Thread 24850028

Is Buddhism the most pessimistic of all the sacred traditions in existence?

>no explanation for 'samsara'/contingent existence to begin with, if you try to ponder or believe in a cosmogonic account you're insane and trapped in delusion
>this samsara is meaningless and our lives are always caught in suffering no matter what, dukkha is the sole enduring truth of this world
>transient existence caught between different modes of being, continuity between gods/devas, humans, animals, etc
>Mahayana tries to make Buddhas into the equivalent of deities/benevolent gods I guess
>you have absolute free will to escape samsara if you wish, but that may take many lifetimes. or you're born into a society without buddhist teaching, and if you can't find one elsewhere, you're screwed
>even beauty, goodness and the wonder inherent in existence is a trap. it makes you temporarily forget dukkha and then you expend your good karmic 'points' and go to hell on the rebound, like if you're reborn as a deva
>the Good is just one side of the duality, Nirvana is beyond both

Meanwhile, Neoplatonism or Tantric Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta have a similar totally transcendent dimension to their practice, but they revere the world and believe it to be inherently good and a ladder to be climbed via appreciation/love/gratitude and ultimately knowledge of the divine author (not separated from self) behind it. The world IS to be left behind but it isn't some Gnostic-tier nightmare trap or as dark as Buddhism says Samsara to be.

Am I in delusion as Buddhists would believe? I used to be quite hostile to Buddhism on account of dogmatic metaphysical principles but don't view it the same way anymore. The actual ascetic practice is heroic. But this particular attitude toward the cosmos is a significant hurdle

>>24850028 (OP)
As a Christian I respect Buddhists the most of all other religions.

>>24850028 (OP)
Buddhism is very diverse so there is no agreement on things like what you mention. The Buddha himself did not believe in samsara or literal rebirth. He was a crypto-annihilationist as any close reading of the suttas will reveal. The message of the Five Aggregates is that there is nothing to go on after death.

>>24850028 (OP)
To call Buddhism escapist is to betray a shallow reading of its core. There is no doctrine more willing to face the brute facts of existence without flinching. It offers no gods, no divine plan, no eternal soul to cling to. It makes no promises of cosmic justice or moral resolution. Instead, it directs attention to the bare mechanics of mind—craving, attachment, impermanence—and demands their observation without embellishment. It does not distract from suffering but turns toward it with clinical precision, stripping away every layer of illusion we use to protect ourselves from the void.

This is not a retreat from reality, but a radical exposure to it. Buddhism dismantles not only metaphysical claims, but the psychological scaffolding of the ego itself. It asks you to stand in full awareness of your own transience, without reaching for narrative or meaning to soften the blow. There is no appeal to comfort, no doctrine of hope. Only the clarity that comes from seeing things as they are—unstable, unsatisfying, and empty of inherent self. That clarity is not despair. It is lucidity bought at the cost of illusion. And to those still dependent on illusion, it will always look like nihilism.

well, Schopenhauer didn't revere Buddhism for no reason...

>>24850028 (OP)
>Neoplatonism or Tantric Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta
Yes. Youre not delusional. The cosmos is not some prison. Unbelievably ordered. Appreciate doesnt equate to attachment.

>>24850141
besides the fact that this is gpt slop, the problem with Buddhism is that it's allergic to any "why" apart from the practical goal of abandoning attachments. OK, meaning and hope are illusions, as you say, but why? reality is intelligible and one can find beauty in it, but why? well, the Buddhist answer is that there is no 'why' and asking why is itself as attachment, that still doesn't answer the 'why' and never will, because detachment from grand explanations just as easily becomes emotionally driven radical pessimism.

>>24850286
Every ideology, theory, and thought-system is just elaborate cope, just increasingly frantic scribbling in the dark while reality laughs in a language made of colors we can't see. We're all just meat computers hallucinating meaning onto a screaming void that doesn't care, building towers of "because" and "therefore" on foundations of absolutely nothing, and the scientists are doing the same thing as the prophets are doing the same thing as the conspiracy theorists—we're all just playing different instruments in the same deranged orchestra, pretending the noise is music. You think rationality will save you? Rationality is just formalized cope with Greek letters. You think empiricism grounds you in reality? You're using the very faculties whose reliability you're trying to establish to establish their reliability—it's circular all the way down, turtles eating their own tails. The Marxist, the libertarian, the neuroscientist, and the mystic are all engaged in the same project: building mental fortresses against the abyss of uncertainty, and somewhere Gödel is laughing because he proved mathematically that even math can't save you from incompleteness.

Nobody knows what reality is. NOBODY. The physicists can't even agree if the moon exists when nobody's looking at it, Hume realized causation is just psychological habit, Kant admitted we can never touch the thing-in-itself, and meanwhile you're walking around pretending you understand why traffic lights are red and what money is and why you feel sad on Tuesdays. We don't know why anything is happening, we don't know what "happening" even means, we're just conscious beings thrown into existence without a manual, frantically pattern-matching and storytelling to create the illusion of comprehension. Every explanation eventually bottoms out in brute facts we simply accept, every chain of causation terminates in mystery, every "because" is a conjuring trick. We're cosmic orphans screaming into the dark and the dark isn't even listening, and every single explanation anyone has ever given for anything is just a security blanket we've collectively agreed to pretend is real so we don't have to face it.

>>24850141
This is very eloquently put, anon. I hope the other anon is not correct in saying it is AI slop.

>>24850295
>every single explanation anyone has ever given
doesn't this undermine your praise of the Buddha?

>>24850297
oh it is AI slop. look at the reply right above yours. the use of em-dashes are a telltale sign. lol.

>>24850300
Words are just a crude tool, a finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. Clinging to them as "truth" is a rookie mistake—exactly the kind of brain rot you see in Christians who treat their Bible like it fell out of God's pocket. Buddhism calls this out for what it is: attachment to illusion. Reality isn’t some cosmic sentence written in English; it’s beyond concepts, beyond language. The Christian obsession with "the Word" is just cope—a way to avoid dealing with the fact that their beliefs are built on blind faith in secondhand stories. Buddhists know better: real understanding comes from direct experience, not groveling before some dusty book.

>>24850304
>>24850295
>>24850141
Stop shitting this thread up with AI slop you faggot

>>24850295
>Nobody knows what reality is. NOBODY.
You're sloppily conflating verification with knowing when those are separate. There is actually zero basis whatsoever to make the claim that nobody knows what reality is, because that claim could only be justified if you were able to falsify those other theories by establishing yourself what reality is and hence what it is not. You're just being a dogmatist while falsely pretending that you aren't one.

>>24850306
—

>>24850286
The real question is why you are so attached to asking "why?" Buddha understood that this question is unanswerable and so it makes no sense to seek an answer (to latch onto it is indeed another attachment or clinging, as you say). But we ask that question because we are simply responding to a biological, evolutionary need.

The truth is something you fear not being able to handle (hence the terror of "radical pessimism").

But if you follow the path prescribed by the Buddha there is no pessimism, just reality, an understanding free of illusion.

>>24850028 (OP)
Buddhism is an annihilationist death cult that loves to pay lip service to physicalism, so yes.
>>24850141
Shut the fuck up.

>>24850028 (OP)
>The world IS to be left behind but it isn't some Gnostic-tier nightmare trap or as dark as Buddhism says Samsara to be.
Samsara is Nirvana

>>24850312
>But we ask that question because we are simply responding to a biological, evolutionary need.
lol, this is so fucking tautological.

>>24850315
Christians, like base animals, see suffering as purely physical—something to be endured, avoided, or "redeemed" through their pathetic groveling to a deity. Their understanding is crude, locked in the prison of the flesh, where pain is either a test, a punishment, or a bargaining chip for some imagined afterlife. They flinch from suffering like frightened beasts, begging their god to take it away instead of confronting it. Their worldview is reactionary, driven by instinct and fear, incapable of true mastery over their own existence.

Buddhists, on the other hand, see suffering for what it truly is—a creation of the mind, shaped by attachment and perception. Instead of whining to a god like helpless cattle, they face suffering head-on, dissecting its causes and dismantling its hold over them. Their approach isn’t one of avoidance or submission but of understanding and transcendence. Pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional, and those who grasp this rise above the primitive, animalistic instincts that keep weaker minds enslaved.

>>24850028 (OP)
Fundamentally? i would say so.
>>24850034
I personally don't, I find it very essence denying, while for me, Christianity is very much about the imperfect's ability to progress towards the perfect essence. our ability to find the perfect roundness in this rough and unshapely earth. As expressed here >>24850141 there is an essential direction towards annihilation, that there is no fundamental motive force towards potential, only nothingness and without. death and entropy.

>>24850319
Buddhists, like misguided philosophers lost in their own illusions, reduce suffering to a mere mental construct, ignoring the profound reality of a fallen world stained by sin. Their view is abstract and detached, treating pain as an optional illusion to be dissolved through self-effort and detachment, as if humans could bootstrap their way to enlightenment without acknowledging the Creator. They deny the redemptive purpose in suffering, seeing it only as a chain to break rather than a path to deeper communion with God. This approach fosters a cold indifference, where transcendence means numbing oneself to the world's brokenness instead of engaging it with love and sacrifice, much like a hermit fleeing reality rather than transforming it.

Christians, however, embrace suffering as multifaceted—physical, emotional, and spiritual—woven into God's sovereign plan for growth, redemption, and ultimate glory. Far from groveling like beasts, we follow Christ's example, who willingly endured the cross not out of fear but out of divine love, turning agony into victory over sin and death (Hebrews 12:2). Suffering isn't a punishment to beg away but an opportunity for faith to refine us like gold in fire (1 Peter 1:7), building character, hope, and eternal perspective. We confront it with prayer, community, and action, knowing God uses it to draw us closer to Him and to serve others, rising above mere instinct to reflect His image in a broken world.

>>24850312
my point is, is that why is there a need for an answer to 'why' in the first place? of course, you can dismiss it as illusion, but any sort of appeal to 'illusion' isn't very satisfying. I mean, humans have managed to answer many smaller 'why' questions which led to science and instrumentalizing nature for our benefit, yet there's no good reason why such answers yielded anything rather than otherwise. mathematicians still argue about why math is so powerful when if there's no good reason why then it shouldn't be. so clearly there's a path laid out by reality for an answer of 'why'. I'd say we're just not there yet.

>>24850328
1. Circular reasoning – It claims the Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.

2. Appeal to authority – It demands belief because ancient men or divine figures said so, not because evidence supports it.

3. False dichotomy – It frames reality as “believe or burn,” ignoring infinite other explanations for existence and morality.

4. Ad hoc reasoning – Every failed prophecy or moral contradiction is explained away with “God works in mysterious ways.”

5. Strawman – It reduces non-believers to “rebels against God” instead of people who simply see no evidence.

6. Appeal to emotion – It manipulates fear of hell and desire for eternal love to override critical thought.

7. Post hoc fallacy – It assumes good events are “blessings” and bad ones are “tests” without causal proof.

8. Slippery slope – It warns that without faith society will collapse into chaos, ignoring secular stability and progress.

9. No true Scotsman – It excuses every Christian atrocity by saying “they weren’t real Christians.”

10. Begging the question – It assumes sin and salvation are real just to prove the need for Christ.

11. Tu quoque – It deflects criticism by pointing to the sins of atheists or other belief systems.

12. Appeal to ignorance – It treats gaps in science or understanding as evidence of God.

13. Loaded question – It asks “why do you hate God?” presuming God exists and is hateable.

14. Bandwagon fallacy – It implies truth through popularity: billions believe, therefore it must be true.

15. Appeal to tradition – It insists Christianity is true because it’s old, not because it’s rational.

another thread ruined by jeetslop. are most Buddhist threads like this?

>>24850336
The practice of dismissing a 4chan post by calling it "AI-generated" or "GPT" has become rather pointless, especially when used as a primary counterargument. It's somewhat like declaring "this food was cooked using heat" - yes, and? The real question should be whether the points being made are valid or not.

If someone can't effectively counter an argument, regardless of its source, that's a reflection on their own reasoning abilities. Fixating on whether something was written by AI rather than engaging with the actual content shows intellectual weakness. It's essentially an ad hominem attack aimed at the perceived source rather than addressing the substance.

The truly concerning part is what it says about someone who can't successfully debate against an AI-generated response. If you believe you're dealing with AI-generated content and still can't form a coherent counterargument, perhaps you should focus on strengthening your own critical thinking and debate skills rather than merely pointing fingers at the presumed origin of the opposing view.

Additionally, as AI becomes more prevalent in online discourse, the ability to engage with and evaluate arguments based on their merit rather than their source becomes increasingly important. The "GPT detector" response is becoming about as meaningful as saying "you used a keyboard to type that."

>>24850330
1. Not circular: The Bible's authority is evidenced by fulfilled prophecies, archaeological corroboration, and historical reliability, not just self-claim—external validation supports its divine inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16).

2. Not mere appeal: Authority in Christianity rests on Jesus' miracles, resurrection eyewitnesses, and transformative impact, backed by historical evidence, not blind deference.

3. No false dichotomy: Christianity presents grace through Christ as the way to reconcile with God, but acknowledges human free will; other views exist, yet Scripture argues they're insufficient against sin's reality (John 14:6).

4. Not ad hoc: "Mysterious ways" reflects finite human understanding of infinite God (Isaiah 55:8-9); contradictions are often misinterpretations, resolved through context and theology, not excuses.

5. No strawman: Non-believers are seen as separated by sin, not inherently "rebels," but invited to examine evidence like the empty tomb; it's about truth, not caricature (Romans 3:23).

6. Not just emotion: While heaven and hell motivate, Christianity appeals to reason through apologetics, philosophy, and personal testimony; fear is secondary to love's invitation (1 John 4:18).

7. Not post hoc: Blessings and trials are discerned through prayer, Scripture, and community wisdom, not assumption; causality is rooted in God's providence, evidenced in lives changed (James 1:2-4).

8. No slippery slope: Christianity warns of moral decay without absolute truth, but observes historical patterns; secular progress often borrows Christian ethics, showing faith's stabilizing role (Psalm 11:3).

9. Not no true Scotsman: True Christianity is defined by Christ's teachings on love and repentance; atrocities contradict the Gospel, so perpetrators fail the biblical standard, not a redefinition (Matthew 7:21-23).

10. Not begging: Sin's reality is observed in human brokenness and conscience; Christ's need is proven by His historical life, death, and resurrection, not presupposition (Romans 5:8).

11. Not tu quoque: Critiques are addressed directly with Scripture; pointing to universal sin highlights everyone's need for grace, not deflection (Romans 3:10).

12. Not ignorance: Gaps invite exploration, but Christianity affirms science as revealing God's order; evidence like fine-tuning points to design, not just unknowns (Psalm 19:1).

13. No loaded question: Questions like that probe heart motives, assuming God's existence based on creation's testimony; they're invitations to dialogue, not traps (Romans 1:20).

14. Not bandwagon: Popularity isn't proof, but widespread transformation across cultures testifies to truth; Christianity urges personal investigation, not conformity (Acts 17:11).

15. Not tradition: Age lends credibility through enduring scrutiny, but rationality comes from logical coherence, moral depth, and empirical support; it's timeless truth, not outdated custom (Hebrews 13:8).

I'm relatively new to Buddhism, so I honestly can't make arguments here. But I can say confidently that Buddhism has made me a much happier, much less angry or agitated person. I used to have pretty significant emotional dysregulation problems and a major fear of death, and both were resolved with practice and meditation. The reality of the latter is that living forever is much worse than being dead forever.
I don't see myself as pessimistic, and in fact I see myself as much more optimistic now than I ever was before. Regarding the suggestion that "even beauty, goodness, and the wonder of existence are traps," I don't believe this is true. Attachment to these things is a trap; relying on them being permanently available to you will make you feel miserable when any or all of them go away. Instead it's much healthier to appreciate them while they exist while being conscious that nothing exists permanently. The cookie you'll eat today could be the last cookie you'll ever eat, so savor it while you eat it, consider all of the factors that culminated in the cookie being here for you to eat it, and then let it go when it is gone.

>>24850344
The practice of calling out a 4chan post as "AI-generated" or "GPT" remains highly relevant, especially when it's used to highlight patterns of spam, misinformation, or low-effort trolling that AI tools enable. It's more like spotting "this food was made in a factory with artificial additives" – sure, it might taste fine, but knowing the process reveals potential issues with quality or authenticity that merit scrutiny.

If someone resorts to generating content via AI rather than crafting their own thoughts, that's a reflection on their intellectual laziness or inability to engage genuinely. Dismissing the source as irrelevant ignores how AI often produces shallow, derivative arguments lacking nuance or real-world context. Engaging with every bot-spun rant as if it's a human's profound insight wastes time and dilutes meaningful discourse – it's not ad hominem to question credibility when the "author" is a probabilistic text generator.

The truly concerning part is defending AI slop as equivalent to human reasoning, which normalizes a flood of automated noise that overwhelms forums like 4chan. If you're relying on AI to make your points and get defensive when it's detected, perhaps you should focus on developing original ideas instead of hiding behind algorithms that mimic debate without understanding it.

Moreover, as AI proliferates in online spaces, distinguishing human from machine becomes crucial to preserve trust and combat manipulation – think deepfakes or astroturfing. The "just debate the content" mantra is as naive as ignoring that someone "used a botnet to spam that," pretending origins don't shape the ecosystem.

>>24850346
>I'm relatively new to Buddhism, so I honestly can't make arguments here. But I can say confidently that Buddhism has made me a much happier, much less angry or agitated person. I used to have pretty significant emotional dysregulation problems and a major fear of death, and both were resolved with practice and meditation. The reality of the latter is that living forever is much worse than being dead forever.
I got a similar revelation, but through Pascal's understanding of the universe and christianity.

heh, I have drinkened a lot of burbon today, I am on a roll (postwise) I have been posting a lot, and have had quite the insightful output, heh. Its not likely that lower intellects would be able to appreciate what I have done for them today (heh).


(I still live with my parents btw)

>>24850352
>mfw some chromosomally enriched tard's entire argument is "mUh GpT dEtEcTeD"
>can't even beat a fucking autocomplete bot in basic reasoning
>still thinks pointing out the obvious is some 200 IQ play
>"NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST USE PATTERN RECOGNITION TO BTFO MY SHIT TAKES"

wow anon you really showed that AI by... *checks notes*... getting absolutely BTFO'd by it and then crying about it. your parents must be so proud their genetic legacy peaked at "identifies bots while losing arguments to them"

>be you
>get demolished in debate
>"ACKSHUALLY THIS IS AI GENERATED"
>refuse to elaborate
>leave thinking you won

literally botfiltered. an hero yourself from this discussion thread immediately.

P-please s-somebody run a GPT detector on this response that just murdered my whole worldview! Surely that will save me from this cognitive annihilation!

>>24850326
The irony is the more a person attunes to the Buddhist teachings the more the presence of "perfect essence" is felt by them. religious people don't hold a monopoly on that state they've simply found their own way to get there, but when everything's said and done all spiritual/religious experiences are working towards the same goal, and yet none of these losers have any superpowers besides accepting things as they are.

>>24850028 (OP)
The Buddha was essentially a via negativa philosopher of transcendence and his whole project is concerned and engaged with achieving transcendence. Thus he isn't interested in metaphysics.

You're an uneducated dilettante normalfag that hasn't read the suttas. Filtered bitch.

>>24850379
>yet none of these losers have any superpowers besides accepting things as they are.
Which is unfortunately a very hard thing to come by. Its quite the irony that the ends of deep introspection is often a base attunement to causality and those attuned to more basic causal things get distracted by abstractions.

>>24850393
this is why I think Buddhism actually gets the way to transcendence more or less correct. because Buddhist meditative states somehow align with the experiences of Christian or Islamic mystics, and there's no good reason why besides the possibility that they're all converging onto the same thing.

>>24850329
>humans have managed to answer many smaller 'why' questions
That's the problem. We think that because we can have answers to these other "why's" we can have answers to questions for which there are no answers (that will please us). This is a matter of evolution and the way we are designed to work by Nature. It's a question of optimization of energies. Why am I tilling this field? So I can grow the crops. Why am I moving this rock? To make a path. We are NOT wired to do things for no reason, and so we ask why are we even here in the first place? This question, as you can see, is just a side effect of evolving to survive as human beings on this planet and the necessity of managing our labors.

The real insight is to stop asking this question, to recognize it for what it is.

Buddha did not speculate on cosmology because he knew it was beyond our ability to ever actually know. If he was around today, he would say the same thing to the question of what was there before the Big Bang or why the Big Bang happened. And he would have completely accepted evolution and natural selection (and cosmology as scientifically laid out since the Big Bang). Nothing he taught would have changed.

from what i've read on it (all by thich nhat hanh) it doesn't come across as pessimistic to me. but if i'm understanding correctly his schooling of it is the hybrid one that involves some of the chinese stuff

>>24850128
You take the view that's Buddhism is allegorical psychology?
>The message of the Five Aggregates is that there is nothing to go on after death.
That's a fucking good thing, frankly; man's finitude may be precisely the thing that prevents us from ever having to experience a thing like Hell

Ask any buddhist to explain to you how Buddhism isn't annihilation without relying on anatta, and watch them positively shit themselves. To further the shitting, tell them that accepting anatta initially requires immense faith because it can't be "confirmed" by a practitioner without years of retreat time and is no different than believing in some random supposed god.

There is actually a thread someone made about this on the main buddhist
>reddit
right now, in which quite a few people seem fairly agitated

>>24850028 (OP)
>no explanation for 'samsara'/contingent existence
There's an explication for Samsara and existence in buddhism Is not contingent in relation to some other necessary rhing

>>24850785
>without relying on anatta,
But anatta is one of the core principles of the doctrine, Its like asking a Christian to explain Jesús without god

>>24850908
Point is that Buddhists like to pretend it isn't an entirely faith based religion, when you have to take something which you can't prove entirely on faith and hope that you aren't committing to a practice that can essentially be boiled down to quantum suicide.

The Buddha rejected annihilation, but the reason he rejected it is because of Anatta, so for anyone on the outside looking in, Buddhists are genuinely just trying to commit an elaborate suicide.

>>24850908
>like asking a Christian to explain Jesús without god
like asking a christian to be honest, yes

>>24850128
>there is nothing to go on after death.
If there's "More things to go on" then you still trapped in craving and conditionality, nirvana Is a complete transformation were, still depending on "things to go on" Is no longer necesary, Is a radical transformation, not a More wholesome "state of being' or "unity with god/totallity", none of those thing resolve suffering since you still conditioned to states of being, the only wyay out Is to fully transform into something totally different, for that reason the conditionality of the five hidrances must be overcome and superated, to achieve absolute freedom, even from states of being and totallities that are by deffinition conditionated

>>24850919
>The Buddha rejected annihilation, but the reason he rejected it is because of Anatta,
friend, you have to do some more reading

>>24850932
I'll take any arguments you have against this, and then read up more, if not, I'll assume you're just being a retard. Also the Suttas themselves state there is no consciousness in parinibbana, nor an experience or an experiencer.

Its death.

How do Buddhists or believers in gnosis explain dementia and other degenerate brain diseases? How could a mind that can permanently forget information and rot into an irreversible state of memory loss and delirium be compatible with knowledge that brings total liberation? Can a Buddha or pneumatic lose their enlightenment through Alzheimer's disease?

>>24850286
>to any "why
Any metaphysical "why" can have a rel answers, because al metaphysical entities aré constructws by the categoríes of our minda and not by empirical existence, so were actually creating antinomies in our heads that we can't never really answe, buddhism Is a phenomenological tradition, uses empirical existence to elaborate it's categoríes, like "suffering" "conceptualisation" "awareness" etc instead of especulative categoríes like a "first cause" or a "false existence", since those concepts requiere taking for granted unproven dogmas

>>24850950
>can have a rel answers
Can't

>>24850919
Anatta Is not a positive affirmation but the negation of the dogma of an atman, so the burden of prove Is on the one arguing for the existence of a soul

>>24850960
I'm not arguing for the existence of a soul. I'm arguing that Buddhism is simply just trying to kill yourself in a roundabout way.

no consciousness, no experience, no experiencer, nothing. its just death unless you buy into Anatta.

to make it clear for you I don't believe in a soul either.

>>24850940
>Its death
Not really, because death doesn't really exist, nirvana Is a state Beyond conciousness and not-consciousness, beyond being and non-being, dual categoríes no longer work in nirvana, you're asumíng that not-consciouaness=death, but that's a View from the viewpoint of someone working with the hidrances, in a state were one identifies itself with His states of conciousness, but that modality no longer works in nirvana, there's no More objects of conciousness so, conciousness as an activity can't keep its existence either, but that doesn't mean you're dead, it means you're free from the hidrances, you're beyond conciousness itself, you're free from the modality and necessity of conciousness, feeling, forms, concepts etc

>>24850995
Being a buddhist is so easy. You just say "it's not like that" and "it's beyond this" without actually giving any positive explanation that a human can understand, and you're done. It's just perpetually saying "it's not that" without saying what actually is.

>>24850624
Part of it is psychological states (even Thanissaro Bhikkhu who is terrified of annihilation admits this) but it's also about the different "lives" you lead. When the Buddha says this is the last birth for me, he is also saying (not saying exclusively necessarily) that he is not going to have another "life" as a householder, or a tradesman or a warrior or as a prince, etc. We all of us have different lives within the lives as a succession within the one that ends with old age and death. For monks, there is always the temptation of returning to the life of a householder, to find a woman, get married, etc. So the statement that "this is the last birth" also means a total committment to the life of an ascetic, that there is no more desire or reason to begin another life.

>>24851026
Buddhism rejects dogma because it understands that all fixed beliefs are just attachments in disguise. Every ideology, every rigid system of thought is just another trap—another illusion mistaken for truth. Unlike religions that demand blind faith in doctrine, Buddhism is a method, a way of seeing, not a set of commandments to obey. Even its core teachings, from the Four Noble Truths to the Eightfold Path, are not meant to be worshipped but used as tools, and then discarded once their purpose is fulfilled. The moment someone clings to Buddhism as an identity, as a set of absolute truths, they have already missed the point. That’s why it doesn’t try to impose a single answer or force a universal meaning onto existence—it only points the way and leaves the journey to the one walking it.

This anti-dogmatic nature extends even to nirvana itself. Unlike heaven or salvation, nirvana isn’t something to be described, grasped, or defined—it is beyond language, beyond concepts, beyond the limits of the mind trying to contain it. The moment someone tries to put it into words, they have already reduced it to something it is not. This is why Buddhist texts constantly negate—nirvana is not this, not that, not a place, not an experience, not a void, not existence. Because to define it would be to turn it into another illusion, another attachment. It is not something to be believed in, but something to be realized, something that can only be known by direct experience. Unlike other spiritual traditions that trap people in words and dogma, Buddhism refuses to let even its highest truth become a cage.

>>24851036
No point in practicing it then.

>>24851237
True. Just exist in the now and don't worry about it.

>>24850345
Jesus never fulfilled the prophecy and no where does it mention a second coming. All four gospels give conflicting accounts of the resurrection and the eyewitnesses is just paul saying 500 people saw him not 500 individual accounts retard. Matthew and luke also give conflicting genealogies of jesus trying to link him with David. If the bible cant even be logically or theologically consistent then it cannot be the infallible word of god or a reliable source of knowledge. Which means all this is retarded jew babble that doesn't mean shit

>>24850944
Terminal lucidity is a thing, dumb fag. Memory is not explicitly stored.

>>24851707
Okay tranny, now reply to the 20 other AI junkposts.

>>24850919
Then they are uneducated. Everyone leans on faith at some point. Lot of buddhists aknowledge this.

>>24850028 (OP)
A Pessimist is just a person who refuses to tell themselves comfortable lies.

>>24851026
>that a human can understand,
Humans can't understand anything outside of conceptualisation, buddhism just aknowlwdge that and don't even try, things like first causes, gods and an eternity outside of Time but affecting Time aré void of any real ability or potency to explain anything, people who follow those dogmas just pretend it does
>without saying what actually is
Because you can't, anything outside of conditional existence Is by deffinition beyond conceptualisation

>>24850979
>no consciousness, no experience, no experiencer, nothing.
That last part, the "nothing" part, that's just you taking for granted that the absence of the first 3 things imply nothingness, that's you using a soul/self doctrine to explain reality(not-consciousness=nothingness), buddhism just don't use that doctrine,it doesn't believe in a self as a substance or ground of being of reality(wich Is an unproven non-self evident dogma), so if you're trying yo understand or refute buddhism terms using the terms of other doctrine, you're just question begging, you're sayi g nirvana Is nothingness/death because if there's no self that equals nothing, but you have no proof or solid argument to establish that, just vibes, just self identificatión with your momentsbof awareness