Are Buddhists delusional?

They believe in a complex reincarnation system based on your actions but they don't believe in a designer who created this system in the first place. It's like believing GTA V just appeared out of nowhere in a person's computer, there are no developers who actually developed it.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    its the great fractal serpent

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's more like believing that a giant nuclear ball of fire in the center of the solar system existed without a creator. I would say most people think this is easily possible without a divine creator.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Then most people are fricking moronic
      Surprise surprise
      Nothing can happen without intelligent living force behind it. Just you find me an example of something happening of its own... and ill tell you that is proof of a superior power

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Do you think God has to exist for fire to exist? That God has to create the flame every time I light a lighter? What about for photons to exist? Does God have to manually create the light that gets produced by my led keyboard? Both of these processes have extremely complicated physics that run without a computer or God manually crunching the numbers.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who made the lighter and the keyboard? A creator. Who wrote 750MB of data in your DNA? Who compiled it? Who created a storage medium for it? Who put all that data on the storage medium? We can't even do that. Which means a creator much smarter and more powerful than us must exist.

          In B4, random atoms clinking together in a mud puddle. Put 2 million 26 sided dice, each side with a letter of the alphabet on it, in a giant shaker cup. Pour them out on the ground and see how many trillions of years it would take you to write War And Peace. There is enough storage space on your DNA to hold 400 copies of War and Peace. So don't bother to give me any atheist bullshit. Atheism hasn't been on the table for discussion in decades.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >who made the lighter and keyboard
            moronic take. I could take some flint and make a fire though it would be hard as shit. You think there is a little man in your keyboard making the light itself every time? Do you think they programmed light physics?
            >it's impossible to write a book with dice
            It's hard to write a very specific book in one roll of the dice. However it's very easy to make a word out of randomly rolled dice. It's actually the basis of a lot of word games like boggle.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's 3 letters. Try it with 750MB of letters, before the puddle dries, or freezes, or gets flooded away. The odds on life starting in a puddle is infinitely longer than the odds a god exists. I bet there aren't enough zeros in the history of the world to express how long the odds are. The odds of taking a shuffled deck of cards, and shuffling them back into the order they came in when the deck was new, is so long it has never been done in all the history of card playing. And the odds say it is so close to an impossibility, it never will be done. That's just 52 cards randomly assembling themselves into an intelligent order. It has never happened, and it never will happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Atheists ignoring combinational inflation
            Many such cases, same smoothbrain morons think Sheep-relatives can become Whales in 5 million years because Darwin noticed some species of Finch have phenotypical plasticity. The statistical realities of random gene mutation completely btfo macroevolutionary hypotheses, yet atheists cling to this untested conjecture like an alternative religion (because it is).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is your alternative to evolution?
            If it's some combination of "magic sky man made it happen because he just got bored or something, I don't know he just did ok!" then I think I'll stick with evolution until something a bit better comes along.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Everything coming from nothing or life coming from the non-living is 1000x more nonsensical and ridiculous than even the most fantastical, magical alternative theory you can conjure from your imagination.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So rather than "Something came from nothing" you added the extra steps of "God came from nothing and created something out of nothing".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's literally your preposition but with less steps, moran.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nothing -> something
            nah, nonsense.
            >nothing -> ..God -> something
            wow!! I'm SOLD!

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >coming from
            But the theory of evolution says NOTHING about where life came from.
            Not one single thing.
            Theory of Evolution is 100% about what happens after life is already here.
            It seems like you dont know what you are arguing against.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there are creationists on /x/ right now
            Absolutely embarrassing

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not necessarily. You could come up with a theory of evolution that requires only that consciousness influence matter, and then that a certain complexity of organisational systems give rise to consciousness. As random events generate complex enough systems with a certain level of awareness (as basic as that could be) you can then expect those systems to “think” their way towards more complexity. In this way, you don’t necessarily need god to create man, you just need a worm hoping to become a rat, a rat hoping to become an ape, an ape hoping to become a man.

            Obviously this is a super moronic simplification, but I believe evolution is not just randomly rolling the dice, but instead it is somewhat directed by the mental constructs of the entities that are doing the evolving.

            But that’s just my theory

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, you fricking moron
          "Mayādhyakshena prakriti suyate sa charācharam" God says. He doesn't get directly involved, actually. Mother nature operates this world on His behalf
          Or, like you fricking morons say, uh, muh simulation

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Do you think God has to exist for fire to exist?
          Yes.
          >That God has to create the flame every time I light a lighter?
          Anon, are you being disingenuous on purpose?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If nothing can exist without an intelligent creator then who created our creator? Is it just turtles all the way down?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >only life can beget life
        >something can only come from something else, never nothing

        These are the two immutable facts of nature, yet atheists genuinely think they have "science" on their side saying there is no God or intelligent design.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not a heisenberg quote
          gb2/pol/

      • 4 weeks ago
        Dave

        >Nothing can happen without intelligent living force behind it.

        lol dumb christcuck strikes again...

      • 4 weeks ago
        The Forsaken

        You are the 365th moron repeating this low cognitive effort argument that the universe came into being because "muh complexity" not knowing that the notion of order/chaos is completely arbitrary. There is not a single ounce of logic reasoning in your mindless christisraelite Black person parroting.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If it was a chaotic system, then sure. But it follows clear laws, patterns, and numerical values. This world is very akin to a sim created by a higher power.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you can't break the system because it has clear rules and laws
        I dunno man. You see things because photons bounce off of a surface and go into your eyes. You can argue that that proves God exists but then you need to explain why people can be born blind or why mirages exist or why drugs cause visual hallucinations.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >then you need to explain why people can be born blind or why mirages exist or why drugs cause visual hallucinations
          Nope, don't need to explain any of that. Study the world sufficiently and you will notice clear patterns in the underlying engine of the universe. Thinking about the small things like you do is looking at the tree instead of the forest.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >don't need to explain any of that
            So who did God make it for? Why did God make things like black holes? Why did God invent random diseases that humans can't even catch?
            >there are clear patterns
            There is also clear chaos and randomness. For every Earth there are dozens if not thousands of other planets that don't have solid surfaces or living life. Was God just a failure when he created these? Why create a moon at all? Why do other planets have more than one moon? Why doesn't the Earth have more than one?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >small things
            inconsistencies on the most important of only five senses of the most advanced creature in existence is a small thing?

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes
    Budhism was defeated already by Adi Shankaracarya, five hundred years before Christ
    Even Buddha himself, admitted his movement was finished, the moment he initiated his wife and kid as monks
    Right about women, though

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Budhism was defeated already by Adi Shankaracarya
      Who was only a halfmeasure to get people on board, priming them for the full understanding of Madhvacarya.
      Isnt it weird how people hold onto old philosophies even after they have been defeated and improved upon?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I know that. And Madhva and Ramanuja paved the way for Shri Krishna Caitanya. I'm just leaving breadcrumbs here, people don't want the whole enchilada

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          And will you accept when the one whom Chaitanya paved the way for gives you a better understanding than him?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus is Lucifer

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/OSSBMo6.jpg

            I know that. And Madhva and Ramanuja paved the way for Shri Krishna Caitanya. I'm just leaving breadcrumbs here, people don't want the whole enchilada

            >people don't want the whole enchilada

            Enchilada por favor.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      thats not what buddhism thinks of women that is a meme. buddha didnt want women in the early grou[p because it was a group of moronic men. he waiited for the women to have their own group then welcomed them totaly but not in the men grou;p

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Lies

        Ok.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love roastie memes

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what the hell are you babbling about?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >but they don't believe in a designer who created this system in the first place
    Wrong. They don't care, because it doesn't concern escaping the cycle.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Haha, well noted. Yeah, we need a demiurge or brahmah-urge in there. Wouldn't that just be shiva, brahma or whatever? Also what other posters said, whether it exists is just another thing they'd be vague about on purpose cuz

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I feel like you might be an Abhijeet

  5. 4 weeks ago
    BlueBoy

    Yoga has no religion. Buddhism is a data set to me, not a narrative.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Yoga has no religion.
      The word literally means to reconnect with the divine. Religion and yoga have the same meaning.
      >buddhists dont even know what they are practicing

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What would anybody expect of some soulless rat eater trying to make sense of his existence? Of course anything he comes up with is not going to make any sense. Ancestor worship, nature worship, monkey worship, no Asian ever came up a theory on existence that made even the tiniest bit of sense. The smart ones don't bother with any of it.

    • 4 weeks ago
      BlueBoy

      Because South East Asia was consumed by feudalism and assassination be it of character or the actual person - of anyone they deemed a threat, so whenever someone figured out something worth keeping hush hush, that's exactly what he did.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Advaita Vedanta.
    There is only you. This entire thing is all about you. You are in this vast empty universe by your own choice, your oneness shattered into a billion billion billion pieces that seek to flee from one another rather than embrace their unity. You're in some distant corner of your oneness, hiding in a microscopic crack of some speck of dirt on the underside of a pebble hidden in a massive desert. You did this, you came here, you kept running and running until you were born here just a few decades ago. You've become comfortable here and until now have never thought about going back.

    You fear death because deep down you fear returning to whatever drove you here in the first place. This entire visible universe is just a mote of dust compared to the scale of your true being. You know this is true, but admitting it means leaving the womb of human life. It's too damn fun here (most of the time). By being small, these natural forces you've imagined almost stand a chance against you, it's finally a challenge.

    Everything is just fine this way, just know that this isn't all there is. "God" as you think of it is just some fleeting concept that flashed before your mind, it's an impetus of motive that draws you nearer to the truth. That emanation, the vision of God, is a message from beyond this mundane sphere that beckons you to finally come home. It's the exit sign in the corner of the room that lets you know that whatever happens here on Earth, there's always a safe way out. Don't despair! Have fun! Be "whole"some!

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They believe in a complex reincarnation system based on your actions
    You are thinking of hindus. Buddhist don't really think your actions have much to do with your reincarnation unless of course you are spiritually aware enough to change that after you die. Also the whole idea of Buddhism is to not play the game to the point that when you die you choose to fade into nothingness instead of reincarnating. Maybe learn a little bit about a religion before you go shitting on it.
    >but they don't believe in a designer who created this system in the first place
    They literally do, but they just don't give a shit about it whatsoever. The true nature of divinity is unknowable so why waste your time?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhism is apparently a religion for atheists.
      A philosophy will no doubt come to some weird conclusions if they are missing foundational parts, like the existence of God and the soul and the self.

      >the whole idea of Buddhism is to not play the game to the point that when you die you choose to fade into nothingness instead of reincarnating.
      Why so depressing?
      Is the suffering of 1 unit of pain so bad that you would rather have a nice day than to experience the joy of 10 units of pleasure?
      Go be a potato somewhere else.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well they did believe in a creator god/demiurge figure like Brahma and even honored him.

    The Buddhists are deluded though but about a different topic, namely anatta/anatman. The Buddha used the term to describe the khandas but later Buddhists mistakenly thought this meant a denial of a transcendent self or the atman of Vedanta. This lead to all sorts of silly theories to try to explain their system of karma, transmigration, and liberation but without anyone who is actually liberated etc.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well the brahmas are treated as great beings, Mahabrahma is considered a deluded god who thinks he is a creator. When this world-system began to populate, Mahabrahma was the first being to arise. He desired for other beings to arise because he was lonely, and when that happened, he believed (falsely) that he willed them into existence. In reality he and all other beings arose there due to their past karma.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brahma in Buddhism is not the Brahma in Smarta Hinduism. Brahma in Buddhism has elements of the Pre-Vedic Brahma. Technically, there are multiple Brahamas in Buddhism. The main one talked about is Sahāṃpati. Mahabrahma is another one, who is noted for being very deluded. All orthodox Buddhists share a view of a denial of substantial and essential self.

      https://i.imgur.com/T0gV7ar.png

      Buddhism is apparently a religion for atheists.
      A philosophy will no doubt come to some weird conclusions if they are missing foundational parts, like the existence of God and the soul and the self.

      >the whole idea of Buddhism is to not play the game to the point that when you die you choose to fade into nothingness instead of reincarnating.
      Why so depressing?
      Is the suffering of 1 unit of pain so bad that you would rather have a nice day than to experience the joy of 10 units of pleasure?
      Go be a potato somewhere else.

      It is best thought of as a non-theistic religion. There is no classical creator God but there are powerful beings, they however are contingent and will one day die even if takes a lot of time.

      buddhists : there is no soul!
      also buddhists: we believe in ghosts.

      To be fair, ghosts as we think of them are just another type of create produced by causes and conditions. All elements of Buddhist religion connect to the principle of dependent origination.

      Buddhists: there is no self
      Also Buddhists: YOU need to do XYZ so YOU can escape samsara

      Buddhists deny that you have any eternal and unchanging substantial essence that is you. They can talk in conventional terms. In analytic philosophy, we would say they allow for a nominal essence. A label basically.

      This is really interesting. Would it be fair to say that nirvana is close to The One in platonism?

      Nirvana is being unconditioned and no longer bound by dependent origination. It is the cessation of dukkha in all its forms. Not just mental and physical suffering.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yall will never become enlightened bickering on a backrooms intelligence operation. 🙂

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhists acknowledge the existence of Gods but they think they’re all fricking lame drama queens so they literally just ignore them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Is that why the Buddha taught devanussati, contemplation of the gods? Or how about the brahmaviharas, the abiding of Brahma? Why does he bother to mention that advanced buddhists like sotapannas and anagamis will be born among the gods? The devas and brahmas are not liberated, it's true, but the Buddha didn't take such a black-and-white view. The path is like a great stairway on a mountain, each step is higher than the last, but just because it culminates in a summit doesn't mean the whole length of the path is worthless.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Very lame

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but they think they’re all fricking lame drama queens so they literally just ignore them.
        That's a mischaracterization, I'm pretty sure.
        Here are some suttas with devas in them:
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.010.piya.html
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.009.piya.html
        https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_71.html

        Devas aren’t gods. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah they are. They don't what nit-picking definitions and terminologies and opinions we mortals use.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No they're really not. They're closer to western conceptions of angels or other primordial spirits like the Maiar from lord of the rings lore than what is found in any western religion/mythology.

            I don't think anyone would consider Gandalf to be a god for example.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >but they think they’re all fricking lame drama queens so they literally just ignore them.
      That's a mischaracterization, I'm pretty sure.
      Here are some suttas with devas in them:
      https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.010.piya.html
      https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.009.piya.html
      https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_71.html

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        devas are technically a bit different from gods we think about when we talk about gods in west
        they're higher than humans but not infallible beings, they're pretty much like ascended or aliens

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Inversion

    They believe we are our own creators of the universe and since we are an illusion the universe is an illusion, the reality is an egregore, a trap made by our collecting illusion, self experiencing itself : a torus. The day you realize it, it's the day you disappear yourself from this existence.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Inversion

      The torus is the Samsara.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >self experiencing itself: a torus.
      You either got really lucky and guessed right via schizo intuition, or read the writings of someone advanced. Although its possible you saw it for yourself (probably on on DMT or something, cause no one masters anything anymore, the problem with DMT/LSD etc is you need that shit every time you want to go deep, and you could go crazy, while Jhanas are on demand anywhere anytime with no risks)

      The torus is the Samsara.

      The torus is the Samsara.
      Sort of. You see a Torus(visualized no-self) when entering one of the three doors (via the Vipassna nanas).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        poo in loo or poo worshipper stop eating poo curry stop picking and licking cow anus

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Damn Indians and their lack of hygienie

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ok this video game analogy is irrefutable RIP buddhism

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    u guise are retared./
    the only 'belief' buddism holds is the rejection of the absolute.
    To my knowledge buddism doesnt say anything about how the universe was created or about any of this. Even remember reading how Budda was saying how he just doesnt know.
    It's mostly agnostic; teaching only what they know for a fact, and how to get to budda levels.

    >To my knowledge
    I've read some buddism books and they were guides how to practice and exercise.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Inversion

      > and how to get to budda levels.
      No budda didn't dissolve himself into a rainbow of light when he achieved enlightenment. That means they know more than buddha or nirvana state. If you can dissolve the mater through the power of the will, that means there is more way more.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there are literaly buddism schools that aim for the union with God as the path for

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the worst argument that you could possibly give to counteract buddhism is theism, utterly pathetic

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >death of ego
    >just stop wanting things dude
    >in itself wants something described as being the death of ego
    I want something, and that something, is to not want anything. Which is wanting something.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The existence of creator doesn't matter

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I see the story of Buddha leaving his palace and seeing the suffering in the world as being a similar story to how Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden. It's a fall from grace and understanding that we have been cast from a divine state into a world of sin. Yet in that knowledge, there is the chance for redemption.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    buddhists : there is no soul!
    also buddhists: we believe in ghosts.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you: a moron
      also you: posting moronic shit

      i think u might be confused about the buddist take on souls and spirits

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Almost like the Western soul and the Vedantic atmān aren't exact equivalents, huh.
      The meaning of anattā is not that there's no invisible beings (petas and devas) or that you have no consciousness (citta), it's just the claim that these things have no absolute, independent reality—rather they are all dependently originated. It's really more of a technical phenomenological claim than anything else.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        NTA
        The differences between the two arent relevant to the Buddhist rejection of both.
        But you are right that Eastern concepts have ghosts not being a leftover atma. Or rather in Hinduism it is a body an atma can inhabit.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhists: there is no self
      Also Buddhists: YOU need to do XYZ so YOU can escape samsara

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Buddhism doesn't deny a self, Buddha says denying a self is wrong view

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          where does the buddha say this? no-self is a tenet of Zen meditation.

          Diamond Sutra:
          >The Buddha told Subhåti, “a good man, or good woman, who has resolved his heart on Anuttarasaüyaksaübodhi should think thus: ‘I should take all living beings across to extinction, yet when all living beings have been taken across to extinction, there actually is not a single living being who has been taken across to extinction.’ And why? Subhåti, if a Bodhisattva has a mark of self, a mark of others, a mark of living beings, or a mark of a life, then he is not a Bodhisattva. For what reason? Subhåti, actually there is no dharma of resolving the heart on Anuttarasaüyaksaübodhi.

          700 line Prajnaparamita sutra:
          >The Lord: "Reality-limit", Manjusri, of what is that a synonym?

          >Manjusri: It is a synonym of individuality (satkaya). (214)

          >The Lord: In what hidden sense do you say that?

          >Manjusri: Nonexistent (asat), O Lord, is that body (kayo), not a true individual body (satkayo). It neither transmigrates nor does it fail to do so. That is why that body is not a true individual body (asatkaya).

          >Saradvatiputra: Destined for enlightenment, O Lord, will be those Bodhisattvas (215) who, on hearing this exposition of perfect wisdom, will believe, will not tremble, be frightened or terrified.

          >Maitreya: Quite near to enlightenment, O Lord, will be those Bodhisattvas, who, on hearing this exposition of perfect wisdom, will believe, will not tremble, be frightened or terrified. And why? Because the supreme enlightenment is nothing but the full understanding of these dharmas.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Only one western monastic, not a scholar monastic as a way says that.

          Basically, the Buddhist view OP is that karma is a feature of causation. It is like gravity. It is a brute fact of reality conventionally speaking.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is an extremely technical religion and if you aren't going to bother to learn about its complexities then don't bother to critique it, rather just ignore it. Honestly most of the philosophy is not made to make sense for lay people and only makes sense after you're familiar with much of it. This life is a dream within your own consciousness, to the point where the human part of you is also entirely an illusion while the awareness of the consciousness is what you may think of as "god"

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Considering there are much simpler processes with the same results, it isnt much use for anyone.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No I don't think so.
    This is my interpretation of the Buddha, so far.
    In every story of the Buddha talking to a disciple or a student, they ask him a question, and he generally answers with another question, then does not follow up with an answer. The student or disciple usually answers the question he asks themselves, and then he gives a non commital response, neither confirming nor denying they are right.
    Then he closes his eyes and goes back to meditating.
    I think that what the Buddha understood was this: if you're asking questions at all, the you need an answer. But if you aren't asking questions, then you don't need any answers.
    I think that's the heart of Buddhism, and why many Buddhists sound silly when they speak about it.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >my limited knowledge and ability to make comparisons means I need to compare a centuries old religions creation to a modern video game in order o make a design point
    Oh lmao. The quality of /x/

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh look an armchairing thread that's devolving into endless, pointless discussion.

    >why do people follow and practice buddhism
    Because it has solid frameworks that provide clear experiential hallmarks for one's development in all aspects of life. And more importantly, gives everyone easy access to direct spiritual and psychic phenomena, something that's typically only seen in monastic grifters in abrahamic religions.

    As a practical person who doesn't care about 2500yo gossip, why would i choose an abrahamic practical framework when the buddhist one is delivering many times more efficiently?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why would i choose an abrahamic practical framework when the buddhist one is delivering many times more efficiently?
      Why not choose something more modern that is more efficient? How do you determine efficiency when the goals are completely different? Everything you offer can be had better than trying to get into something as outdated and loaded down with pointless historical baggage than Buddhism.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What historical baggage, you don't need to know anything about buddhist history in order to engage in their practical framework. Also, no, the goals aren't really different if you compare the esoteric models of each religion, they only differ when you compare the exoteric ones.

        >Why not choose something more modern
        Like what, synthetic drugs? Meditation gives me better results.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What historical baggage
          >said of one of the oldest traditions on earth

          >you don't need to know anything about buddhist history
          you can take a quick intro class to get anything you might from actually reading their texts and following the practice.
          > the goals aren't really different if you compare the esoteric models of each religion
          100% not true. This comes from people that want to believe in universalism as long as their religion is on top.
          To say this shows extreme ignorance of other methods, especially of their esoteric understandings.
          >Like what
          Sounds like you have never even bothered to look. Admit that and I will give suggestions.
          >Meditation gives me better results.
          And you think meditation = Buddhism.
          You sound so woefully undereducated and inexperienced.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can take a quick intro class
            It's not needed, like i just said.
            >100% not true. This comes from people that want to believe in universalism
            The esoteric models are the closest you're gonna get to the roots of syncretization, if you can't get past the symbolism being expressed through different analogies that's not my problem.
            >Sounds like you have never even bothered to look. Admit that and I will give suggestions.
            So this is about jerking you off even though i've already shown my disinterest.
            >And you think meditation = Buddhism.
            Meditation is the main praxis of buddhism, of course i'm relating them.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not needed, like i just said.
            You dont need to know Buddhism to know Buddhism? You dont make any sense.
            >The esoteric models are the closest you're gonna get to the roots of syncretization
            Syncretic models arent esoteric, they are bullshit exoteric understandings.
            >i've already shown my disinterest.
            You lie to yourself. But be disinterested then. You can stop responding at any point.
            This is about showing how you have no education and dont care, instead preferring to make false claims based on your lack of interest.
            >of course i'm relating them.
            Buddhism is one form for one result, to use meditation as interchangeable with Buddhism is to show extremely naive and narrow-minded understanding.
            This is why you think everything is just Buddhism.
            This is why you dont understand.
            But you have no interest, as shown by the way you will respond with lofty "dont care" messaging.
            And you will respond with that "dont care" over and over.
            Or maybe you wont, and you'll leave.
            But we know that wont happen.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Get your head out of your ass please, you're too worried about scoring shit online and you're not reading properly.

            >You dont need to know Buddhism to know Buddhism? You dont make any sense.
            I said you don't need to know the history of buddhism to engage in its practical framework.
            >Syncretic models arent esoteric, they are bullshit exoteric understandings.
            Esoteric models also syncretize, what kind of moronic thought leads you to believe syncretization is exclusive to the exoteric?
            >You lie to yourself
            If you say so, again i wonder how strong is the echo inside your ass.
            > to use meditation as interchangeable with Buddhism is to show extremely naive and narrow-minded understanding.
            When have i done that? I've said meditation is the praxis of buddhism, that it's correct to relate them and that you don't need to know buddhist history to practice buddhist meditation. Again you're just creating your own imaginary narratives because you're trying to win an argument that doesn't exist, so of course you'll need to make shit up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Get your head out of your ass please
            Said the person who tried to feign disinterest.
            >I said you don't need to know the history of buddhism to engage in its practical framework.
            And I said you can also just take a quick intro class and not engage any further as well. To which you said you dont even need to do that.
            Learn to follow posts.
            >Esoteric models also syncretize
            They REALLY dont. People like to think they do because they gain esoteric understanding in one model and transpose it onto all others.
            This comes from your misunderstanding of what esoteric means. You dont have the experience necessary outside your chosen path to gain that knowledge.
            >If you say so
            You show your interest in your argument.
            Again - you can stop at any time. I'm interested. You said you arent. your actions shows that you lie when you said it.
            >When have i done that?
            You are bad at memory AND following posts.
            Since you brought up age in a disparaging remark here

            Oh look an armchairing thread that's devolving into endless, pointless discussion.

            >why do people follow and practice buddhism
            Because it has solid frameworks that provide clear experiential hallmarks for one's development in all aspects of life. And more importantly, gives everyone easy access to direct spiritual and psychic phenomena, something that's typically only seen in monastic grifters in abrahamic religions.

            As a practical person who doesn't care about 2500yo gossip, why would i choose an abrahamic practical framework when the buddhist one is delivering many times more efficiently?

            >As a practical person who doesn't care about 2500yo gossip
            I asked you why not choose something more modern than Buddhism

            What historical baggage, you don't need to know anything about buddhist history in order to engage in their practical framework. Also, no, the goals aren't really different if you compare the esoteric models of each religion, they only differ when you compare the exoteric ones.

            >Why not choose something more modern
            Like what, synthetic drugs? Meditation gives me better results.

            >>Why not choose something more modern
            >Like what, synthetic drugs? Meditation gives me better results.
            This is where you immediately equate the question about Buddhism to one about meditation.
            If you want to remain consistent in your argument, or perhaps remember what you said, you might want to have a little more interest.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And I said you can also just take a quick intro class and not engage any further as well.
            If i said knowing buddhist history isn't necessary, why would you suggest taking an "intro class", what is your point here?
            >This comes from your misunderstanding of what esoteric means. You dont have the experience necessary outside your chosen path to gain that knowledge.
            Again, assuming shit to keep your boat afloat. I've gone through hermeticism, qabalah, taoism and buddhism, and i should be able to add christianity in there due to being raised catholic and having studied other abrahamic esoteric models. Syncretization is what allows transposition to occur in these cases, it's you who's lacking insight.
            >You show your interest in your argument.
            You're hyperfixated in my "interest" when to me it seems a secondary point to the argument, are you autistic? Not trying to jab you, just curious at this point.
            >This is where you immediately equate the question about Buddhism to one about meditation.
            After talking exclusively about the practical framework of course i'm referring to it when asked why i don't choose "something more modern". I been develop that point in the following posts which should make it clear enough as to not create misunderstandings. Again, are you autistic, do you have trouble with contextual cues?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what is your point here?
            That if you dont need to have any understanding of the tradition - as you say - then you can go further than you say and remove even more involvement and still get the benefits you talk about.
            >I've gone through
            What do you mean "gone through"? Be specific.
            >Syncretization is what allows transposition to occur in these cases
            Complete bullshit. You are projecting one onto all the others - erroneously - and forcing an imagined fit out of arrogance. As all syncretists do.
            >You're hyperfixated in my "interest"
            You are the one you tried to be aloof while very obviously not being so.
            Sure, I'm fixated. So just say you lied and you are interested and we can move past it.
            Otherwise, I'm going to keep pointing out how you very much are interested in this and you lied to yourself about it.
            >After talking exclusively about the practical framework of course i'm referring to it when asked why i don't choose "something more modern".
            This makes no sense. If you only meant the "practical framework" of meditation, then you dont need to bring up Buddhism AT ALL.
            It adds nothing but regional flavor and superstition to the practice.
            But you dont have any interest in that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God you're definitely autistic, with "gone through" i mean "studied" as i've already said. I don't care about your personal vendetta on "syncretists", sounds surreal to me to deny syncretism and i'm not conflating the different models together, syncretization just means they share common sources and thus maintain trends and qualities. And i brought up buddhism because the thread is about buddhism and i practice buddhist meditation, specifically of the theravada tradition.

            You're tiring, but i'm sure you're used to hearing that, i'm not responding to any more of your posts, have a blast with the celebration.

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Clout chasing

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's funny, GTAV is also the analogy I always use in my head to reject scientism/mechanist worldview. Even if the main character knows how the game engine works in fine details, it'd be stupid of him to conclude no one programmed it or that the game world is the limit of reality

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    to an extent.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    buddhism is a philosophical thought experiment and rationalizing yourself out of suffering
    if reincarnation is real and you do not want it to be what is the solution
    if life is inherently suffering and you do not want that to be so what is the solution
    it asks you questions that will lead you to the path of self realization without wrapping you up in a safety blanket and promising that the ride never ends
    through the lens of buddhism you will understand that if i will be forced to live in forever cycles in a world steeped in suffering as inherent part of it my life will be miserable
    through identifying that yearning is the root of suffering i will be able to avoid that fate
    once you have "walked the path" you come to a realization and that realization will give you ataraxia / freedom from a disturbed mind
    you will be serene and learn to accept your inevitable death and be able to enjoy the fleeting moment that is life as is
    you will have gained the ability to die in peace which is the entire point of buddhism

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what separates buddhism from religions is that buddhism doesn't promise you a eternal after life among some great creator deity (golden land buddhism is hogwash, don't quote it), buddhism offers you a tangible way out of suffering in this life

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus Christ is almighty God.

    ?list=PLKeguzYyi7vJMgzjVWFBHLBkX74ULzZUv

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      christianity is religion of self sacrifice that allows its followers to gain a peace of mind with the promise of there being a benevolent god and a after life

      >Do you think God has to exist for fire to exist?
      Yes.
      >That God has to create the flame every time I light a lighter?
      Anon, are you being disingenuous on purpose?

      to rob a faithful of his faith is wrong, nothing can be gained from teaching someone who already believes in something that they believe is helping them live a better life

      >They believe in a complex reincarnation system based on your actions but they don't believe in a designer who created this system in the first place.
      "There is no God" isn't an orthodox buddhist viewpoint or stance. I've never seen any sutta where the Buddha is seen intimated that thing explicitly or otherwise. The buddha appears to be, in the suttas I've read, very very particular about every word he used.

      buddhism doesn't denounce nor acknowledge gods, it pretty much says "haven't met any but not saying they don't exist"

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >buddhism doesn't denounce nor acknowledge gods, it pretty much says "haven't met any but not saying they don't exist"
        Factually untrue. See

        >but they think they’re all fricking lame drama queens so they literally just ignore them.
        That's a mischaracterization, I'm pretty sure.
        Here are some suttas with devas in them:
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.010.piya.html
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.009.piya.html
        https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN8_71.html

        And more here:
        https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

        Table of contents for the link above is this
        >I. Introduction
        >II. The Buddha Teaches Deities
        >III. Devas and Brahmas Honor the Buddha
        >IV. The Role of Devas in the Buddha's Career
        >V. Liberation for Humans, Devas, and Brahmas

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i still think there is a clear difference on what we mean by gods in the west and in the east

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >They believe in a complex reincarnation system based on your actions but they don't believe in a designer who created this system in the first place.
    "There is no God" isn't an orthodox buddhist viewpoint or stance. I've never seen any sutta where the Buddha is seen intimated that thing explicitly or otherwise. The buddha appears to be, in the suttas I've read, very very particular about every word he used.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    their closeness to dharma is what separates them from humans, humans are prone to error and losing their way and asuras are basically emotion driven intuitive devas but not really demons as west would see them

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not that they don't believe in a creator, but it's that since their goal is physical and spiritual suicide it quite literally doesn't matter in their collective brains. Legitimately the entirety of buddhism is suicidally spiritual depression while trying to An Hero out of the whole situation. Genuinely buddhism isn't healthy.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the goal of buddhism is to get you to accept the simple fact that one day you will die and nothing you do or don't will save you, all the religions of the world are just a safety blanket to wrap yourself into to escape fear of death
      buddhism denounces this fear of death and proposes that you can be rid of the suffering but the method doesn't have to be dogmatic self sacrifice, you can learn to accept that life has suffering in it, that your body won't live forever and that one day the moment that you are alive will pass
      through accepting these you gain serenity, you will stop pushing the thought of death away and stop looking for a cheat code out of death, you will become truly sane and serene, discomfort from fear of death must be resolved but becoming deluded won't do you any good
      buddhism acknowledges this and tells you to practice a way of life that minimizes suffering on yourself and others and lets you die with a smile

      any other religion is just telling you exactly what you want to hear and giving you a code of ethics to follow to get to the good place after you die
      it's silly and juvenile way to cope with fear of death, if it works for you then denounce everything i said and keep your faith

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This is straight up horseshit and lies and you full damn well know it. Buddhism's entire goal is quite literally commit spiritual and physical suicide to reach nirvana because somehow super oblivion leads to paradise and literally all the other crap is how to successfully commit spiritual suicide without fricking up and getting stuck reincarnating into something shitty because at the end of the day all things physical and spiritual are shitty to a Buddhist. You fricks quite literally hate everything and everyone.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          buddhists acknowledge that life has inherent suffering in it through old age, disease and death, it tells you that you clinging to life is what makes this life miserable and by accepting your death you can be released from the discomfort fear of death causes in you which allows you to come to terms with your mortality and lets you live your life
          you are a child kicking and screaming because someone told the ice cream will run out at some point and that it was cold

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I accept death and all that happens after, because I know death very, very well. Death is not the end and that's all that really needs to be said about that. What I don't accept is you assclowns masquerading your collective suicide cult as anything other then what it is, shits deceitful as frick and frankly I view you buttholes in the same vein as the dickheads who would sacrifice people for personal gain.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            then begone from buddhism and go read your bible and pray, pray that some godly being will save your soul from death and stay away from people talking about non-religion as a method of peace of mind
            you do not belong here and you should hold your faith closer at heart to not lose it, cling to that faith for the rest of your life and never let it go
            you have nothing to gain from being here talking to buddhists

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is nothing to gain or lose

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          When you call nirvana suicide you're claiming something I don't think you mean to. Consider the levels of existence leading up to it. The first level beyond the sensual plane is that of pure form, populated by brahmas. They still have discursive thought like we do, but without desire for sensual pleasure. Beyond them are the abhassara brahmas, whose minds are purified of discursive reasoning and abide in radiant bliss. Still higher are the subhakina brahmas, whose radiance is stable like the sun (abhassara flickers like a torch). The highest form-only brahmas, vehaphala, abide in perfect equanimity. But even beyond that are the beings free from form: the beings of boundless space, beings of boundless consciousness, beings whose minds take no object (akincañña, "no thing"), and those beings dwelling in neither perception nor non-perception. Each of these levels is purer than the last, and nirvana is the final purification, it is absolute unconditioned reality. If you say that absolute purification results in annihilation, you are tacitly claiming that reality reduces to nothing, "there is no ultimate reality".

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is really interesting. Would it be fair to say that nirvana is close to The One in platonism?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The One
            some hivemind psyop? Easier to manipulate consciousness if it's all in one pile? I want to be my own master, my own great architect (Grand Priest from Dragon Ball Super), because I am my own consciousness (Zeno-sama).

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But in the Lotus Sutra Nirvana is compared to a fire being extinguished in a log. Buddha doesn't really get extinguished but he lives on teaching the world thru Skillful Means. Saying he gets extinguished is the Buddha's Skillful Means devoted to teaching those who would be lazy if they knew the Buddha was still in the world. In actuality the Buddha has a lifespan of innumerable kalpas and the Nirvana of the arhat is compared to an Apparitional City which allows one to rest on the path. In Nirvana there is no form so neither life nor death. Thus it is taught as annihilation (and some teach the mind passes away) but that is just Skillful Means. It is at the very least the transcendence of reincarnation. It is still compared to a fire being extinguished, as annihilation

            This is really interesting. Would it be fair to say that nirvana is close to The One in platonism?

            I think Nirvana is the Supreme Monad

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I think Nirvana is the Supreme Monad
            This. All the serious stuff points to the same thing (using different definitions/words). Only TARDS cling to dogma/definitions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every day I am more convinced the Lotus Sutra was written by people who just liked the Buddha's haircut but nothing he actually taught

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Lotus Sutra is just a text about what full Buddhist enlightenment is about. It is about how compassion functions for a Buddha as a match of lacking any substantial essences. It really is not that radical. Even the orthodox traditions like Tendai that built their hermeneutics of all other sutras around it, note that it is really about what it means to turn the wheel of the dharma in a Buddhist sense. The most controversial if anything claim that the Dharma is temporal but not temporary, but eternally embodied in the temporary through wisdom. Which, is also a theme of other sutras too actually.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if you blaspheme the lotus sutra or people who preach it you get incarnated as vermin or a giant snake and spend kalpas in hell

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Same deal if you blaspheme the arahants, which is what the Lotus Sutra and the other Mahayana sutras do. Probably also explains why the Mahayana countries (Tibet, China, Mongolia, Vietnam, North Korea) got ravaged so badly by communism compared to the real Buddhist countries in SE Asia.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they say there are things preached by the Mahayana sutras that the arhats can't understand because it's a smaller vehicle. but there is only a single vehicle and the buddha manifests the apparitional city for the arhats in the lotus sutra. in reality there is only a single vehicle. i'm sure you know. i don't see the Mahayana sutras as blaspheming the arhats, they tell of great arhats by name, only they say that the Bodhisattva path is a greater vehicle as this comes from Compassion. i'm not extremely well read so correct me if i'm wrong of course

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Lotus Sutra even goes on to set up a kinda ecosystem between arhats and Buddhas. Basically, one teaches the other and the other purses the single vehicle until they eventually seek to become Buddhas. However, one of the features a Buddha does is teach arhats. It is not so much they can't understand the text either. They issue it is whether they believe it and whether they adopt the soteriological goal of beocoming a Buddha. Technically, the bodhisattva vehicle exists regardless because a Buddha turns the wheel of the dharma.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Genuinely buddhism isn't healthy.
      Buddhism has made me into a far more healthy person in every component of my life. I treat myself and others much better.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you Will grow old
    your body Will die
    and the only remedy to this is accepting it and coming to terms with it
    no regimented obedience is going to save you from it
    accept it and learn to live your life despite the knowledge of death
    it's called growing up

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if you hold faith valuable why flaunt it around and play around with it by going off camp, you should treat it like a fine china ware not like a baseball, keep it away from others and don't take it outside, keep it inside yourself and only show it to other enthusiasts
    right now you're basically throwing your faith up in the air and calling it unbreakable

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    OP do not worry about other people'a religion. It has nothing to do with you.

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Are Buddhists delusional?
    No. As with any path that's non-dual its very hard for people with black-and-white thinking to understand (example: "desiring to be non-desiring is a contradiction CHECKMATE Buddhists!"). This is why shit like Kaons exist.
    My suggestion would be for Buddhists to keep the doctrine in the monasteries/retreats, and teach the "normies" basic breath meditation and shit like that.
    In this regard occults are better at keeping that shit away from normies who aren't ready.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You never know who is ready, why would you deny the teachings, just to avoid ignorant comments?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why would you deny the teachings, just to avoid ignorant comments?
        Ignorant comments aren't the problem. Its corporations (elites) literally stealing every Buddhist concept in an attempt to feed off it's hard earned positive image.

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did you know Buddhists invented Katakana?

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hey believe in a complex reincarnation system based on your actions but they don't believe in a designer who created this system in the first place.

    Many buddhists believe that, but believing in that is not required to be a buddhist. It would be like saying that you have to be conservative to be a good christian, since many are conservative.

  40. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reincarnation makes a lot more sense than heaven and other bullshit. How do you explain that someone is born poor or rich, sick or healthy? All accidents are not really accidental. The number of worlds is infinite, and even if there is some kind of God of all gods and worlds, he does not care about us and therefore there is no point in thinking about it. You cannot know microscopic creatures just as they cannot know you, but this does not mean that you or they do not exist

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >How do you explain that someone is born poor or rich, sick or healthy?
      Nta but I don't know if I believe in karma. Someone doing bad deeds seems to be able to reincarnate in rich family again

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The idea is basically that you have been going around samsara for a long time. You have different karmic qualities that ripen. They are kinda like causal trajectories. We all in practice have mixed karma. This is why you can get a person who is rich or attractive but who is an butthole. It is because those karmic potentials ripen at different rates. Samsara is not just like it is in Dvaita Vedanta or Visishtadvaita or Advaita Vedanta. There is no controller to karma. It is an unfair crapshoot. That is why Buddhists want to cease being bound by dependent origination. Karma is the fuel keeping you there.

  41. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    this thread is the prime example why westerners will never understand buddhism

  42. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhists are moronic. Just go to church and quit being such a clown.

  43. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, but it is by design. It's basically an ancient psyop to make people docile to the point of becoming an automaton. It's no wonder why eastern cultures are typically associated with pathologic collectivism.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *