Buddhism and Hinduism are memes. The only people who benefit

>>25641387

Nah, you can benefit from meditation and mindfulness anyway. It's just a set of techniques.

>>25641387
Vajrayana/Tibetan is hoodoovoodoo bourgeoisie garbage, I concur.

The Buddha's Buddhism spread out with missionaries thousands of years ago and then lost contact with its root tradition (Theravada) so all the branches became syncretic with their local traditions and became perverted and weird a lot of the time.

Theravada and Zen are the branches worth a shit, IMHO. Zen especially if you want to be successful because it conflates "meditating" with "do your job well."

>>25641387
>>25641415
>>25641459
Reminder that Buddhism renders itself harmless by definition ('the middle path'): 'if following the teachings cripples you, it is not the teachings' fault, but yours, for failing to understand/follow them properly'.

If you inspect the practices, the practitioners, and the 'teachers' in detail, the ugly underbelly begins to show through.

tl;dr Buddhism is as rotten as every other faith, if not more.

>>25641387
Vajrayana : for the hedonist, typically westerner, typically any women

Zen: for the rationalist and a bit of hedonist


Theravada: for the least rationalist and least hedonistic: fast track to nirvana


>>25641526
buddha hater is here !

Taoism is where it's at. Life is balance and contradiction.

>>25641563
>for the rationalist

'Be rational, observe, be critical, be mindful' != rationality.

HANG OUT with a Buddhist, no matter which branch, for a couple of days.

TRY their attachment to sources, their emotionality, their tendency to blame, their inclination to believe in pseudoscience or parapsychology, their level-headedness, exactness of their terms, willingness to apologize, BEYOND the declarations.

>>25641596
In other words, Christians I've talked to display much more basic integrity than Buddhists.

>>25641596
Buddha was a philosopher. Read the dhammapada and argue with that. Also a lot of Christians are assholes.

Lay Buddhism is pretty close to Christianity.

Five Precepts
1. Don't lie.
2. Don't steal.
3. Don't kill.
4. Be ethical about who you fuck.
5. Don't do hard drugs or booze. (Christianity missed the fucking boat on this one.)

Most Buddhists aren't trying to abandon reality and get to nirvana. They're trying to be a good person to they don't get reincarnated as a wood tick.

>>25641660
Literally 'judge what I say, not what I do' the post.

>>25641526

Yes? That applies to all things. That's why you're supposed to join a monastery and have a proper teacher.

If I teach you how to use rm and you rm -rf / it's kind of my fault for not also making sure you understood how the file system worked.

But if you just grab a manual and go ahead with the rm'ing that's solely on you.

>>25641667
You think people are supposed to take your anecdotal bullshit seriously?

You're just buttmad because your feeble Jew religion is finally dying. Good riddance.

>>25641596
Why is [the ideology] at fault? Why are these not failing of the people themselves?

>>25641667
And anyway if you go by "judge what I do" then Buddhists are practically indistinguishable from Christians (see Five Precepts == Ten Commandments + don't become a dope fiend)

>>25641617
Christianity with some Theravada practices/philosophy mixed in master race. Now that I'm typing it I start to realize that both Buddhism and Christianity are absolutely horrible for the layman or commoner to practice and have very poor applicable use to life outside of a monastery. The average person is incapable of dedicating his life to meditation and discipline and thus will never achieve purity or enlightenment in either religion.

Be a monk.

I consider Buddhism to be essentially Atheism with an emphasis on living a moral life and carrying out daily mental exercises to reduce your levels of stress and cognitive dissonance

>>25641668
True. But the frequency of such disclaimers, 'remember to take everything with a grain of salt, and, uh, stay safe and responsible', is a good indicator of harmfulness of the sect leader. I remember I once asked an anon to cite an original passage of Siddhartha; there was a ton of harmful connotations in that lone passage, from fuelling empathy to, I don't remember, implications of free will probably as well.

>>25641694
>You think people are supposed to take your anecdotal bullshit seriously?

Of course not, though it's hilariously illustrative of your thought processes that you assumed so. I normally focus on the harmfulness of teachings themselves.

>your feeble Jew religion

I am an atheist.

>>25641700
Apologizing the ideology ('the religion is good, there's just a handful of rotten practitioners') leads to considering the hypocrisy an exception rather than a rule.

>>25641738
>purity or enlightenment in either religion

'Enlightenment' and lack thereof is the carrot Buddhist sect leaders use to mold their victims' priorities.

>>25641767
>'Enlightenment' and lack thereof is the carrot

*the carrot and the stick

>>25641767
>'Enlightenment' and lack thereof is the carrot Buddhist sect leaders use to mold their victims' priorities.
Elaborate on this if you wouldn't mind

>>25641767
Then don't join a temple. That's exactly what Protestantism is all about.

You can't deny that religions have benefits, because they do. Ruthless materialism is not a suitable foundation for civilization. Your bitterness and cynicism and general unpleasantness are proof of that.

Buddhism is quite benign and very malleable, as shown by its dozens of offshoots. I don't know why you're throwing a piss party about it.

>>25641809
Lack of monasteries is the biggest fault of protestantism to be honest family

>>25641857
Don't know why that linked to that when I clicked >>25641844

>>25641767

What do you mean "fuelling empathy"?

Do you mean as in loving-kindness meditation?

>>25641809
'No true enlightenment.'

'You are not enlightened until you realize that...'

>'...ultimate reality exists beyond words.' (Translation: until the 'teachers' senses that your priorities have by and large shifted from being right in discussion to inclination in practice to rather point that 'discussions are flawed' and 'language is limited', thus trying to placate every participant and appear the smarter one oneself.)

>'...truth doesn't exist.' (Translation: until he senses that you have been in same discussion rather reduced to spouting platitudes such as 'everything depends on the context' and 'everything is subjective'.)

>'...other people are a mirror of yourself.' (Translation: until he senses that you have practically quit judging other people, thus becoming a spinelessly empathetic person who in discussion is easily cowed into silence by a single authoritative reproach, 'hush, observe your own mind before you speak of others'.)

>*hits you in the face or does some other lolrandom action in the Zen tradition* (Translation: until he senses that you have internalized the mindset whereby you shun attempts to define human quality in terms of e.g. truthfulness or unambiguousness, coming to rather define it instead as platitudinal, tautological 'being in the present moment', 'being attentive', and 'always knowing what's important and what isn't.)

Things like that.


And now,
STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>25641908
For instance, yes. Empathy displaces analysis and interpretation in the brain. That's why proponents of 'meditation' rely on their disclaimers of 'in moderation' and free will (free choice).

>>25641983
Oh, and OF COURSE -- OF COURSE -- every single one of those precepts is, and forever will, be innocuous and plausibly deniable ON SURFACE. 'When I say everything exists in the mind, this doesn't mean to connote disinterest in objective truth and preoccupation with one's feelings, no, not at all, where did you get that from, it just means be mindful of your feelings.' Every single sect has to be deniable.

>>25641387
>Stay cucked hare-fag.
Stop saying bad things about Hare people, they give me free food whenever i visit.

>>25641983
In short, to understand Buddhism, the first thing is to realize that Buddhist dogmas ALWAYS have the plausible layer, what the sect leader wants you to say he teaches you, and the real layer, the anti-intellectual connotations he wants you to internalize. You must learn to look at the latter.

>>25641983

One of the fundamental precepts is that about the middle road. Also for most people loving-kindness ("metta") meditation is beneficial since they have too little.

If you're bordering on going full Shinji then it might be inadvisable but most people are not like that.

I'm not sure what the inverse would be desu. Not graveyard meditation because that's against hedonism and attachment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrathful_deities ?

File: 1435310519965.jpg (108KB, 356x481px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 356x481px

>>25641983
>>25642036
You're really just conditioned to see the worst in everything except yourself. This kind of destructive cynicism has no future.

If you actually tried meditation, you'd immediately grasp its human value. Or prayer, for that matter. It has a palpable positive effect that's empirically verifiable. Similarly with the community of goodwill that religious traditions provide.

Your katana of destruction leads only to oblivion. No one actually wants that, so atheism will remain the province of fat hopeless faggot fedoras such as yourself.

karl marx was right

religion is the opium of the masses

the religion of the west right now is "my personal identity :^)"

>>25642141
>the middle road

Only people who recommend harmful things ever need the caveat of 'in moderation'. Think drugs, dangerous lifestyles, and so on.

>>25642141
>loving-kindness ("metta") meditation is beneficial
>>25642145
>If you actually tried meditation, you'd immediately grasp its human value.

Run-off-the-mill unwitting redefinition of benefit of practice as a result of practicing it. You come to define ever more and more compassion, tolerance, and crap like that as 'the objectively proper amount of it' because it alters your perception of properness, not unlike a drug addict finds ever higher doses as necessary to satisfy him. Until there is no harsh criticism and no interest in discussing matter left in the society anymore. Apply yourself for fuck's.

>inb4 in moderation fallacy again

>>25641983
>truth doesn't exist
>core tenant of Buddhism involves the four noble truths

Are you sure you know anything about Buddhism? There is no subjectivity or contextual truths. Absolutism exists even in the midst of impermanence.

>>25642268
Talk to a Buddhist one day.

>>25642065
kek same, i dont even know what these people do, but i go there just for the meals when im short on cash. The food's pretty good considering its all free

Tulpa faggots on suicide watch.

>>25642226

Ah, I see what you mean now.

But no no, Buddhism isn't like that at all. Buddhism is about suffering.

The only person who should be coddled like that is people who are so fucked up that they suffer too much to be able to learn how to process their suffering.

>Only people who recommend harmful things ever need the caveat of 'in moderation'.

So all modern medicine is harmful then? Because if I give you too much or too little medicine it might not work or kill you respectively.

>>25642226
I wouldn't worry too much about that. Buddhists are as unobservant and undisciplined as members of any other faith.

One of the sect of Buddhism is "Pure Land" Buddhism which involves foregoing meditation and other practices entirely and just repeating "Buddha Jesus's" name enough times to get you to heaven.

Human vice triumphs over all. People will fuck and fuck each other over.

Atheism is a practical failure because it doesn't replace any of the social functions that religion provides and it doesn't offer comfort to the masses.

>>25642281
>>25642268
(As a matter of fact, those 'truths' are stellar examples of tautologies in addition to schizotypal platitudes -- so much about their 'truth value'. But that's an aside.)

>>25642301

Yep! Look at Thai buddhism for example.

The "forest monks" are what we'd call buddhist monks, the other monks are somewhere between that and priest/scriptorial keepers afaik.

Practice trumps all. But perhaps many people cannot take to Theravada-style "pure" meditation and practices? So they might benefit from other things.

>>25641387
You can only join Hinduism at birth and if you do join later in life you will be below the "undersirables" caste.

It's a closed off religion.

Buddhism on the other hand is an unrestricted religion so you can be a buddhist muslm or a buddhist christian. It's a meme in it's own regard.

>>25642300
>Buddhism is about suffering.
>about

:^)

>So all modern medicine is harmful then?

The difference between Buddhism and medicine, you idiot, is that scientists actively determine the boundaries at which a medicine starts yielding certain physical outcomes (without defining them as either good or bad, too), so that every individual taker is free to judge whether to try it, while Buddhists are happy to blanket-define 'meditation' as 'good unless you overdo it' (fucking really), never bothering to relate specific amounts and contexts of practicing it to tangible social outcomes -- instead, again, evading the issue by 'oh, well, if it begins to impair you, this means you've been doing it wrong, it's your fault and not meditation's, just adjust your schedule'.

File: 1425761032402.png (203KB, 1870x1142px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 1870x1142px

the arahant daniel ingram speaks to you

>>25642395
In other words, for the fucking thousandth time, 'in moderation' undoes judgement in the first place. 'It's good by definition.' 'Meditation is good by definition, if it isn't it's your fault.'

>>25642395
>Buddhism is suffering.

top kek

which buddhist touched you bro?

>>25642320
Only if misapplied in teaching rather than application does a truth cease to be a truth, you have a very corrupt outlook on Buddhism. Your problem seems to stem from negative attachment to teachers rather than principles and doctrine.

>>25642410
This joke is old. Not that Buddhists would know.

And I didn't laugh at the 'suffering' part, but at the 'about' part. It's the same old 'no true'. 'True Buddhism is about... lalala.' Rather than describing the actual behaviour of its actual adherents and consequences of exposure thereto.

>>25642431
And here it is, literally what I described in the paragraph above.

Buddhists are just disinterested in reality.

>>25642410

But it's true. It's about suffering and the solutions to suffering. That's all it attempts to be.

>>25642448
'Violent people just want to be understood!'
'No, I beg to differ, violent people just want to be loved!'
'No no, I'm pretty sure violent people just want to express themselves!'
'You're all wrong, violent people just want to make a point!'
'Ha no, violent people just want to interact with others!'

Aren't you forgetting something?

File: arthur-schopenhauer.jpg (113KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x768px

>>25641387
>reads Nietzsche once
>HURR DURR MUH SLAVE MORALITY LOL KEKS

Sure is /undergraduate/ in here

File: 1038364-super_retard.jpg (26KB, 499x376px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 499x376px

Yeah, they sure are OP.

Don't forget Taoism as well.

I'm sure you have quite an argument to discredit it all.

>>25642410
? How is it not

>I'm going to dedicate my life to reaching non-existence by depriving myself of every single human pleasure including but not limited to money and food other than rice.

Nigga, they can't even cook their own food. They rely on handouts from people. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>25642439
>This joke is old. Not that Buddhists would know.

i'm not a buddhist bro, i just don't understand why you have such a fixation on this irrational belief system in particular

there are plenty of them, and plenty more harmful than buddhism

>>25642501
there are cults of ascetics in almost every religion

>>25642473

Ah. You're assuming the "loving kindness" is about other people, as in Christianity. No. It is solely about you and your mental state as you react to these other people.

Or at least you can view it like that and it's the same thing.

It's about equanimity, fundamentally. You might very well kill someone with your bare hands because they needed to be killed but the point is not to dwell on it in a destructive manner.

>>25642511
>there are plenty of them, and plenty more harmful than buddhism

Even if this were the case, there is no religion adored more universally and more vehemently apologized than Buddhism.

>>25642501
This anon, surprisingly, gets it.

'But it's their choice!', goes the usual fallacious retort, 'Those monks could still be productive members of the society if they just chose to! They just don't choose to! And they help the society in their own way!'

The second part is irrelevant; literally everything construably 'helps' something. As is the first: it doesn't matter what they in some abstract fashion 'could' do (capacity/free will being as big an obstacle to meaningful discussion as ever); what matters is whether exposure to Buddhism leads to certain life choices and how permanent those are.

>>25642501
Why do you have such love of pleasure and materials? It's no wonder that you seek to destroy that which has no appreciation for your god.

>>25642544
>about

:^))


More of 'good by definition'. You just literally can't get it, can you? I nearly pity you.

'This meditation is good because it is supposed to make you always do the right choice dispassionately without impairing your judgement or sense of right and wrong -- if it does that, it is not that kind of meditation but a failure of it and you're at fault.'

IR. RE. LE. VANT.

What matters is exclusively what exposure to that 'meditation' ACTUALLY. MEASURABLY. FUCKING. DOES. And it makes you empathetic, unaware drones.

>>25642585
>>25642544
In short, you tard, your retarded merry-go-round is going to be this:

'Meditation is good.'
'Uh, oh? Well, meditation in moderation is good then.'
'Oh? Shit. Well, meditation done less than a couple of hours every day is good then.'
'Hmmm. This is very unsettling. Well, meditation is good when done a couple of hours every day at most and when you don't let it impair your drive.'
'Oh? I see. Um, it's good when you don't let it impair your drive and when you don't let it change your interests, either.'
'Oh, and when you don't let it affect your lifestyle, too, of course.'

>you literally won't understand this

>>25642585
The goal of meditation is mindfulness, mindfulness is awareness. You lack it deeply, friend

>>25641387
Who is this addressed to? I don't think the monks you're calling out lurk /r9k/.

>>25642631
Speak of 'goals' some more, if you want. I was always more interested in the is than in the ought.

>>25642585

But are they happy/content drones?

Many people here would kill for that. They take drugs they know they could kill them or fuck them up to try to achieve that.

>>25642650
>>25642631
Also, blanket accusations of lack of awareness got old years ago.

>>25642660
I'm not against self-destruction in itself; but it must be informed, and Buddhists do their absolute best to obscure their dogmas' and practices' consequences with their 'in moderation' and 'it depends on you'.

File: ISIS child marriage.jpg (31KB, 512x315px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 512x315px

>>25642551
>Even if this were the case

it is demonstrably the case

>adored more universally and more vehemently apologized than Buddhism

but why is this of any concern to you? you live in a world of violent fundamentalism where irrational beliefs abound, and you're fixated upon a largely passive religion. even if everybody is wrong about buddhism, it ought not to be such a high priority for you.

>>25642703
If I had a child who were to be, kidnapped or lost in an X country, I would thousand times more prefer for it to be Muslims than Buddhists. Islam is far from as delusional as Buddhism; at least they display SOME moral precepts as opposed to thorough moral relativity; at least its notions of afterlife are falsifiable; at least it builds hatred, from which achievement can grow; at least it is not absolutely riddled with brain-damaging 'philosophical' 'metaphysical' trash.

File: 2016-01-10 16.34.35.jpg (508KB, 1181x664px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1181x664px

I literally can not stand people who believe in this kind of bullshit(chakra, energyies...and shiet)
Those are worst kind of people trust me.
I had ex that was all into hippy chakra, energy mystery indian crap and guess what she was batshit insane.
She would accuse me of bringing negative energy and wanted me to completly align myself to her believes, how to dress talk, think so that I dont ruin her chakra energy shit... in end she cucked me and married that guy, she was also 10yrs older, worst part was I tried to please her bcz she was my first.
Now i also work in one family helping older guy and his wife is also this kind of crazy, she has turtles pointed st door that " protect" house I once moved it and she webt insane, she also keeps stones around house to clean air from " bad spirits"
She once burned leaves in house to clean it from bad energy.
I will post pics for proof.
Tl dr stay away from these people big red flag if someone mentions chakras or some eastern bullshit also tip dont reveal your power to them they are probably liberal faggots lvl.

>>25642793
Nice anecdotal evidence, the resident Buddhists are going say. I sympathize with you, anon.

File: Blackguard.jpg (78KB, 400x552px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 400x552px

>>25642768

But you do realize that power and struggle is useless if you can't enjoy it? Most people unless they fall into a rather narrow spectrum of personality traits can't comfortably exist according to those precepts.

>>25642768
>>25642703
In short, psychopathy is better than schizophrenia.

>>25642828
You're again talking about the abstracted, removed fact that Buddhism is 'about' learning to enjoy things effectively blah blah. I don't care, you retard. And no one should care. A religion is its adherents. I have seen Buddhists and I would rather kill my child than let them live among them.

If you get all the masters in a room, they will agree with almost everything, if you do the same with the followers they will disagree on almost everything.

This thread is proof of this.

File: 14065694671961_700.jpg (43KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x394px

>>25642768
>ISIS is superior to some bread chewing monks

okay m8 you are fucking nuts

don't try to present this as a matter of rationality vs irrationality, or morality vs immorality, when it's clearly a matter of taste for you

File: 1445762956515.png (18KB, 174x134px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 174x134px

>>25642793
>I am a man who can only be acknowledged by free spirit girls.

>>25642879
>If you get all the masters in a room, they will agree with almost everything, if you do the same with the followers they will disagree on almost everything.

There is no 'mastery' of anything in agreeing to the bullshit that 'nothing can be known for certain and we should just enjoy the evening and enjoy this fine tea shall we'. This is just hamfisted anti-intellectualism, so popular among Buddhist 'masters'. A Buddhist 'master' is abhorrently uneducated on the most basic human issues, is, as has been rightly pointed out, a parasite on the society and would be thoroughly unable to tend to a wound, build something, give advice on how to tend to crops, or solve any practical problem. They are thoroughly incompetent and as unaware as human beings go. They are literally only able to spout trash about 'understanding this' and 'the mind that'. They are like children.

>>25642930
In short, THE BUDDHIST TEACHER HAS NO ROBES. And it is extremely nigh time that in this age of willful ignorance and apologetics a child cries this out.

>>25642863

Yes, certainly. Most people don't know about the atrocities committed in Tibet before China moved in for example. Or the child-rape in the Thai monasteries.

But that doesn't mean that many people actually use the core of the techniques - in fact, Theravada came to the west and became "stripped" as people tried it out and now apparently buddhist monks in the countries where it originated are actually enthused about this because it provided a testing platform to weed out the stuff that didn't work.

You need to look at the techniques, not the adherents.

Specifically, focus meditation, insight meditation and mindfulness and metta-meditation which are things that can be applied outside of a monastery.

Focus meditation calms the mind and stops your thoughts from racing.

Insight meditation, um, gives insight. If you just do it a bit it helps with equanimity because you see your own thought-stream and the rising and fading of emotions and other mental objects.

Mindfullness helps with being down-to-earth and also prevents existential thinking and stress.

Metta, loving-kindness, is used if you are a hateful or aggressive person who doesn't want to be. But it can also be helpful to counter the feelings of people who wants to help everyone all the time too, funnily enough.

>>25642984
>Most people don't know about the atrocities committed in Tibet before China moved in for example. Or the child-rape in the Thai monasteries.

Indeed.

>techniques

Have been consistently woefully underrelated to real life outcomes. They are only being related to an embarrassingly narrow amount of circumstances, and they are being presented in universally positive light ('reduced mind wandering', 'reduced rumination', 'reduced anxiety', 'reduced anger', 'reduced addiction', reduced, reduced, reduced). No attempts at all are made at acknowledging positive parallels of those reduced behaviours. Terms are being abused so that having one's attention consumed by one's own thinking processes is now 'self-awareness'.

tl;dr you are willfully ignorant run-off-the-mill Buddhist who deserves much less than the very short exposition I just gave.

>>25642930

I cannot image how you got to this line of thinking. I am not a Buddhist, but you seem to have side stepped everything they were trying to teach. Best of luck to you, mate.

>>25643042
(And any findings of negative consequences are, of course, fallaciously brushed away with 'you can use your free will and mindful awareness of those very negative consequences so to avoid them in the future.)

>>25643063
They have nothing to teach. They only spout garbage about 'being in the moment' and 'seeing what's important' and 'seeing what's real' and 'seeing this and that and that and that' and 'realizing that and that and that and that'. Utter, thorough, brain-rotting, toxic trash.

>he thinks there is a "pyramid"
>he thinks there are "benefits"
ok

>>25643042
Say what you want mudslime, but buddhism is still more preferable than islam by a long shot. Just look at what muslims are up to all over the world, daresh is not an isolated incident by any stretch of the imagination. I'll take claims of positive effects over absolute hoards of real and very well documented acts of just pure savagery that's still being committed right now.

Islam is a religion of bigotry and savagery and groups like daresh is what it looks like when it drops the act and stops pretending to be a "religion of peace" or something similar.

>>25643140
>mudslime

I am an atheist. But I would much rather talk with a Muslim than with a Buddshit. Perceived Western degeneracy is at least a meaningful subject as opposed to the runny excrement about the nature of conceptual understanding.

>>25643042

> reduced, reduced, reduced

Yep, it's true that it won't help you other than in the sense that it removes sources of suffering.

But again, that's the point.

>>25643169
>it removes sources of suffering

I have never denied that.

The problem is, it also removes sources of much, much more.

>>25643099
>They have nothing to teach. They only spout garbage about 'being in the moment' and 'seeing what's important' and 'seeing what's real' and 'seeing this and that and that and that'

I'm sorry you feel that way. You seem focused on intellect while philosophy emphasizes wisdom. Either way, we need different opinions in this world, but I feel you are doing yourself a disservice by being so closed minded. Oh well, I'll stop bothering you about this.

>>25643183

Yep, it can. But then again, if you are suffering you can't enjoy those things anyway.

>>25643213
That is true.

Again, I don't object to 'meditating' if it is an informed decision. But I hate its feverish blanket marketing as a completely harmless practice.

You are being more reasonable than 99.5% of people I talk a-- ...I talk to in those threads.

oh my god is this guy still shitposting about buddhism? It's been months

>>25643165
Western degeneracy may be annoying to look at, but it is VERY much preferable to the bigotry and savagery that islam wants to replace it with. I'll take roasties being roasties any day over women being sentenced to lashing for being raped and I don't mean regretting mutual sex afterwards, I mean properly raped.

Islam is basically the moral equivalent of SOPA/PIPA, i.e a nuclear bomb to solve something you should use scalpel to fix.

>>25643253

Yes, attachment to the correctness of your own decisions, leading to the need to defend them, is clearly a source of suffering in an empirical sense.

>>25643200
>I'm sorry you feel that way.

You don't. Don't lie, it only makes your claims of importance of mindfulness more glaring.

>You seem focused on intellect while philosophy emphasizes wisdom.

'Wisdom' is just a synonym for 'enlightenment', and see >>25641983 for what those terms have been kept around for so far.

>we need different opinions in this world

Equivocation. Different points of view are definitely needed, but Buddhists offer no points of view. They refuse to discuss reality. They obscure consequences by their 'it's good in moderation'. They diminish interest by their 'it's about...' rather than discussion of facts. Theirs are no points of view, theirs is noise.

>>25643287
>attachment to the correctness of your own decisions, leading to the need to defend them, is clearly a source of suffering in an empirical sense

This is true, and I have long embraced this suffering, and this attachment. As should everyone else.

>>25643253
>Meditating
>Somehow harmful
Eh? I may not be a buddhist myself, but what's so harmful with basically just taking some time to calm down and think things trough peacefully? Not enough violence? Solutions too peaceful?

File: 1426827024518.jpg (61KB, 356x506px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 356x506px

>>25643183
>to stop being a hedonist is bad

this is what the hedonist believes

>>25643290
>I refuse to discuss a fantasy, therefore I am a bad guy.

keep talking about your god floating around, mkay.

>>25643317
>just taking some time to calm down and think things trough peacefully

Equivocation as well. 'Meditation' has many central qualities differentiating it from regular thinking, from which its harmfulness comes. Lack of external denotation (referring to some external phenomenon to be explained or solved). Lack of emotional urgency ('I must solve this'). Lack of mathematical/logical structure. Preoccupation with sensory sensations.

>>25643340
The concept of God is exactly as nebulous as the Buddhist notion of awareness. I am disinterested in both because both are meaningless trash.

>>25643385
>>25643317
In short, if you 'just think things through', it is not 'meditation' in the Eastern sense at all, and you're just being guilty of blurring the distinction so to lure people into a false equivalence.

>>25643310

Well, at least you know what you're doing and probably in theory know how to begin to stop suffering. And at least you seem to have a great deal of equanimity towards suffering. But most people just suffer involuntarily.

>>25643443
>involuntarily

The reason Buddhists (wittingly or not) contribute to the delusion of free will is that their dogmas require that people believe that one mental change doesn't have to entail another. For instance, the dogma that 'meditation' is harmless requires that self-absorption and self-monitoring, 'I just noticed I am thinking/feeling', won't entail diminished drive to pursue one's goals, let's call them materialistic if not empirical. For instance, buying or learning something. So they posit that 'even if meditation puts you at a risk of abandoning your prior goals, YOU CAN CHOOSE to re-adopt those goals as soon as meditation helps you notice this abandonment of yours'. Which is of course utterly baseless. Free will is always baselessly appealed to whenever there is a need for a deus-ex-machina to prevent an undesirable side effect from happening: 'oh, but YOU CAN control that effect', as though thoughts and desires to control that effect somehow weren't biologically determined and susceptible to being prevented by 'meditation' in the first place.

I must have explained that literally dozens of times by now.

>Start meditating for 5 minutes
>Keep it going for weeks
>Suddenly decisions are easier to take
>Started reading books

That's personal experience. If you call that a meme then I guess it's a life-changing meme.

>>25643385
So you're basically saying that because it's not about a specific topic with a specific goal in mind it's somehow harmful? Even with that in mind it sounds like just random thinking and I still can't see any kind of actual harm in it.

This kind of "I don't like it, so it must be harmful" reminds me of how crossword puzzle elitists like to moan about how awful sudoku is. It's just completely idiotic garbage.

>>25643524
>I still can't see any kind of actual harm in it

I don't see how you couldn't. For fuck's sake, proponents of 'meditation' literally say 'if you don't like it/if it doesn't work at first, just keep trying, and it will become easier eventually'! The brain naturally habituates to everything it does. If for some retarded reason it comes to persist in exposing itself to doing nothing, it will continue doing that! Habit.

That said, there are enough studies gloating how 'meditation literally rewires your brain'. Some even boast that only a couple of sittings do that. It's a funny case of schizophrenia when Buddhists at the same time say that, that it physically alters your brain, and that 'you are in full control of whether to continue or not'.

>>25643503

Yes, yes. I agree. That's the point, you give up attachment in exchange for ceasing to suffer. And you can in theory re-adopt the goals but from a different perspective since you aren't directly attached to them anymore.

The basic concept is that having a drive in the first place is a direct cause of suffering. If someone says otherwise they don't understand what being a buddhist monk is about.

But if you don't want to be a monk then you should "obviously"... yeah okay I agree, just because it's obvious to me doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. I think there's something about me that just makes me "click" with this stuff.

>>25643510

Yeah but I think he's talking about the full deal. Like hours per day for month after month.

>>25642145
As an atheist, I would like to point out that we're not all anti-theists AKA assholes. I just don't happen to believe in any religion. Aside from the vocal minority, I've pretty much just seen that most atheists don't actually care about what religious views you have since it really shouldn't matter to us if you follow a religion that we don't really believe in anyway. It's your life and you should be able to live it in the way that you want.

>>25643581
It's still just sitting around and thinking, nothing more, nothing else. Also, with a phenomenon called neuroplasticity pretty much everything can re-wire your brain as your brain rewires itself all the time.

It's still completely silly to stand around and complain about just sitting around and thinking is somehow harmful. It's basically one of those "Watching TV rots your brain" kind of attitudes.

>>25643587
>And you can in theory re-adopt the goals but from a different perspective since you aren't directly attached to them anymore.

Precisely. Ultimately, as always, it is about the contentious concept of capacity. If you have an advanced 'meditator' a part of whose daily routine it has been for years, 'can' they quit it, or have they become for practical purposes addicted? Can they really? *Really*?

Buddhists sidestep this issue with, again, arbitrarily restating the context with the God-sent contingency that 'yes, they can easily quit, all it takes is for them to have the idea and resolution to quit'. But again, let's talk about the HARD PRACTICAL REALITY. In HARD PRACTICAL REALITY, if you have someone who's been exposed to Buddhism for years, do they really *tend* to choose to quit it eventually? To have the idea and decision to? At the end of the day? And just how slippery has the slope been from the beginning? Psychological addiction is no different from physiological addiction. Just how hard is it not to become attracted to 'meditation' when one first finds out about it, and not to let it become a part of one's routine in the first place? Those questions are as unanswered as they are answerable -- perfectly.

>>25643682

Well, being addicted to focus meditation is one thing but insight meditation isn't addictive afaik.

Insight meditation is just a tool you use to observe yourself. We where talking about choosing to remove attachments and that's what that allows you to do.

Focus meditation *can* be addictive however and also you can get euphoric (haha) from insight meditation too. But these things are actually warned against in the scriptures.

>>25643765
>Insight meditation is just a tool you use to observe yourself.

I see no reason at all to believe that occurrence of self-observant thoughts (self-monitoring) doesn't impair the frequency and accuracy of observing my environment, and I have both personal and general evidence for the contrary. Every time my thought is derailed into self-observation, a second or two *at least* pass which could have been spent as a part of a meaningful train of thought.

Also.

>>25643765
>warned against in the scriptures

An occasional caveat in no way justifies the deluge of praise and declarations of harmlessness Buddhist practices both receive and give themselves.

>>25643795
>inb4 appeal to free will, 'you can choose when to self-monitor and when to monitor the environment instead'

Buddhists are eerily incapable of comprehending that thoughts to refocus one's attention are thoughts as well.

>>25643795

Ah, no, you misunderstand.

It is not self-reflection. It is simply the coming and going of your thought-stream as you use your breath as a place for your attention to rest on.

You don't pick up the thoughts. It's not getting derailed, it's more like you are leaving the train control cabin and observe the train itself as it moves.

>>25643832
It just doesn't work like that.

'Meditative' self-absorption doesn't happen in parallel; it replaces.

>>25643827

Certainly not? That's why you need the breath to focus on. If that wasn't the case then you wouldn't need an "armrest".

>>25643851

Then you're doing it wrong. Most likely you need to do focus meditation for a while first before doing insight meditation.

>>25641660

This is the point of following Buddha. Respect everything around you, be aware of your surroundings; be a decent human being for everyone around you

>They're trying to be a good person to they don't get reincarnated as a wood tick.

It isn't even about that reward of reincarnation, It is to personally not feel to be a burden, so the soul may reach Nirvana peacefully

>>25643883
>Then you're doing it wrong.

'Meditation is not meditation unless it helps.'

Cute in its childishness.

>Most likely you need to do focus meditation for a while first before doing insight meditation.

'Meditation has been making me self-absorbed and less focused on the environment. What am I supposed to do?'
'Oh I know, let's meditate some more.'

>>25643924

Yes but the techniques are very specific and it doesn't sound like you're doing them right. It's just like physical exercises.

>>25643924
In other words, telling people to 'meditate' is like telling them to do thing x so as to get better at fixing a problem that thing x has caused in the first place.

>>25643682
>Psychological addiction is no different from physiological addiction
This is when you revealed that you really don't know you're talking about.

Practically ANYTHING can by psychologically addictive, crossword puzzles, knitting, sports, video games, sex, you name it. Should we ban all of these things or consider them harmful because somebody with the right kind of personality can get addicted to them?

The answer anyone with any level of basic sense will give is simply "No".

File: 1427044444653.jpg (155KB, 790x448px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 790x448px

>In this daylong workshop, scholar-practitioner Rita M. Gross presented an introduction to Vajrayana - the form of Buddhism most strongly associated with the Buddhism of Tibet. The day was meant for those curious about this valuable form of Buddhism but know little about it. She explained both those aspects of Vajrayana Buddhism that most distinguish it from other forms of Buddhism and its underlying similarity with better-known forms of Buddhism. Regarding what is most distinctive about Vajrayana Buddhism, she explained some of its most common rituals involving visualization practices and mantra recitation. She also explained its deeper teachings about the nature of mind and reality that Vajrayana shares with other forms of Buddhism. Furthermore, she explained how the two major aspects of Vajrayana Buddhism, often called the ''development stage'' and the ''completion stage,'' are linked with each other and provide an overarching path to awakening.

http://sati.audiodharma.org/series/253/talk/5461/

File: aXm2804xjU6.jpg (94KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 650x650px

>>25641387
U wrong OP
Only people who benefit from enlightenment are those who are removed from the pyramid
Which means none of us because by virtue of being on 4chins we're not full hermit enough

Mindfulness and shit are memes though
>new buddhism
>all is like, one, man, calm down and like, see the beauty in the river as it flows
>real buddhism
>reality fucking sucks and isn't even real get the fuck out now while you still have the prescience to be capable of doing so, instead of goofing off and fapping and doing other retarded shit

>>25643962
I addressed this naive sophistry of yours back in >>25642395.

>>25643980
(Also in >>25642629.)

>>25643971
Advanced stage of mindfulness. I know before my feet hit the pavement that everything has a distinct possibility of becoming unspeakably horrible, and there are an infinite variety of ways things could be worse. So I am pleasantly surprised.

>>25643958

Also, there is a very good cure for not being mindful of the environment: mindfulness.

When you do something, focus your attention on the entire process. Now I am lifting the fork. Now I am putting the fork in the mouth. Now I taste the food. And so on.

>>25644153

Furthermore, the case may be that you simply have noticed how unmindful you are because of the insight meditation.

It's not guaranteed since you don't seem to be "doin it right" but you should consider the possibility.

I really don't understand why you would even attack Buddhists.They mind their own business.

>>25644130
That's still not enlightenment at all m8o
That's just you rationalizing a shit situation in a very, very normal way and dressing it up as something divine and philosophically insightful when it is not
Try again next time brobot

>>25641387
> watching Tibetan monks get kicked in the dock repeatedly and hanging off each others nirvana

Pretty dank motorcycling memes, maaaaan.

>>25644248

Not all do. Look up the Tibet regime, Thai monasteries and that warmonger thing that is either a genius plan or more likely a terrible disaster in Burma/Myanmar.

But hermit monks mind their own business yes.

>>25644130
>>25644153
So what you're saying is that 'mindfulness' leads you to contemplate your utensils and the fucking pavement, as opposed to science or history?

Pretty accurate actually.


(In reality, I know that you're going to pretend that those mundane objects of one's attention are just examples, simple for the sake of illustration -- but in reality, this is a repulsive lie, because the whole 'mindfulness' business is replete with connotations of 'beauty in simplicity', 'enjoying one's meals', 'enjoying one's direct environment', 'appreciating one's sensory sensations', and so on. It is the epitome of the Buddhist duplicity. Buddhists pretend that their hamfisted connoting of importance of mundane, vapid things such as just enjoying a meal or a tea, is transferable, corresponds, to real, challenging, scientific thinking as well ('you can apply those simple self-control strategies to any subject of your choice, honest') -- even though it (1) isn't the case, because the techniques presented inherently prevent it, and (2) they consciously choose those mundane examples so to get you to prefer pursuit of those, through sheer volume, through sheer repetition. Manipulation 101.)

>>25644248
Atheists: Not. Even. Once.

>>25644263
And all i see out of you is psuedo- intellectual word salad.

>>25644411
In other words, 'mindfulness' is a combination of a RELIGION and a BUSINESS. Connect the dots.

File: woah.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>25644263
Real enlightenment is breaking the matrix
An enlightened individual would be seen as batshit insane to the untrained eye

>>25644458
Can't attack what I say so you dismiss it and judge me harshly instead?
Noice
There is meaning behind my words and if you can't see it then that's on you d00der

>>25644411

Actually it's just to train the brain. Forcing yourself to focus on mundane thing is like weight-lifting vs. focusing on things that you are naturally absorbed on.

If you wanted to be contrarian I suppose math could work as well. But you said you had problems focusing on the environment specifically so yes, being more mindful of your utensils is actually what you're asking for?

>>25644395
Even still attacking all of Buddhism because of the few of the various branches are corrupt is like attacking all music because you think a genre shit.

People on this board have some serious issues. I see the same threads over and over again for years.

>>25644482
'Let me define the ultimate delusion of reality as something... not too difficult tho... something like, I dunno... not seeing that one is a free human being? not seeing that everything is a concept? not seeing that everything is subject to observation? Ya, those sound good. Vague and unfalsifiable enough. They will do.'
'Now, let me define ~~=*REAL*=~~ enlightenment as "understanding" those (whatever the fuck would that mean) and having a hefty dose of conviction in those.'
'All right... Now let me believe in the cliche of mine in question... Right, one is not truly enlightened unless one truly, practically internalizes the conceptual nature of reality... lemme repeat those a couple of times, so I fucking actually believe in it for real...'
'Okay, done.'
'I'M SO ENLIGHTENED!!!'

>>25644553

Yes but they are, and rather severely. It's just fact.

>>25644582
That's a big scarecrow you're building furrendo

>>25644533
You're literally just repeating what the textbooks on 'mindfulness' have told you to. Go be a blurb somewhere else.

>>25644594
I understand but what I'm trying tie say is that you shouldn't scapegoat the whole belief because of the branches that are corrupt.

>>25644645
Fuck my typing is shit today.

File: 1436961449418.jpg (151KB, 723x989px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 723x989px

>>25644411
>I don't understand the freakin point of the goddamned meditation FUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKK
Enjoy being mad and sad all the time, I guess.

File: a perfect argument.png (4KB, 273x285px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 273x285px

>>25644612
>>25644674
Buddhists.

>>25644689
What? No you actually were strawmanning me.
>get caught being fallacious
>b-better call him a buddhist! y-yeah

And I'm not a buddhist. Anon pls.

>>25644689
>inb4 no you still you don't understand you would only display true wisdom if you realized the futility of your current argument and realized that you're wasting your time talking with me on /r9k/ and realized that you should rather go outside and socialize you friendless autist loser and you should totally acknowledge my baseless ad hominem reprimands and arbitrary declarations of what you should do with your life and my cowardly dares to stop arguing with me as legit enlightened pointers for you which I only dispense because I am fatherly concerned for your well-being and all this is true because I say so

>>25644617

I have never read those but I know they exist. Have you tried techniques taught by those? The meditation too?

This might be the reason you are not seeing results. But mindfulness isn't hard, at least in the sense that it's straightforward even if it requires effort?

File: image.jpg (240KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 500x750px

>>25644736
>you actually were strawmanning me
>>25644736
>>get caught being fallacious

>>25644861
No you actually created intent behind my post that wasn't actually there
All you did was post what you assumed to be my internal dialog and peddled it as truth. That's pretty much the definition of a strawman.
Top fuckin lel

>>25644911
You drew a whole lot of conclusions from something as vague as "enlightenment is breaking the matrix (which is what I said)", is what I mean

>>25644946
And to be more clear, my real problem with how you represented me is that you seem to think that I think that internalizing the idea that everything is a concept etc is enlightenment, while I really don't
Seeing things that way doesn't -do- anything, it doesn't change anything. Just makes you behave differently, but you're still here. The mess still has yet to be cleaned. I'm definitely not enlightened, if enlightenment is physically possible, because if I were I wouldn't be here. Nor do I know how to be, because if I did I wouldn't be here.

But I know that's not it because plenty of asshats who think that way continue to walk the earth and the problem of reality is still not solved. Only being coped with.

>>25645058
>no, wait, ..,,~~<*==:@;{{['R:E::A:L']}};@:==*>~~,,.. ~~=*REAL*=~~ enlightenment is actually changing yourself/something as opposed to just having correct beliefs, ..,,~~<*==:@;{{['R:E::A:L']}};@:==*>~~,,.. enlightenment is understanding that understanding in itself is worthless compared to actions and that one must put one's money where one's mouth is

Holy shit, it's becoming even more of a nothing by the post.

>>25645180
>>25645058
In other words, some brains are apparently susceptible to 'enlightenmentizing' stuff. They just need to have mini-Gods, mini-absolutes, mini-enlightenments; it tickles them, it pushes the right buttons apparently. They just need to have some pet something that is their absolute, their 'I has enlightenment', their shtick they can accuse others of not TRULY getting.

I never felt this need; I never had the desire to declare something 'TRUE enlightenment', 'TRUE understanding', only so to then go around and push into people's faces how they're not getting it.

Well, people have different tastes...

>>25645180
I define enlightenment as the dissolution of reality. That's it. Can you attack me directly instead of attempting to parrot me for once? Or do you have to rely on snideness to get by because otherwise you have nothing to say?

And like I said, I don't know if it's possible or how to do it.

>>25645272
>enlightenment as the dissolution of reality

Religion: sorry and funny at the same time.

You are making no sense. 'Enlightenment is dissolution of reality' makes no sense; it is a string of words that refers to nothing, like any other religious notion. It is too vague, it is intentionally unfalsifiable so your brain can safely continue to believe in it and repeat it at no danger of being proven wrong and consequently having to stop doing it.

>>25645244
(It is fun to remember that I would have absolutely zero chance of understanding this if I had ever 'meditated' -- because understanding it requires a modicum of introspection and self-awareness.)

>>25645324
>it is a string of words that refers to nothing
No it's really not, it's a string of words that is meant to convey what meaning I attach to the word "enlightenment". It's just semantics. What terminology would you be more comfortable with?

I think I get where you're going with this, how this turns into opinion-sparring and attaching universal labels to what are actually personal desires. You're right.

>it is intentionally unfalsifiable
What's unfalsifiable about it? How can I be proven wrong if enlightenment doesn't exist except as a word to attach meaning to in the first place? Unless you yourself see enlightenment as a universal concept, which would be hypocritical considering the fact that you are criticizing me for seeing it that way.

The notion that reality can be dissolved, if anything, is actually completely falsifiable. It just hasn't been falsified yet, if it can be.

>>25645528
Buddhist prattling.

>>25645558
Which is in fact one of the facets of their hypocrisy I hate most: that they spout endlessly about 'simplification', 'clarity', 'comprehension', while producing utter schizophrenic garbage all the same.

It's not evil, really; it's just not having a grasp on one's own brain.

>>25645605
(Well, it is to be expected -- every person in psychosis thinks they're making perfect sense. Just the way our mushy machines work.)

>>25645558
I'm not a buddhist ffs
And I literally just accepted that you're right, that picking and choosing universal truth (based on personal perceptions, which are not universal) and then arguing over that universal truth is illogical, because it's all just potentially imaginary goals.

Having an opinion and then attaching a word to it (enlightenment) that defines that opinion as "the truth" doesn't actually point to truth at all, you're creating an assumed equivalency that has the potential to be false.

I still want for reality to dissolve, in any case, though. But I will not make the mistake of referring to that desire as "enlightenment" in the future.

>>25645605
>Which is in fact one of the facets of their hypocrisy I hate most: that they spout endlessly about 'simplification', 'clarity', 'comprehension'
I didn't say anything about simplification and clarity.

>>25645847
And, more specifically, in order for "this is what complete understanding is like" to be a valid statement, you would have to have complete understanding (because how else would you know?) and be able to prove it.

So nobody can really say what complete understanding is like unless they're presumptuous enough to assume that they already have it. They can only guess as to what it -might- be like, but that guess cannot be accepted as truth.

>>25646114
If complete understanding is even possible, that is. By viewing your understanding as complete you're shutting out the alternative option (that it isn't), so it's paradoxical to ever assume that you have complete understanding because as soon as you do you're closing yourself off from actually having complete (or more complete) understanding.

>>25646229
Unless you can, of course, prove it somehow.