Thread 24854417

>buddhism says "life is suffering"
>kills himself and ends suffering
Did he take Buddhism to its logical conclusion?

>>24854417 (OP)
according to buddhism he probably went to some naraka so his suffering didn't end

who even is this faggot that keeps making mainlander threads?

No, he rejected the role of karma/causality and the cycle of rebirth, the different realms of being and got fixated upon seeking death as the "finality" of everything.

>>24855031
Further he ignored the role of the right mental cultivation. Buddhism is all about the RIGHT mindset.

>>24854417 (OP)
>hears "life is suffering"
>immediately assumes this is a complaint and not just a description
Yeah it's midwit hours.

>>24854419
>>24854480
>>24855031
>>24855046
There is no difference between Samara and Nirvana. Cope harder.

>>24855093
Okay.

>>24855093
It's called "Samsara" you moron.

>>24855093
Nah I think he meant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara

>>24855185
>>24855188
Major spelling mistake, oh shit that's the end of the world

>>24854419
>>According to the Buddhist teaching of cause and effect, since one has not realised the truth of all phenomena, or is not liberated from life and death, suicide is pointless.
Some of most active, or terminally-online Buddhists on this board are crypto-materialist hylics who don't actually believe that you are reborn and they insist that it's figurative or even that Buddha never taught rebirth and it was added to the Pali Canon by other people.

The irrefutable and inevitable logical conclusion of their worldview is that they should commit suicide immediately, because non-existence is deemed incomparably preferable to existing in the midst of occasional suffering. The reason they don't do this is because they are either cowards and/or addicted to sense-pleasures, which prevents them from fulfilling their own worldview. They like to appropriate Mahayana rhetoric to the extent that it can be twisted to superficially resemble Nietzsche but they don't actually believe in any any of the supernatural or religious elements of Buddhism.

These people are spiritually sub-human.

>>24855093
Samsara is conditioned and Nirvana is the Unconditioned, they are not the same thing according to Buddha. Even Mahayana and Vajrayana texts typically don't say they are the exact same thing but introduce subtle differences, i.e. texts attributed to Kalki Pundarika that Tibetan authors cite compare Nirvana to the sun and Samsara to a shadow.

Christcucks, completely enslaved by their pathetic heaven-or-hell delusion, can’t comprehend anything beyond their infantile escape fantasy. To them, death is just a magic portal to their imaginary sky paradise, where they can finally be free from the suffering they were too weak to face in life. Like the mindless cattle they are, they project this same braindead thinking onto Buddhism, spewing their low-IQ take: "Why don’t you just kill yourself to reach nirvana?" as if enlightenment is just another cheap afterlife scam like theirs. They can’t grasp that Buddhism isn’t about running away—it’s about obliterating suffering at its root and mastering existence itself.

Like scared animals, they only understand suffering in the most primitive, physical sense—flinching from pain, chasing pleasure, and groveling for divine rescue instead of taking responsibility. Their entire existence is fear-driven, shackled to the terror of hell and the desperate hope for heaven. The idea that suffering is a mental construct, something that can be understood and transcended, is completely beyond them. They are prisoners in their own minds, slaves to their own weakness, forever licking the boots of a system that exploits their cowardice, while Buddhists shatter those chains and leave them crawling in the filth where they belong.

>>24855306
That doesn't makes sense since Buddhism has a much more tolerant view concerning suicide than Christianity. Christians always think suicide is an abhorrant act that condemns you to hell automatically, while you can find Buddhist sects where monks would slowly kill themselves through asceticism to attain Buddha-nature. Rome and Greece were also OK with suicide if it was to preserve one's honor. Abrahamics are, if anythiing, neurotically anti-suicide compared to everyone else.

>>24855335
That assumption just proves you don’t understand Buddhism at all and are too lazy or ignorant to even try. Nirvana isn’t death—it’s liberation from craving, attachment, and ignorance. Suicide doesn’t achieve that; it’s an act driven by suffering and delusion, the exact opposite of what Buddhism teaches. If you’re too weak to handle the actual discipline and insight required to understand the path, you’re better off keeping quiet instead of flaunting your stupidity.

Killing yourself wouldn’t achieve nirvana; it would just perpetuate the cycle of suffering you’re trapped in.

>>24855347
Just arrived to this thread and I completely agree

May all sentient beings be freed from their mental afflictions which are the cause of their suffering.

May all sentient beings attain perfect knowledge which dispels their ignorance completely and thus allow for their liberation.

>>24855284
You're arguing with someone that doesnt care.

>>24855306
Could you relax?

>>24855373
take a step back and think about where you are before you think about saying deluded statements like this again.

>>24855373
No.

I finally understand begin to appreciate the language buddhist use. Initially I didn't think anything about the word "buddhist says desire is causse of suffering". I thought that was bit lazy wording cause other buddhists were saying "nooo thats not exactly accurate". So I took those to consideration and tried to be precise with usage of words like clinging/grasping/etc. But with my post nut clarity, I realized, what it was. Desire is exactly the correct word. Desire is the obsessive actionable delusion that our mind/consciousness operates under. Clinging/grasping vocab is bit too sanitized and devoid of the soul/obsessiveness that tempers our day to day life that cannot be separated via logic/reason, but is part of the primal guidance system.

>>24855378
Im nta.

>>24855383
>buddhist says desire is causse of suffering
No, that's the Hindus, who cultivate detachment from desire as a means of coping.
Buddhists literally believe life is suffering.

>>24855284
I don't get this basedjack meme, the earth isn't round then?

>>24856196
The earth is FAT.

>>24855306
>completely unrelated religion
>is constantly seething about it
>can't argue with op so throws a fit
>somehow he's Buddhist
Listen to op kys

>>24855284
You are still clinging to fantasies of rebirth and a sensual life in the future. This is fundamentall un-Buddhist.

>>24856345
Buddha himself taught rebirth and so do all major schools of Buddhism. Rejecting rebirth is fundamentally non-Buddhist, it’s a kind of modernist quasi-materialism that played little to no role in traditional Buddhism historically. This is just an objective fact and it isnt a value judgement, Im not even Buddhist myself and am not ‘clinging’ to anything taught by Buddhism.

No, because Buddhists also believe in Samsara. He didn't learn what he needed to learn to escape Samsara, so he will simply be reborn lower in the cycle until he can progress back to a point where he is ready to seek enlightenment.

>>24856553
The Buddha did not teach rebirth. He refused to speculate over and over again about what happens after death, and when people asked he always pointed them to the Five Aggregates. There is a lot of material in the Pali Canon but the materialist position has always been there. Yes, there is stuff as well about rebirth but that was not what the Buddha himself taught or originated in any way. Just becuse there are suttas that talk about Brahma as well, are you going to say the Buddha taught Braham? No, these things, whether Brahmanism, Nagas or Samsara were just a part of the social and cultural landscape that the early Buddhists did not fight with. Their style was simply to coexist with all of these pre-existing beliefs. This meant it would all simply enter the Canon but in a subordinated role. So the people who worship nagas still get their nagas, but now the naga is paying homage to the Buddha. Ditto with Brahma, etc.

If you read Gombrich you will see that the Canon clearly distinguishes two different groups of monks and two different ways of achieving "nirvana" depending on the capacities and inclinations of the monks. The ones who were not able to achieve it through discernment (intellectually understanding the Five Aggregates and the implications of it) had to get there through meditation.

If you need rebirth, then you are among those who need it (basically the general masses) and there is no point arguing (for this reason, institutional Buddhism will never reject rebirth). But for the ones who achieve enlightenment through discernment, the Buddha's teaching is very clear.

>>24856645
>The Buddha did not teach rebirth. He refused to speculate over and over again about what happens after death
Untrue, Buddha constantly talks about rebirth in like every other Pali sutta, he is constantly connecting it to his other teachings by talking about how karma affects your quality of birth, how there are different stages of Buddhist attainment regarding rebirth (once-returner), he says wrong view are bad precisely because they lead to rebirth in lower forms. Rebirth is organically connected to every part of his teaching. He even gives a form of Pascals wager in the Apannaka Sutta when he is trying to convince a group of skeptics to believe in rebirth.

If you are going to deny something that appears all throughout the Pali Canon, and which connects organically to everything else in the Pali Canon, and which all schools of Buddhism affirm, then there is simply no reason to take anything you say about Buddhism seriously. You are not an expert and you're not even Buddhist, you're just some retarded bugman materialist who has attached himself to an invented modernist caricature of Buddhism. No school of Buddhism or Buddhist master takes what you claim seriously.

>Just becuse there are suttas that talk about Brahma as well, are you going to say the Buddha taught Braham?
The existence of Brahma is not integral to Buddha's teachings but it doesn't contradict Buddha's teachings whatsoever to say that celestial beings like Brahma that are still subject to ignorance exist. By all accounts Buddha was a highly superstitious man so its par for the course.

>>24856700
Sneed

>>24855347
This is AI

>>24855284
>The irrefutable and inevitable logical conclusion of their worldview is that they should commit suicide immediately, because non-existence is deemed incomparably preferable to existing in the midst of occasional suffering
The problem with this is in the word "logical". A truly infinite universe can only be described as irrational, or only in any ultimate sense as containing irrationality within it. I gun for the Wattsian perspective in that if the instant of death feels like what what's behind your eyes looks like to you right now, and nothing beyond that, then there's nothing to gain but nothing to lose either by sticking around just for the hell of it. Treat life like a dream, a big creative sandbox. When I get sick enough as I get older and it stops being fun enough I'll kill myself then.

>>24856822
Oh forgot to add
t. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome haver

>>24855335
> Christians always think suicide is an abhorrant act that condemns you to hell automatically
Not true. The most you could say of this is that it applies to a small subset of particularly autistic Catholics.

I could almost gun for buddhism but the idea that suicide in the face of unconsiable and drawn-out pain would still send you lower down the realms is a bastard

>>24856700
Of course the historical "schools" of Buddhism would never have acknowledged this openly. This is about secret teachings that you don't talk about with the public, or else you lose your head kind of stuff. But we are no longer living in ancient India or the middle ages of India or China where your head would have come off. We can now confront reality and discuss the true teachings and insight of the Buddha openly.

>Buddha was a highly superstitious man
You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>24856700
>You are not an expert
If you don't believe me, then read the experts yourself. Ling and Gombrich are a good start.

>>24855284
>The reason they don't do this is because they are either cowards and/or addicted to sense-pleasures, which prevents them from fulfilling their own worldview.
No, Buddhists don't commit mass-suicide because regardless of if rebirth is real, it's a bad idea.
If rebirth is real, then a person who commits suicide will typically, at best, have an equal rebirth to their previous life, and at worst, have an unfortunate rebirth in one of the narakas. Some highly-realized bhikkhus committed suicide in protest of certain atrocities, but the intention of this sort of act is very different from the intention of most suicides.
If rebirth isn't real, then the potential for the person to have a long life spent cultivating joy is squandered.

Keep in mind: the Buddha never said "life is suffering," the Buddha said "dukkha is an unavoidable part of life." Dukkha doesn't strictly mean suffering, and the Buddha never said a person has dukkha their whole life; in fact, the four noble truths tell you exactly how to live your life without dukkha!

>>24856561
You're applying a religious framework that Mainländer's entire philosophy was built to destroy. He didn't believe in your "Samsara" or "progressing" to enlightenment, he was an atheist pessimist whose goal was absolute annihilation. He literally wrote that the idea of reincarnation was just a powerful exoteric motive, a fairy tale to scare the hungry will to life (you) into behaving. For him suicide was the short path of redemption and the highest possible happiness, especially since he (presumably) practiced chastity and didn't affirm the will to life by procreating. He wasn't reborn lower, he achieved his goal of being struck forever from the book of life and entering absolute nothingness. Stop projecting your Eastern religious cope onto a philosophy explicitly designed to refute it.

>>24856988
Whatever view he had of Buddhism or partial view of Buddhism, doesn't make him a buddhist.

>>24855284
>The Buddha did not teach rebirth.
>ignores everything about the jhanas
Faggot.

>>24857144
meant for >>24856645

I love it when mossadic jews make a billion threads about anti-natalist philosophers that no one cares about for their demoralization campaign.

>>24855359
you're doing it wrong, poseur.

>>24854417 (OP)
>>kills himself and ends suffering
You don't end suffering by killing yourself, you just die with suffering and as a result of suffering, the only way to end suffering Is witha developed awareness and acceptance of reality

>>24856192
Everything you just said Is wrong, desire being the cause of suffering Is the 2nd noble truth

>>24856700
Nta but you're not refuting him
>Buddha constantly talks about rebirth
He already adressed that, you should rwfutebgim by proving how that is not part of a cultural necessity un the discourse

>>24855185
>>24855068
>>24854480
There is no suffering per se, Meanings are man-made and are ephemeral only to the living human being and never apply to the deceased.
Every meaning has a flaw, A fallacy to its end, It's never always perfect, It's always flawed.

There is no Nirvana or hell or heaven or samsara, This in only a cope from a person who related concepts and got praised by retards who also fear death.

You don't understand the influence and charisma of a cult leader, That's why Jim Jones could've easily convinced 900 to commit suicide