Did he 'Figure everything out'?

>>9457936
You can state the dhamma without the word truth. Truth is really a word used by normies to think they are good guys.

>stoicism but for meek asians

What if Stirner met the Buddha?

I think he'd call him a cuck

Him and Sam Harris

File: 55b9035844801a5e0db529816cdd0933.jpg (11KB, 236x187px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 236x187px

>>9457936
He found what he thought was truth.

>>9457985
what a nice frog, haha!

File: il_340x270.1202988505_gw6q.jpg (24KB, 340x270px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 340x270px

>>9457991
Thank you, thank you. I've been collecting the rarer pepes, and I have a couple art ones.

>>9457996
Having seen this for the first time, I can say it is my favorite Pepe image.

File: 998.png (1MB, 716x910px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 716x910px

>>9458003
Well I'm glad to have helped.

>>9457985
shut the fuck up relativist scum

File: 2ec.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>9458032
I find relativism a bit cunt-and-dry. Just saying, he thought it was true. Probably some cracked-up bullshit.

File: 1493331336383.png (2MB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x900px

Is this a rare Pepe thread?

File: 10216141.jpg (177KB, 500x598px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 500x598px

>>9458065
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?

>>9458230
>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

>>9458477
>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.

>>9458491
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

>>9458494
this
rationalists are unable to see how stupid they are to cling to their imagination

>>9457936

No, it complements it. Read Guenon.

>>9458477

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

[1] tip fedora if religion related.

>>9458494
>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.

>>9458569
>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.

>>9457936
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.

>>9457945
Some practices are similar to stoicism like self-control, but the philosophy behind doing them is very different.

>>9457936

You are very stupid.

>>9458578
ho shit you are the buddha hater from last time

>>9458578
>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?

>>9458587
>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

>>9458586
Damn right I am, and I wont be done until you're all driven into /x/ where you belong.

banana terracotta pie.

>>9458595
>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?

>>9458599
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.

>>9458587
>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.

>>9458599
>>9458605
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.

>>9458609
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.

File: 0769a2633931fea39d887e532afd3a4c.png (121KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 400x400px

>>9458614
>he doesn't understand quantum physics

>>9458612
>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.

>>9458616
Simple experiments can be automatically conducted and analyzed by a computer: are computers individuals.

>>9458626
*are computer individuals?

>>9458616
>he thinks he understands quantum mechanics

>>9458622
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

>>9458614
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?

>>9458612
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.

>>9458651
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.

>>9458643
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?

>>9458647
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

>>9458655
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.

>>9458643
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?

>>9458656
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.

>>9458626
>>9458631
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

>>9458668
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.

>>9458675
You say that as if its a simple thing to do

>>9458675
Which is why /sci/ understand the world better than /lit/.

>>9458682
>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.

>>9458668
>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.

>>9458686
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.

>>9458700
So why are you trying to argue about it?

>>9458700
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.

>>9458703
That its totally absurd to claim it does not exist much less that such a claim is popularly held whatsoever.

>>9458705
>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.

>>9458682
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.

>>9458696
Why do personal and objective realities have to be distinct if they only exist together?

>>9458700
>>9458706
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.

>>9458696
are you the undergrad watching popsci ?

>>9458718
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.

>>9458696
Stop, you're embarassing yourself

>he's actually trying to apply quantum-based pseudoscience in a debate about consciousness on 4chan

You're a walking clichè

>>9458710
>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 >>9458696 has pointed out. Nothing to me happens outside of me.

>>9458718
>You can't know nuffin!
Fuck off buddy

File: 1488839682566.png (194KB, 407x510px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 407x510px

>>9458723
>>9458719
>literally zero (zero) arguments

>>9458730
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.

>>9458730
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?

>>9458745
>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.

>>9458748
Who the fuck knows, it just is

>>9458748
It is the thing behind my eyeballs. Duh.

>>9458569
>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?.

>>9458754
>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.

File: theburningmonk.jpg (228KB, 1148x956px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 1148x956px

>>9457945
Can't believe I'm taking the bait but here. Not even asian.

>>9458762
That image always fucks me up.

>>9458762
He's on fucking FIRE. Burning to DEATH. Just sitting completely chill.

>>9458751
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.

>>9458769
>Existence itself is a verb

It's a noun, actually.

>>9458772
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.

>>9458759
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)

>>9458803
You make no sense man. English obviously isn't your first language. Do you think that self is ego? Because it is not.

>>9458803
I agree, but. They may not mean the same thing we do when we speak of 'self'. Ego death is a thing, too.

>>9458828
>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

>>9458826
>>9458828
you can enlighten me. what is the main difference between ego and self?.
>sorry for the english. i try my best.

>>9458826
Define Ego here for christ sake, are you speaking in Freudian terms or what

>>9458859
I was speaking in Freudian there yes.
>>9458853
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".

>>9458840
Ego death is real, but as you said only in unusual states.

>>9458963
Or you fart in the middle and get distracted or you have a completely different conclusion. This teleology of dialectic through ritual is pathetic

>>9458971
Delusionally believing your ego has died is not ego death. The only true ego death is dying

>>9458973
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.

>>9458853
>you can enlighten me. what is the main difference between ego and self?.
Ego is a program. You are the user.

>>9458977
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.

>>9458963
>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?.

>>9458997
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.

>>9459002
>Ego is a program. You are the user.
lmao, no

>>9458997
this was not me.

i am this >>9459013

>>9459011
>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.

File: sushi.jpg (103KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x533px

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.

>>9457936
Buddhism is filled with internal contradictions which should be apparent to anyone with even half a brain. There's a reason why it faced a period of decline.

The best part of neo-Buddhism is that people think they can choose what to follow and still be a Buddhist. Unfortunately, there's no two ways about it - you have to believe in karma and reincarnation if you're a Buddhist.

>>9459013
Because you are sorting your thoughts out at first. You try to categorize distractions from your breathing. For instance when suddenly you are thinking about making spaghetti for dinner instead of focusing on your breath you say "planning" and then go back to business. After you have done this a bit you notice what your thoughts are made of,and you realize you don't have control of them. You also realize there is not a time when there are no thoughts and no focusing. This is because you are the thoughts arising and the awareness of your breathing. You start to turn awareness on its self and realize that it is the things you are aware of not just an experiencer of ideas, memories, senses,etc.

There are also many states that you get to over time. Meditating after one year of doing it twice a day for an hour is not the same as your first time for five minutes. And those are not at all like after a few decades of practice.

>>9459036
No thats Vedic Wisdom which preceded Buddhism by millenia.
Buddhism is a stupid self help cult that was placed on top of it

>>9459048
Woah I think AND breathe?
Fucking mind blowing stuff here

>>9459036
That's from the Upanishads and has nothing to do with Buddhism.

Aham Brahmasmi - I am Brahman (the Infinite and Ultimate Reality)

>>9459016
>lmao, no
Denial, a defense. Another program.

>>9459016
Why do you assume it's mystic? This is the logical conclusion my materialism. My opinions are justified by experience that you can have. If you ever care to really learn why don't you try and meditate. I'm sure you won't bother to and it's unfortunate. This isn't some elitest club for intellectual giants. You need only have patience and a close perception of yourself.

>>9459030
You just don't get it friend. I wouldn't expect you to if you have not experienced it as it is obviously outside of your imagination.

>>9459069
>My opinions are justified by experience

Except they're not "justified" they're just fucking referred to. You don't have your opinions innately justified so you rely not only on referencing the experience from which you derived them like an evangelical christian much worse you rely on projecting your fantasy of where they're derived on the real "pros" of meditating who are seven level points ahead of you without having an idea of whats in their heads.

And I have "meditated" quite a number of times before after I was unwarrentedly prescribed it by a therapist. Its a little relax game that relies predominantly on placebo and nothing more, I promptly came to disregard it and rely on the far more reliable utility of substances.

>>9459082
Great then if you admit its outside intellectual discourse go to /x/ with the other whackos who all have their little pet favourite outside my imagination.

>>9459061
It's actually supposed to be relaxing but if thats what blows your mind I'll let you know something that will really set you off. Everyone every where is always doing this! Woah man hahahahah

>>9459048
ok, you make this to sort it out your thoughts.

but then you realize you can`t sort it out, and after that, miraculously, you realize you are your own awareness of your thoughts.

you are religious, man, like the Isis Islamic State full metal guys (without violence). dont try to cheat anybody, you dont make all this to "sorting out your thoughts". you have mystical visions surrounding you. at least is what i can make clear of your posts. dont be a coward with this.

>>9459104
Its the one thing they can never admit. They always want to have it both ways. The image they're got everything all analytically figured out as if they're secular philosophers while relying ultimately on pure faith like any other religion.
I have infinitely more respect for Christian philosophers in this regard as they actually admit and stand by their act of faith which is far braver.

>>9459104
How about we flip this game around. I have defended my points for a while and you guys have gotten tired and devolved into ad hominem. I have never even said I'm a Buddhist. I just believe in anatta because it makes sense. If you guys could convince me otherwise I would gladly pick up my metaphysical tent and pitch it in more solid ground.

I know this is 4chan but I figured you guys were at least serious about your philosophy on lit. I'm fine with fucking with each other but when you stop debating just to inject straw man fallacies into everything it gets old.

>>9459144
>How about we flip this game around.

How about fuck off. We were not the ones making any positive claims about reality for us to need to defend. But if I did I would justify such claims purely from reason and empirically displayable evidence not esoteric experience

>>9459120
>>9459104
yes normies fail to realize that the students first have faith in the doctrine and that the first step is precisely to lose this faith, this doubt, since the faith in an identity is broken and the lack of doubt is established.
THen a few other normies come around and since they always rely on imagination to spout out statements from their faith that their imagination connects them to reality, they wonder how there is knowledge through empiricism.

>>9459083
heh, not him, but you sound like a frigid high school science teacher

>>9459083
Confident to say you just suck at meditating

File: 1476756727057.jpg (24KB, 199x242px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 199x242px

>>9459154
>We were not the ones making any positive claims about reality for us to need to defend.
Who says a positive claim needs to be defended? Or is it some spook you learnt at some university after much critical thinking?

>>9459165
Yeah maybe I am but thats life.

>>9459166
>You just need to try it
>But I did and it didn't work
>Just need to try harder brah!

Yeah I know how this game works

>>9459170
No you just legitimately suck at it. I know that game too.

>>9459170
and yet you are still here being butthurt

>>9459144
i always make "the strawn man" fallacy. i questioning to you like a person.

anyway im not tired. it´s a clear attack because sometimes people need a direct attack. you really believe you meditate (or whatever you do) because you want to sort it out your thoughts?. with that absolute coldness like an analytic tool?. or is because what you find inside is something grandiose?.
i wait to your sincere response.

>>9459179
I meditated to train my focus, will and attention span. It also helped me quit smoking and get me through tough times. It also occasionally gives me feelings which can only be discribed with unpopular buzzwords.

I don't necessarily do it to sort out my thoughts with the intention of ordering my mind. That is not the point. The point is to be aware of the contents of your thoughts. Another form of similar meditation has you walk while saying all of your movements in your head. "Left foot right foot....". It is to make you more present and dare I say "mindful". In the moment.

File: 1463183573372.jpg (33KB, 670x879px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 670x879px

>>9459216
>mindful

>>9459154
How about you fuck off. You are claiming that there is an independent experiencer of experience. That there is an I without anything that could make up an I. Have you heard of Hume? Ever read about bundle theory? What is your essential nature that causes you to be you? Is it your brain? What if I copy your brain and put it in a robot? Is that you too? You are claiming that there is a single thing that defines you yet you fail to describe it.

>>9459043
>you have to believe in karma and reincarnation if you're a Buddhist.
You have to believe in a whole lot more than just that.

>>9459216
ok. as long as you dont think you are spiritually "superior" while making this, im ok. i hope it help you.
i think you can attain this from various forms and resources, but anyway, this is the yours.

>>9459236
Literally never claimed any of that buddy, only that there is an experiencer

>>9459236
>You are claiming that there is an independent experiencer of experience.
Yeah, but nobody is claiming the opposite, so we take it as granted.

>>9459242
>ok. as long as you dont think you are spiritually "superior" while making this, im ok.

Oh my, i guess we should be careful

>>9459256
its not because it hurts me. its because is the main reason (the feeling of spiritual entlitement) why the religions are religions and closing circles and i want the people to be open.

>>9459104

Anon 1
>sit down, focus on your thought
>after years of profound, potentially materialistic-only self-analysis you reach the conclusion that there is no self
>no religion is required to make this statement, although it is certainly compatible with some of them

Anon 2
>thinks there is a soul because greek and judeo-christian philosophers thought so
>when you ask for proofs they say it's self-evident
>they've actually never analyzed their thought
>this statement makes sense if you're religious, if you're not you're just contraddicting your worldview

You guys are the mystics here. Keep believing in your "soul" and your "self", and more in general, with traditional, Western illusion.
Just admit that you're the mystic here.

>>9459168
>saying that there is no self is a positive claim

what did he mean by this

>>9459243
Then we aren't even in the same argument. Obviously you exist. Or else who the fuck am I talking to.
>>9459247
I am claiming the opposite. My claim: there is no experiencer of the experience as district from the experience. His body exists, his mind exists, his ideas exist, but his self that he speaks of as separate is another idea. Ideas are tools and exist as abstractions for diverse purposes. "I" is an abstraction that allows me to say what is going on because people can only understand through comparison. Since without "I" everything would be one, this would make communication really tough. So it is made to separate a cosmos that has no personal agents.

>>9459283
i dont believe in soul, i dont believe in the self. i dont believe in no self. i dont believe in whatever notion you have when you meditate.

>>9459302
The notion one gets from meditation is a skeptical one, not a positive one.
Observe the inner working of your mind for long enough and you'll have no reason to believe in these concepts anymore, which are inherently mystic.

>my terminology is the best
>no, my description of this immaterial idea is superior

Religion and philosophy were mistakes.

>>9459302
NIHILISM IS NOT THE ANSWER MY FRIEND!

>>9459310
And in the end, all that matters are the end results.

>>9459310
Your right we should just run around like dogs with no morality or ideals doing whatever disgusting atrocities float through our heads for no reason.

The only mistake is being wrong.

>>9459302
>willful ignorance

Western yuppies have ruined it, isn't it?
I mean, among all the stupid trends in existence, why is meditation the one that is more disparaged on this thread? It's probably the healthies thing you can do by yourself, and even if you don't want to attach any belief to it, the phisiological benefits will be evident in a couple of weeks.

By being a contrarian about meditation you're ruining your life. Enjoy your lower, less aware, more scatterbrained state of existence.

>>9457936
>it all
Ok, then why don't they explain what "it" is? Can't explain it? Well, then they haven't figured it out.

>>9459326
>and even if you don't want to attach any belief to it
do this, and you see the void is at your back.
you need the belief, althoug in a subtle manner.

>>9459338
Meditation and yoga is perfectly compatible with secularism, and many sects and religions have approsched this mindset.

In contemporary times, here in the West, there is a large number of people doing mindful meditation and yoga while mantaining their atheistic beliefs.

>>9459291
>I am claiming the opposite. My claim: there is no experiencer of the experience as district from the experience.
Then you are not. Take some psychedelics.

>>9459349
Meditation and yoga are inherently religious in a symbolic way, at least.

maybe in a Little hundred years i believe this people dont have a Little aspect of subtle religious manierisms when they meditate.

>>9458230

>heideggerfag

Please go. Day of the demise when?

>>9458578

>"the mind doesn't exist it's just metaphysical horseshit!"

>gets tortured by his own mind throughout his lifespan

lol all Buddha ever did was do proto-psychology within the context of the Hindu understanding of nature that's materialistic enough to be compatible with Western thought.

daoism is the only good eastern shit, buddhist mindfulness crap about being hyper self-conscious is fucking retarded shit, the greatest peace you can experience in life to is be a westerner in a "flow state" working on some shit for your business, wandering around thinking about your breathing and trying not to step on ants is queer shit for and by third world shit holes

>>9459394
>proto-psychology
so the actual psychology fixed the tortured mind better tan this proto-psychology?.

>>9459369
How is that not the opposite?

Trust me I have seen some shit.

He likely had a schizophrenic/psychotic break.

Usually these are bad and lead to negative thoughts/feelings but sometimes they can lead to happiness and positive feelings.

Back in the day people didn't know how to understand schizophrenic breaks and interpreted them as spiritual/religious experiences.

>>9459420
I would believe it. I had one and thought a lot of the same stuff. I remember walking through a dollar general having my mind blown by the deep meaning of the 1 signs everywhere.

>>9459420
yes people who believe in psychology love to analyse anything through their little science.

>>9459283
Who the fuck ever mentioned souls retard

>>9458230
How is this achieved? Meditation? Could you elaborate please?

>>9459418
The 'I' is the one that changes and the one that remains. To say that it is merely the experience itself is foolish. It's an argument for the minimal necessary existence. In a world of expanding knowledge, not the safe bet.

>>9459443
Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’ It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous.

“For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.

“For one who is joyful no volition need be exerted: ‘Let rapture arise in me.’ It is natural that rapture arises in one who is joyful.

“For one with a rapturous mind no volition need be exerted: ‘Let my body be tranquil.’ It is natural that the body of one with a rapturous mind is tranquil.

“For one tranquil in body no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me feel pleasure.’ It is natural that one tranquil in body feels pleasure.

“For one feeling pleasure no volition need be exerted: ‘Let my mind be concentrated.’ It is natural that the mind of one feeling pleasure is concentrated.

“For one who is concentrated no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me know and see things as they really are.’ It is natural that one who is concentrated knows and sees things as they really are.

“For one who knows and sees things as they really are no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me be disenchanted and dispassionate.’ It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate.

“For one who is disenchanted and dispassionate no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me realize the knowledge and vision of liberation.’ It is natural that one who is disenchanted and dispassionate realizes the knowledge and vision of liberation.
Well, stream-entry is seeing sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, "all conditioned phenomena are impermanent," sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā, "all conditioned phenomena are suffering," and sabbe dhammā anattā, "all things are void of self." What you are seeing is a universal condition, not just what relates to you personally. To gain such universal insight you start with yourself, then contemplate others, and finally make the inferential breakthrough that this refers to everyone. Ajjhattabahiddhā, "internal and external," seems to imply such a universalisation.

>>9459326
>It's probably the healthies thing you can do by yourself,

Define healthy and why it is desirable

>>9459439
>people who believe in accountability of claims and evidence love utilizing a legitimate system of knowledge over random prodding

Don't even respect psychology but you're dumb

>>9459447
Well okay it is not the experience itself. I like to say the experience-er-ing. But the point is that there is not 2.

>>9459291
> "I" is an abstraction that allows me to say what is going on because people can only understand through comparison. Since without "I" everything would be one, this would make communication really tough. So it is made to separate a cosmos that has no personal agents.

Bullshit. If there was no distinction there would be no need to communicate such a distinction. The reason why it would be so hard to communicate otherwise is because you are an eternally isolated, consistent subject for which your only means of orientating yourself in existence within even your own thoughts is through identity. There is no separating experience, mind and embodiment without the I

>>9459404

No because clinical psychology fixes dysfunctions that are physiological in origin, like schizophrenia (bad genes, bad neurotransmitter networks, etc.) while Buddha's proto-psychology was more interested in fixing the natural defects built into human cognition, i.e., how we suffer and how to come out of it. Two different approaches with two different scopes.

>>9459016
>lmao, no
>because i say so!

>>9459536
Dumb proposal gets its deserved response

>>9459236
>You are claiming that there is an independent experiencer of experience.
Maybe
>That there is an I without anything that could make up an I.
No, they don't say it's an 'I'

>>9459543
>Dumb proposal
>Because I say so! It seems like that to me!

>>9459518
You get me wrong. By there is only one I mean there is only one doing-er-ness. Like a cat has a tail and paws but we call them together because they are part of the same deliberate volition.

I'm not saying everything is the same quality and essence. Look around you. Who would assert that?

The trick is it is not the only means. I come from life, life lives through itself through me and then my body dies with my awareness. I can still use I as a tool regardless of how true it is.

>>9459544
What, is it an "x"?

>>9459608
I don't think it's been figured out yet.'Consciousness', but even the definition of that is not set in stone, and as far as I know ( I may have outdated/false information about this), neuroscientist haven't figured out what part of the brain that comes from. I could be talking bullshit, but it's how I see it. I'm a new poster in this thread btw

>>9459529
>fixes dysfunctions that are physiological in origin
the depression make the thought?, or the thoughts make the depression?.
anybody can respond to this.
>except the psychiatrists, obviously. they say the depression is first.

THIS IS SCIENCE MAN

>>9458473
All of them. That's why he achieved the nirvana.

>>9458477
It's way beyond that. Check Alan Watts.

>>9457945
This mostly. It's ok to eat animals in stoicism.
Also epicureism to some extent.
Starting from different points but getting to the same place.

>>9457936
> the 'ultimate truths' about reality
Nah. That's for scientists. More like truth about how to be happy.

>>9457936
>subvert a couple millenia of Western thinking
That's the most pretentious thing I've heard in my life.

>>9458494
>the ability to input metaphysical insights that are otherwise unexpressible in philosophic discourse is both anti-intellectual and Scientology tier disingenuous
Are you part of some cult in which everything can be put rationally in words or else it's meaningless?

>>9458595
>To myself yes, its literally the only things I can be sure of. Whether there is such a thing as a "soul" is irrelevant
You sleep and, in dreaming, lose your rationality and ability to discriminate reality from irreality, and all "control over yourself" you typically see yourself as having. Where has your self gone?

You are entirely unconscious -- where does your self go?

You are intoxicated on drugs or drink such that you begin to perceive, think, and feel entirely differently, even losing control over yourself. Where has yourself gone?

Science says that the molecules in us are constantly being destroyed and replaced, such that, in a short enough span of time (a month or so, or a few months) every molecule in our body is different from what it was before. How does the self remain in this?

You decide to do something of great import, and cannot carry it out even though initially you very much wanted to. You rationalize it away, saying it's not worth to do it or that you did enough. What happened to the self who had such a great desire to do it?

You want to remember something, but you forget very easily. And you constantly forget, and most of all you forget yourself, doing many thinks unconsciously and automatically, without all of the knowledge and emotions accessible to you taking place in it.

Not even being mystical, even the positivists at the forefront of modern neuroscience agree that what we think of as the "self" is a constantly changing illusion. You're the one who's trapped in mysticism here.

As Heraclitus says, one cannot step into the same river twice.

File: nagarjuna_640x480_51427208972.jpg (89KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 640x480px

>yfw this beautiful man was right about literally everything

>>9457936
No it's all a bunch of BS designed to get you to think more, even inadvertently so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyLbU1GGqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwGjkuFW0cY

I'm not sure but from my experiences with meditation, reflecting on equanimity, selflessness and kindess I think it possible and if not all it's cracked up to be still a worthy and noble goal. You find many of the things he said paraphrased by a lot of deep thinkers throughout history, I think they just missed the meditation part. The important things to remember are that no matter how he tried he could not share his wisdom, only leave breadcrumbs and what he did find he found simply from contemplating the world and meditation. I fully believe that the Buddhist faith as it became was never his intention and that much of it has been damaged by egos and history. As other anons have said you find it from learning to look within yourself and be mentally still. There is far too much and varied doctrine. Much of the mythology has been made by other people and often only causes further delusion.
As far as I know I don't believe any of the paranormal that's been ascribed to Buddhism, karma is simply a system of describing how positive actions and negative actions unfold through time and space it is not the notion of some cosmic scoreboard, I believe in considering rebirth as a system of thought not a fact but if there is such a thing (it could be argued that life/consciousness is a force of nature like any other) that our consciousness leaves our body it eventually comes to a suitable vessel it will fill it. A calm soul would simply not participate in the case of nirvana or wait for something better than a fearful, grasping one. Consider the way gravity acts on mass. If there is mass there is gravity regardless of the size or origin of the mass it has gravity. A massless particle would be unburdened by it while the more mass/desire your soul has the more readily it would act in a gravitational field/sansara.

Meditation and self control are good skills to practice regardless.

>>9459170
>>>You just need to try it
>>But I did and it didn't work
>>Just need to try harder brah!
if you applied this to any result of your action following a desire, you would not be as much cringey as you are right now. The best part is that you think you are rational.

>>9459459
You show a lot of critical thinking on epistemology. good job undergrad.

>>9462234
>when a college dropout uses undergrad as an insult

>>9461034
>You sleep and, in dreaming, lose your rationality and ability to discriminate reality from irreality, and all "control over yourself" you typically see yourself as having. Where has your self gone?
>You are entirely unconscious -- where does your self go?
>You are intoxicated on drugs or drink such that you begin to perceive, think, and feel entirely differently, even losing control over yourself. Where has yourself gone?

Right there experiencing it all you retard. What point do you imagine yourself making here

>>9461017
>Are you part of some cult in which everything can be put rationally in words or else it's meaningless?

As opposed to what. Letting yourself believe in anything because it makes you feel good? Vague notions held through intuitive reasoning is perfectly legitimate to explore but to assert with any sort of confidence is ridiculous

>>9458609
>Quantum mechanics relies on the observer

You wanna know how I can tell you're a charlatan?