Are buddhists just nihilist's in denile?
>>16597008>oh shit we created nihilism. Uh, reincarnation? So yes.
>>16597031This confuses me>Objective souls>Universal force that takes your soul and reincarnates you depending on your karma>Not a God btw
No
>>16597008Buddhism yes but Buddha's original teaching no. Buddhism is not Buddha's original teaching. It has distorted his teaching into something unrecognizable. Most of the Pali canon is corrupted by the members of the First Buddhist Council. The Sutta Nipata however has remained unaltered. As the oldest surviving Buddhist text in existence. Its tone and the words used differ so much from the rest of the suttas and later texts. That it provides a glimpse into Buddha's original teaching. Now, this doesn't mean that the later additions were bad though. Many new concepts of great philosophical value have been added. But Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana have a monk/priest hierarchy which wasn't present originally. It incorporates aspects of folk religion and Hindu cosmology which wasn't present in buddha's original teaching. Samsara was originally a metaphor for the cycle of idolization/attachment of object/ideas. And how that cycle will always lead to suffering/grief in the end(as nothing is permanent); each cycle of idolization you go through changes your fundamental identity as you relate to yourself in a different way. Which all happens in one lifetime. And shows that your identity isn't static(as it constantly changes). Nirvana(Nibbana) is acceptance of non-attachment; the acceptance of non-attachment annihilates your identity functionally making you the same as dead. Buddha's whole teaching was that idolization/attachment will always in the end lead to suffering. But also that idolization/attachment and suffering/grief is what makes us alive.
>>16597008>denileAnd no, they're pretty open and transparent about being life-hating nihilists.
>>16597008Early Buddhism and Theravada are definitely nihilism. Mahayana is schizo gibberish.
>>16597596So basically Buddha is saying that life is suffering and that is why he wanted to live an ascetic and simple life so he had few attachments that could make him suffer. Like supporting a king pr a leader, taking care of your children, having a wife, having material things, etc.Did he abandon his wife and children forever or he helped them in some way during his life?
Buddhism is about purification. Nirvana is absolute purity, and there are states "on the way" to nirvana (e.g. brahmavihara) that are markedly purer than ordinary life. It's only nihilism if you think that reality reduces to nothing, in which case that's your own problem. The Buddha himself regarded that view (ucchedavada) as fundamentally deluded.Let me put it another way. Nirvana is categorized as the unconditioned phenomenon (asankhata dhamma). Obviously "nothing" cannot be called a phenomenon; more tersely, "nothing" is not real.
>>16597657>So basically Buddha is saying that life is sufferingNo, the First Noble Truth is that suffering is a part of life.>Did he abandon his wife and children forever or he helped them in some way during his life?During the period in which he abandoned them they lived in the absolute heights of wealth and luxury with hundreds of doting servants and guardians. After he returned they both joined is sangha as renunciates and lived with him, and both eventually attained enlightenment.
>>16597738So he returned to his kingdom? I didn't know that. Cool that he returned to be with his wife and children, I like that.
>>16597008>Are buddhists just nihilist's in denile?nah, we are nihilists in deeuphrates.
>>16597352nihilism in Buddhism means Annihilationism
>>16597124It's convoluted but Buddhists don't believe in soulsAlso it's not seen as a force which 'takes your soul', it's more like a force of nature such as gravityI guess it's hard to explain the distinctionObviously people aren't assigning a consciousness behind karma or a kind of law court system to it but in a way people do tend to talk about karma acting on people when in Buddhism it's seen as just consequences
>>16598683This eventually produced some problematic developments in Eastern Buddhism where Yama was built up as a universal judge for the souls of the dead. Though Eastern Buddhists tended to prefer more theistic perspectives in Buddhism, as another example devotees of the Lotus Sutra (Tiantai, Nichiren) tend to regard the Buddha as a heavenly father and even creator. It gets to the point that the only thing every school of Buddhism has in common is that they call themselves Buddhists.
>>16597352No, nihilism is the claim that the world has no and could never have meaning, normativity, value. As Buddhism more or less shares this view, upholding only its Hinterwelt as having value, it is an example of a nihilistic worldview. Of course, Buddhism has ethics, but they exist only in view of the Hinterwelt. "There is nothing beyond worldly pleasures." is some sort of caricature of hedonism, epicureanism, etc, which of course, cannot be nihilistic by definition.
>>16600490>nihilism is the claim that the world has no and could never have meaning, normativity, valueThis is not the Buddhist view. There is a meaning, and a purpose to existence in Buddhism. Nor is nirvana nonexistence in an atheistic sense.
>>16600490>hedonism, epicureanism, etc, which of course, cannot be nihilistic by definitionI shiggy diggyLook at the developed hedonist countries and the traditional buddhist countries. Which of them do you honestly believe are nihilistic
>>16597743the whole reason he left in the first place was to found a solution for sickness, suffering and death so he could spare his wife and children from it
>>16597008I don't think Buddhists would care so much about suffering if they were nihilists
