'The only permanent and meaningful end to suffering is through ascension, and the most compassionate thing you can do is guide all sentient life to ascension for this reason.'
Bravo.
This has to be the most succinct explanation of 'Buddhist' posture toward the phenomenal world I've read.
The Gayatri Mantram is considered the 'root mantram' of Hinduism and, in my interpretation, says much the same thing.
Utilitarianism is something like a Patron God to the modern nocturnal thinker as Mishima would describe. Promising eternal comfort at the cost of greatness- it was born out of nothing but the weakness inherent in modern society.
The Dharmic understanding of happiness is more along the lines of contentedness, even if meditative states like Jhana or even the goal of life, Nibanna, is described as “blissful”. In Pali and Sanskrit terminology, a utilitarian is seeking the maximization of Sukha, or “ease, pleasantry”. Nibanna is not dependently originating so it’s not the otherside of the dichotomy between Sukha and Duhkha. Buddhism endorses a kind of virtue ethics in the form of seeking to foster the ideal person, the “adept”, who is a “sammasambuddha”, or a totally awakened one with perfected virtue. As far as traditional Buddhist practice is concerned, one has to have perfect ethical cultivation to be enlightened, and I don’t think maximizing goodness in the world to accrue merit is apart of the path, that would be more instrumental for a lay person, not someone seeking out Arahantship. Buddhism is sometimes depicted as a world denying and world hating religion but really it seeks to explain that happiness in the world is finite and conditioned, and that if one wants the highest bliss that is possible, sacrifices have to be made. They wouldn’t suggest being cold or cruel towards others who are suffering or having a nihilistic attitude towards it, but they would see material efforts to relieve suffering as fruitless ultimately. I think the best summary of Buddhist ethics is found in its primordial texts, particularly the Atthakavagga of the Sutta Nipata. But we see further material such as the precepts, brahmaviharas, parami, and the three trainings as a kind of virtue ethics.
What introductory material (primary and secondary books, youtube channels, etc.) would you recommend for someone interested in Buddhism and hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita and the Lotus Sutra have been recommended to me as must reads for their respective faith.
Bhagavad Gita is le good. I’ve never read the Lotus Sutra but would like to. My knowledge of Hinduism/Buddhism mostly comes from hanging around with/arguing with people really into the Dharmic stuff
However beware of biased ISKCON translations that really try to drive their own Vedantic sect’s interpretation. Not that I’m saying Dvaita is wrong but it should be up to you to come to that conclusion.
I haven't read any books besides Bhagavad Gita on the topic (I really should) but sutta central is a cool database of shorter buddhists texts that I used to frequent
Ajahn Sona, Pannobhasa Bhikku(Aka David Reynolds), Arsha Bodha, Ajahn Punnadhammo, Dharma Nation for channels.
Material includes “In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon” by Bhikku Bodhi, Bhagavad Gita(Eknath Easwaran translation), The Principal Upanishads by S.Radhakrishnan. There are many other texts which condense the Agamas and Puranas of each, and the two epics for Sanatana Dharma, but this should be a good introductory preface that contains the meat of each.
Dharma Nation is a deep cut from 2020/21. His channel was recommended by the pagans on this one wignat imageboard I'd frequent. They got excited when he wore a Mjolnir on one of his streams.
Sorry to disappoint but it's long dead. It was called 16chan, it hosted a board called /fascist/ that carried over from 8chan. It fell apart towards the end because terrorgram faggots took over and alienated all the good posters.
For Buddhism (Mahayana) read The Teaching of Buddha by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, you can also watch Seeker to Seeker. For a Theravada view of Buddhism you can try What The Buddha Taught which is shorter and perhaps much simpler. Reading the In The Buddha's Words also summarises a lot and is also a Theravada work by Bhikkhu Bodi (monk).
In the wake of the modern scientific understanding of the world, I feel like a new sort of dualism would be beneficial for being able to acclimate how much of reality is determined by measurable processes:
One aspect is the measurable world, which is approximated with mathematical functions.
The other aspect is language as it is used and processed by the human mind.
Separating language from the physical world is not done in an attempt to deny that language and the mind have physical origins, but to highlight that someone who understands the physical working of the mind and of language is still just as prone to diseases of language and the mind as they are a primitive tribesman with no concept of science.
(Has someone already thought of this idea before?)
Monism is the only approach that doesn't result in massive contradictions of either logic or experience. Everything is One Thing. It apprehends itself while concealing itself. This frustrated the 'will to knowledge' of many, but nothing in the long history of trying to 'understand the true nature of things' suggests that 'understanding the true nature of things' is within our grasp.
“the deontologist could always say he too is a utilitarian insofar as he is trying to “maximize justice and minimize injustice”, or the Aristotelian could say he is trying to “maximize virtue and minimize decadence”
Hindu Mimamsa argues this POV and is utilitarian to this degree.
I would say Hinduism is somewhat utilitarian but Buddhism is not. The Vedas are the framework to maintain happiness & harmony in a world of inherent suffering/ignorance. Brahman is the source of “good”, thus happiness must be maximized by creating overall harmony, as Brahman underlies everything. Or if you’re a Dvaitist, Brahman ordains this for overall harmony.
Buddhists seek to end suffering but also desire. Nirvana etymologically means “cessation” and Buddhism is about seeking Nirvana not because its good or pleasurable but primarily because its in line with truth and contentedness.
You’re right the correct action without reincarnation is suicide, and the Buddha actually did not originally condemn suicide. Samsara doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation, I feel like thats a translation issue with many of these suttas. Anatman doctrines in Buddhism flies in the logical face of reincarnation and seemingly Theravada seems to be okay with suicide…
Reincarnation doctrines developed more with Mahayana/Yogacara concepts and I would argue they really are about bringing about the extinction of all life. After all for reincarnation to end all living beings have to cease.
Suicide (especially through passive means, like self-mummification) is reasonable in cases where someone has already reached arhatship and has no reason to keep living anymore, but for reincarnation to end it is really internal karma which must cease rather than people's external bodies. So, it wouldn't make sense for Nepal for example to nuke the entire world or something like that
Violence or “himsa” comes from desire so in general Buddhists don’t advocate for violent suicide or killing others, it is against the doctrines of enlightened ones. The cessation of karma is also a cessation of action leading to procreation, which is what puts out the flame of reincarnation.
& Mahayanans do worship wrathful deities which consume the world and bring an end to samsara. (Bodhisattvas/devas are free from desire, so this is pure).
Anatta doesn’t contradict reincarnation, but both Uttara Mimamsa and Buddhism ultimately deny reincarnation. This is because ultimately, only karma and causes and conditions proliferate, there isn’t a self or being that is reborn or changes whatsoever. In the case of Vedanta, only Brahman is real, Atman is only nominal for Brahman. In the case of Theravada Buddhism, none of the aggregates are self, what persists after death is just causes and conditions. There is no contradiction between the idea of proliferating causality and a lack of an ultimate, unchanging self in any of it. You are forgetting that there are two truths, one of conventionality and one that is ultimate. In provision or convention, there is reincarnation and a self, however emptiness, non-self and Nibanna are ultimately true.
The Buddha never condones suicide and speaks of it in terms of being delusional, because the death of the body is not the end of suffering.
Nibanna is not nothingness or non-existence, rendering it that way is pernicious wrong view in the form of craving for non-existence or non-being. Samsara is constituted by reincarnation, but really, it’s better to say birth and death are a result of the defilements: Nibanna is signified by the alleviation of the defilements, and the ending to the aggregates.
Awakening cannot be a property of inert nothingness, Nibanna is total awakening, implying directly(along with the Mind being chief of all dependently arising things), that enlightenment is a total expansion of mind with no capacity to become conditioned or to degenerate into samsara. In that way, roughly, Nibanna is “unconditioned, unestablished and deathless mind/spirit”.
Uttara Mimamsa Dvaita/Vishistadvaita definitely do support the idea of reincarnation literally in the common western definition.
I believe the Buddha condones suicide in the Channovada Sutta.
Buddhism typically promotes celibacy and is against procreation, unlike Hinduism. In Yogacara (mind-only) conscientiousness is seen as the basis for samsara. Through denying procreation and inclusion of many into the Buddha-fold it aims to end karmic continuation of birth.
Nirvana doesn’t mean awakening like Moksha does. It means cessation. Without living beings there is no need for Nirvana. A rock doesn’t need Nirvana, its already in a state of non-desire, non-suffering.
Enlightenment is total awakening, and while the Buddha didn’t specify whether an Arahant continues after death, Nibanna is not nothingness. That is wrong view in the form of annihilationism. Nibanna is neither existence nor non-existence, but it is heavily implied throughout the Suttas that it is a type of invariant mentality or unestablished mind. An Arahant can achieve Nibanna in life while still living. Moksha also means “release”, and has no etymological or didactic relationship to “awakening”, even if that’s exactly what it is in subtext. Advaita doesn’t support reincarnation in the way that most people would consider it, when I say they deny reincarnation, I mean to say that ultimately speaking there is no samsara or world whatsoever.
“Reincarnation exists insofar as there is ignorance, there really is no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth..”
Reincarnation only exists in illusion, not from the vantage point of ultimate reality. The same insight is found in Buddhism.
Even Ajahn Brahm with his ridiculous interpretation that lacks any mystical elements defines Nibanna as such:
1.)The highest happiness
2.)The complete end of sensory desire, ill will, and delusion
3.) Remainderless cessation of the aggregates
In no way is Nibanna total extinction or annihilation, it would just be beyond conditioned considerations.
It is the cessation of anger, greed, hatred, delusion and ignorance, and all conditionality, but not annihilation.
He doesn’t condone suicide in the Sutta, he gives instruction and blessing to the dying. In no way does he say that Suicide is permissible, but in this case it’s akin to something like Prayopavesa. It’s not at all in the line of thinking that suicide is an actual solution to suffering or will result in freedom from birth.
You also have forgotten about formless brahmas, ghosts and hellish beings that while not constituting life in some terrestrial natalist sense, still have consciousness and still suffer. Buddhism is not a doctrine of anti-natalism or nihilism. It may be the case that lay Buddhists aren’t necessarily focused on something like Artha, but a monastic order relies upon lay people, and in the Suttas we see the Buddha say that lay people can achieve enlightenment, even ones with intense defilements such as alcoholism.
In the Advaita/Hindu tradition, Buddhism is entirely seen as nihlism and annihilationism.
Advaita Siddhi criticizes Buddhism on this account, & I agree.
Yes Nirvana can be achieved while living, but Buddhism still advocates against procreation. Why would Buddhism advocate against it or even rituals, if it were supposedly worldly?
Nirvana might be the source of happiness because it is a source of content in the Buddhist tradition but it is still a rejection of life.
The Buddha famously argued the Middle Path - against extreme asceticism which harms ones-self, its part of the Buddhist view on himsa and also because extremities are usually motivated by delusion such as pride or desire, or agitation.
So yes, suicide isn’t exactly encouraged by the Buddha, but he doesn’t completely condemn it, especially if one is enlightened.
In the Samyutta Nikaya a disciple Godhika committed suicide, the Buddha didn’t condemn it as it happened in his state of enlightenment.
If the act of suicide is free of craving or delusion, its allowed. An arahant who starves himself due to lack of desire to eat, is allowed to. It’s karmically neutral.
Hindu’s and Pagans don’t really condemn suicide unless its in some cowardly context, and Christians and Muslims are both obsessed with Martyrs and confessors. So I’m not sure what the point you’re trying to make is, its not good ammunition for the crass accusation that Buddhism is a life-hating death cult or something. Hindu’s also used to promote Brahmacharya and there are renunciate elements especially in Advaita.
That doesn’t make it Nihilistic.
For monks, having children is a major anchor and attachment that gets in the way of seeking awakening. In a mundane sense, the Dhamma says neither which way whether it’s ethical or not to have children.
An Arahant or a Siddha can both “commit suicide”, but it’s more along the lines of disallowing life to continue after one’s become enlightened. That is not the same thing as killing oneself in some passionate state of delusion. Godhika didn’t become enlightened because he committed suicide, he committed suicide in frustration at not being able to maintain 4th Jhana and as he was dying reached enlightenment.
You believe its nihilism but really it isn’t, and Advaita was almost entirely conditioned by Mahayana Buddhism, The Middle way School was unfairly called Nihilism when it like the original Dhamma is a middle way between annihilationism and eternalism. Of course an eternalist doctrine would consider Buddhism to be nihilistic.
I think it’s quite obvious that the goal of life is Nibanna and the cultivation of wisdom and virtue, this is not at all resemblant of Nihilism. The meaning of life is to reach the unconditioned, in fact I’d say it’s the more worldly philosophies which wallow in samsara, that are nihilistic in truth. You should cover Ajahn Sonas “Life is a game that must be played”, if you believe that Buddhism is “life denying” or “rejects life”.
Suicide is condemned in Hinduism in general. But yea, duty bound suicide is looked up upon because it’s purposeful for society, ie dying in battle or sati. Martyr is definitely good to us.
Brahmacharya is only until you get married. Marriage is a Vedic samskara. Brahmacharya is also only really for end of life too. Asceticism or Sanyas is only really supported essentially for those who completed samskaras.
Renunciate schools in Hinduism are sort of Buddhist influenced. Hinduism never commonly had renunciate schools until the Nath Samprayada. Goraknath was a disciple of a Buddhist, Matsyendranath. But Goraknath made asceticism more duty bound, unlike Buddhism.
Prior, ascetic monasteries in India were exclusively Buddhist.
Hinduism puts duty as important as enlightenment. The Gita reiterates this sentiment strongly. Buddhists reject societal duty. Hence the rejection of the Chaturvarna or Vedic Samskaras.
Adi Shankara borrowed Mahayana arguments against Buddhism. But he was not Buddhist or founded Advaita based off of Mahayana. He argues that the Vedas, Brahma Sutras, and Gita all are in a non-dual context themselves and was defending them against Buddhism.
Imo the Gita explains how moksha can not free one from samsara, and the need for duty makes clear sense when right conduct changes in perspective with identification with Brahman.
I would also argue Hindu advaita has no legitimate reincarnation doctrine. So it is very utilitarian in the sense of “maximize happiness in the world”.
The whole concept of Jnana as espoused in Atma-Bodha is synthesized with duty - action without fruits. Identification with Brahman as opposed to individual.
I’m not using happiness in relation to individual pleasure but rather morality conducive of overall well-being & harmony.
It’s almost a refutation. The latter believes salvation or moksha is impossible, that there is no end to karma and that ritual and social obligation should be focused on. Whereas the former believes that knowledge alone is the criteria for salvation, and that when full realization of Brahman occurs, the storehouse karma is annihilated and one does not take birth.
Easy top 3 boob break
Breasts… honkers… booba
'The only permanent and meaningful end to suffering is through ascension, and the most compassionate thing you can do is guide all sentient life to ascension for this reason.'
Bravo.
This has to be the most succinct explanation of 'Buddhist' posture toward the phenomenal world I've read.
The Gayatri Mantram is considered the 'root mantram' of Hinduism and, in my interpretation, says much the same thing.
Utilitarianism is something like a Patron God to the modern nocturnal thinker as Mishima would describe. Promising eternal comfort at the cost of greatness- it was born out of nothing but the weakness inherent in modern society.
The Dharmic understanding of happiness is more along the lines of contentedness, even if meditative states like Jhana or even the goal of life, Nibanna, is described as “blissful”. In Pali and Sanskrit terminology, a utilitarian is seeking the maximization of Sukha, or “ease, pleasantry”. Nibanna is not dependently originating so it’s not the otherside of the dichotomy between Sukha and Duhkha. Buddhism endorses a kind of virtue ethics in the form of seeking to foster the ideal person, the “adept”, who is a “sammasambuddha”, or a totally awakened one with perfected virtue. As far as traditional Buddhist practice is concerned, one has to have perfect ethical cultivation to be enlightened, and I don’t think maximizing goodness in the world to accrue merit is apart of the path, that would be more instrumental for a lay person, not someone seeking out Arahantship. Buddhism is sometimes depicted as a world denying and world hating religion but really it seeks to explain that happiness in the world is finite and conditioned, and that if one wants the highest bliss that is possible, sacrifices have to be made. They wouldn’t suggest being cold or cruel towards others who are suffering or having a nihilistic attitude towards it, but they would see material efforts to relieve suffering as fruitless ultimately. I think the best summary of Buddhist ethics is found in its primordial texts, particularly the Atthakavagga of the Sutta Nipata. But we see further material such as the precepts, brahmaviharas, parami, and the three trainings as a kind of virtue ethics.
Are u vet lol
“CritterEnthusiast” 👈🏻🐈
What introductory material (primary and secondary books, youtube channels, etc.) would you recommend for someone interested in Buddhism and hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita and the Lotus Sutra have been recommended to me as must reads for their respective faith.
Bhagavad Gita is le good. I’ve never read the Lotus Sutra but would like to. My knowledge of Hinduism/Buddhism mostly comes from hanging around with/arguing with people really into the Dharmic stuff
Nothing will teach Hinduism as well as the Gita.
However beware of biased ISKCON translations that really try to drive their own Vedantic sect’s interpretation. Not that I’m saying Dvaita is wrong but it should be up to you to come to that conclusion.
I haven't read any books besides Bhagavad Gita on the topic (I really should) but sutta central is a cool database of shorter buddhists texts that I used to frequent
Ajahn Sona, Pannobhasa Bhikku(Aka David Reynolds), Arsha Bodha, Ajahn Punnadhammo, Dharma Nation for channels.
Material includes “In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon” by Bhikku Bodhi, Bhagavad Gita(Eknath Easwaran translation), The Principal Upanishads by S.Radhakrishnan. There are many other texts which condense the Agamas and Puranas of each, and the two epics for Sanatana Dharma, but this should be a good introductory preface that contains the meat of each.
Dharma Nation is a deep cut from 2020/21. His channel was recommended by the pagans on this one wignat imageboard I'd frequent. They got excited when he wore a Mjolnir on one of his streams.
what imageboard? I might hop on
Sorry to disappoint but it's long dead. It was called 16chan, it hosted a board called /fascist/ that carried over from 8chan. It fell apart towards the end because terrorgram faggots took over and alienated all the good posters.
damn
What do you mean deep cut?
I didn't expect hear about him again and it gave me some nostalgia
Thanks for the channel recommendations even though this wasn't directed towards me.
For Buddhism (Mahayana) read The Teaching of Buddha by Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, you can also watch Seeker to Seeker. For a Theravada view of Buddhism you can try What The Buddha Taught which is shorter and perhaps much simpler. Reading the In The Buddha's Words also summarises a lot and is also a Theravada work by Bhikkhu Bodi (monk).
In the wake of the modern scientific understanding of the world, I feel like a new sort of dualism would be beneficial for being able to acclimate how much of reality is determined by measurable processes:
One aspect is the measurable world, which is approximated with mathematical functions.
The other aspect is language as it is used and processed by the human mind.
Separating language from the physical world is not done in an attempt to deny that language and the mind have physical origins, but to highlight that someone who understands the physical working of the mind and of language is still just as prone to diseases of language and the mind as they are a primitive tribesman with no concept of science.
(Has someone already thought of this idea before?)
Monism is the only approach that doesn't result in massive contradictions of either logic or experience. Everything is One Thing. It apprehends itself while concealing itself. This frustrated the 'will to knowledge' of many, but nothing in the long history of trying to 'understand the true nature of things' suggests that 'understanding the true nature of things' is within our grasp.
There are contradictions to what I propose. I just think that some contradictions can be valuable.
Is that a photo of Macron’s wife?
KEEEEEK!!!!
Who is the bewbs gal?
IDK some chick that was on my instagram feed
Good choice 😍
A Bad Catholic Girl? In this case, making her feel bad about her natural urges will creates more intense pleasure for sure.
“the deontologist could always say he too is a utilitarian insofar as he is trying to “maximize justice and minimize injustice”, or the Aristotelian could say he is trying to “maximize virtue and minimize decadence”
Hindu Mimamsa argues this POV and is utilitarian to this degree.
I would say Hinduism is somewhat utilitarian but Buddhism is not. The Vedas are the framework to maintain happiness & harmony in a world of inherent suffering/ignorance. Brahman is the source of “good”, thus happiness must be maximized by creating overall harmony, as Brahman underlies everything. Or if you’re a Dvaitist, Brahman ordains this for overall harmony.
Buddhists seek to end suffering but also desire. Nirvana etymologically means “cessation” and Buddhism is about seeking Nirvana not because its good or pleasurable but primarily because its in line with truth and contentedness.
You’re right the correct action without reincarnation is suicide, and the Buddha actually did not originally condemn suicide. Samsara doesn’t necessarily mean reincarnation, I feel like thats a translation issue with many of these suttas. Anatman doctrines in Buddhism flies in the logical face of reincarnation and seemingly Theravada seems to be okay with suicide…
Reincarnation doctrines developed more with Mahayana/Yogacara concepts and I would argue they really are about bringing about the extinction of all life. After all for reincarnation to end all living beings have to cease.
Suicide (especially through passive means, like self-mummification) is reasonable in cases where someone has already reached arhatship and has no reason to keep living anymore, but for reincarnation to end it is really internal karma which must cease rather than people's external bodies. So, it wouldn't make sense for Nepal for example to nuke the entire world or something like that
Violence or “himsa” comes from desire so in general Buddhists don’t advocate for violent suicide or killing others, it is against the doctrines of enlightened ones. The cessation of karma is also a cessation of action leading to procreation, which is what puts out the flame of reincarnation.
& Mahayanans do worship wrathful deities which consume the world and bring an end to samsara. (Bodhisattvas/devas are free from desire, so this is pure).
Anatta doesn’t contradict reincarnation, but both Uttara Mimamsa and Buddhism ultimately deny reincarnation. This is because ultimately, only karma and causes and conditions proliferate, there isn’t a self or being that is reborn or changes whatsoever. In the case of Vedanta, only Brahman is real, Atman is only nominal for Brahman. In the case of Theravada Buddhism, none of the aggregates are self, what persists after death is just causes and conditions. There is no contradiction between the idea of proliferating causality and a lack of an ultimate, unchanging self in any of it. You are forgetting that there are two truths, one of conventionality and one that is ultimate. In provision or convention, there is reincarnation and a self, however emptiness, non-self and Nibanna are ultimately true.
The Buddha never condones suicide and speaks of it in terms of being delusional, because the death of the body is not the end of suffering.
Nibanna is not nothingness or non-existence, rendering it that way is pernicious wrong view in the form of craving for non-existence or non-being. Samsara is constituted by reincarnation, but really, it’s better to say birth and death are a result of the defilements: Nibanna is signified by the alleviation of the defilements, and the ending to the aggregates.
Awakening cannot be a property of inert nothingness, Nibanna is total awakening, implying directly(along with the Mind being chief of all dependently arising things), that enlightenment is a total expansion of mind with no capacity to become conditioned or to degenerate into samsara. In that way, roughly, Nibanna is “unconditioned, unestablished and deathless mind/spirit”.
Uttara Mimamsa Dvaita/Vishistadvaita definitely do support the idea of reincarnation literally in the common western definition.
I believe the Buddha condones suicide in the Channovada Sutta.
Buddhism typically promotes celibacy and is against procreation, unlike Hinduism. In Yogacara (mind-only) conscientiousness is seen as the basis for samsara. Through denying procreation and inclusion of many into the Buddha-fold it aims to end karmic continuation of birth.
Nirvana doesn’t mean awakening like Moksha does. It means cessation. Without living beings there is no need for Nirvana. A rock doesn’t need Nirvana, its already in a state of non-desire, non-suffering.
Enlightenment is total awakening, and while the Buddha didn’t specify whether an Arahant continues after death, Nibanna is not nothingness. That is wrong view in the form of annihilationism. Nibanna is neither existence nor non-existence, but it is heavily implied throughout the Suttas that it is a type of invariant mentality or unestablished mind. An Arahant can achieve Nibanna in life while still living. Moksha also means “release”, and has no etymological or didactic relationship to “awakening”, even if that’s exactly what it is in subtext. Advaita doesn’t support reincarnation in the way that most people would consider it, when I say they deny reincarnation, I mean to say that ultimately speaking there is no samsara or world whatsoever.
“Reincarnation exists insofar as there is ignorance, there really is no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth..”
Reincarnation only exists in illusion, not from the vantage point of ultimate reality. The same insight is found in Buddhism.
Even Ajahn Brahm with his ridiculous interpretation that lacks any mystical elements defines Nibanna as such:
1.)The highest happiness
2.)The complete end of sensory desire, ill will, and delusion
3.) Remainderless cessation of the aggregates
In no way is Nibanna total extinction or annihilation, it would just be beyond conditioned considerations.
It is the cessation of anger, greed, hatred, delusion and ignorance, and all conditionality, but not annihilation.
He doesn’t condone suicide in the Sutta, he gives instruction and blessing to the dying. In no way does he say that Suicide is permissible, but in this case it’s akin to something like Prayopavesa. It’s not at all in the line of thinking that suicide is an actual solution to suffering or will result in freedom from birth.
You also have forgotten about formless brahmas, ghosts and hellish beings that while not constituting life in some terrestrial natalist sense, still have consciousness and still suffer. Buddhism is not a doctrine of anti-natalism or nihilism. It may be the case that lay Buddhists aren’t necessarily focused on something like Artha, but a monastic order relies upon lay people, and in the Suttas we see the Buddha say that lay people can achieve enlightenment, even ones with intense defilements such as alcoholism.
In the Advaita/Hindu tradition, Buddhism is entirely seen as nihlism and annihilationism.
Advaita Siddhi criticizes Buddhism on this account, & I agree.
Yes Nirvana can be achieved while living, but Buddhism still advocates against procreation. Why would Buddhism advocate against it or even rituals, if it were supposedly worldly?
Nirvana might be the source of happiness because it is a source of content in the Buddhist tradition but it is still a rejection of life.
The Buddha famously argued the Middle Path - against extreme asceticism which harms ones-self, its part of the Buddhist view on himsa and also because extremities are usually motivated by delusion such as pride or desire, or agitation.
So yes, suicide isn’t exactly encouraged by the Buddha, but he doesn’t completely condemn it, especially if one is enlightened.
In the Samyutta Nikaya a disciple Godhika committed suicide, the Buddha didn’t condemn it as it happened in his state of enlightenment.
If the act of suicide is free of craving or delusion, its allowed. An arahant who starves himself due to lack of desire to eat, is allowed to. It’s karmically neutral.
Hindu’s and Pagans don’t really condemn suicide unless its in some cowardly context, and Christians and Muslims are both obsessed with Martyrs and confessors. So I’m not sure what the point you’re trying to make is, its not good ammunition for the crass accusation that Buddhism is a life-hating death cult or something. Hindu’s also used to promote Brahmacharya and there are renunciate elements especially in Advaita.
That doesn’t make it Nihilistic.
For monks, having children is a major anchor and attachment that gets in the way of seeking awakening. In a mundane sense, the Dhamma says neither which way whether it’s ethical or not to have children.
An Arahant or a Siddha can both “commit suicide”, but it’s more along the lines of disallowing life to continue after one’s become enlightened. That is not the same thing as killing oneself in some passionate state of delusion. Godhika didn’t become enlightened because he committed suicide, he committed suicide in frustration at not being able to maintain 4th Jhana and as he was dying reached enlightenment.
You believe its nihilism but really it isn’t, and Advaita was almost entirely conditioned by Mahayana Buddhism, The Middle way School was unfairly called Nihilism when it like the original Dhamma is a middle way between annihilationism and eternalism. Of course an eternalist doctrine would consider Buddhism to be nihilistic.
I think it’s quite obvious that the goal of life is Nibanna and the cultivation of wisdom and virtue, this is not at all resemblant of Nihilism. The meaning of life is to reach the unconditioned, in fact I’d say it’s the more worldly philosophies which wallow in samsara, that are nihilistic in truth. You should cover Ajahn Sonas “Life is a game that must be played”, if you believe that Buddhism is “life denying” or “rejects life”.
Suicide is condemned in Hinduism in general. But yea, duty bound suicide is looked up upon because it’s purposeful for society, ie dying in battle or sati. Martyr is definitely good to us.
Brahmacharya is only until you get married. Marriage is a Vedic samskara. Brahmacharya is also only really for end of life too. Asceticism or Sanyas is only really supported essentially for those who completed samskaras.
Renunciate schools in Hinduism are sort of Buddhist influenced. Hinduism never commonly had renunciate schools until the Nath Samprayada. Goraknath was a disciple of a Buddhist, Matsyendranath. But Goraknath made asceticism more duty bound, unlike Buddhism.
Prior, ascetic monasteries in India were exclusively Buddhist.
Hinduism puts duty as important as enlightenment. The Gita reiterates this sentiment strongly. Buddhists reject societal duty. Hence the rejection of the Chaturvarna or Vedic Samskaras.
Adi Shankara borrowed Mahayana arguments against Buddhism. But he was not Buddhist or founded Advaita based off of Mahayana. He argues that the Vedas, Brahma Sutras, and Gita all are in a non-dual context themselves and was defending them against Buddhism.
Imo the Gita explains how moksha can not free one from samsara, and the need for duty makes clear sense when right conduct changes in perspective with identification with Brahman.
I would also argue Hindu advaita has no legitimate reincarnation doctrine. So it is very utilitarian in the sense of “maximize happiness in the world”.
Yet again it seems you’re forgetting Atma-Bodha
Uttara Mimamsa is a completion of Purva Mimamsa.
The whole concept of Jnana as espoused in Atma-Bodha is synthesized with duty - action without fruits. Identification with Brahman as opposed to individual.
I’m not using happiness in relation to individual pleasure but rather morality conducive of overall well-being & harmony.
It’s almost a refutation. The latter believes salvation or moksha is impossible, that there is no end to karma and that ritual and social obligation should be focused on. Whereas the former believes that knowledge alone is the criteria for salvation, and that when full realization of Brahman occurs, the storehouse karma is annihilated and one does not take birth.