooked

Heh, good one.

Then what traits does the existence in the Ultimate Reality have? Wouldn't it be essentially worthless from my current point of view?

intelligence and knowledge have no effect on happiness, the greatest minds can be as happy or as sad as the simplest of minds

they're taught to. if you really bought it you wouldn't be wondering about maybe not actually wanting to be like them.

>Also, what is Ultimate Reality?
Mahayana Buddhism sees all experienced reality as fundamentally empty; this was a very long development born out of intellectual debates in India. I am too tired and lack the knowledge to go into great detail, but the prevailing question was why anything appeared to exist if everything is empty. The consensus was that two planes of reality exist, Conventional and Ultimate, with phenomenon in the former existing co-dependently of one another. Therefore, truth can be ascertained on two levels. Conditioned - also known as experienced - reality is true only on a conventional level. So I can say I am posting on an image-board late at night at that is true. However, Ultimate Reality is the most true state of everything, free from conceptual thought and experience that goes with it - including, importantly, suffering. Once one truly understands the emptiness of conventional reality, and grasps Ultimate Reality, they will become enlightened.
This is more of a Tibetian perspective, as different sects have different deviations of this. Zen, for instance, does away with all dual thought which gets very messy and even harder to give any justice within the posting limit.
See above.
>Wouldn't it be essentially worthless from my current point of view?
Not entirely worthless, but it would be more advantageous if you started on the Bodhisattva Path while contemplating emptiness. It can help you evaluate the current situation in conventional existence, and therefore act in the best interest of sentient beings while limiting harmful thoughts and attachments.There is a saying that those who hear of the Dharma are as close as four lifetimes away from enlightenment.

Sorry I didn't reply to the first part of your post
>Compassion is a trait of evolution, forcing us to take into account other members of the tribe. Greed is selfish safety. Hoarding of resources due to fear of future crisis. Compassion is the very opposite of that.
Outside of a Buddhist perspective, I agree with you. Therefore what is accepted as good in society is self-sacrificial to an extent, and what is bad is selfish. To be good is to limit your own gain for the benefit of others. However, the balance is to maximize the benefit of others while preserving self integrity; I see no contradiction here. One must be in a stable position in order to do others the most benefit in the long run. Yes, you can starve yourself offering people all your food, but the benefit that they gain from that is very slim in the long run when compared to the benefit a truly compassionate person can offer.

>However, the balance is to maximize the benefit of others while preserving self integrity; I see no contradiction here. One must be in a stable position in order to do others the most benefit in the long run. Yes, you can starve yourself offering people all your food, but the benefit that they gain from that is very slim in the long run when compared to the benefit a truly compassionate person can offer.

What would a truly compassionate person offer them then?

If you have an in depth conversation with normie, you'll see they're usually pretty unhappy. It's just hidden under the surface.

The first rule of being a normie is to pretend.

The statistics shows that shitloads of them are on antidepressants and benzos, go to shrinks and at least half of them wreck their marriages and their kids.

Normies are as miserable as the rest of us, they're just dishonest.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
This saying is true in this case. In Buddhism, this would mean helping people reach a suitable and stable level at which they can then accept the path out of samsara. Outside of this framework, I would probably say something similar such as achieving a state wherein they then can also benefit society. In either case, it is much better in the long run to teach a man to fish.
This is my last post because I really need sleep. Thanks for sticking with me, lads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra

Normies only realize the depth of their despair after they've accumulated a degree of wealth and power. This is where the "mid-life crisis" meme originates and why most small business owners are lunatics

>seem happy

How do you know that they are actually happy? Most people aren't or are insecure with their bodies/personality, normie or not

t. holden caulfield

If Ignorance = Bliss and Life = Suffering, can we extrapolate that Knowledge = Death?

I suppose it all depends on state of mind, many great artists and scientists were suffering in life, but they also reached heights of bliss average human would never comprehend. Shit, it is almost as if tree first needs to grow into depth of earth before soaring into heights.

>almost as if tree first needs to grow into depth of earth before soaring into heights.
i like this analogy. i'd like to add that some scientists researching growing plants on spaceships found that in the absence of wind, a tree will eventually collapse under its own weight. it needs the wind to strengthen its roots to support itself.

That is a interesting point, do you perhaps have source?

Give them some time user. Like when they will be around 60. Then we will talk about happiness.

here ya go
awesci.com/the-role-of-wind-in-a-trees-life/

It's great dude. You can do things without being handicapped by your lizard brain that compels you to do stupid shit all the time. You take things as things are, so you can appreciate them the way they're meant to be appreciated. Buddhism is just CBT on steroids.

Acting happy is a way to signal biological fitness
>I am well-adapted to my environment! Mate with me!
like most things normies do, it is short-sighted and has to do with sex

>he doesn't know the worth of worthless things
lrn2Zhuangzi

Per definition normies don't have a mental disorder, a physical disorder, neither are they part of an oppressed minority.

So yeah. Pretty much.

The underlying logic of social relationships is to guarantee the satisfaction or least possible dissatisfaction of the participants. To be dissatisfied beyond a certain mean is to implicate society as the source of dissatisfaction. As no durable group could easily accept responsibility for the happiness of a single individual, the prevailing ideology of any such group will condemn unhappiness as selfish, a betrayal of one's duty to support that which insures the happiness of all or most others, a personal weakness or moral failure. Of course, any group can condemn individualism, but only groups which can successfully reproduce through generations can manage to impart this as a "natural" value—something obvious, "hanging in the air."

I go to work five days out of seven and feel the weight of responsibility to appear satisfied. Of course, I am unhappy, but I only express this unhappiness in a moderate way. Unhappiness which goes beyond moderate dissatisfaction, which cannot be assuaged by the customary forms of redress, which rejects even the formal sympathy of the bearers and defenders of ideology will be repressed with a diktat of silence or suppressed by real physical force. I have seen both cases and experienced one myself.

To someone not familiar with the regular experience of life—normalcy, the "normie" experience, if you like—the jokes, laughter, and sexual promiscuity might seem to be sources of satisfaction. To someone that does not feel the yoke of a threat against their livelihood for gratuitous displays of self-pity, assurances of happiness and success might seem sincere. I will not blame you for believing. It is the social religion which under duress we work very hard to maintain.

The relationship that the normal man's apparent happiness bears to his actual happiness is the same as that which loony-toons bear to reality. It is a ridiculous interpretation of what he is taught from birth that it is right to feel.

Consumer culture is an anesthetic

>seem

There's an English translation of On the Tragic in the works, supposed to be published later this year