The Buddhist perspective is that we live in Samsara, which is the cycles of suffering perpetuated by craving, aversion, and delusion. That’s the simplified version, but it really goes much deeper. But on the other side of the coin, they say that attainment involves the realization that samsara and nirvana are the same, and that the only thing that changes is your perspective. They’re not different realms.

There are also different realms in Buddhism, ranging from various levels of hell to the world we live in and on up to various levels of heaven. But those are separate from the distinction between samsara and nirvana, and secondary to them, because an enlightened being could live in a hell realm without losing nirvana, and a deluded being could live in heaven and still be caught up in samsara.

The Hindu perspective is that we all live in Maya (illusion), and that the ultimate attainment is moksha (liberation), meaning you no longer have to be reborn into the world of Maya.

There are other distinctions, such as how karma functions and how it affects rebirth; and what dharma means and how it relates to karma. There’s also of course the key distinction between essential selfhood or no essential selfhood (i.e. emptiness), but that part isn’t as relevant to the discussion of whether or not “we live in hell.”

I’d say the closest thing to what you’re thinking of is probably samsara, but it is different.

There’s also the Kali Yuga, which is a Hindu concept, and has more to do with the era rather than the realm. It’s basically the last octile of the cycle before it reaches the absolute lowest of the low, and represents about 12,000 years of accelerating degradation and depravity before the final destruction of the world as we know it. Only after the cycle reaches the nadir is when the world begins to recover and rebuild/improve.

more that all existence and experiences are an illusion that we observe and out of ignorance believe to be really happening that we are bound to them (?) https://youtu.be/si8DNmv0zCU?is=-KVp_zsJBxpHXJ7R I am no expert, this just came up in the youtube algorithm a while ago for me and I went back recently to finally watch it since it’s so long

This world is ripe for an uprising against the ruling class and their bootlickers. The problem is getting everyone to agree on what they want.

I just have a constant pit in my stomach, knowing every day the constant thoughts in my mind egging me into impulsive action may one day lead me to do something that in the end will just be used as “moral” fodder against neighbors and people I care about.

But truly, when is enough, enough?

The only possible reason to shoot a thief imo is if they perhaps stole firearms or explosives, as one could reason they are stealing them imwkth I tent to cause great harm. But fucking diapers? Hell a car? It’s just stuff 🫪 not to mention these stores all have theft insurance anyways!! Or it’s been accounted for (see inventory “shrink”)

Folks like to pretend Mississippi is the exemption. The bitter truth is that they’re just more naked in their cruelty.

We’re seeing Italy and France dissolve into police riots and neoliberal poverty just on the other side of the pond. We saw the same in Baltimore and St. Louis not that long ago.

I often find myself sharing similar thoughts when reading comments that seem reasonable at first, but go off the deep end.

The Hannibal directive, is an official IDF protocol to kill captured soldiers. Oct 7th reaction included both mass shooting through civilian hostages on the day, and Helicopter mass firing on anyone running at the music festival. The genocidal bombing campaign that followed was specifically to avoid negotiations by exterminating hostages too.

So, your “tinfoil hat hasbara” bs disgustingly masks a far worse/extreme Israeli attitude towads “palestinian problem” than Mississipi’s historical attitudes towards “dealing with the negro problem”, which is if you lynch a few regardless of any guilt, it will teach the rest of them to stay in line.

I’m not even sure anymore if it’s about the unborn children. I think it’s just about hating women. The cruelty is the point.

Wtf is this comment?

Thanks but I dont see how I’m a bootlicker for thinking it’s awful how police shoots someone?

Shops are also insured so it doesn’t even affect the owner. Some super rich insurance company gets to pay for a new pack of diapers.

Compare this with what’s going on in France, where thousands of immigrants are rioting and burning down stores and cars. Millions of dollars in damage. The police there still just use tear gas and rubber bullets and haven’t killed anyone.

America is in its own league of police brutality.

We haven’t seen the body warn yet, but the issue is why is shooting at her automatically justified in this context? Driving at officers or not. Why did officers put themselves in the position to be driven at, why not just tail her and pull her over, why not get her registration and go to her address. There are far more alternative options than (as seems to the standard) going for maximum force first.

murica fuck yea

Land of the free that made slaves to build [it].

That’s no excuse.

Soldiers being sent into literal combat against enemy troops have rules of engagement that don’t allow them to fire unless fired upon. Why do police dealing with civilians have less-strict rules of engagement?