Thread 24857803

>read the book Path to Nibbana by David C. Johnson
>been meditating on and off for almost a year now
>when I was really consistent, felt complete peace and think one time I entered the first jhana, saw a bunch of flickering lights
>after the fact though, I disregard meditation as placebo, part of me feels like my experience wasnt "real"
>also thought perhaps meditation is only this beneficial because my life was going pretty smooth by then, no real threats
>recently at my job this new guy was fucking around my vicinity, looking for something to do, had a customer outside to be dealt with
>told him to go deal with that if he has nothing better to do
>he says "why?" trying to challenge me
>boiled immediately boiled and had thoughts about "do you have anything fucking better to do?"
>"you come here to fucking work this isn't a daycare"
>"this fucking ungrateful jackass after we've been far nicer to him than all our previous new recruits, testing our patience"
>"ill fucking spit on your dead sisters grave, fucking punk bitch" (his sister died recently, he missed a few days of work this past week)
>was about to go full fucking world war 3, this smaller guy having the nerve when I could bench his weight for a warmup
>literally had primal urge to put him on a chokehold and watch him suffocate
>instead, I sternly said "So what do you mean by 'why?' exactly?"
>he complies, gives awkward smile
>he starts being really chummy after, I just nod my head without saying a word
I reflected on this deeply that night, tried to meditate. My ego gnawing at me felt like I was in a pit of fire, convincing me that I should've knocked him out or even kill him. He challenged my authority, real chimp politics. It assuaged me however knowing he was going through rough times, and perhaps he felt like he's being taken advantage of as a new guy, as he was more compliant before that incident. I also felt like if I HAD taken action, I'd feel guilty for I'm taking advantage of conditions that benefit me (I'm larger than him and closer with management, example, but hypothetically what if this weren't the case?) Still, lips dry no appetite. Truly, I am as human as it gets. Intense love but burning hatred, balancing them is a herculean task. My inner peace seems to have been more contingent on the world around me. How much of my comfort, or happiness, is even of my own making? Am I just a product of fortunate circumstances? I need peace regardless if I'm locked in a room with primal inmates, with nobody but my mind to rely on.

i like to watch talks by krishnamurti

Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness: Walking the Buddha's Path by Henepola Gunaratana, or anything by Bhante G for that matter.

>>24857803 (OP)
I like having fun with my frens :)))
I hope I get reincarnated so I can see my frens again :))

I also think that you acted not out of loving kindness, those thoughts were not loving thoughts and your reply to him wasn't kind, explaining, open and Self-less/unselfish. You acted purely out of Ego. You -have- no authority to challenge. Either none of us are "primal inmates", or all of us are. Try not to balance intense love and burning hatred, but eradicate hatred completely. Meditate on this. This will help you friend.

>>24858239
I understand why the idea appeals to you, but that is not Buddhism my friend. We know reincarnation is suffering. Strive for nibbana and you will be free of suffering, and help you friends to strive for it as well.

>>24858211
Krishnamurti wasn't a Buddhist.

>>24858252
There is suffering, but there is joy as well. The joy makes the suffering worth it. We know joy by comparing it to the times that we suffered.

>>24858262
You will never find true Joy if you do not end your suffering. Suffering will never cease to exist without Nibbana. You will learn this eventually.

>>24858270
Suffering doesn't need to be extinguished. Suffering is part of the joy.

How do you meditate while having tinnitus? The things you’re supposed to do to meditate are just about the worst things I could do as someone that has it.
I can’t make any progress because I just get distracted by the ringing 24/7

>>24858276
Meditate on the tinnitus use the experience of tinnitus as the focal point for your meditation rather than breathing or mantras.

>>24858276
Meditation does not have to be without thoughts. You could think loving thoughts to people around you or strangers. You could reflect on things you can do better, these are just some examples. If you are too distracted by your tinnitus, try counting backwards from, say, 50 to 0, and then from 49 to 0, 48 to 0 etc. If you make a mistake, go back to 50-0. In this way, you are not just mindless counting. And it helps to calm the mind and come in a calm "flow". Good luck!

>>24858272
Of course this is your thought to think and that is completely fine. I am just trying to help.

>>24858276
if you're doing it right this is a non-issue, there is always environmental noise your brain will seize upon as an escape hatch if you give in

>>24858281
The problem is it spikes so it’s not always the same tone. Certain noises cause spiking for instance, basically a reset at that point. And focusing on the noise is rather unpleasant because it’s best when I can tune it out, which happens when certain noises line up and drown it out such as a fridge hum.
My usual method is to simply tell myself it’s nothing and ignore it anyway but that mindset isn’t conducive to meditative effort in the same way it’s easier to temporarily ignore personal issues to focus. Also it got worse after seeing some fireworks so it’s extra frustrating because it was fairly tolerable before and now it just sucks. The only saving grace is that they’ll likely find a cure within a decade or so but by then society will be completely changed by ai or something

>>24858261
neither was buddha

>>24858318
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CTEj4fbSbk

>>24858239
haha
you're so silly
that was really funny

>>24858239
Reincarnation unfortunately doesn’t preserve the you in you or your frens. :(((
It’s more like how you piss in a river and then someone drinks out of the river but they’re not really drinking your piss from the tap. Or how you are taking a bite of your own dead ancestors in every burger you eat because they became dirt and the dirt became grass and the grass became cow that became burger that became you that became poopy butthole.

>>24858710
hmm, seems like you're trying to be funny or to fit in, but you're trying too hard, anon.

>>24858262
You're confusing pain with suffering, pain is inevitable and Is a contrast with joy/pleasure, suffering Is a neurótic context that makes you desire pleasurw and avoid pain, making pleasure addictive and pain unbearable, in buddhist context "suffering"(dukkha) should be translated as alienatión or neurosis, Is not an unwholesome feeling but a existencial context for experience

>>24858239
Then follow the bodhisattva vows

>>24857803 (OP)
Buddhism is pretty gay
"DoN't EaT mEaT" -some Asian peasant who had no money

>>24858986
That's a typical misconception of Buddhism. It's "Don't kill". You can be a Buddhist and still eat meat. Because you don't actively kill the animal you eat, nor is it your intent to kill. Else, vegetarians could also not be Buddhist, since even with vegetarian foods, animals get killed (pesticides, bugs in vegetables, etc.). It is more the personal preference of the individual Buddhist. Do you feel comfortable eating meat or not? Does your compassion for animals extend to you avoiding meat?

>>24858994
Vegetarians are killing plants, which are, in fact, alive.
Checkmate, ching chong bing bong.

>>24858995
They're simply eating them. Either way, it's not the same as with animals. I think I don't need to explain that to you, as your posts don't sound sincere.

My thing with Buddhism is, if removing any religious contexts or attachments.....Why not just go with Aristotle and Eudamonia instead?

>>24858319
damn…

>>24858986
>>24858994
>>24858995
>>24858998
About one quarter of Buddhists are vegetarians or vegans. In Tibet, a very large portion of the population is Buddhist, but cannot maintain a vegetarian lifestyle at all because it's incredibly difficult to farm plants in Tibet. Soil and mountains and stuff, I don't know the specifics. Point is, Tibet has a very large number of meat-eaters.
Even the Buddha ate meat, and only refused to eat meat if it was slaughtered specifically for him.
There's no such thing as sin in Buddhism, only the reality of every sentient being's actions; every sentient being must take responsibility for their actions, and if a person eats meat, he should be mindful of the fact he is eating a sentient being the entire time he eats.
Mindfulness like this makes a person feel gratitude to the animal, compassion for the animal's life that was spent for him, and resolved to improve the lives of other sentient beings by making the conditions under which animals live better and by eating meat less often, finding that they don't strictly need to eat meat all the time and can afford to eat less for the sake of the lives of sentient beings that would otherwise be slaughtered.

How do Buddhists square the whole buddha-nature love and compassion feels being innate to all sentient beings thing, with the emptiness being the fundament of all things thing?

I can almost get on board with Buddhism but the idea ending your life if you have dementia or terminal cancer will send you to a lower realm is kinda fucked, especially if you have pathological anhedonia such that you can experience much worse agony than the best pleasure your organism can feel

>>24858986
How do you think the buddha died?

>>24859372
Emptiness and buddha nature aren't contradictory because buddha nature is the nature of the mind that has realized emptiness.
Dirty water is dark and semitransparent or even opaque, but pure water without even a particle of debris floating inside is completely clear. That is what the mind is like when it has realized emptiness and has been purified of psychological afflictions. When I describe a "clear mind" here I don't mean a mind without thoughts, but rather a mind that has been purified such that its true unimpeded nature becomes evident, just as the true unimpeded nature of water is to be completely clear.
Do you have any questions? I'm sorry if I did a bad job explaining.

>>24859408
So it's basically the nature of sentient beings who have been stripped/stripped themselves of all things developed as a result of socialisation & nurture (as opposed to nature)?

>>24857803 (OP)
>Practising Buddhism is really hard
>Practising
practice english first

>>24859375
Are you referring to suicide and euthanasia for individuals who are going to die anyway?
What I recommend to people who have problems with the theological aspects of Buddhism is to try secular Buddhism instead. Right here and right now you can put into practice various teachings that will improve your mental and physical health, and you have no duty to believe in rebirth, the six realms, merit, or the idea of "karma" as anything beyond observable cause-and-effect.
Sure, you won't be a "real" Buddhist, but who cares if it helps you, and generates inside of you the motivation to help the rest of the world?

Personally, I do not condone suicide for the simple reason that no person is beyond help. If you're concerned about punishment, consider instead that Buddhism is supposed to be about bringing a person mental peace that makes them feel as though they have no need to commit suicide, anyway. Many people with terminal illnesses died peacefully after spending their last days meditating, and many people with dementia retained so much of their practice that they faded away peacefully and without fear, too.

The last thing I'll say is this: from a theological standpoint, it is not the act of suicide in and of itself that causes an unfortunate rebirth. It's the contributing factors that lead up to their suicide that causes an unfortunate rebirth.
One's lack of consideration for the destruction it'll cause in other people when they kill themself. One's self-clinging that makes them pathologically fear pain rather than accept pain for what it truly is. One's false belief that there is no possibility they could regret their decision. Things like that.
I think a person can live a very virtuous life, have closure with their loved ones, and consent to be euthanized, and that person will not necessarily have an unfortunate rebirth. But how many people commit suicide out of fear of pain and suffering, rather than because they love the world?

>>24859421
Close but not exactly, socialization and nurture are useful, and we wouldn't have the knowledge of how to follow the path to nirvana without these things.
I should clarify that not everything that is natural is desirable. It is natural for animals, such as ourselves, to eat more than is necessary when provided more than enough food, and to copulate more than is necessary when provided more than enough viable mates.
The important thing in my previous post is that a clear mind realizes emptiness and is purified of psychological afflictions. Realizing emptiness is about seeing and knowing that everything is interdependent and conditioned, and being purified of psychological afflictions is about knowing how to treat them when they arise (for example, exercising compassion when you're angry with someone so you stop being angry, and the next time you get angry, it takes longer to get angry, your anger is less intense, and it is treated more easily) until you've practiced enough that afflictions no longer arise.
A person whose mind is purified and clear still observes societal rules and stuff like that, but the capability within all people to act virtuously and care for other sentient beings without any desires beyond their needs as living organisms is what comes through. Buddha nature is this potential; Buddhahood is the state of having actualized this capability.

That's because it's designed for monks.

The lay version is just: do good deeds until you get reincarnated as a monk.

It's also full of contradictions.

Try advaita vedanta. It's easy because it's true. Fact is you're always gonna struggle when you idea aren't based in reality.

>>24859513
>That's because it's designed for monks
>Try advaita vedanta
Advaita Vedanta was designed for monks and you have to be part of the elite in the caste system, being a true advaitin Is impossible for a westerner
>It's easy because it's true.
Nah advaita can't explain ir's most basic stuff like the existence of Brahman ir the arman without falling into circular reasoning, buddhism at least has a empirical phenomenological base

>>24859372
Because emptiness Is what connect everybody and everything, being empty means being empty of any substantial barrier blocking us from everyone else, being empty of an essence means lacking any essential difference with anyone else

>>24859513
>>24859566
Shock and awe a belief system like this is always going to be ludicrous.

>>24859566
>advaita vedanta
>Hinduism
vomit
there's some good stuff in The Path of Individual Liberation by Trungpa Rinpoche
the thing of Buddhism is the basics are hard and require work but have to be followed, without following the basic steps you get nowhere, and even following the path can get nowhere, the idea of using Buddhism to solve personal problems is, in a way, antithetical to the whole point
you have to transcend personal problems, but more than that, you have to transcend self - therefore using Buddhism to overcome personal problems is a way of attaching yourself to your problems and you will get nowhere
the basics of the Buddhist way of life, which serve to cultivate a habit of mindfullness (awareness) and self negation are
>meditate numerous times a day, at least twice - bare in mind many monks do not even regularly meditate despite popular belief
>actively meditate, do not just sit there - do not just think either - you can meditate sitting as much as walking or lying down, sitting in a chair or in one of the 'proper' poses
>reflect and contemplate your actions before enacting them but do not get lost in thoughts that go nowhere
>live simply and humbly
>do not drink alcohol or use drugs - or at least, do not do any of these things to a level which affects your consciousness, therefore it is easier to just abstain completely
>do not have sex or masturbate
>eat basic vegetarian meals and do not eat to be full - ie no meat, no refined sugar, seasonings is questionable - think ital of Rastafarianism: whole natural foods only
>do not engage with bad people
>do not waste the minds energy in entertainment like books, TV, social media, the internet in general
>all things should cultivate energy and focus for the path of liberation only, all thought should be about furthering oneself on the path - this is of course a pretty difficult feat
>>24857803 (OP)
you really should do something about that anger, it is not only excessive in the willfull delusionary reaction, your retelling of the story is excessively indulgent. anger is a poison, and cultivating patience and compassion is something that can be done at any time, meditating or not

>>24859566
>Nah advaita can't explain ir's most basic stuff like the existence of Brahman ir the arman without falling into circular reasoning, buddhism at least has a empirical phenomenological base
This but the other way around. Anatman causes more philosophical issues than the problems it seeks to circumvent.

>>24857803 (OP)
You need to get to stream entry before the spiritual path even begins proper, ignore the jhana's they're a distraction. What makes an experience placebo vs something real? Investigate it.

The time period from SE to Anatta is at the very least 4 years, more likely a decade before the self-structure goes, it's very possible the body will die before getting there.

You're a good decade at least away from actually not (truely unable to) giving a shit about things like you're co-worker challenging you. A proper meditation practice and SE will remove 90% of your suffering though within a couple years, you don't need the final insight decade+ out. Don't get scared when weird shit happens, you can't be harmed.

>>24859569
Being empty of an enduring essence means you don't exist, and neither does anything else. You're like a painting of a person who never was, in a context that never is.

>>24859689
Not really, anatman Is the empirical option, thenatman Is no self-evident so the burden of proof Is on the one defending an atman doctrine,and the arman doctrined creates a second order ontology that no hindú school can defend without relying on dogma

>>24859705
Not at all, existing by virtue of qn essence makes no logical Sense, because if you're your essence then the división Is redundant and no essence Is needed, if you're something else besides your essence then what gives "being" to that part and how that part can coexist and comunícate with the essence since both must be of different substances? The point of contact between the essential and not essential can't never be Made since the qualities needed for something to be "essential" aré opposite to the inessential(permanent,unchanging,partless etc) and the conexión Is impossible, and ifnyou' establish a system of emanations that system logically would fall into an infinite regress, since every link of the chain would require its own links, since every emanations of being would be itsbown substance with its own qualities
Emptiness on the other hand posit being as arising from the relation between every aspect of the non-dual existence, not from some metaphysical second order ontology that can't really maken contact with this complete existence, this Is not only More solid logically but Is empirically self-evident, you can easily trace evey aspect of your being as interdependent with existence, but "an essence" Is nowhwrw to be fiund beyond some metaphysical especulation

>>24859807
we are agreeing, dickhead

>>24859842
I'm saying you and everything exist, emptiness is the only way anything can exist

>>24859882
we exist only relatively. There's no canonical representation of anything, so no inherent nature or essence, so it's not the thing in itself. No objective semantics either. It's like looking at a cloud and seeing a bunny in it. In that sense 'we' 'exist'.

>>24859882
does the smoke thot exist? Or is it smoke in the picture?

>>24859786
I don't care for atheist jeet sophistry. Self is self-evident.
>Show ME your self
lol

>>24858289
nta but let me ask you, can joy be joy or have any value without an anti-joy to compare it to? pure joy seems to be either impossible or wholly without value.

>>24859915
You are pointing to a cloud and denying the existence of the physical bunny on the ground.

>>24860583
nice koan-esque reworking of Plato's Cave you have there

>>24860587
It is funny how Plato and the Upanishads converged on the same idea of an "essence" behind things.

>>24860433
Of course it can. Like a child knows joy as it plays or gets a hug from their mother or enjoys Christmas. To get that joy, it didn't need to know suffering. Myself, I find profound joy in reading, or being in nature, or watching a beautiful movie, or spending time with family - and I do not need to "know" suffering to enjoy it. I do not think of suffering when I enjoy things. I hope this helps.

>>24860583
It’s an analogy, the ‘physical bunny on the ground’ is the cloud

>>24857803 (OP)
How can I best study Buddhism and 'become' a Buddhist if there are no temples or centres in my country? I don't know any Buddhists personally, so I have no one to ask things or to guide me.

>>24858261
Truth can’t be fully encapsulated by names and labels.
Paradoxically, Krishnamurti got close to the core of Buddhism by rejecting it, along with all spiritual teachings, in his own way. There’ve been practicing Buddhist monks and Tibetan lamas who gave great respect to Jiddu Krishnamurti, such as calling him an Arhat.

Buddhist tradition in fact has room for people who come to enlightenment without the aid of a teacher or sangha, although it is regarded as rare. One conception is of a Pratyekabuddha, someone who attains enlightenment (achieves liberation) on their own, but also without teaching or guiding others. So Krishnamurti is partially that, but he did teach or guide others afterwards, so not exactly that.

>>24861137
Watch Dharma talks and see if you can be part of an online group, there's a Lot of buddhist temples active online now

>>24860583
No, the point is that the bunny and the cloud aré Made of the same thing, the bunny, the bunny in the cloud and the cloud aré not different

>>24860430
That's not a metaphysical self(atman) but a relational self(pugdala) you're trying to do a cheap play on words ignoring that in the doctrine theres different cognotations to each of those words, Is mine people saying that wanting to stop desire Is itself a desire, ignoring that whatbyou "want"(chanda) Is to stop craving(tanha), when younuse the correct word those cheap word play stop making sense

>>24861137
You have to start with Evola

>>24861299
And what is the bunny on the ground made of?

>>24861294
Do you have any recommendations for online groups?

>>24861325
Arising interdependent things, things that can only have an identity thanks to the other things in existence, you can only have a bunny if there's earth you can only haveberth ifbthere's a sky and you can only have a sky if you have clouds, the sky Is no different than the clouds that Made it, and the earth Is no different than the sky that contrast ir, Is there's no sky there's no earth, if there's no earth, there's no bunny,if there's no mind there's no shape of a bunny in the sky,if there's no shapes there's no mind, if there's no parts there's no whole but a whole can only be Made of parts, both need each other as reference

>>24861382
You should check out different Dharma talks and different groups to see which branch of buddhism and which group do you like first
I heard yutthadammo bikkhu from the theravada tradition has a really active online group, if you like that sect that could be a good option, tibetan groups aré everywhere now in the internet too, there's even online empowerements now

>>24861415
Does arising interdependently mean that it doesn't exist?

>>24861450
No, interdependent arising Is how buddhism explain existence

Take a look at Pure Land Buddhism. It's known as the "easy path". Sounds like you're already decent at meditation, so you could probably get a response early on.
>I need peace regardless if I'm locked in a room with primal inmates, with nobody but my mind to rely on.
With Pure Land you could mentally chant to feel at peace in such a situation.

>>24861137
Read books, watch videos, find a community on discord, or even try talking on a forum. Fucked up that people still use forums in 2025, but they're good.

>>24857803 (OP)
There's a book by an author named Jon Peniel. It sounds like a meme but I think you'd enjoy it OP.

>>24860637
Nta but what youre essentially saying that ultimately suffering is an illusion because it is 'causeless' but 'experientially' 'real' to us?

>>24861815
Can’t’ but love online forums. Dharmaoverground.org is hands down my favourite, been lurkin there at least 15 yrs.

>>24861854
Not at all

>>24862038
Dharmawheel.net Is pretty good too, it's has a Lot of monks active in the forums

>>24860583
Both are impermanent

>>24860430
The permanence of the self Is not only not self-evident but logically impossible, since a permanent unhanging self couldn't interact with an impermanent changing world, since at the first change from moment1 (m1)to moment2(M2) the self would stop being established as the ground of experience since it needs to change its quality (of m)from "A self at m1" to "a self at M2" (if a self doesn't have the quality of m, then it can't be present at any moment an it becomes useless and redundant, since wathever can fulfill that quality Is the real functional ground of experience and thus no "self" Is needed)but that woul make it a changing self, thus relative to a formnof motion and not an unchanging atma

>>24857803 (OP)
Practice Daoism (buddhism's non retarded brother) instead.

>>24864193
where?

Why is it "nibbana" and not "nirvana"?

>>24864731
Nibbana Is the pali word More common in the theravada tradition and nirvana Is the sanskrit word More common in mahayana

>>24858995
>which are, in fact, alive
they're not really sentient so it doesn't really count

>>24864187
>since at the first change from moment1 (m1)to moment2(M2) the self would stop being established as the ground of experience since it needs to change its quality (of m)from "A self at m1" to "a self at M2
That's like saying "it's logically impossible that an unmoving and unchanging rock can be situated in the middle of a moving river because it would be unable to change its quality from "rock touching this portion of the river" to "rock touching that portion of the river"

The answer is that in both cases the statuses are made-up and purely mental (conceptual proliferation) and things don't actually need such a status to abide in the presence of change/motion

>>24866259
>unchanging rock
The rock Is never unchanging, Is just relative constant, there's all kinds of changes in the rock,the most obvious is that the River erodes the rock and changes the rock shale, also the rock wasnt a rock at the begging of the universe, it changes interdependenrly from Many things until it became a rock, also the rock has a temporal change, changes from "the rock at m1"to "the rock at m2" every aspect of the rock changes, you jua can see ir because you're conceptually Fix to see constant things as permanent, so your example Is just a false equivalence

>rock touching this portion of the river" to "rock touching that portion of the river"
It's because the rock changes that you can establish that the rock relates to the River that way, a true unchanging thing can't metaphysically establish any conection with a changing thing, diferent things establish different levels of constancy, a rock Is More constant in Time than water, but both are related in Time and thus with change as the basis


>both cases the statuses are made-up and purely mental
But then you're not establishing a unchanging thing, and since relationaly things change and have motion(proliferatión) we can establish impermanence as empirically true and the self as inadequate to explain experience

>>24866141
Even a rock is part of our sentience. When we look at it, it shapes and informs our sentience by its very rockness. in a sense it could be said that a rock IS our sentience. When I lift my gaze off it, I can still feel its weight even thoug I am not looking at it. The rock still shapes and informs my sentience via sense doors. Plant has a sentience in a sense that it can sense things by virtue of its biology: its leaves follow the sun, its roots gather water and nutrients etc. Plants don’t pick up rocks and make meanings out of them though. Meaning making is also tricky: I find that a rock is a good rock or a bad rock painted as so by the mood of my own mind. The very act of looking at the rock seems to fabricate a sense of observer also. It becomes unclear who is the original creator and the original fabricator of meaning - the rock or the rock watcher?

>>24866259
>and things don't actually need such a status
If the status Is mental why the things are not also mental?

>>24858261
No, but he's close enough that most would find useful as buddhists. But really being a Buddhist isnt very hard. The method is to be selfless. This just means this.

1) be kind to others
2) be kind to yourself
3) be considerate of your thoughts/actions (pros v cons slider in the mind of any action)
"Meditation/contemplating = Buddhism" is a western idea. For Asia, Buddhism = transformation, thats what "meditation" really means. Transformation of not just the mind, but the body action/life as well. And the two are reinforced by each other.

ACT selflessly (moderately)
THINK selflessly (moderately)
Minimize reification (moderately)

>>24866103
Thanks!

>>24867059
>selfless
That's a good way to sum up Buddhism and its core teaching of Anatta.

>>24857803 (OP)
Take refuge in the sangha anon. There is a lot more to Buddhism than meditation. Sila is an important foundation and regularly attending a place with spiritual friends will help you with it.

>>24861418
https://tricycle.org/events/meditation/

This online meditation group run by this Buddhist magazine cycles through various meditation leaders, who you can ask questions. If you google the person presently leading meditations, you'll find the website to their temple and means of watching. Starts in about 11 hours from now.

>>24861382
https://tricycle.org/events/meditation/

This online meditation group run by this Buddhist magazine cycles through various meditation leaders, who you can ask questions. If you google the person presently leading meditations, you'll find the website to their temple and means of watching. Starts in about 11 hours from now.

>>24861450
Yes it means it’s not fundamental, has no self essence. Like the ship of Theseus

>>24869325
So nothing here really exists?

>>24869388
No. Neither eternalism nor nihilism.

>>24869388
Rejects independent existence
Rejects nihilism
Rejects eternalism
Affirms mutual existence

>>24869388
Nothing exist by itself

>>24859786
> Not really, anatman Is the empirical option
Incorrect, it’s just an interpretive lenses that is used to explain experience but it’s not actually confirmable, and experience can just as equally be explained in numerous other plausible ways.
>creates a second order ontology that no hindú school can defend without relying on dogma
That’s factually wrong, but either way Buddhism has dogmas too like karma, rebirth, emptiness, anatta etc, all of them of ultimately unproven and are based on Buddha’s alleged magic supernatural insight.

>>24864187
> since a permanent unhanging self couldn't interact with an impermanent changing world
In the Vishishtadvaita model the Atman’s essential properties remain eternal and unchanging but it is qualified by a property of changing consciousness that makes it interact with the world.

In the Advaita model the Atman doesnt interact with the world and it doesnt need to because it just provides the passive illumination which allows the intellect to interact with the world, similar to how the sun doesn’t interact with the distant objects that its light happens to fall upon and yet animals still need the light of the sun to see things regardless.

So, none of those arguments present any trouble for either the Advaitin or the Vishishtadvaitin Atman, they are easy to refute.

>>24868562
Its the core of it. You are selfless, everything around you is selfless.

>>24864193
go on

>>24857803 (OP)
I had to stop meditating because when I got more than 3 sessions in I was overwhelmed with the irrepressible urge to sob.

>>24857803 (OP)
>Have wife and child
>see a dead person
>shit and piss yourself
>abandon your family
>sit under a tree for years on end
>egolessly call yourself the enlightened one
>Seethe and cope about life your entire life
>die
>millions of people waste their lives similarly
Sad shit.

who else meditating to meet the hot bitches that tempted Buddha?

>>24870542
it's just a myth. and even that particular myth wasn't about gotama but a buddha in a previous era.

>>24869794
>interpretive lenses
No because there's no positive affirmation of an anatta entity, anatta is the lack of a presuposed entity, the burden of proof Is not in the anatta doctrine, since it's not proposing any particular entity

>but either way Buddhism has dogmas
None of those things are dogmas because you don't have to believi in them but find if they're true in your iwn practice, the exact opposite of a dogma

>Vishishtadvaita model the Atman’s essential properties remain eternal and
>the Advaita model the
And both of those model fall into this logical problem, both have some mediation needed thatbthey can explican and create a second order o tolofy, making the atman redundant, if what perceives Time Is something beyond the atman,then the atman Is not needed and impossible to find in our experience, making ir not only not self-evident but empirically impossible, so yeah both of those school can't explain their own doctrines and need to rely in dogma to establish the core of their reachings

>>24871512
>some mediation needed thatbthey can explica
Some mediation that they CAN'T explain

>>24866259
If the rock Is truly unchanging, then the rock at M1 and M2 would be the same, but that would mean that "rock touching this portion of the river" to "rock touching that portion of the river" would also be the exact same, making the rock touching different parts and moments of the River at the same Time, which Is impossible, just like you can't be at morning and midnight at the same time

>>24871512
>No because there's no positive affirmation of an anatta entity, anatta is the lack of a presuposed entity, the burden of proof Is not in the anatta doctrine, since it's not proposing any particular entity
That's entirely besides the point which is that the mere fact of attributing a lack of proof for the affirmation of A doesn't meant that the denial of A is somehow more empirical, if A is not subject to empirical perception due to being unobjectifiable then its affirmation and denial are both equidistant from our empirical perception so neither option is more or less empirical and both are on equal footing. It's sloppy thinking to overlook this and to thereby claim that one is more empirical. In the same way, the notion of there being cyclic universes is not available to perceptual confirmation and so the denial and affirmation of this are on equal footing and neither is more empirical.

> but find if they're true in your iwn practice
There is no way they can be confirmed though, every supposed confirmation turns out upon inspection to be an interpretation of things that can equally be interpreted in other non-Buddhist ways. You can try to give an example and I will demonstrate this.

>And both of those model fall into this logical problem, both have some mediation needed thatbthey can explican and create a second order o tolofy,
There is no "second order", that's just a strawman fallacy. In Advaita there is only the one reality and its false phenomenal expression which is the direct expression of its inherent ability and is not a second reality, as secondness does not even have real existence the very conception of mediation is false and is not something that even exists, much less being something tha'ts required. And in Vishishtadvaita all phenomena are part of the one reality of Brahman and form its body, hence there is no mediation between two realities in that model either.
>if what perceives Time Is something beyond the atman,then the atman Is not needed
This is another strawman fallacy, according to their doctrine the intellect can only function and perceive things when illuminated by the light of the Atma, so according to their own position the Atma is needed. So what you describe is not even their doctrine and you are just attacking a strawman. If you want to insist that the Atma isn't needed then you would need to provide an argument demonstrating why that's the case, simply stating that its not needed is just creating a false strawman which is a fallacy.
>and impossible to find in our experience
They don't say that it's impossible to find in experience, they say that its known and self-evident but that it just cannot be objectified by the mind or senses. Our experience is a combination of both the self-evident Atma and the mind/senses that objectify things, hence it is our experience, Buddhists just disagree with this analysis but to say its totally absent from lived experience is yet another strawman fallacy.

>>24871608
>That's entirely besides the point
Not at all, the fct that the burden of proof Is on you Is totally the point, i don't need to prove that anatta exist, because anatta Is just the negation of the atta, not something in itself that posses existence ir qualities, just kike i don't need to prove the inexistence of god, Is the theist that has to prove that god exist
>There is no way they can be confirmed though
You don't know that, you didn't practice the way
>only the one reality
And you can't prove it's existence, so Is just dogma not a logical argument
>not even have real existence the ver
If something have a "false" existence then there's a second order ontology, since there's two forms of existence, thus thenvery concept of existence becomes ilógico, since there's things that can exist and not-exist ay the same time, this breaks the law of non-contradiction since something can't be A and -A at the same Time, false existence Is an oxímoron, the only way advaita "resolve"this Is by circular reasoning, using their own dogmas to explain why their dogmas are true
>the very conception of mediation is false
The Brahman can't iluminarte the intellect since that doesn't realy exist, things that exist can't interact with things that doesn't exist, thing that doesn't exist aré also an oxoron if something "Is" anything then it exist in some way
>phenomena are part of the one reality of Brahman
Then the many forma and moments aré part of him, thus Is not unchanging and partless
>according to their doctrine the intellect can only function and perceive things when illuminated by the light of the Atma
Yes and that makes no Sense, because if the intellect can't "intellect' by itself then Is just not the intellect, butbif he can then Brahman Is not needed, tjats why Is ilogical
>its known and self-evident but that it just cannot be objectified by the mind
Then you can't know Is self-evident, you just assume it ss, the problem Is that many people don't assumenthat, so Is just your word against theirs
And since the idea of an atman not only can prive itself butbalso generates this logical problems, the best most logical option Is to establish it doesn't exist

>>24857803 (OP)
>more book recommendations?

>>24857803 (OP)
I'm willing to bet that if you slapped Gautama's girlfriend on the arse, he'd have punched you out in a fit of rage.
There is no escape from being human. Nobody can be "enlightened" all the time. It's a transient state.

>>24872391
>t. mara
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud1_8.html

>>24871675
>, because anatta Is just the negation of the atta,'
Its a lie to claim that its more empirical because the denial and affirmation of A are equally unavailable to empirical perception, if its more empirical then how? It can only be 'more' if is based on empirical perception which isnt the case here.
>You don't know that
I have actually practiced guided Buddhist meditation under a teacher at a retreat before, moreover it follows logically
>And you can't prove it's existence
which is besides the point, which is that when determining if Bob's arguments refute Bill's doctrine, it's not incumbent upon Bill to prove anything, the validity or lack of validity in Bob's arguments are supposed to be analyzed solely in terms of do they actually show any contradiction or failure in Bill's position without relying on fallacies. As shown your arguments rely on fallacies and are therefore invalid and a failure.
>If something have a "false" existence then there's a second order ontology
A strawman fallacy since falsity is not a form of existence to begin with, its just a phenomenal function or expression of the one and sole reality that is existence, everything else your wrote there follows from your false strawman fallacy
>The Brahman can't iluminarte the intellect since that doesn't realy exist
That just refers to the one reality fulfilling its function in a particular way, i.e. such that the false intellects that appear are present in such a way that they are illuminated, its not referring to an interaction between two separately existing things, so your whole premise is based on a false notion here
>Then the many forma and moments aré part of him, thus Is not unchanging and partless
The Viśiṣṭādvaita position that is referring to accept that the one reality of Brahman contains plurality and change within itself even though the paramatman portion of this one reality is unchanging so thats no problem for their position
>Yes and that makes no Sense, because if the intellect can't "intellect' by itself then Is just not the intellect
This is just a question-begging fallacy, its just an unsupported assertion and is not any kind of valid argument, there is no valid a priori reason why the intellect should necessarily be totally independent of anything else.
>Then you can't know Is self-evident
False, because awareness that is atma can be shown to be self-evident through phenomenological analysis as well as logical argument (non-self-evident awareness leads to an untenable infinite regress)
>the problem Is that many people don't assumenthat, so Is just your word against theirs
those who deny that awareness is self-evident are refuted by the regress argument, and their analysis of experience makes 0 sense and does not match our actual experience, just see Mipham's refutations of Tsongkhapa for example

THE FIRST ABSURD RESULT
To negate svasarmvedana (reflexive awareness) understood in this sense would necessarily be to hold that one's own mind is a hidden object for oneself. The reference here is to a distinction derived from Dignaga and Dharmakirti, well-known in dGe lugs circles, between evident things which can be known through direct empirical experience without dependence upon inference, those which are hidden and thus have to be known normally through inference, and very hidden objects like the exact details of the workings of karma and rebirth, which short of becoming a Buddha oneself have be known from some authoritative source such as the Buddha (see Gyatso 1993, p. 53). Of course, an omniscient mind knows all things through direct experience. Thus what Mi pham is saying here is that if one's own consciousness at time t is not itself also known by oneself directly in experiencing objects at time t (i.e., reflexivity) , then it would have to be known through some subsequent means such as inference, which is absurd. It would mean that experience lacks validation, that we never know we are experiencing when we are experiencing.

THE SECOND ABSURD RESULT
(ii) Because of (i) it would follow that there would be no distinction in the manner of determination by consciousness of the minds of oneself and another. It seems at least prima facie obvious that one should have privileged access to one's own mind, yet if consciousness lacks reflexivity and becomes a hidden object for oneself it is difficult to see how privileged access can be sustained, and, likewise, any difference between modes of presentation to oneself of one's own mind and that of another. In fact, Mi pham may be thinking, just as one has to infer the existence of other minds, so one would have to infer the existence of one's own mind. Absurdly, one would know one's own mind in just the same way as one knows of the minds of other sentient beings.

THE THIRD ABSURD RESULT
(iii) Moreover, proving that there exists a mind in one's own continuum would be unreasonable. If one's own mind is a hidden object for oneself and therefore known on the same basis as one knows of the minds of others, then how would it be possible ever to prove to oneself that one has a mind? In fact the problem of knowing one's own mind would be the same as the problem of knowing other minds. It seems, for example, that there could be no inferential derivation of other minds on the analogical basis of one's own mind. Since one could not prove other minds, and one's own mind is held by the opponent to be known on the same basis as other minds, how, therefore, could one prove to oneself that one has a mind of one's own? Moreover, there could be no inference based on data provided from experience, since one has yet to prove one's own mind and therefore the possibility of experience.

His point is simply that consciousness is consciousness, and it is the nature of consciousness that it is not {non-reflexive}. Consciousness either actually is or is not aware of itself. If it is not then the absurd result follows that the nature of consciousness is to know others but not know whether itself exists or not It would, therefore, be insentient.

...

Indubitability is indeed a response to the fact that consciousness is self-knowing, reflexive. For Mi pham this is self-evidently how it is, and if reflexivity is understood in this way then whoever says there is no such thing can only be wondered at with an incredulous shake of the head. To deny such reflexivity is patently false. It is, for Mi pham, like a person who is holding onto something very tightly and yet denies she is carrying anything at all. We might add that we are very close here to a version of the Cartesian cogito. Mi pham seems to want to say that his dGe lugs opponent's position is more than just absurd, it is also contradictory. I cannot consistently wonder or be unsure whether I am conscious or not.

...

Mi pham's point here is probably both an empirical one-that we all know from our own experience that we simply do not have a separate additional consciousness which accompanies every consciousness and makes it known to us-and also (far more vicious) the problem of an infinite regress which Mi pham will highlight next. Moreover, it is scarcely satisfactory to try to maintain as another option the existence of a separate simultaneous verifying consciousness for each conscious act even were such a verifying consciousness not actually apprehended at all! Thus, Mi pham explains, if each mind or consciousness-event (blo) has a further different consciousness-event which is its apprehending subject there would occur innumerable faults, such as a vicious infinite regress of consciousness-events. If even a single separate subjective aspect is not possible, how much less likely would be the case with many of them!

>>24859513
Advaita and buddhism are the exact same thing as far as the experience and practice, they just autistically argued for centuries that those experiences mean the opposite metaphysical truths are true.

>>24858276
I keep a fan running

>>24872391
i have a feeling gautama didn't care too much about his girl, but yes you are right, enlightenment is not a permanent state, and even arahants are advised to continue their meditation practice

>>24872899
>negate svasarmvedana
That's a buddhist concept tho, svasarmvedana don't imply a self

>>24872738
>is based on empirical perception which isnt the case here
It Is the case, anatta don't add anything to empirical perception,anatta Is by deffinition your empirical perception
>at a retreat
You díd retreat, you didn't practice the dhamma
>which is besides the point
No Is not, because it's existence Is a pillar of the argument, if you cant prove it's existence then your whole argument Is just mere especulation
>falsity is not a form of existence to begin wit
A"false existence" is tho
>its just a phenomenal function or expression of the one and sole reality and that one reality has multiplicity and change since it posses them as phenomenological functions, and there's a contradictión in your argument,if something has a "functinallity" it can't by deffinition be false, since it's functioning, it has a purpouse, a working quality, a form of being
>refers to the one reality fulfilling its function in a particular
A particular way that imply multiplicity, notice how this "falsity" you want to use to solve the whole things stop working realy cast when you need to explain hownitbworks, you need to establish this multiplicity as part of rheoneness but at the same Time as something different, but if different then there's something else besides thisnonenesa,but if it's parte of the oneness, the oneness stop being one, so Kgusg be false, but if it false how.can it functions? Because of rheoneness makenit functions, but then it gasto be part of the oneness in order to be functional to the oneness, each thing you try to so to escape this contradictión trapa you into another contradiction
>there is no valid a priori reason
Yes there Is, inlaready expliained it, if the intellect can't intellect then what its function? You're again creating a second order ontology where twonsifferent things acomplish the same function
>awareness that is atma can be shown to be self-evident through phenomenological analysis as well as logical argument
If ir needs to be "show" as self-evident, thus by deffinition Is not self-evident, also you can say the same about the non-self, so your point is mot
>are refuted by the regress argument,
The regress argument fall into a petitió principii fallacy, it takes fir granted that a duality of subject and object Is needed for perception, since the regress ofbthe object Is established as opposed to a subject that dies the cognotion, this inner working of perception Is not self-evident and refuted by different schoools of gnoseology, so no hyou didn't refute anything

>>24872926
You're just proving buddhism right and refuting your own point here>>24872738
>there is no valid a priori reason why the intellect should necessarily be totally independent of anything else
An argument for the Svasmavedana proves that the intellect/mind can't be dependent upon something else like an atman
>>24872899
>negate svasarmvedana (reflexive awareness) understood in this sense would necessarily be to hold that one's own mind is a hidden object for oneself
That Is the mindbis it's own source of illumination
>an omniscient mind knows all things through direct experience.

This mind needs no atman le self, since ir provided itsbown illumination,
This mind (citta) is no-mind (acitta), because its natural character is luminous. What is this state of the mind’s luminosity (prabhsvarat)? When the mind is neither associated with nor dissociated from greed, hatred, delusion, proclivities (anusaya), fetters (samyojana), or false views (drsti), then this constitutes its luminosity. Does the mind exist as no-mind? In the state of no-mind (acittat), the states of existence (astit) or non-existence (nstit) can be neither found nor established... What is this state of no-mind? The state of no-mind, which is immutable (avikra) and undifferentiated (avikalpa), constitutes the ultimate reality (dharmat) of all dharmas. Such is the state of no-mind.

>>24872738
>who deny that awareness is self-evident are refuted by the regress argument,

Already refuted by Georg Lichtenberg, you can establish that thinking occurs, but not that the source of that thinking is a self, the self is in itself a product of the thinking, not it's source, the fact that awareness as an activity occurs don't prove that there's a metaphysical atman behind it, that argument Is a non-sequitur