Shadow_self

Your comment signalled an oversight of sorts The issue isnt entirely one of a lack of dialectical thought per se. Rather, it is due to a clear demonstratable lack of intellectual honesty

The problem here is assuming there is an argument to begin with. You mistake the words of a person of claimed "logic and coherence" with that of someone with a clear fallacious, biased perspective. Put another way, a (decent) argument/debate requires a logical basis from which to proceed. Dipping in and out of frameworks and cherry picking that which suits ones own mental distortions is not a good way to form an argument. Its complete nonsense Case in point Nirvana = A central concept derived from a specific framework (Buddhism) Dependant Origination = The underlying basis of the ENTIRE framework Yes, why anyone entertained this is beyond me This is the argument of someone who's biases, fallacies and mental distortions are obscuring even the most basic understanding of what these things actually mean. In other words, someones just looking for an argument to try and reinforce their own false ideas, probably due to some deep unhappiness The ad hominems are just a representation of the insecurities attached to the shaky belief system

Well i did read it, and pointed out the most glaring holes available for all to see You've effectively thrown a rather large tantrum because of it. How logical and coherent Should you be so certain and well versed, your reaction would be different Is your belief in your "ontology" so insecure that the you need turn to behaving like that? . I suggest the anapanasati again. It will help

Well actually I did. Ill explain again below Also, well done on beginning the ad hominems, so much for logic... You're giving others a masterclass in how to demonstrate a complete lack of it Conclusions dont need to be jumped to Your words demonstrate you havent a notion of what you are talking about Your ontology needs revision, badly So now we are on to Yin Yang...sigh. That ontology you think is so strong, isnt only misaligned with Buddism, its misaligned with Daoism too. Funny how you try to appropriate certain aspects of them in that "ontology" and yet exclude the most basic principles You only need to have a rudimentary understanding of Buddhism to know nobody is chasing perpetual bliss But again you lack that, so you are forgiven Allow me to prove my point What gives rise to pleasure and pain? So are things like Nirvana, Yin Yang etc. Somehow they magically do exist in your vocabulary? More ad hominems Before you try to argue against something, you need to understand it You've demonstrated nothing except a lack of even the most basic understanding of Buddhism I did, I was just brief. I was pointing to out faulty notion of everything being perpetually moving between Yin and Yang But allow me to again according to the models you invoked, seeing as you are crying about concepts not existing when they refute your illogical statements You brought up things moving between Yin and Yang, and used pleasure and pain as examples The diagram above shows that Taiji is the movement that stirs potential in Dao which gives birth to both Yin and Yang within the canvas of Wuji In other words, there is something which sits beyond Yin and Yang If you are going to make some deranged Frankenstein of an ontology, better to understand the things you are including (and excluding) Im not trying to fool anyone. Im telling you that your understanding of what is meant by that is useless Buddhists do not seek pleasure, that is an entrapment, and nonsense There are several parts of the journey that involve monumentous bliss arising If your mind latches onto it, not only do you get booted out of state you enter into, you lose a lot of certain substances... It is temporary and to be ignored as one progresses Piti and Sukha both have their own meaning...and are hallmarks of first jhana They both cease, and this is well documented in the literature you claim to have read, and yet have demonstrated nothing except a complete lack of understanding of it No I am not trying to redefine anything https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/joy Is is a feeling Feelings cease on the road to the endpoint Keep going, and we will keep arriving back here. Yep, Well iif feelings cease long before said point is reached, then it makes no sense to categorise the endpoint as the one extreme perpetually Again this is a gross misunderstanding of the concept So please educate yourself on the most basic fundamentals of reaching said state before you try to refute it Please lets not go there. At this point, Id rather let you continue to believe some kundalini experience is going to kill you (your own words) that correct you on the matter No point in challenging another shaky mental model. Im sure this will be enough for one day Ah the ad hominems, it is always a fun time when someone claims to be logical, and then goes down this road You do realise this demonstrates just how illogical you are? Also, Im sure the mods are going to love you... Oh dont worry, I dont do this for just anyone. This is especially for you, as I can see you are struggling and I dont want to overwhelm you... You clearly have enough going on without me burdening you with long drawn out discussion, so I'm being brief for a reason

See below No, ive just been around so many supposedly "smart people" long enough to know it when i see a person who's presents an argument that is so tangled up in their own mental knots, they cannot see a rather obvious truth sitting in front of them Happens ALL the time This is no different Im not sure logic is on your side here, making claims that Nirvana is a scam, without a proper foundation in Buddhist philosophy and practice More on this below I think ive already stated the problem. You dont understand the concepts begind the argument you are attempting to make Im not plucking anything, Im stating an observation based on your words Dependant origination explains causality Dependant origination is the focal point of your issue An understanding of Dependant origination is something lacking in the presentation of said "hypothesis" So thats how we arrived here Alrght then... I guess you wont mind me pointing out the logical fallacies and bias ill do one of each per post if you like...otherwise this would be a bit long winded Lets start with the Black or white fallacy - Suggesting there is a zero sum between polarities (pleasure and pain as example) Your problem is one of your understanding. As per your own words Pointing to the text I made reference to So feelings cease, and they arent the last thing to go either (Which is ironic, because Nibbāna would be far beyond where they cease) Nibbāna, as they refer to it, has nothing to do with bliss in the sense that you understand it Your concept of it (amongst other things) is very distorted So I think we are done with that now. That aspect of your argument is refuted, and redundant. Unless of course you want to move the goalposts (engaging in another logical fallacy) to redefine the word feelings, or Nirvana And you would be incorrect in that assertion. I speak from experience on that matter with certainy (and insight, oddly enough) But feel free to cling to it if it makes you comfortable, I'm wont judge nor do I want you take my word for it.... Thats why i linked you to a practice that might actually help you understand, as opposed to a load of mental flip flopping. And here we arrive at the cognitive bias, all the above argument is wrapped up in. The illusion of explanatory depth. You think you know more about this than you actually do

The answer to your conceptual question is contained within that text...that is related to dependant origination The problem is you dont want to engage the material as you think you understand it and have already disregarded it You really dont, at all. On examination, your argument is one that is overintellectualised. Thats fine if you want to remain in that mindset However overly long defensive discourses that lead you no further to your answers arent helping you Are you seeking truth, or affirmation? The latter is the projection from your statements To summarize Your problem is one of causality, and specifically an inability to come to a true understanding of it. Work harder in this regard if understanding is what you seek Here's the practical aspect that would aid you However, before that, I suggest a daily dose of anapanasati. Some of the responses suggest to me it would benefit you, Far more than neigong I might add

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html Had the OP listened to me instead, the answer to his question is contained within HIs lack of understanding regards the process is less conceptual and moreso experiential

See below What @kakapo is referring to, some of it was actually quite literal its probably long pitted now, or removed, so not really worth a long discussion Easy benchmark of how much weight you should give said individuals claims and statements though in my opinion.

Engage with the Paticca-Samuppada-Vibhanga Sutta And read it over and over with your question in mind. Take notes Im pretty sure you'll get a far more fruitful conclusion than asking people with varying belief systems

A discussion regards the ens vegetalis, and the related conceptual framework might be useful in that regard

Personally I see little utility in translations outside of a practice guided by a teacher These texts are all confirmatory, never instructional For example...if we were to talk about Kan and Li practice, I have seen that specific author (FP) speak at length about it (with some errors too i might add) and yet never actually tell anyone how to do it Another issue is, regards neidan, the terms are recycled at different stages in practice. The same term might be used twice, but refer to something else This can cause a great deal of confusion

Aha...these two. I recall there were also accounts of lengthy battles with millenia old Naga snake demons (which were won, apparently) https://ancientmasters.org/library/other-worlds You think so? Daniel, You misunderstand They dont do lightning They do FIREBALLS

I suppose we can disregard it...if we could talk about this instead Do you feel better about discussing this? So lets talk about the upposed real life superman at least Where are they?

Sorry, curiousity is getting the better of me here... The apparent magical properties of the metal warrant further explanation

What specifically do people believe about copper that others should be weary of?