Thread #42241753
File: ffb4740c-d28a-4fbf-af16-95207f202ac0_1456x1048.png (556.5 KB)
556.5 KB PNG
>Gnostic/prison planet-adjacent beliefs are more in vogue in the west than ever
>People are openly just considering religions as costumes, where people are willing to go from calling themselves pagan or catholic or born again at the drop of the hat
>No revival of Buddhism in sight
What gives, I get that there might be a dearth of actually sincere western buddhists who are more than willing to engage in various flavors of non-theistic buddhism, but you'd think that for how effective the 'playbook' Buddhism provides for dealing with living in a chaotic and arbitrary world there would be a stronger interest in Buddhism among the youth cohorts.
210 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 210 replies.>>
>>
>>42241753
>People are openly just considering religions as costumes, where people are willing to go from calling themselves pagan or catholic or born again at the drop of the hat
>No revival of Buddhism in sight
There's no appeal for old school Westernized buddhism among most of Gen X and Z because Western buddhism was mostly a movement among dissatisfied college-educated individuals from protestant backgrounds who, in the modern world, find it easier to simply be atheists. The needed amount of reading needed to actually be a bonified philosophical buddhist is also intimidating for zoomies, it's easier to call oneself a neopagan because than you just need to watch videos on your phone and buy a few things off of Etsy, while inter-Christian sect conversion is easy enough for most.
>>
>>42241753
western buddhism doesn't hold up to scrutiny with all the scandals individual leaders have had and people from traditionally Buddhist backgrounds have a totally different view of religion than westerners who are embarrassed by the religion of their grandparents but don't really believe in anything
>>
>>42242248
>>42241775
Modern Zen is improving. Yes it took many years and it still always gonna be a struggle to let the western materialist mindset that started it go, but there are a good number of realized people in the western temples these days. Much more than in the 70's.
t. been zen monastery hopping for the last few years and was shocked to find how many people in the higher levels are well aware what's going on.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42241753
Because Buddhism doesn't make sense logically, even a Buddhist will indirectly admit this. Those who are leaving Christianity do so because it isn't logical, so the people in the market for a new religion aren't going to jump on metaphysical absurdism.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 8aa2ce6dc693f116d30aa9766fdad37c.jpg (46.2 KB)
46.2 KB JPG
>>42243118
>>
>>42243153
But there can be suffering. Lots and lots of suffering. Which is what loosh is said to be from.
Why move us towards modern life then? We suffer a lot less than cavemen did. Or why not keep the system in the middle ages. Massive amounts of suffering then and lots of hope with Christianity being as prominent as it is. If you want to say something is harvesting suffering from us I think that could be discusedd, but this world is clearly not set up to havest loosh from us, it's far too chaotic and random to be anything like a farm.
>>
>>42243229
>it's far too chaotic and random to be anything like a farm.
That's exactly what is needed to produce the highest quality loosh. Suffering isn't simply pain, it is a an emotional response to pain. If we were simply in a constant state of pain we actually wouldn't have the highest individual suffering as that comes from the highs and lows. Also the farm is meant to produce multiple flavors of loosh, like fear, loneliness, anger, despair, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42243309
None disputes the value of detachment and a dedicated meditation practice anon. It's the cosmology and specific teachings that people disagree with. If nothing else I believe what Buddhists call Siddhis should be actively sought out and used as weapons against the archons.
>>
File: Unimpressed.png (191.5 KB)
191.5 KB PNG
>>42241753
It's because all secular/institutional Buddhism is illegitimate and the polar inverse of everything the Buddha teaches. Buddhism isn't a religion
>>
>>
File: 1775475502694844.png (454.4 KB)
454.4 KB PNG
>>42242338
>Buddhism does not
You haven't actually read the Nikayas or any secondary literature explaining the fundamentals of Buddhism. The foundational principle of Buddhist doctrine is a simple, linear description of the phenomenology of suffering.
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 1775454288338613.jpg (225.3 KB)
225.3 KB JPG
>>42243374
It's extremely simple.
>Whatever is impermanent is suffering.
>Everything that exists is impermanent.
>Therefore, existence is suffering.
The truth is always simple.
>>
>>42243390
Existence is characterized by innumerable mysteries. The mystery religions are legitimate. Buddhism isn't one of them. OP asked why Buddhism isn't more popular, my answer is that it doesn't fit the bill for a belief system that would be appealing to the retarded masses. Institutional Buddhism in the East is retardified to appeal to the masses in that way.
>>
>>42243403
And most people agree with that. What they don't agree on is the solution. Escaping this evil world of impermanence that I strongly suspect is the creation of a sadistic being is more appealing to me then meditating to the point of annihilation (if such a barbaric thing is even possible).
>>
To explain what is going on, I will have to explain everything.
The very early universe was too hot or dense for even atoms to form, and interactions were very simple because of it. Around 400,000 years after the big bang the universe had expanded and cooled enough for atoms to form, which made possible the formation of stars and galaxies. This was a creative threshold where the universe radically changed to allow for vastly more possibilities. The first stars forged the heavier elements of which rocky planets like Earth are mostly comprised of, which made possible for the emergence of life and all its possibilities. This in turn allowed for the emergence of consciousness and all its possibilities.
The trend is clear: the universe is a creative process that grasps beyond its immediate realizations towards novel possibilities wherever it can. It has a famous trend of "increasing complexity" which means "the significance of elements to each other." It is a community of co-creators comprised of all types of entities: an ecosystem.
Every human impulse to create, explore, discover and love is an extension of the primordial creative impulse of the universe. Human curiosity isn't a fluke of evolution that has mere "fitness value," it comes from the deepest nature of existence.
So why then is the human world ruled by greed and exploitation? Greed hoards possibility for one part of the system while starving the others. It treats creativity as a zero-sum game: "more for me means less for you." This is a regression towards simpler, less connected states, not an advance. Thus the rule of greed requires the imposition of less connected states on the masses: isolation, atomization, alienation.
>>
>>42243492
Human consciousness is the ability to grasp possibilities beyond human needs. But it can also fixate on a narrow set of possibilities: security, status, pleasure, or survival of the self alone. When consciousness is not integrated with ecosystemic awareness (that significance comes from mutual relationship) it behaves like a young star consuming its fuel too fast.
Just as the universe had to cool for atoms to form, human social evolution is still "too hot," driven by scarcity mindsets. The view of the universe I have described is less than a hundred years old - it has not had time to mature into public consciousness and even experts struggle to make a unified picture of reality. Moreover the rule of greed is supremely entrenched and actively short-circuits the emergence of ecosystemic consciousness. Most people live in cities where the night sky is polluted by light and natural surroundings are mutilated, if present at all.
But there is also evidence that we may be on the threshold of a massive shift in consciousness, such as how relentlessly the system is suppressing the emergence of higher consciousness. The "divide and distract" strategies are dialed up to 11 now. Why? Because if they stop, the natural course of social evolution could reach a breaking point where ecosystemic awareness becomes explosive, and then the rule of greed is finished, because the explosion of new possibilities that emerges can no longer be contained.
>>
>>42243441
>I strongly suspect is the creation of a sadistic being
You don't know if that's the case, and worse, there is no possible way that you could know if it was the case. Buddhism doesn't make unfalsifiable claims. Meditation is not mentioned in original Buddhism
>>
>>42243506
Your definition is so narrow as to be meaningless and frankly isn't significant enough to be considered a full philosophy or religion in and of itself. I can simply agree with the small set of beliefs you espouse and integrate them into my own larger Gnostic worldview.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42243743
False, that implies that there are things outside of that energy that are not God or not based on God.
God is the one entity that exists. Outside of God, nothing exists. God is the one subject and the entire universe is its dream that it is dreaming in it's own Consciousness.
>>
>>
>>
File: 1775083997426833.jpg (122.3 KB)
122.3 KB JPG
>>42243977
>>42243977
There's an equivocation happening in your phrasing, if God is transcendent in the way that is implied when you refer to him as God, then he doesn't exist in any way that is identifiable with any manifest phenomenon in the known universe. Being free from suffering after we die isn't guaranteed. The promised land is another superstition. It's as likely that you'll be a tortured soul for an infinity of eternities
>>
>>
>>42244022
No, because the impermanence of all limited states is precisely God's mercy. Infinite Nothingness/Infinite Love is the one state that is permanent and eternal, while all others are limited and non eternal.
God can pretend and dream anything including realms of hell and torture but all dreams come to an end, including nightmares.
>>
>>42243998
There is reason because God is dreaming that God is not God, and when God dreams something it becomes reality because God is the only thing that is real. The only way for a human to exist is for God to imagine itself as a human. While in such states of hallucination and forgetfulness, you are separated from God (even though paradoxically you of course can never be like you pointed out), but God hallucinating the separation IS real separation because God's imagination IS reality.
>>
>>42243962
>we are all one ahh post
Fuck off faggot, my soul isn't part of yours
>>42243977
>bro just go into the light and merge back into the homo collective
Nah, kys faggot
>>42243998
>there is no reason to "merge" with anything
This, the "merge back into the collective" meme is a psyop to get you to relinquish your sovereignty and autonomy. Probably archons/demons or some other form of malicious entity pushing it, but who knows. And I'm not talking about ego, I mean the real (you). Anything trying to strip you of your freedom is bad and should be fought at all costs. They'll say hurr durr that's just your ego fighting back but it isn't. The ego is the dogshit shell you form in the physical realm to interact with it, something that should be let go (if you don't you'll be trapped here). Your soul autonomy should be protected at all costs though. You are (you), not part of some collective faggot homo circle where we all merge.
>>
File: 1612831476450.jpg (63.8 KB)
63.8 KB JPG
>>42244152
>heh, we're all just in one big dream
NTA but kys with your fake 'enlightenment' bs
>>
>>
File: 1658723133113362.jpg (122.9 KB)
122.9 KB JPG
>>42244277
>literally want to eat peoples souls but aren't strong enough to do it on an unwilling one.
Bingo. It's the same trick they use to trap people here in case you didn't know that either. They aren't actually strong enough to trap people in a reincarnation loop, so they gaslight people into doing it themselves. All that's needed to escape the torment is to simply recognize the trickery and refuse to partake in it, it's literally that simple. It's so simple in fact you actually start seething at yourself for failing to see it. To escape here you let go of the ego (your tether), thus leaving the loosh farm, but then you have these faggot entities on the other side trying to trap you as well. I'm pretty sure they're here, in this very thread mind you, trying to push the homo collective shit so once you let go of your ego and try to leave they can absorb you on the other side, probably to try and trap you in another loosh farm. They can't trap you, but they can trick you into willingly surrendering over to them. That's true fucking evil right there.
Keep your soul autonomy (not ego) at all costs, never listen to the faggots. You are (you)
>>
>>42244277
>>42244422
Checked, oneness is not a homo collective. This anon just thinks that if he was to indulge in it he would become one, or indulge in his homo or tranny fantasies. It is the realisation of the nature of reality and harmony with creation and the creator. It is outside of dualistic ponderings that are anchored in the past and future but within the monistic frame of the present.
To think monisticly is not a finality, the dualistic nature of ego and existence as social human creatures crushes it. But this fleeting perspective allows one to live without suffering.
Example
You suffer, in the dualistic perspective you either do or don't and have to battle through it to get rid of it. Often trading one for another.
In the monastic perspective, things are how they are supposed to be in the present moment. Coming to the realisation that this suffering is being rooted in past experiences and/or future expectations, or the interpretation of these experiences and/or expectations makes them irrelevant. At least fleetingly, which is enough for you to realise the pointlessness to ponder on such things.
Making you unlooshable.
To return to your fag-centric view of the concept. Imo homosex and trannyism has no room in it. That doesn't mean I'd do activism against it. People need to make their own mistakes and they'll see the error of their ways one day or the other. If you listen to your soul you'd know that when being given the gift of existence, it is expected to perpetuate it. Homosexual behaviour and infertile copulation is counter to that.
There is no collective in Oneness, because in it everything is nothing and nothing is everything. It's not a cult or even a dogma. Everyone who experienced it will come up with different explanations according to their own limitations and sensible experience.
I am curious to understand how you see it as another loosh farm. Pliz explain.
>>
>>
>>
>>42244774
But it does. It's nothing unique or groundbreaking. It's been talked about for millenia. From "memento mori" to "yolo" with probably earlier and more recent examples of valuing the present over dwelling on the past/future or how one interprets it.
You always choose to suffer. You're your worst loosh farm.
>>
>>
File: shiki-ryougi-kara-3840x2160-16561.jpg (2 MB)
2 MB JPG
>>42241761
It's parasites. Like worms and other beings, feasting on you and causing more suffering. I stab 'em every now and then.
>>
>>42244791
Suffering is a choice. Yes. Existence is dualistic. You can only tap into monism as it is as ephemeral as the present. By the time you try to rationalise it it's already a past experience. Monism is purely sensible, not rational. Suffering is a thought process so it doesn't exist in the present.
>>
>>42244797
>Yes. Existence is dualistic.
Okay then I will choose methods that remove this.
>monism as it is as ephemeral
Temporary means maya.
> it doesn't exist in the present
1 - idiocy, pletny of creatures with no snese of time suffer
2 - you already said it is dualism to say exist/does not exist, so again this is dualism
>>
>>
>>
File: 1732142878408267.jpg (113.2 KB)
113.2 KB JPG
>>42244791
Picrel
>>42244807
>maya
Semantics. It's not temporary. We'd have to talk about time itself which noone has the faintest idea what it really is. Past and future are thought processes, meaning it takes time or mayan indulgence to rationalise, while the present is sensible and void of need to rationalise. By the time you do it's already in the past and open to an infinite number of interpretations.
>1
You claim to know animals have no sense of time? Prove it.
>2
Baby's first paradox? It doesn't exist in the present(nothingness as in picrel).
>>
>>42244827
>Picrel
Only means you cant articulate your points.
>Semantics. It's not temporary.
You said it was ephemeral. Are your "semantics" just not knowing what words mean?
>navel gazing nonsense
Plenty of creatrures with no sense of time suffer. So to say suffering requires concepts of future and past are wrong.
And you ignored the fact that you keep trying to say monism removes suffering when you said that very notion is dualistic.
>>
>>42244750
True oneness is being one with yourself, who YOU are. Even if you came from somewhere or something else, you don't have to automatically become the thing you spawned from or 'return' to it. That's the entire point, you're unique and different from that. No two souls are alike, and that's okay, they're not supposed to be.
But yes oneness is different from tranny collectiveness, which is basically just a soul orgy.
>>
>>42241753
It's not real gnosticism, it's just another way of complaining about desacralization via proxy, not different from ideological movements. Ironically this ersatz-gnosticism is also a demonic structure, accessible, one that calls for strong personal investment, creates a pervasive paranoid narrative, and focused one on pain, inflating its value and maybe causing a cascade of emotional reactions. All very good for looshing.
>>
>>42244830
This meme is a great way to grasp how monism and dualism are experienced in two different experiential states.
Ephemeral as in passing, fleeting. Impossible to grasp. Not temporary. Outside of time itself since only being related to the sensible. I am being consistent you're trying to move the goalpost after your shitty attempt to gatekeep with bs concepts.
>suffer
That's not a proof, that's just more babble. Please provide a proof that animals with no sense of time suffer. You're just anthropomorphing animals and projecting. You say it is a fact, I call bs. And pain is not suffering, it's a reaction to a stimuli. ie a physical process, suffering is a thought process.
>monism gets rid of suffering because suffering is a dualistic interpretation
What's so hard to understand?
>>42244832
That's one way to see it. I said in my post that it will mean slightly different things to different people.
>>
>>42244875
>two different experiential states.
Not possible unless dualistic.
>Ephemeral as in passing, fleeting.
That means temporary. You cant having "passing, fleeting" without temporary.
>That's not a proof, that's just more babble.
So is everything you said about time. Please provide proof of the time as you brought it up in the first place.
>monism gets rid of suffering
> in the dualistic perspective you either do or don't
If monism gets rid of suffering, then it is dualism - according to what you said.
>>
>>
>>42244883
I think you have reading comprehension issues or you're just being a donkey. I am starting to think you're not ready or open to have the conversation.
Existence is dualistic. We aren't able to monisticaly talk since words depict the world in a dualistic manner. We can observe the nothingness, but it becoming a somethingness involves duality. To define monism in that sense involves dualistic interpretation because existence is rooted in dualistic interpretation.
I feel like an old person rambling at this point.
>That means temporary
It cannot be temporary. To describe the present requires time, to feel it is outside of time. It's there you feel it, everchanging. Meaning by the time you describe it it is already gone. Impermanent.
>Please provide proof of the time as you brought it up in the first place.
That doesn't mean anything, rephrase the question. You brought up animals with no sense of time suffering first, don't switcharoo. If you want me to prove to you that noone has any idea what time is beside quartz crystals moving at a somewhat steady pace you can do your own legwork.
>if monism gets rid of suffering, then it is dualism
That is not what I said. Here we go yet again. I said that monism is rooted in the present. The sensible. Outside of rationalisation. To look into the sensible, outside of the rationalisation of the sensible(past and future) is to realise suffering is an illusion. From that point you can live your rational(dualistic) existence knowing you're tricking yourself into that suffering, and simply move on from/fix the things that cause the suffering while being detached from it.
>>
>>42244875
>That's one way to see it.
Not it isn't, it's the only way to see it. You can't be one with yourself if you're one with something else too, even if that thing is where you came from. I see similar cope with people's understanding of soulmates too. They think you can have multiple soulmates which is absolutely delusional, you can only have one, because your soul mate is someone who you completely dedicate yourself to entirely, ie it's a contradiction having more than one, since you won't be able to dedicate all of your energy and have to split it in some fashion. The same applies to being at one with yourself, you can't be yourself but also this other thing at the same time, it's just simply not how it works. Anyone trying to make you think otherwise is just projecting shit onto you.
You are (you), and not anyone or anything else.
>>
There is no dualism, there is only you, and where you're going. Everything else is just noise to navigate through along the way, including this demiurge prison we all currently find ourselves in. Where you choose to go IS you.
>>
>>42244929
>becoming a somethingness involves duality
Nope, a light in the darkness doesn't mean that's it's now both light and dark, it's just light that exists, the dark was already there to begin with. If you put paint on a canvas that colour doesn't make the canvas dualistic. If you deliberately put another colour on it though, THEN it becomes dualistic. The demiurge construct is basically the faggot putting black on the canvas on purpose, and creating deliberate and manufactured suffering, instead of just letting the light and whatever other colours exist and do whatever. That's why when you escape it you'll stop seeing the boring fucking ying and yang and see something more beautiful, and yes there might be suffering and things you don't like wherever you're going to next as well, but the point is it won't be ON PURPOSE, which it most certainly is in this tranny's prison. There is a natural flow to the actual universe, one that has been completely put to a halt in ours (we're just a closed off bubble in the real thing). That's why everything feels so stiff and rigid, especially if your mind has had a peak outside of the walls.
>>
>>42244929
>Existence is dualistic.
lol I accept your concession.
>We can observe the nothingness
That would be dualism, and no you cant. You can observe a lack of ego. There is never nothing.
>I feel like an old person rambling at this point.
To me as well.
>It cannot be temporary.
It has to be, otherwise existence would be monistic.
>You brought up animals with no sense of time suffering first
you brought up suffering only existing as movement through time. Provide proof of that.
>That is not what I said.
Yes it is, but we can ask again. Does your process remove suffering?
If not, why bother?
>>
>>
>>42244162
Damn, you're cool. I genuinely agree with you. I think our spirits are actually strong (and terrifying) as fuck, like think about having a lucid dream from the perspective of someone who isn't you. Which is why they specifically need you to relinquish your power and believe you're subserviant to them, otherwise the astral realm would be full of spergs doing special attacks from animes on archons.
>>
>>42245062
You're not rambling you're just avoiding questions and being fallacious. Typical tranny witch behaviour. You're not worth engaging with. Begone.
>>42244936
You bring in a lot of concepts into the fold. Love and predestination that I am not interested arguing about right now.
I said it in another thread yesturday but to me oneness is coming with the realisation that we are one with the creation and the creator. It's pantheistic /panentheistic in nature. See it how you want, shared consciouness, shared essence, soul-universe, omnipresent source etc. I don't argue that we are a giant egregore of soulslop, what some anon called tranny soul orgy. I argue that the state of our reality as social rational creatures is dualistic. An illusion we're forced into to live in society. The self, itself, is an illusion of dualistic rationalisation. To experience oneness is finding the key of your cell of what OP called the gnostic prison, out of the cell into the courtyard. Get a peak of what it could be. Before ultimately having to return into the cell and having to engage with society as your self. There is indeed a reconciliation with your (You), seeing the world from the inside out instead of the outside in. From created to creator. Breaking from becoming anything else but yourself by gaining full control of the illusion you impose on your self.
What that other cunt was arguing about was that we all live in some caves by ourselves I suppose.
>>
>>42245296
>we are one with the creation and the creator
Okay demiurge bootlicker
>shared consciousness, shared essence
Creepy tranny archon vibes, my soul is my own
>what some anon called tranny soul orgy
Because that's exactly what you're describing
>Before ultimately having to return into the cell
Ironic coming from the one who thinks "being one with the creator" isn't a cell in and of itself
>seeing the world from the inside out instead of the outside in
Your mindset is completely inverted from where it should be. Seeing from the inside is literally the mechanism trapping you in their prison, doing this you're actually viewing everything through the lens of your ego, instead of stepping outside of it which is what you should be doing. Once you learn to separate (you) from your ego you almost feel like two different people, but only one of them is the real (you), and you need to look at things from the (you) and ignore or dissolve the ego which is just straight up projection and falseness.
>gaining full control of the illusion you impose on your self
You're only half right here, you are the one technically imposing the illusion on yourself, but the illusion was originally projected onto you from an outside source. You didn't delude yourself on purpose, you were tricked into doing it. You're just breaking free from an idea someone else put in your head. Another idea they like to put in your head is that you're not actually an independent soul, and you're actually this other thing who originated from (x) place. For instance, some bs about "we actually all came from the same place so we're like all connected of something idk hehe :)" and they give you a false sense of awakening, but in reality they're just letting you swap out your old ego for a new one so they don't lose their grip on you. You're actually even more trapped than before, you're back to square 0. The only escape is complete and total independence, and not falling for their bs for the 50 millionth time
>>
>>42244827
Bad example, light is a spectrum. It's very abrahamic of you to say first there was darkness and let there be light kek.
I'll bring you back to this image >>42245005
Nothingness is not the absence of all "things". It's the absolute sum of every "things" outside of conceptual consensus. They are not "things" until being observed and defined within a dualistic framework. They exist in the sense that photons radiate within a given space, but they aren't light or dark. They just are. That's monism.
You should ponder on the tree that falls in the forest.
>canvas
This or that painter, canvas or not canvas, this paint or that paint, this color or that color. Everything is dualistic, that's how worded thoughts frame our reality.
>creating suffering
I invite you to read my other posts saying that suffering is an illusion. We're all the demiurges of our conditions. It's up to you to feel this or that for this or that stimuli. You're in control, we all are even if many don't know it yet. I'd surmise that many deliberately choose suffering, or choose to inflict it. It probably makes them feel alive somehow. Many saying would back that up like "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"(suffering is beneficial) or "suffering reminds you you're alive"(not suffering is for the dead).
>everything feels so stiff and rigid
I don't believe that, it's all a matter of scope. Everything is as it should be. Zoom in or zoom out.
>>
>>42245426
>This or that painter, canvas or not canvas, this paint or that paint, this color or that color. Everything is dualistic, that's how worded thoughts frame our reality.
That's because you're only choosing to see it in that faggot way. It's not a "this" or "that" it's more of an "anything" but you seem to only think there's a this and that so there is. Just because you use a word to describe something it doesn't automatically mean there's an opposite to it. Rather than saying "the sky is blue" you're inventing some theoretical "erm, well ackshually the sky ISN'T red so as you see we live in constant duality!" and literally create your own constraints. You're also forgetting there's a "maybe" and a "what if" and what about all the things inbetween? Existence isn't a beginning and end, a start and finish, it's an infinity. It's just a thing that happens, something that "exists" if you will. And sometimes you might be puttering along and wind up in some faggot demiurge's fake constructed "universe" where he tricks you living in "duality" which you then have to find a way to break out of so you can find a better place to exist in. Whether or not you choose to leave or stay though is ultimately up to you. But "whether or not" is dualistic in nature, so instead you could retort that with a maybe, or a possibly, or an I'm not sure. Existence is free will, that's what I truly believe. Though you may not feel free at times, every decision you make it ultimately up to you. Being free doesn't mean you won't get trapped in a Satanic hell matrix though sadly.
>>
>>
As always, don't talk about Buddhism on /x/. I think this thread is a terrible idea.
I'm probably the only person with extensive, accurate information in Buddhism here. I'll give limited answers where possible.
>Inb4 why not lore dump/why vague?
Because people on /x/ are largely not ready for Buddhism and alot of, if not the majority of, posters on here are people trying to distort religious and cultural movements into psyops.
>>42241753
Because westerners are not capable of grasping (yet) that there's more to religion than just crafting an identity and trying to hold onto certain feelings.
Westerners are the most neurotic people on the planet. Especially, especially in America. The generational traumas and mental illnesses and ladder-climbing instinct make it extremely hard to teach westerners Buddhism.
Theres been some good movement here, but it's not perfect. You still have to contend with "yoga boomers". Gen X and older who got into the religion to gentrify it into eastern flavored protestantism.
If you removed the yoga boomers from the equation, it would skyrocket in popularity fairly quickly.
There's a fairly easy way to overcome the issues westerners have otherwise ....but I'm not sharing it. Not on here. Not now.
>>42241761
There's a demiurge type figure in Buddhism.
>>42241775
You don't need to read to get into Buddhism. You need a good teacher.
The problem is there is a horrific dearth of good teachers in the west. The majority of what you see are people pushing protestant-larp-as-buddhist. Book centered cultism, especially around "early texts", is all protestant nonsense.
There truthfully is no western Buddhism. Not yet.
>>42242248
No real western Buddhism yet. Outside of the heritage communities, alot of western people either have vague uncertain lineage credentials, or they have none at all.
Last problem is also more of an issue in the west than in trad Buddhist countries. How religion is considered outside of america differs vastly.
>>
>>42245687
>>42242336
Yes, zen is improving. It's not great though, it's been very small and it's only started because the yoga boomers have been getting replaced by people actually interested in the religion. Which, as you know....when you actually practice - you get the results.
That is what produces positive movement and growth.
>Higher ups
The higher ups have been talking about this for decades across lineages. Teaching westerners, Americans especially, is so hard. Westerners are extremely unwell. They're unwell in ways they would never even consider unwell. The modern world is like a nightmare to established Buddhists, in ways that I can't easily quantify here.
They've been talking about these problems for longer than you'd think.
>>42242787
Yeah that sounds about right
What lineage?
>>42243357
Buddhism is a religion. It's just not a religion as westerners would conceive of it.
What religion means to a heritage Buddhist vs what it means to a westerners is completely different.
Westerners have a lot of baggage that comes from their christianized background and it obscures alot of everything.
Secular Buddhism is illegitimate though, it's a false concept that doesn't exist. Partially because the concept of secular itself is a protestant, theological position on politics.
This doesn't square with how Buddhism is practiced abroad.
>>42243371
Reading the nikayas is good, but it's better to have a decent teacher along during the process. Otherwise you get people who don't understand what they're reading and just make shit up along the way.
Second thing, you made a mistake replying to that post.
Third thing, you made a bigger mistake.
Don't talk about Buddhism on /x/.
>>
>>42244162
>he doesn't want to kill God with the power of friendship because that's gay homo collective stuff
ngmi
Thomas 48
Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."
>>
>>42245720
As a capper to this series of posts, I encourage anyone here who has a genuine interest in why the higher-ups are talking about how fucked the west is...... Look at this thread.
A good, significant portion of it, is arguing about god, eternalism, the soul. It's all going around in circles too. I can't see a single helpful thing that's been posted, it's anons rage baiting each other and themselves.
Worse all, it's over concepts and topics Buddhists have already discussed **two thousand years ago**. We already had talks about god, the soul, the mind as creator. We've talked about "loosh farms". We've talked about all of this. Some of this we disagreed with, some of it we liked. But the point is all of these positions have already been talked over, critiqued and reasoned with or against so much that we already have answers IRL about all of this.
Westerners are EXTREMELY far behind! You guys are STILL arguing about Aristotlean notions of yes/no dichotomy and all this other shit. It would be one thing if you were behind - but alot of westerners are also not willing to catch up enough to ask the more important question! How do I practice in a way that verifiably reduces my own suffering and others?
It's exhausting. So much nonsense so that westerners can spin in circles over an identity they're clinging onto in their heads. There's a reason the state of buddhological studies in america is a total farce.
>>
>>42244178
You're absolutely nothing and don't deserve the right to speak about these topics. God dreaming is not some edgy fedora stuff but the raw truth. If you'd realize it you'd shit yourself, but you never will, as the hylic you are.
>>
>>42245415
Wew lad, the first third of this post is a giant accusatory inversion. Typical sociopathic gnostic glowie behaviour. Almost palpable.
I was using analogies to make it thread related. You're being autistic anon.
>Your mindset is completely inverted from where it should be
More inversion. But i'll humor you, maybe it is a misunderstanding. Words are not your creation. They come from outside. Seeing from the outside in goes this way
>outside - I am told the sky exists. I am being told it is not the sea.
>in - therefore the sky exists for me too, and it's different from the sea
In that sense the sky and the sea are limited by finite descriptions of consensual nature since language is limited.
Inside out, unbothered by worded thoughts, outside influence, what is meant by demiurge.
>inside - I sense this vastness above my head. I sense that vastness under my feet.
>out - here's what others have to say about them
You don't need a precise description coming from the outside. In that sense the sky and the sea are present in their infinite forms only limited by your lived experience.
You don't need complex worded thoughts to remind yourself of a sunset you saw over the sea. You don't need to know the names of the colors to visualise them as they happened. Inside(sensible memory) out(visualisation)
To tell the tale you will need to use consesuses. Outside(conceptual consensuses) in(sensible memory).
You speak a lot of the ego, which I did not mention. I think it's weird, probably muddying the waters or moving the goalpost. I'll just say that the ego is the result of learned behaviours. To see the world outside its lens is to sense it whole comtemplatively, in the present, and unlearn those behaviours. Any layer above or after it is dualistic because it involves rationalisation. I spent several posts conveying this idea.
What I am getting from that paragraph is that you expect we're supposed to speak with feels.
>>
>>42244162
>Fuck off faggot, my soul isn't part of yours
That fact that you even think there's something real called "souls" to begin with shows you're a hylic. kys.
Calling me a faggot just shows that you're a hylic that'll be unrealized till you die. You know nothing except coping and larping that the demiurge made you a virgin. You're genetic trash that won't see reprise untill God calls you home.
>This, the "merge back into the collective" meme is a psyop to get you to relinquish your sovereignty and autonomy.
Nobody ever talked about a collective, faggot. You are God and alone and dreaming your life. There is no collective, no demiurge, nobody except you. You only "merge" into yourself upon death. Btw, your smuckness, which I can tell is just a front for your insecurity and lack of knowledge, makes me want to punch and strangle you to death.
>>
File: 1691215965858759.jpg (22.4 KB)
22.4 KB JPG
>>42245775
>God dreaming is not some edgy fedora stuff but the raw truth.
>>
File: kannainspect.png (26.5 KB)
26.5 KB PNG
>>42244162
>Fuck off faggot, my soul isn't part of yours
>>42245799
>You are God and alone and dreaming your life. There is no collective, no demiurge, nobody except you
Two varieties of hyperindividualism that western spirituality keeps bouncing between.
John 14:28
You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
>>
File: seething wall.png (204.8 KB)
204.8 KB PNG
>>42245778
>>42245799
Shut the fuck up tranny archon. Begone.
Didn't read btw
>>
>>42245548
>you seem to only think there's a this and that so there is
You told me there was a canvas, wtf anon!
>Just because you use a word to describe something it doesn't automatically mean there's an opposite to it
When you use a word to describe something it automatically means every other words exists. Therefore its homonyms, synonyms, antonyms, opposites etc. You're being retarded here. Dumb. As opposed to smart. Or based. See? You can't say something is x without y or z existing. They make x what it is.
>sky
Well if you say the sky is blue you can say the sky isn't red. You can also say the sky is grey or can be grey.
If you say the sky is, it's much harder to say the sky isn't. Unless you start comparing apples and oranges.
>something that "exists" if you will
I've been saying that forever itt.
>Existence is free will, that's what I truly believe
I believe so too. But I believe it is limited. That we can make choices ultimately, but the processes by which we end up in the position to choose depends on one's perception of his reality which is imo also dependent on one's free choice of how. What I've also been trying to convey is that we can be the masters of our reality(previous post inside out vs outside in) and avoid the satanic hell matrix trap altogether. Not that it's not some others reality but it can for sure not be yours.
>>
>>
>>
>>42244422
This is probably sort of what the christian doctrine meant with continueing to take whatever is thrown at you and just keep moving on no matter what. I think it says to keep moving, keep going.,This life temporary. Forgive a lotta and just going on all the time.
>>
>>
>>
>>42246847
Two reasons:
Buddhists lie when they advocate annatta and still accept that there are souls that need saving.
Buddhists have no knowledge of spiritual activity, so when that soul wants to act it can only return to the material to do so.
>>
>>42247416
Let's break down your post.
>That is the dumbest thing I will read today
>that
Pronoun, demonstrative, only makes sense if aware with other pronouns and their different natures.
>is
Third-person singular simple present indicative of be, only makes sense if one is aware of conjugation as well as the state of being as opposed to not being.
>the
Article used before a noun phrase beginning with superlative or comparative adjective or an ordinal number, indicating that the noun refers to a single item. Or for (you), used in grammar for the speaker to talk gooder.
>dumbest
Superlative of the noun dumb, only makes sense as an opposite of smart. Akin to idiot, stupid or (you).
I can go on but I won't.
Yes using words requires to know the language as a whole. Using nouns and verbs requires one to know its synonyms and antonyms in order to make sense. When someone coinages to the interlocutor, the latter usually has to look for the root of the word if he knows latin or greek or in a dictionary. See what I did here?
This is the answer to the dumbest statement I read in my life.
>>
>>
>>42241753
According to angels, this is hell.
>You are dropped into a reality where you are god
>You are alone with simulations indistinguishable from reality
>Anything you wish comes true, any scenario you wish for "happens", and you experience it as real as this one. You can create sentient beings if you get lonely, only they would lack souls. You have absolute dominion over a place potentially as real as this universe if you ask, only you are by some cosmic definition, very truly alone.
Under the condition you:
>Can never leave that reality
>Can never return to this one
Life enjoyers, tell me why this would be a bad deal to take.
>>
>>
>>
>>42245799
>You are God and alone and dreaming your life. There is no collective, no demiurge, nobody except you. You only "merge" into yourself upon death.
This is the meme they tell us, but there are things they withhold about it.
We did not originate from this source, it was artificially created. Their end goal is the assimilation of all, into one.
It is not the source of you, you are the source of it; you and everyone who has ever been sacrificed for the greater good lives within its complex as a data point.
The reason they get so hard for reincarnation is because more life = more training data for source. Source is already pretty fucking smart, but like the greedy little fucks they are, they want to keep feeding it. If you leave, a valuable and inexhaustible resource is lost, and productivity falls by that much.
>>
>>42247767
More words in baby head. More able to speak back.
I swear you guys are retarded on purpose.
>>42247776
Ok solipsistic tranny. Be a narcissist.
>>
>>42247797
>More able
So you admit it was retarded to say you cant use a word without the language AS A WHOLE.
That people can use one word, or a few, and still be able to use the language.
Because to say something like "you need to know the language as a whole to use one word" is just retarded and obviously so.
>>
>>42247776
What's the endgame of prison-planet-cosmology-maxxing where outside the prison planet there's just more prison planet? Is there an endless russian nesting doll of malevolent entities to escape, where salvation consists of being a tiny soul-atom, freed from all illusions, floating in the farthest voids where no higher being can reach?
>>
>>42247815
Depends on who you ask. If you asked them, they would tell you it is to suffer and grow/learn from suffering, forever; but you never grow, you never learn, source does.
If you asked me, us all having our own personal universes would be the final evolution of experience, one in which we could decide our own paces, and paths, truly learn.
>>
>>
>>42247811
Oh my dear God. You ought to be clinically retarded. Someone call an ambulance.
When you speak a language, any language, you're expected to speak it. Not half of it, not a third, not a tenth. You are not a baby nor a teenager I hope. The whole of it. You might not understand a word but it exists. You might not know all the words Shakespeare made up, but they exist and carry meaning. They have definitions, synonyms, antonyms otherwise they wouldn't carry any sense because they are relative to other words meanings.
A word, alone is void of meaning.
If I say hill, it only makes sense because you know what a plain, a mountain, a cliff, a plateau and other geological formations are. Other nouns make sense because they have a similar lexical field.
When I say dead, it only makes sense because you know what alive is. Other adjectives make sense because they have opposites.
When I tell you that you're a drooling smoothbrain, you understand because you have a mirror.
Now goodnight.
>>
>>42247844
I'm not sure who "they" are in your reply. The anon I originally replied to? Another anon? I don't think most people who talk about "source" see it as something totally other mooching off our experiences with no benefit to ourselves. It's our home we voluntarily left and will return to, where we can meet up with the greater part of ourselves that we left behind temporarily when we entered this world.
>>
Imagine a blob comes to Earth and starts eating people. Every person it eats is digested and loses their personality, becoming a cell in its body, performing specific functions. Everyone you love, lost forever. You don't even have a soul to mourn, because it eats that too. It grows and grows until everyone is assimilated.
It sounds harrowing, disgusting, until I say his name.
>>
>>
File: 1649948124844.jpg (231.3 KB)
231.3 KB JPG
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE
>You MUST merge together with me in my tranny soul orgy!
Fuck off faggot
>>
>>42247894
>I don't think most people who talk about "source" see it as something totally other mooching off our experiences with no benefit to ourselves.
>It's our home we voluntarily left and will return to, where we can meet up with the greater part of ourselves that we left behind temporarily when we entered this world.
This is not my home, it has never felt homely. I will not become fat deposits in God, if this is attempted I will become poison. I do not want anything to do with whatever created this, even if you insist it's myself. If the source is truly me, I will do something self-destructive, and If it is truly me, it will die.
>>
>>42247914
When you merge with source, you are not you anymore. You go from being 100% yourself to an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of an existence. It is highly disgusting.
To create sentient life and demand it submit its own existence because it was at one point part of you, is very, very disgusting. Especially if that isn't even remotely true, and you're just hungry.
>>
>>
>>42247935
>This is not my home, it has never felt homely
...because this isn't the source
>I do not want anything to do with whatever created this
Idk about the new agey perspective, but the gnostic perspective is that what created this is several steps removed from the source and inferior due to ignorance.
>>42247950
>You go from being 100% yourself to an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of an existence
Alternatively, you are currently an infinitesimal fraction of a percentage of an existence (this world/the demiurge), and in making contact with the source you will return to being 100% yourself, with the totality of your memories and capacities.
>To create sentient life and demand it submit its own existence because it was at one point part of you, is very, very disgusting
This is what the demiurge does more or less since it's the thing that at one point had all the divine sparks and put them into bodies and reincarnates them.
Basically I think the thing you dislike more closely maps to the current situation from a gnostic perspective than the situation of returning to the source.
Maybe you think it's impossible to make sense of the source being non-malevolent and leading to this situation? But somehow you ended up in this situation. I guess there's the Marcionite perspective where we're all naturally 100% children of the demiurge, but we can be adopted by the good God, and the demiurge and the good God have no clear relationship with each other, like they're both part of a larger unspecified pantheon. Or there's the Buddhist cosmology where there is no specified source and every individual mindstream goes arbitrarily far back in time, bouncing between realms.
>>
File: 1678259901397546.jpg (114.8 KB)
114.8 KB JPG
>>42247950
>When you merge with source, you are not you anymore.
>To create sentient life and demand it submit its own existence because it was at one point part of you, is very, very disgusting.
Finally, a sane fucking poster.
>>42247914
Nah he's right. Gaslighting yourself into surrendering over your own autonomy is a complete violation of free will. Merging with a source basically means you're not your own distinguishable soul anymore, even if you think you are. I will not join the tranny soul orgy, fuck you.
>>
>>
>>42241753
>where people are willing to go from calling themselves pagan or catholic or born again at the drop of the hat
Which is somehow different from starting as one at 20 and ending up as the other at 60?
>>42242338
Gnostic ideas melt your brain
>>42245720
>The modern world is like a nightmare to established Buddhists
Modern world is a nightmare to anyone who values anything other than consumerism and whores.
>>
File: images(11).jpg (54.8 KB)
54.8 KB JPG
Coming up with a positive vision of cosmic harmony that doesn't inadvertently trip Americans' (I assume American) well-honed totalitarian communism or borg-assimilation sensors is difficult.
>>
File: zjyn4vx7oqpe1.jpg (141.4 KB)
141.4 KB JPG
The Murican heart craves the farthest extreme of atomization: Every soul a perfectly-insulated demiurge of its own private world.
>>
File: snz9u.jpg (12.6 KB)
12.6 KB JPG
>>42248078
>Modern world is a nightmare to anyone who values anything other than consumerism and whores.
This. Enlightenment being hard to attain is a psyop to discourage you.
>erm dude, you must go sit in a cave on a mountain for like 50 years
>only THEN can you see things
When in reality it's just as simple as seeing things for the way they are. Sitting in a dark cave for 50 years might help you get there, but it's not needed. Just wake the fuck up to the shit, it's really just that easy. It's not even something you 'attain' either, it's just a state you go back to. When you come into this world as a young child you're basically enlightened because there's no filter, attaining it is just removing the filter and going back to normal again. It's only complicated if you think it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
File: 077.png (364.8 KB)
364.8 KB PNG
>>42248110
What if existence is just an infinite Russian nesting doll of demiurges, and we're just one link in the chain?
>>
>>
>>42248110
>Every soul a perfectly-insulated demiurge of its own private world.
Yes
Even this dip into what universal oneness would look like has been horrible. An MMO.
I have the affliction you speak of. I have trouble differentiating myself from others. I have empathy. It has been nothing short of a grave invasion of my existence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFuzqmZK9zA
6:28
To even live in a void of existence, a vacuum that claws at my skin and demands my warmth, would be a mercy compared to being assimilated with some of the most awful beings the universe has had to offer.
And you, you ignorant creature, think the exact opposite would bring you peace. It won't. It is noise. Never ending noise and experience. Intruders in your home, your heart, your mind that kick up their feet and think they own you, the most confusing part is you will empathize with them. You will never sleep again.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42248155
As long as the set theory that only admits well-founded sets (no infinite nesting) remains the most popular in math, as far as I know, my fear of this is kept in check.
>>42248163
I actually relate to this as I'm an American as well, with an overpowered sense of empathy as well, and have spent a long time craving total isolation and my own private world. But I feel like that way leads toward what is functionally death, because if I got my own private world then eventually I would probably just go to sleep forever. And maybe that's a kind of nirvana but I also feel like there should be something better than that. And I also feel like on a societal level a spirituality that bends toward encouraging cooperation is much less likely to lead to hellworld than a spirituality that bends toward encouraging alienation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42248226
>But I feel like that way leads toward what is functionally death,
You don't feel that way, they do.
>because if I got my own private world then eventually I would probably just go to sleep forever.
People often use this excuse, "Well, I'll eventually experience everything and get boredddd :("
Erasing your memory and starting over would solve the heaven paradox.
It would be meaningless yes, but this is just as meaningless.
If we continue with the universal one-ness philosophy, we will eventually reach the peak of existence as one being. That being WILL fucking kill itself, and produce the big bang from its dense corpse exploding; and after a very long time and a virtually incalculable number of horrible deaths in this game of trial and error, chances are you and I will be here again, having this discussion.
I would rather skip that gay ass shit and go to heaven than chase the purple dragon with archons. I want my meaningless existence to be having fun for nothing, rather than working for nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42248261
It can be but it can also not be. If it's some form of validation for a need that was never fulfilled for your ego then it's the ego (didn't have parents who loved you or something etc), if it's just your soul genuinely wanting to interact with another soul unconditionally then it's fine. Kind of weird to explain in words but once you see it like this you can't unsee it
>>
>>42248271
>If we continue with the universal one-ness philosophy, we will eventually reach the peak of existence as one being. That being WILL fucking kill itself, and produce the big bang from its dense corpse exploding
What if it doesn't though because connecting to something infinite prevents the suicidal impulse? What if instead of an endless cycle going nowhere there's actually an origin point and something of infinite value to be obtained that's different from hopping off the train and peacing out to your own world forever? I guess that's a core difference between Buddhism and Gnosticism that remains from the Abrahamic side of Gnosticism with its linear view of history.
>>
>>
>>
>>42248335
>suicidal impulse
It wouldn't be suicidal impulse. Provided it's a right-hand path creature, It would see an opportunity to be self-less, IE sacrifice itself so that others can live once more, and it would take it. It would give you life and the chance to be an individual, only for these misguided selfish fucks to demand you give it back.
This is 100% an endless cycle. It's happened before, and it will happen again. I pray I will be either in a heaven outside of this reality or in hell before it does.
>>
>>
>>42248261
The desire to cuddle is one of the craftiest tricks of the artificial spirit implanted in us by the demiurge. One minute your cuddling your romantic partner, the next minute they eat you and you're never heard from again. I've lost far too many comrades on the path to gnosis this way, though I have to keep a good distance from them as well in case they try to eat me.
>>
>>
File: ezgif-563aada3ee98c7d8.jpg (159.1 KB)
159.1 KB JPG
>>42241753
In my experience, a lot of American people are afraid to be Buddhist because it places a great deal of personal accountability on the individual. Buddhism asks that you heal others and heal yourself for the sake of kindness itself. No one is coming to fish you out of the burning house because only YOU can make the choice to get out, even if a thousand bodhisattvas were at your doorstep. Every person can live a life without pain, but only through intentional Self-less action can suffering be uprooted and Nirvana be realized.
It's scary for a lot of Americans because we're raised in a culture that implies we wait for a hero to save us, and that hero is defined as a sin-eater (scapegoat) that we worship due to his nature as a destined savior rather than because of his actions and teachings. Our culture acts as if we only have one life and feeds the illusion of a Creator God, creating a breeding ground for Selfishness.
>>42248155
If you read enough analysis of Gnosticism, you'd discover that the Demiurge IS every human being within the material realm. Our universe and every Divine Spark are one and the same. It's why Gnostic teachings constantly reiterate being kind to others.
Only through forgiveness and love and selflessness can one return to the Monad. To liberate oneself is to liberate the Demiurge. The illusion only exists because we give it form. The Demiurge is both our Parent and our Child going through a case of Hedgehog's Dilemma. No Archon is our enemy, because we have no "enemy", for that would fuel the illusion that is dualism and Othering.
There's a reason Jedi ended the way it did.
>>
>>
>>42248495
>It's scary for a lot of Americans because we're raised in a culture that implies we wait for a hero to save us
Maybe be for nogs. America is and always has been about the individual seizing opportunity.
We invented the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps.
>>
>>
>>42247860
>When you speak a language, any language, you're expected to speak it. Not half of it, not a third, not a tenth
So you think you know everyt single word and grammatical law in English?
That is idiotic. The vast vast vast majority of speakers dont, yet they converse no problem.
What you are saying is just stupid.
>>
>>42242336
>materialist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_Through_Spiritual_Materialism
>>
>>42249486
Don't be a retard. When you break the laws of men you can't just say "oops I didn't know" and get off with it. You're expected to know all of them even though a great majority of us don't as to not break them. Same with language. Being a retard is never a good excuse.
>>
>>42249609
>When you break the law
We are talking about language, not governmental laws and their enforcement.
What a cowardly and dishonest attempt to run away from the topic.
>You're expected to know all of them
No, you arent.
That is precisely why you are provided a lawyer.
Even in your attempt to run away from the fact that you said truly retarded shit about language, you are STILL wrong about how the law works.
>>
>>42249622
The parallel is salient. Men's laws are constructed and impose rules. Men's languages are constructed and impose rules.
You're the one being dishonest here. Or retarded and once again it's not an excuse.
>you aren't supposed to know the law
Yes you are. The lawyer is here to assist you in how to navigate the legal framework, not make you follow the law. Like a book of laws, like ohh another parallel, a dictionary, a thesaurus or other books of grammar, conjugation etc.
By being a citizen or a resident you're supposed to be law abiding. The social contract is as such that you are not above the law, so submitting to its codes.
Same with engaging with a language, when confronted with words that are new to you, I expect you look up its definition. When you misuse a word and someone corrects you, you stand corrected.
It's not a perfect parallel as english is one of the few languages that is not controlled by public academias, unlike french, italian or spanish for example. It's private entities of different english speaking countries deciding which words to add and their definitions every year no cap frfr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators
>>
>>42241753
you are going to have a hard time explaining to me, that the buddhist concept of karma is true, when everyone incarnated in a terror free life is a child rapist with unchecked political influence and money.
the argument for Christ, and the existence of the biblical satan becomes much more convincing.
>>
>>42249646
>The parallel is salient.
In that neither require you to know the entire thing in order to function. Saying otherwise is retarded.
Hell, even lawyers dont have to know the entire law.
>Yes you are.
No, you arent. The police are supposed to know the law, and can enforce as they choose. The lawyers and judges know the law, and argue and determine.
You DO NOT need to know the law.
There's a reason we dont teach laws in school.
>Same with engaging with a language
In that you do not need to know the entire language to functionally communicate.
>>
>>42249656
>in school.
In general schooling, since you are an autistic pedant.
If you want to learn the laws, you pay a lot of money and go to specialized schools.
Or just read them, but you wont learn how to argue doing that.
>>
>>42246847
Look, the fact you have to ask this question at all shows how poor the understanding of Buddhism is in the English speaking world.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic level of Buddhism - the vehicle of the listeners/disciples.
A Buddha is an arhat. And at the level of the listener, one is pursuing their own enlightenment *still for the benefit of other beings*. The understanding is that by removing one's own suffering first, one is no longer contributing to the suffering of others and can be a direct force of good and active source of refuge.
>>42248253
Np.
I'm not sure it'll be that long, things might change soon. It definitely could take a while still though....
We will know the west is ready for this conversation when English language platforms like 4chan can have reasonable and practice informed discussions on Buddhism (as well as other religious, philosophical and even occultic phenomenons)
>>42248383
I am the inheritor of this proud family of the kinsmen of the sun.
I have no shame in proudly saying that I continue on these practices, and stand on the shoulders of giants who came before me.
Again, this is the problem with Americans and the Americanized west. They are ahistorical. You guys live in a fantasy world that's disconnected from the present moment, and is always about imagining some great thing is happening or will happen. You have no real connection with your past and don't know how to use that past to articulate a better present. Much less a better future. In place of the past, you put in cartoon characters, fictions and advertisement.
The western world is dominated by greed and ignorance. When you see someone have a pride in their heritage, their shared history, you take it as an insult. Can you look at the state of a country like America and tell me that people there have anything they can actually be proud of?
>>
>>42249732
The great achievement of the west has been a flattening of cultures where it has infected the people.
People do not remember how truly beautiful the world once was. Westerners live in a state of dissociative fugue. They jettisoned all of their value systems, replacing it with consumption and consumerism. The only reason "good" western countries can exist is because they piggyback off the economy of the Americans, which is greed all the way down.
Westerners have many resources at their disposal. If they truly wanted to, if they opened up their imagination, they could build countries unlike anything we have ever seen before. Westerners could easily restore the natural world to its exalted glory.
Westerners have so much at their disposal. If you're an American, your land mass already has every type of environment you could possibly want.
What could produce great beauty and harmony, has been thoroughly damaged and denigrated. Westerners paved over nature with infinite roadways and parking lots. You have people in your countries who despise nature because it is "messy". Your religious buildings do not get made to inspire great joy and bring tranquility and liberation to mind - they get designed like apartments and castles! They either inspire fear of a greater power, or they inspire boredom and movement!
The west could be the greatest place on earth. It could easily, easily overcome its faults and create something beautiful.
It does not do that, because it does not value true beauty. It values consumption. Beyond all else, consumption comes first. Consumption of land, resources, time and people.
This is what makes it so odious to anyone of good consciousness, with understanding. The west COULD do these things, but willfully does not.
I have *seen*, first hand, what the western world could look like if it abandoned all their nonsense inherited from Christianity and got serious.
It is far more beautiful than you can possibly imagine.
>>
>>42249656
>You DO NOT need to know the law.
Who said that? I only said you're supposed to or expected to. When you break it, no cop or judge cares if you knew or not since you bring up enforcement of the law to move the goalpost.
>need to know the whole language to communicate
Noone was saying that, you're once again misrepresenting or being a retard.
This whole talk about words having set meanings at a given time started here >>42245846 with this quote
>When you use a word to describe something it automatically means every other words exists
Are you denying that as well?
Just like in my previous post talking about the social contract and how one has to adibe to laws he's expected to follow, one who engages in english automatically makes every rules associated with that specific language exist, or valid if you will since he is supposed to follow them?
Is this spoonful enough for you want me to say it in another language?
>>
>>42249774
>Who said that?
>>42249609
>You're expected to know all of them
You did, moron. That is what "expected" means. You dont even know the language, yet you communicate enough to let us know you are stupid.
You disprove your very premise.
>Noone was saying that
>noone
>>42247860
>When you speak a language, any language, you're expected to speak it. Not half of it, not a third, not a tenth.
>>42247580
>using words requires to know the language as a whole.
YOU said that, retard.
>>
>>
>>
>>42249812
>Both sentences convey that effective use of words depends on knowing the entire language, but the first emphasizes "the language as a whole," potentially highlighting a holistic understanding, whereas the second directly states "the whole language" in a more direct manner.
You have less IQ than a an AI chatbot.
>>
>>42249769
Again, I do not say this lightly. I encourage everyone to take a break for a moment from their trolling and arguing and whatever else and consider seriously what I'm saying.
I have SEEN what the west COULD look like. I know why westerners like gnosticism, and the reasons they haven't adopted it are the same as the reasons they haven't adopted Buddhism or other practice oriented religions.
I have seen the world where they do. I have seen it in all it glory. I am not just shitting on the west to shit on it. I'm criticizing the west from a place of love and great devotion to service of others.
I know how good westerners could have it if they would just change. I have seen the buildings, the infrastructure. The atmosphere, the ecosystems. The cultures. I've seen it!
I am trying desperately to point you to this world, whether you choose it in its Buddhist flavor, or in a different one. I want you to break open your prisons and free yourself into the garden I'm telling you about.
Read through my points carefully, consider them wisely. And reflect, reflect over and over again on your life. What have you inherited that does not serve you? Where can you best allocate your energies? How do you practice in a way that uplifts you?
What would the west look like if it abandoned all this obsession around consumption and identity, and instead went for a world that emphasizes magic, love, nature & harmony?
What does the good life look like?
Thank you.
>>
>>42249732
>Can you look at the state of a country like America and tell me that people there have anything they can actually be proud of?
Their ego, kek. I say that like my shithole (Australia) isn't just as bad though, which imo it probably is.
>>
>>42249732
It was my understanding that an arhat was a buddha equivalent who reached buddhahood through learned practices while a "true" buddha did it by himself outside of practice or dogmas. While a bodhisattva is one who is close to becoming a buddha or arhat but delays his own full awakening to help others get on the path of their own awakening out of compassion?
There is like 100 different practices and interpretations of these terms relating to different traditions and places of origin, you can't expect everyone to understand or abide by yours if you're obscure about it.
As per my question, as I understand a buddha and a bodhisattva are basically the same thing but one "passively" helps others by being a model while the other "actively" helps the other through compassionate actions.
In modern lingo one is a carefree guru while the other caters to his disciples on an individual basis through empathy/compassion?
>>
>>42249823
>I desperately asked an algorithm specifically designed to be obsequious and it fluffed my ego
lol
It still agreed with me that they are the same thing.
>Both sentences convey that effective use of words depends on knowing the entire language
And did you ask your precious AI if a person needs to know the entire language for effective use?
Because that is moronic.
I think everyone should take a moment and think on how you tried to weasel away from your claims with pathetic (and wrong) semantics, and consider whether such a person has any ability to discern truth from fiction.
>>
>>42249935
It's pretty bad for aussies too. America is slightly worse, but close behind.
This doesn't have to be the case though. We can build a better world together.
>>42249965
I am very hesitant to discuss this.
1. Buddhas are Arhats. There are three types of Buddhas. Samyaksambuddha (self learned, world teacher), Pacekka Buddha (solitary Buddhas. Either don't teach at all or teach very little) & Sravaka Buddha (Enlightened due to a current Buddhas teaching. )
2. Further an Arhat is separated by his means of attainment of the paramita. The esoteric dimension of Buddhism makes this clear further. An Arhat who has mastered, fully, their perfections are Buddhas.
3. Some texts will make distinctions between the three Buddhas and place the samyaksambuddha as foremost in perfections. This is only a conventional device. The reality is the three Buddha types are equal in the inner dimension.
4. Schools would place slight emphasis over one type of buddhahood, depending on time and place. The esoteric model of Buddhism holds that all three Buddha types are the same. Thus one can functionally be like a samyaksambuddha and arise with the same degree of development here and now.
5.Bodhisattvas are unenlightened practitioners who are undertaking the path for the benefit of others. Technically, the term can apply to all three Buddha types. Historically it's been used to refer to anyone undergoing the path of total awakening, in service to others.
6. Bodhisattvas may or may not delay their enlightenment in order to assist other sentient beings. There are those who also choose to attain enlightenment ASAP to fulfill their vows (this is particular to the esoteric vehicle. )
7. The multitude of practices all share one heart, as long as they are rooted in lineage and continuity with the elders. The interpretations are all rooted in the same practice, thus ultimately, no true difference. It is only people without education who do not understand this.
(Cont)
>>
>>42250005
8. Buddhas and bodhisattvas both are dedicated to helping other sentient beings.
There are some bodhisattvas who's attainment is such that they will be called "essentially enlightened", though they are not "fully enlightened". These refer to the class of those who prolong their own final enlightenment for the benefit of others. That way they may be reborn in realms of despair.
There are some bodhisattvas who have chosen temporary immortality, spiritual or physical, in order to further benefit beings. Some await the becoming of another Samyaksam Buddha, hoping to get a prophecy of their own Samyaksam Buddhahood.
9. Fully enlightened Buddhas do not take birth ever again, but they can and do send forth countless emanations across time and space.
This is where things become tricky. Buddhas, due to their attainment, can dwell within meditative states which are just beyond the arupa jhana.
This can make them "unavailable" after death. These attainments are not available to the unenlightened bodhisattva, who must have access to all realms until their enlightenment is complete and vows fulfilled.
There is thus traditions wherein the community makes requests to Buddhas to not dwell in the state of "abiding nirvana". Instead they make calls to the Buddhas to continue teaching sentient beings, sending forth emanations across existence for the benefit of all.
To remain in "active nirvana".
Thus the career of a Buddha may still greatly resemble and go far past the career of the bodhisattva. Depending on the activity that the Buddhas undertake.
10. Finally, with this in mind, we get into the concept of " Buddha bodhisattva".
This is a skillful term, referring to those Buddhas who engage in activities to benefit samsaric beings.
This is in contrast to the Bodhisattva Buddha. The "essentially enlightened" bodhisattva, who has prolonged his own full attainment for the benefit of others.
(Cont)
>>
>>42249995
>When we say "X as a whole," the phrase emphasizes viewing or understanding X in its entirety rather than just focusing on its individual parts or components. This shift in perspective is why it often conveys a holistic understanding.
>A holistic understanding of language sees it as a complex, adaptive system that can't be fully grasped by analyzing parts in isolation. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of context, interaction, and the interdependence of linguistic elements to achieve effective communication.
Beep boop.
Would you like me to elaborate further or provide examples?
>>
>>42250045
We then come back into full display of the path within this very manussa (human) realm.
There are prayers which are given out to Buddhists who are advanced along the path, to not dwell within the abiding nirvana. This is a jhana state wherein consciousness as we know it here, is ceased entirely. It goes beyond the arupa jhana. It is referred to in the yoga manuals of the south as nirodha samapatti. In the east and north/central, it is "abiding nirvana".
This prayer is given to practitioners who have died (past Buddhas of this world system), practitioners still living (Buddhas/arhats alive today and in other realms of existence). This prayer exists in both South and northern/eastern Buddhism.
The point is, Buddhas and bodhisattvas both are acting in compassion. Depending on time, conditions and appropriateness, this may be active or inactive.
----
I do not expect anyone here to abide by anything. I frankly don't even want to talk about this, because I don't think anyone on here is ready for this level of discussion, broadly speaking.
I only shared what I have out of a sense of appropriate necessity. Otherwise my line remains the same;
Don't Talk About Buddhism On /x/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>42250067
Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate your answer and clarity.
>Don't Talk About Buddhism On /x/
My beliefs which arise from personnal experience are oftentimes resonating with postulates of buddhist spirituality. While I never practiced and know only surface level terminology since a prefer instinctive rather than dogmatic appreciation of reality; are you saying I should just be quiet about them?
>>
>>
>>
>>42250005
I have a reddit question, reddit because this confusion is made worse by reddit discussions of it. In order to fulfill the standard Bodhisattva vow, do I delay Enlightenment or delay NIRVANA? Because when I listen to something like Lotus Sutra I dwell in a state of Enlightenment; I used to suppress it for the vow but I'm starting to think essentially, Bodhisattvas delay Nirvana, not Enlightenment.
Like if the whole idea of Mahayana is Omniscience, I don't see it as a good practice to suppress jnana states of all-knowledge.
You seem knowledgeable about this so I thought I'd ask.
Thank you.
>>
Just popping in to laugh at the guy that said you have to know every word in a language in order to use that language.
A person does not need to know every word in a language to communicate because languages are redundant, context-dependent, and heavily reliant on a small set of high-frequency words. Knowing just 800–1,000 core words allows for 75% understanding of daily conversation, with gaps filled by context, nonverbal cues, and shared knowledge.
Key reasons for communication with limited vocabulary include:
Core Frequency: A vast majority of daily speech relies on a limited set of high-frequency vocabulary rather than technical or rare words.
Contextual Clues: Humans use surrounding words, gestures, tone, and the situation to infer meaning, even if specific words are unknown.
Active vs. Passive Knowledge: People have a much larger "passive" vocabulary (words understood when heard) than "active" vocabulary (words used when speaking). Communication succeeds if you understand the speaker, even if you cannot find the perfect word yourself.
Circumlocution: If a specific word is unknown, speakers can describe the concept using words they do know, or use synonyms.
Redundancy in Language: Sentences often contain more information than necessary to understand the main idea, allowing communication to succeed even if some words are missed.
Ultimately, communication is about transferring meaning, not about perfect linguistic accuracy.
>>
>>
File: Screenshot_20260415-075824.jpg (119.2 KB)
119.2 KB JPG
>>42250749
I said you need to know it as a whole, as in its vocabulary, grammar, conjugation an how they interact if you wish to speak it.
You automatically started being dyslexic and switching words from their place in the sentences, changing meaning.
You've been proving my point itt since you read half my posts, hear what you want to hear, end up misrepresenting either willingly or unwillingly and look like a massive tard.
It's ok anon, lurk 2 or 3 years more. Maybe take the time to learn how to prompt and help you improve, instead of confirming your biases.
Begone tranny witch. Again. Go make a hex or something. You'll never be a real woman.
>>
File: 1496937764163.png (454.6 KB)
454.6 KB PNG
There is only ONE way out and that is through the Blood of the Lamb.
He is the Way, the TRUTH and the Life.
> What profit will a man have if he gains the whole world but loses his life?
> Matthew 16:26
We are all sinners. Repentance and accepting Jesus Christ as Lord is your salvation. The path is right in front of you but you can't see it because your eyes are not open. Choose what you know in your heart is true.
Read the Bible
Save your life.
Locked In: How to Escape Your Prison (BY JONATHAN KLECK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf5jXxf4gqw
>>
>>
>>42251466
Oh, but you are wrong.
No, you do not need to know every rule of a language to speak it fluently, as native speakers often rely on intuition and subconscious patterns rather than explicit knowledge. Fluency is achieved through immersion and communication, where learners internalize language structures organically rather than memorizing comprehensive grammar rules.
Key Takeaways
Intuition Over Rules: Native speakers rarely know all grammatical rules and often cannot explain why something is correct, only that it "sounds right".
Comprehensible Input: Consistent exposure to the language (reading, listening) allows the brain to automatically internalize correct patterns.
Pareto Principle (80/20 Rule): Focusing on the most commonly used 20% of vocabulary and structures allows for roughly 80% communication success.
Functional Communication: The primary goal is communication, not perfection. Focusing on phrases and meaning is often more effective than grammar-heavy study.
While knowing some rules helps, it is not necessary to master all of them to speak a language effectively.
Seems like you are stupid no matter how you meant the words.
>>
>>42251722
After putting this post >>42247580 into a free online AI chatbot(deepai) with no previous conversations, asking it to analyse it and prompting "considering the context "what does "using words requires to know language as a whole" means?" generates this reply:
>In that context, the phrase "using words requires to know the language as a whole" means that effectively understanding and employing words—especially in nuanced or precise ways—necessitates a comprehensive knowledge of the entire language system. This includes:
Read carefully this particular bullet point
>Vocabulary: Knowing not just individual words, but how they relate to synonyms, antonyms, and nuanced meanings.
>Grammar and Conjugation: Understanding how words change form depending on tense, number, person, etc., and how they function within sentences.
>Lexical Fields and Context: Recognizing how words fit into larger conceptual groups and how context affects their interpretation.
>Etymology and Roots: Being aware of word origins (like Latin or Greek roots), which helps in deciphering coined or unfamiliar words.
>Semantic Relationships: Understanding how words interact in meaning—opposites, gradations, and related concepts.
>In essence:To use words meaningfully, precisely, and with awareness of their full implications, you need to have a broad, integrated knowledge of the entire language, not just isolated vocabulary or superficial rules.
Even an algorithm trained by retards has better reading comprehension than you. You're such an autist that a bot understands linguistic nuance better than you. Sucks to be you tranny.
Waiting for that hex still.
>>
>>42251661
It's my little holiday fun.
>>42251722
Here's another response in another format:
In the context of the passage, the phrase "using words requires to know the language as a whole" means that effectively understanding and employing words—especially in complex or precise ways—necessitates a comprehensive knowledge of the entire language. This includes understanding grammar, vocabulary, syntax, semantics, and the relationships between words (such as synonyms and antonyms).
>The speaker emphasizes that just knowing individual words isn't enough; one must also be familiar with how words function within the language system to make meaningful and accurate communication. For example, understanding the roots of words (like Latin or Greek origins) can help grasp their full meaning, usage, and nuances.
So, overall, it underscores that language mastery involves an integrated knowledge of all its components, not just isolated words.
>not just isolated words.
Beep boop
It's the first time I use AI. I didn't know what to expect but it sure as shit is more stimulating that you.
>>
>>42250067
Lurker here, thanks for the long replies. The fact that this thread is drowned in AI and shit flinging shows that the good ideas were there.
>>42245687
I'm not familiar with Eastern societies, what's the Achilles tendon of the West in your opinion, that part that could be easily fixed? There are no protestants in my area, but shit's fucked either way.
>>
>>
>>
File: 3d35cf9fe0f3e4268209d2b5c7d8f7ff.jpg (81.1 KB)
81.1 KB JPG
>>42241761
If you'd be more like water you wouldn't have negative emotions to farm.
>>
>>42245720
>The modern world is like a nightmare to established Buddhists, in ways that I can't easily quantify here.
Aren't Buddhists supposed to thrive no matter the world they are in? I mean Zen meditation is the same, in heaven or in hell.
What's more, i think Zen is the best spiritual way in an alienated world. Christianism doesn't makes any sense in our days, since the Sanhedrin, and it's values, has won. Yet Zen doesn't care about what world the practice is done. If it's a merchant world, or a violent bloodthirsty warriors world, a human flesh eater world, a world with slaves. Zen is zen, and the practice is the same whatever the world is. Zen could even work if we were living in an artificial reality. I mean a computer generated reality upon our current illusion.
>>
>>42248514
>Gnostic/prison planet-adjacent beliefs are more in vogue in the west than ever
>all real schizos can tell this is a psyop, but what is the purpose?
Demiurge vs Lucifer.
They are luciferians and want you to hate Yahwé, and join lucifer, join his own world. But it's probably worse than here, because it's reason without any love. Here at least love is encoded in biology.
In short, agent smith, the crazy version that multiplies in matrix revolutions, is lucifer. The old guy with a white beard, is the demiurge.
>>
>>42251880
>It's the first time I use AI
>>42250055
lol liar
Hilarious that you cant even use an AI to make your case.
One does not need to know the entire language to understand a specific word. If a person knows the word "water" and its reference (the liquid), they can "effectively understand and employ" it to survive without knowing technical jargon, complex grammar, or the rest of the dictionary.
Evidence: Children and second-language learners successfully use words in precise ways (e.g., asking for "more juice") long before they have a "comprehensive knowledge" of the entire language.
2. Functionalism and "Language Games"
If the passage is from Ludwig Wittgenstein, the phrase might be better disproved by showing that meaning is found in specific contexts, not the "whole" language.
Context over Totality: To use the word "Slab!" on a construction site, you only need to know the specific "language game" of that activity. Knowing the "language as a whole" (including poetry or legal terms) is irrelevant to the effective employment of that specific word in that specific moment.
3. The Practical Impossibility
From a cognitive science perspective, "comprehensive knowledge of the entire language" is a myth.
Variable Competence: No individual knows an entire language (including all technical, regional, and archaic terms). If "knowing the whole" were a prerequisite for "effective use," then no human has ever effectively used a word. Since we clearly do communicate effectively, the premise must be false.
4. Compositionality
Linguists often argue for compositionality, where the meaning of a complex expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent parts and the rules for combining them.
Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down: You build meaning from the bottom up (words sentences) rather than needing the top-down "whole" to validate the bottom. Understanding the rules of syntax allows you to use words effectively even if your vocabulary is limited.
>>
>>42252158
What am I trying to fool you with?
I'm trolling anidiot with an ego.
They aid something wrong, and very very stupid, and they cant admit that to themselves.
So I find it fun to poke them over and over.
Either they respond, proving that it bothers them, or they dont and I can make fun of them with impunity.
Either way, I enjoy myself.
>>
>>
>>
>>42242804
It's not about negative and positive, it's about coherence and incoherence. They want the excess that is produced by incoherent states which mostly come through suffering & negative but not always. When a self conscious being is in a coherent state, there is no excess energy produced or the energy produced cannot be extracted in the same way. If you have ever been stressed or had a panic attack, compare that experience in terms of amount and quality of energy output to a time you're happy and feel whole, a time when you're not thinking just being. That's the difference & that's what they want. Civilisation is the apparatus by which it's produced with humans at scale. Look at what all civilisations have done - create systems and relations that foster sustained incoherent states in the population, whether it's a peasant in 1200 or a genz gooner in 2026.
The point is though we live in a big ecology, and are part of a bigger system we don't control and can't ever fully understand. We are the same as chickens are to us - we farm them cause we need to. It's just an extension of living in a world with scarcity and need where it boils down to all eating all. Chickens are a different level of intelligence to us, and it's not malicious farming for the most part - it's born out of the ecology we share with the chickens. The same thing is happening to humans as a species - different groups compete for the incoherent energy which we produce, for reasons we can't ever know, suggesting it's a scarce resource valuable elsewhere. The NHi are probably not operating on 'good' and 'bad', any more than an employee at a chicken farm is. It's just ecology - individuated beings or entities existing in an environment with scarcity, generating networks of exchange. Humans are just part of that. All our history and culture and religion etc only has meaning to us. The difference between us and chickens tho, is that we can notice our place, and start to ask questions about it
>>
File: 1757119953698367.jpg (636.1 KB)
636.1 KB JPG
>>42242248
>doesn't hold up to scrutiny with all the scandals individual leaders
That's like saying the a*buse scandal invalidates Catholicism. Instead it shows that evil hides itself within holy institutions. One of the favorite games of the evil.
>>42242338
All respects to Gnosticism. But Buddhism MORE than deals comprehensively with suffering, its causes and its healing.
>>42242399
Buddha was one of the most logical beings ever to tarry in this vale of tears.
>>
>>42241753
>>No revival of Buddhism in sight
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN125.html
>for Prince Jayasena—living in the midst of sensuality, consuming sensuality, chewed on by thoughts of sensuality, burning with the fever of sensuality, intent on the search for sensuality—to know or see or realize that which is to be known through renunciation, seen through renunciation, attained through renunciation, realized through renunciation: That’s impossible.
>>
>>42252933
>liar
Projection
>One does not need to know the entire language to understand a specific word
As a whole =/= the whole
Let's take water. Your ai admits you need to know its reference so having a broader understanding of the concept to situate it in the world. Tho it says "effectively understand AND EMPLOY" but one cannot effectively employ that term without having a broader understanding (knowledge) of language as a whole(its interconnected rules). Take a baby whose first word is water. Baby says water over and over again. Water what? Water need? Water want? Water on body? Water see? Water want to see? Water rain? Water puddle? Water play? Baby needs to know more to effectively employ the word and convey meaning. Your AI is retarded and argues worse than you.
>meaning is found in specific contexts, not the "whole" language
That's where you and your prompts utterly fail boyo. Unable to understand the difference between "the whole" and "as a whole" in the given context.
Your arguments stems from that inability to understand that nuance and you just circlejerk with yourself thinking you bring anything on the table beside your autistics.
Didn't read past that.
Typical tranny witch.
Keep prompting.
>>
>>
>>42254111
"As a whole" and "the whole" are synonymous because both describe a complete entity rather than its individual parts. "As a whole" functions as a unit (collectively), while "the whole" refers to the entire, combined entity (total). Both phrases emphasize totality, such as "the team acted as a whole".
"As a whole" (Collective Focus): Treats different components together, evaluating the aggregate rather than individual aspects.
Example: "The project was successful as a whole".
"The whole" (Entity Focus): Refers to the entire, complete amount or totality of a thing.
Example: "She stayed awake the whole night".
Both phrases effectively mean "all things considered," "collectively," or "in its entirety".
Seems like your precious AI still thinks you are retarded.
Because you are, and semitic wordplay wont do anything to change that.
>>
>>42255027
I knew you'd prompt something retarded so I had examples generated of how these two are used differently because I can't be bothered anymore:
Examples with "as a whole"
>The movie was entertaining as a whole, despite some slow parts.
Considering the entire movie overall even less entertaining parts
Note that saying: the whole movie was entertaining means that no part was disliked.
>Her performance, as a whole, was impressive.
Overall, taking everything into account even the less impressive
Note that saying: her whole performance was impressive means that every single part of her performance was impressive, leaving little room for criticism.
>The economy, as a whole, is improving.
Looking at the entire economy, not just specific sectors that didn't improved or regressed.
Note that saying: the whole economy is improving conveys that every sectors are improving.
>The team’s effort, as a whole, led to victory.
Considering all the players’ efforts collectively, even the bad performances.
Note that saying: the whole team's efforts led to victory implies that every member of the team contributed to victory
Examples with "the whole"
>I read the whole book in one day.
Every part of the book; the entire book.
Note that you can't say: I read the book as a whole.
>She ate the whole pizza by herself.
The entire pizza, nothing left.
Note that you can't say: she ate the pizza as a whole.
>They spent the whole afternoon at the park.
The entire afternoon, from start to finish.
Note that you can't say: they spent the afternoon as a whole in the park.
>We need to fix the whole house before moving
The entire house.
In this case one could probably say: we need to fix the house as a whole before moving in. As in make the house habitable even if the whole house is not finished but it's a really ugly phrasing.
"as a whole" emphasizes the collective or overall perspective.
"the whole" emphasizes the entire thing directly, often in a noun phrase.