I've been taking a course on Buddhism this semester and I've found myself pretty impressed with the tradition's philosophy as a whole. However, I've found myself wondering about the philosophical opposition to some of Buddhism's core ideas (Four Noble Truth's etc etc). Can anyone provide me with some examples of flaws that people have found in Buddhist thinking through the ages? I'm particularly interested in the input of other Asian traditions, such as Daoism and Confucianism, rather than Christian or Muslim critiques.
If you want to sit around with your head in the clouds doing nothing for yourself, then Buddhism is the religion for you.
>>223064
Get killed, ignorant fucktard, don't talk shit if you don't know shit about shit desu senpai
>>223064
>aspiring to a higher ideal
>spending your time reflecting on how to be better as a person
>spending the rest of your time working to make others' lives better
Sounds like you need to take a step back, anon.
>>223122
That's literally what Buddhism is about.
strive for happiness by ignoring the world around you
meme religion
>>223143
>aspiring to a higher ideal
>spending your time reflecting on how to be better as a person
>spending the rest of your time working to make others' lives better
So what great technological, scientific, and philosophical innovations have Buddhist majority/doctrines given the world? Christians, Jews, Muslims - all contributed great things shaping the courses of history and development up until the current point in history - but Buddhism?
>>223209
I mean, due to the fact the Buddhists don't actively wipe out every other religion they come in contact with, there aren't many Buddhist majority countries. The Chinese however, gave us papermaking and gunpowder, amongst other things.
>>223064
>religion/philosophy that can literally make your life 100x better, and where meditations has been proven to have positive effects on the brain.
>HURR WHY WOULD I WANT TO SIT AROUND FUCK THAT SHIT LETS FUCK SOME SLOOTS BROS XD
>>223209
>So what great technological, scientific, and philosophical innovations have Buddhist majority/doctrines given the world?
>What is China and Japan?
If you don't know about a subject don't post about it you ignorant fucktard.
Whereof one cannot speak
Thereof one must be silent
buddhism is just watered down hinduism
islam is just watered down christianity
>>223260
>islam is just watered down christianity
more like christianity with a shot of everclear in it; islam doubles as a political system as opposed to christianity
>>223260
>buddhism is just watered down hinduism
Do you even know the main beliefs of hinduism? What they believe in as opposed to buddhism?
Are you addicted to shitposting?
>>223228
>The Chinese however, gave us papermaking and gunpowder, amongst other things.
Where they Buddhist at the time? Was it a 'Buddhist' doctrine which motivated these things?
>What is China and Japan?
Not 'Buddhist' countries for a start and what was syncretised over was heavily distorted to appeal to pre-existing cultural/native dogma.
The question was and it should have been obvious 'what the religon bought about in terms of progress etc etc' of which many things emerged precisely from those Abrahamic religons by virtue of being Abrahamic.
You've simply listed countries, not the achievements of the religion itself in bringing these things about (or at least expounded why exactlu Buddhism was essential to bringing these things about).
There's a reason so many of the great praised scientists of the west in past centuries also happened to be ardent theologians, why we have something called a 'Islamic Golden Age', why the Ashkenazi Jews have the highest concentration of Nobel prizes in the sciences of any religious or ethnic group.
>>223301
Response to
>What is China and Japan?
Directed at >>223247
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAtUPfF1R_s
>>223048
I would encourage you to do a course on vipassana meditation and apply the teachings in actual practice.
The philosophical approach to buddhism in itself is flawed.
>>223301
>You've simply listed countries, not the achievements of the religion itself in bringing these things about
please enlighten me on why Christianity and Islam are so vital to a country that without it they could not do without it and not make the discoveries they made. Surely that too is the the achievement of a country or person rather than the religion, or does that only apply to buddhism now?
Anyway, 'progress' isn't a ladder,which is just post-enlightenment thinking, so I don't really see what you're trying to prove.
none of this is pointing out flaws in the philosophies of Buddhism
You guys are just arguing about whether Buddhism is relevant or a force for progress in a civilization.
Buddhism may seem "cool" and interesting or "hip", but will sadly only lead one to Hell.
>>223531
Take your Abrahamic propaganda and shove it.
>>223548
*tips fedora*
>>223562
Insightful.
>>223531
Please, don't be starting a philosophical shitstorm. Everyone knows desire is the root of all suffering at an instinctual level.
>>223562
Fuck off already, get a new argument other than *le funny hat meme*
>>223064
What is the Buddhist community and merit making
Get rekt senpai
Who the fuck wants to be some homeless idiot anyway
>>223531
>but will sadly only lead one to Hell.
so we should all follow Christianity due to fear of punishment? great argument senpai, got me converted on the spot.
>>223531
If your God was truly forgiving, then would he not forgive those who were led astray?
>>223599
>Who the fuck wants to be some homeless idiot anyway
But those 'homeless idiots' are incredibly happy and content despite their lack of material comforts. It's not like you HAVE to be homeless to be a buddhist.
Look at Diogenes the Cynic for a western example, he was homeless yet he was content and even insulted Alexander the great.
>tfw you desire to have no desires
There is no escape
>>223347
I call bullshit on this.
Virtue is essential for practice.
I couldn't (intentionally) hurt a fly without it upsetting my meditation.
>>223048
>Can anyone provide me with some examples of flaws that people have found in Buddhist thinking through the ages?
Apart from the fact that it revolves around bullshit metaphysics? The logical conclusion of Buddhism would be for the person practicing it to kill themselves. The silly metaphysics prevent this though and just prolong the suffering for no real reason.
>>223669
>tfw life feels like a never-ending wack-a-mole with desires for moles
>tfw you want to run out of coins already
>>223724
>The logical conclusion of Buddhism would be for the person practicing it to kill themselves
why are you pretending like you know anything about buddhism?
It's clearly not the logical conclusion as one of the primary teachings is to spread happiness in the world and help others, you can't do this when you're dead.
Besides, the phrase 'life is suffering" is a phrase that doesn't translate well to english which leads people to assume buddhism is nihilistic and life-denying which it isn't if people took more than 2 seconds to research it.
>>223745
You control the mind
the mind doesn't control you
It's really just you inflicting this on yourself, it's akin to self-harm.
>>223724
Suicide keeps you in the cycle of rebirth though, so obviously it cannot be the logical conclusion.
I mean, you clearly don't know much about Buddhism, but I'd have to say the logical conclusion of Buddhism would be "Buddhism". You know, the whole "Do good, help people, escape the cycle of rebirth" thing.
>>223779
>Suicide keeps you in the cycle of rebirth though
Hence why i said it's worked around through silly metaphysics
>>223424
>please enlighten me on why Christianity and Islam are so vital to a country that without it they could not do without it
That was never implied or asserted. But it is undeniable that progress and the religion in many instances especially to the practitioner went hand in hand hence scientists being theologians, the islamic golden ages etc. Yes we can clearly see that the religion played a huge part in those achievements explicitly.
>Anyway, 'progress' isn't a ladder
Maybe not to social or cultural aspects, but to technology and science only an idiot would say otherwise.
>>223793
All metaphysics is silly.
>>223793
>Hence why i said it's worked around through silly metaphysics
You could literally say the same thing about Christianity. In fact many Christians did commit suicide in droves until
>"sucide is bad mmkay"
became part of doctrine
Besides, suicide still is not the logical conclusion because helping people and spreading happiness is integral to buddhism and suicide isn't really conducive to that.
I don't know if you'd classify as a flaw, but I've found that Buddhist reasoning and axioms are antithetical to Aristotelian principle of thought, aka laws of thought. Law of Identity does not fly with Buddhist core concepts like Interdependence/Sunyata. Law of non-contradiction/excluded middle doesn't fly with Buddhist tetralemma/cutuskoti logic.
So on a logical basis, the underpinnings are at odds with each other. Personally I see value in both sides, greek sides has a good tradition to follow up on but the core Laws of Thought seems shaky when you take Buddhist side of things seriously.
>>223531
I specifically said I didn't want Christian or Muslim perspectives.
>>223300
he isn't wrong. it's hinduism without the baggage.
>>223048
Wasn't Buddha a rich prince who ran away to become a commoner instead of using his wealth and status to make people happy?
>>223165
Mahayana and most other Buddhist sects say hello
>>223260
buddhism is not watered down anything, its origins, along with jainism, have roots in the sramanic practices that went against the mainstream vedic religion - and probably have their ultimate origin in pre-aryan indus valley religion.
hinduism as it is today didn't exist until long after buddhism, what you're talking about is ancient vedism.
>>223793
That's not a workaround if it's one of the absolute core tenets and one of the Indic cultural ideas that Buddhism was literally born under.
You make it sound like they invented it to fit the rest of the religion, instead of the other way around.
I don't know what the argument is here, just recite the name of the Amida Buddha with genuine faith. I put my faith in Kannon for rebirth in the Pure Land.
>>223314
Christianity a strong.
Why does every ignorant shit and his mom come out of the woodwork whenever a Buddhist thread gets posted?
>>223064
>middle-school tier burn
there are literally children in social studies class RIGHT NOW with a more nuanced understanding of one of the great religions than you you fucking trog
>>223209
>philosophical and spiritual system designed for the extinguishment of negative emotional states, the minimization of suffering, and the attainment of inner peace
>LMAO YOU EVER SEE A BUDDHIST ON THE MOON??? CHECKMATE
scifags, when will they learn bros?
>>223260
>The Atman is directly contradicted by Buddhist teachings of no-self
>buddha specifically denounces the ascetic practices of the indian yogis of his time
>just watered down hinduism, you guys!
stupid wanker
>>223531
ayyyyyy
>>223724
>Buddha refrained from directly commenting on metaphysics
>silly metaphysics
>thinks you need to believe in buddhist cosmology to derive benefits from meditation
you're a bozo
To be a real Buddhist, you have to immolate yourself.
>>224827
Siddhartha was, yes. Go read some Hesse.
>>224853
>I don't know what the argument is here, just recite the name of the Amida Buddha with genuine faith. I put my faith in Kannon for rebirth in the Pure Land.
buddhism and hinduism are sanatan dharma neither of them is a religion they are way of living...thats why so many gods..unlike christianity or other religon there is no one god...you hve different ways of getting "mokshya"...buddha is avatar of bishnu...there is no religion as hinduism it is sanatan dharma. way of life
>>224827
yes and the buddhismS are the religions which he did not invented.
he talked about the dhamma which is more of a phenomenology leading to a morality than anything else.
>>224282
>>So on a logical basis, the underpinnings are at odds with each other.
it is odd only when you come from Aristotle which has been taught for centuries and you do nothing to acknowledged that logics is a poor way to describe your sensations . Aristotle is odd when you spend your life with a wider logic. Even today, logicians reject the principle of strict identity and the excluded middle.
>>225192
>you do nothing to acknowledged that logics is a poor way to describe your sensations .
>>225060
I'm talking about Buddhism, my friend. You must first realize that enlightenment cannot be achieved in our current existence, and that reliance on the mercy of Kannon is the best hope we have to be reborn in an auspicious position.
>>223497
That's the thing man, it's not a guiding hand for society because it's a religion that details escape from worldly endeavors. It can never be a guiding light for society because it's an action through inaction doctrine.
The path to wisdom is narrow.
Ignoring the silly tactics of not-thinking and psychologically masturbating to your own interiority how do you all compare the realization (for lack of a better term) of the Buddhist "mind" and it's comparison to the concept of self with St. Paul of Early Christianity when saying "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me."
Granted God in Christianity is understood classically as the unconditioned source (the ground) of all being. It seems to me that once you get away from the western confusion of "mind" in Buddhism, on a monastic level they two different kinds of descriptions to what amounts to the same thing. Do clarify if there is any differences between schools I'm ignoring though.
>>223048
Consider the fact that Buddhism isn't a philosophy, it's a description of how suffering works.
>>226531
>It's not a system, it's a definition
Think about what you just said there.
Tip: Systems of thought try to describe reality too
And Buddhism varies fairly wildly between schools so you can't make such a sweeping claim.
>>226542
There is still a difference in that the definition or system or whatever itself is of no relevance within Buddhism, what matters is the ability to recognize when an emotion or thought gives rise to or was given rise to by suffering. The description of the process is just to aid you in how to gain understanding and control of your thoughts and emotions. To be focused on the description alone doesn't lead to anything. Buddha understood his emotions first, then he described them orally, so that it may aid others in understanding their emotions.
>>226575
Forgive me but I don't quite get what you're saying here:
>what matters is the ability to recognize when an emotion or thought gives rise to or was given rise to by suffering.
To understand this we must implicitly know how "suffering works" or else it's impossible to coherently begin to talk about how it comes about from different things. You're not really defending your previous point but rather making an altogether new point(s).
>>226520
Is it just me or does that look like a game board?
>>223602
That sarcasm might lead to hell though.
>>226621
>Wait, what's your score?
>This early?!
>Well fuck this then
>>226629
>>226608
Coherently being able to talk about how it comes about is not the point of Buddhism, which is why it's not really a philosophy. It features aspects which can be called philosophy, but that philosophy is not the point. By itself, it isn't Buddhism. Or, well... what is Buddhism, anyway? Is it the words, the philosophy? No. Is it the practice of meditation? No. Is it when you understand how you suffer and how to suffer less? The last is the purpose of Buddhism, it was what Buddha set out to do, and the philosophy is his attempt to share that understanding, to aid others who seek to lessen their suffering as well. Yet without practice and dedication the words alone are useless. Sort of like how musical theory doesn't teach you how to play an instrument, what you need to do is sit down and practice, because music is the sounds you produce.
>>223531
>“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”.4 Continuing in this line of thought, the Church's proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”.5 Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church's evangelizing mission,6 requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.
Eastern religion threads are rare. Don't harm them.
>>226650
>Coherently being able to talk about how it comes about is not the point of Buddhism, which is why it's not really a philosophy.
But they are implicit to get to the point of what Buddhism is. If you misunderstand the implicit logic, you fail to grasp Buddhism as a whole, thus it is inseparable from it. How one comes into awareness makes no difference but you misrepresent the situation by saying that the lesser parts of understanding are not part of the whole.
>Or, well... what is Buddhism, anyway?
Don't trivialize it here for me. I'm fairly read on the subject. And I've also told you >>226542 that was "Buddhism is" varies wildly between schools and can't be narrowed down so simplistically. How things are understood vary considerably and I would say your answer is still yet unsatisfactory even for schools that fit your answer (such as Zen): I would say that it is an ontological awareness of being beyond a subject-object distinction. The talk of suffering is just the issue that pushes us towards the goal, such as the virtuous life being the goal of Catholicism but talk of sin and escaping it comes first and foremost in dialogue.
Not sure why you're trying to teach me Buddhism, honestly.
If you wish to continue in Buddhism as not a system of thought but a description of suffering works please go into how the "Four Truths", "Eightfold Path", and the like doesn't entail a system of thought.
I'm out though. Night/
>>226515
the phenomenology of the dhamma depends on the buddhismS, and inside each buddhism, it depends if you look at the teaching before the death of the tatthagata, teaching called the dhamma, or after his death, the teaching is called the abidhamma (the superior dhamma).
for each buddhism, you have a corpus before and after the death of the tatagata.
the abidhamma of each buddhism is of course far more esoteric than the dhamma. (even for the non-esoterical sect which is called theravada)
there are at least three pali words which are translated, in english, as mind or conciousness .
>In the Pāli Canon's Sutta Pitaka's first four nikāyas, viññāṇa is one of three overlapping Pali terms used to refer to the mind, the others being manas and citta.
for a start, it is safe to dismiss everything in the various abidhammaS. and for a baby start, it is safe to focus only on the dhamma of the theravadins.
the phenomenology of the dhamma is called the dependent origination of conditioned phenomena. It is fairly complex as soon as you go beyond the dhamma of the theravada.
Let's recall that the mind-thoughts in the dhamma is taken as a sixth sense (which lead us to quickly dismiss any rationalist fantasy in accessing any knowledge and communicable knowledge through our imagination (imagination which comprises what we call today the logic.reason since all our logical rules that we create in order to infer statements are... imagined by us and there is no universal agreement on what rules are appropriate, which makes the rationalists cry and lead them to posit the concept of inter-subjectivity)) or a fallacious blend of rationalism-empiricism, typically with the scientific method. the mind is at most a cute little toy to express daily wishes, but the aporias resulting form the desire to link the languages to the world of sensations shows up far too quickly to be relevant.
>>226764
So any endeavour towards knowledge is personal. the dhamma teaches us how to be narcissistic in knowing our self, without being egotistic.
so the five aggregates are part of the phenomenology:
>In Buddhism, consciousness (viññāṇa) is one of the five classically defined experiential "aggregates" (Pali: khandha; Skt.: skandha). As illustrated (Fig. 2), the four other aggregates are material "form" (rupa), "feeling" or "sensation" (vedana), "perception" (sanna), and "volitional formations" or "fabrications" (sankhara).
in realist terms, when we sense an object there is
-the object +the contact of us with the object = rupa
-the affect of the object on us = vedana
-the labelling of the object = sanna
-the deliriums of the mind which produces abstractions/concepts such as past, present, future, space, time, reality, truth, the category of light-bulb, of car, of salt, of circle, of cloud, of whatever words we use in daily life and so on
-the conciousness of the object
very practically, the first goal of the dhamma is to teach of to control the mind and its deliriums which disconnect us from the sensations. Once we control our mind up to shutting it off, we access to phenomenon and once we are secluded from the six senses, that is to say when we are in the contemplation called the jhanas, we deal only with conciousness of the conciousness.
let's be clear: there is no pure conciousness, there is no pure objects, there is no pure affect. the dichotomy conciousness-affect-object is just a choice to break down a phenomenon.
after each contemplation, there is a mediation on the contemplation.
>>226768
on we learn how to gradually shut off your conciousness, and once we meditate on impersonality, impertinence (it is called dukkha which is translated as suffering, but dukkha means inadequacy, non-conveniance, the bad life) and impermanence of whatever we experienced during the jhanas, we access to nibbana four times (if we begin from the very beginning), whose fruit is the understanding of reality-as-it-is whose fruit is the cessation of ignorance and khamma (we stop the khamma because we are no longer making fantasies through our mind and accept for once life as it is).
>"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na
http://slbuddhists.org/inanutshell/mindbody.html
>>226771
it is not worth it to explain all this because there is no agreement inside each buddhism and because it must be experienced personally.
=>the truth is what appeases us irremediably.
there are three persons on earth :
-the one who has faith in such or such doctrine
(this person has one foot in one doctrine and one foot in another: she does not know what she wants and follows the precepts of each doctrine blindly and she reaches the second kind below)
-the one who knows that such or such doctrine is appropriate
(stream entry and once returner for the buddhists for example)
(occasionally, he can still do bad things according to the doctrine, but he knows even before he does these bad things occasionally that these behaviours are not appropriate)
-the one who embodies such and such doctrine (he knows and act appropriately)
the first person will not hold any principles in danger since she believes everything and she knows nothing. the second kind of person might have ill-will, but the buddhist say that it lasts for one second and she knows that it will not lead her to anything good in her life.
>>226742
>The talk of suffering is just the issue that pushes us towards the goal
The entire point is to understand suffering so that you may cease to suffer or suffer less, and in doing so cease to make others suffer or lessen how much you make others suffer, as the karmic cycle, the cycle of suffering, is driven by suffering. To stop perpetuating suffering you need to cease suffering yourself. To live virtuously is to not spread suffering. Buddhism is about understanding suffering so that you can cease to suffer (as much) and also stop making others suffer (as much). That is, according to Buddha according to the Pali canon, the entirety of his teachings.
>>223805
What about all the pagan religions of classical times and before that. There was geographical overlap with the future Abrahamic faiths. And many of those places were intellectual hot beds while pagan.
>>223048
Goes like this
Sri Lankan and Thailander etc westernize Buddhism in response to Protestant missionaries
Later gets picked up by West
Buddhists missionaries later make it more palatable to the west new age type by removing dogmatic elements
Finally it is watered down by rich white suburbanites who don't know jack("Reincarnation is a metaphor, Buddhism is not a religion/a peaceful religion).
Buddhism is a mind virus that tries to convert lazy people to anti-intellectualism. Its concept of "enlightenment" is nothing more than striving to weaken one's mind until only the most superficial kind of consciousness remains. I think it's probably even worse than suicide.
It's pretty easy to get into it because it mostly doesn't make any sense, you just have to "contemplate" supposed paradoxes, which are in fact simple puns.
Enlightenment, at least, is the buddhist sense, is free yourself of desire, but then again, the desire of enlightenment is a desire of itself, but one will not achieve enlightenment if one does not desire for it, so in the end, you do not escape from desire, you are just letting the desire of no desire controlling your state of mind.
It is quite paradoxical, like nothingness does not exist, because even if it does, then we lose everything, we still have nothingness because it belongs outside of that everything, which is contradictory.
>>226839
>>223260
>He takes CS Lewis seriously
>>226900
>I have no retort and I must post reaction pic
>>223165
all religions are meme religions
>>226839
>Buddhists missionaries later make it more palatable to the west new age type by removing dogmatic elements
There are no dogmatic elements to Buddhism, save what people who simply absorbed it into their own religions have done against the direct teachings of Buddha. Buddhism is incompatible with dogma, as dogma is a form of attachment which gives rise to suffering.
>Finally it is watered down by rich white suburbanites who don't know jack("Reincarnation is a metaphor, Buddhism is not a religion/a peaceful religion).
Reincarnation does not exist in Buddhism. Rebirth does, but it's not metaphorical and has nothing to do with any permanent soul or essence being reincarnated upon the death of its vessel. Rather it's that an individual's consciousness isn't something permanent or unchanging, but rather constantly changing and therefore impossible to determine the state of, and when you think you know it or what it ought to be you form attachment to that idea, which gives rise to suffering as the idea of it you're attached to will be untrue or unattainable.
Buddhism is not a religion either, any pre-conceived notion which can't be identified within yourself by yourself is attachment to an unverifiable outside idea.
>Buddhism is a mind virus that tries to convert lazy people to anti-intellectualism
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "mind virus", but I think most meanings of the metaphor can be summed up as "attachments" of which Buddhism is an attempt to remove.
>striving to weaken one's mind
Strengthening one's control of one's mind is actually a fundamental part of practicing Buddhism, and it doesn't involve any dogmatic indoctrination as indoctrination and dogma is attachment as I said earlier.
>It's pretty easy to get into it because it mostly doesn't make any sense, you just have to "contemplate" supposed paradoxes, which are in fact simple puns.
Cont.
>>226839
>>227058
Cont.:
>It's pretty easy to get into it because it mostly doesn't make any sense, you just have to "contemplate" supposed paradoxes, which are in fact simple puns.
Only in Zen to some degree, and in Zen the paradoxes themselves don't mean anything but are rather attempts to take you out of your habitual thought patterns, and sometimes what seems like paradoxes aren't paradoxes at all and actually have meaning. I'd say Zen is much harder to "get into" than more codified Buddhist teachings, as the latter's points tend to be a lot less hidden.
>Enlightenment, at least, is the buddhist sense, is free yourself of desire, but then again, the desire of enlightenment is a desire of itself, but one will not achieve enlightenment if one does not desire for it, so in the end, you do not escape from desire, you are just letting the desire of no desire controlling your state of mind.
There is a very good sutta addressing this, it's less than a page long and very easy to understand, with no riddles or anything of the sort: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html
>It is quite paradoxical, like nothingness does not exist, because even if it does, then we lose everything, we still have nothingness because it belongs outside of that everything, which is contradictory.
I'm afraid I don't follow you at all, could you perhaps clarify?
>>226984
all is memes, friend.
>>227100
>sometimes what seems like paradoxes aren't paradoxes at all and actually have meaning
To clarify: they don't have meaning by themselves. You won't find Zen teachings in Zen riddles, any more than you will learn about physics from studying an unanswered test sheet on physics. Their purpose is mainly to test the extent of the student's knowledge, not to further the student's knowledge.
>>223064
Pic related
>>223209
Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Chan, Zen, Tea Drinking, Eastern art (Indian, Buddhist, Japanese), Eastern poetry, Eastern Architecture, Ashoka (he was the first emperor to make shelters for animals), preservation of knowledge in Tibet and Central Asia (the cave scrolls; many destroyed Sanskrit texts have been recovered because of almost perfect translation into Tibetan), insights into psychology that predate Freud by hundred of years (Sidpai Bardo, the concept of ego as a construct), the plethora of meditation the effect of which can be experienced through real practice, exchange of cultural and scientific ideas (Nalanda university, and plus Buddhist monasteries were an equivalent of banks in the middle ages before sandniggers invaded India), for example.
>>223724
>Buddhism is negative, therefore it's a life denying experience
What about the concept of God as darkness in the writings of Christian mystics? Binah and Ain Sop of the Kabbalistic system?
If you had some knowledge of esotericism and mysticism, you would have understood that after a certain point language falls off and the only way you can describe things is through negation not because all is illusion (a thing that is very misunderstood if you don't have real practice) but because you can't properly describe it.
And the realization that you as an ego don't exist is not a Buddhist thing only. If you open any psychology book on the development of self, they will all say that what you call "I" is constructed over time as a result of interaction between you and others.
And once you realize that you're not an "I", you actually start living, really living, without anxiety and worries. With the ego and mind dropped (that is, you understand thoroughly that they're just tool and not you), the world becomes real and everything starts to make sense and you understand why everything is fucked up and how to actually heal it.
>>227058
>>227100
>>227111
“Enlightenment is a destructive process. It
has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the
crumbling away of untruth. It's seeing
through the facade of pretence. It's the
complete eradication of everything we
imagined to be true.”
―Adyashanti
I'm not a Buddhist myself but still quite familiar with Buddhism's lore because native culture and shits. Western folks usually think Buddhism as just one whole in separate religion, or more well informed ones might think there are a couple or two of branches, but in fact there are a BUTTLOAD of branches of Buddhism's, all claim to be the One True Way that Siddartha himself advised people to follow.
As a side note, Sid was really the man, not even once did he claim himself to be of divinity or son of god or almighty god himself, or even a god amongst countless Indian gods at the time. At all. He just seeked the truth behind and the solution for the world's suffering, and after surpassed each and every of his many philosophical and religious teacher, he finally found a way.
The gods incorporated in Buddhism's lore and texts are actually just Hinduism gods, you know, like in Shinto, literally everything for those Indians could be a god so it was really just a matter of local convention and actually did not signify much about Buddhism.
>>227238
So about the shit loads of branches each claims themself to be the True Buddhism, what is the actual truth?
Sid himself never wrote any text, he just, well, taught people whenever he saw appropriate, and after his death his students recalled from *their memories* all of his speaking and lectures, and of course there were splitting opinions amongst them about what to be written down and how should they write it. More confusion later when even that mess of texts were lost during the course of history, and the ancient language it was written in dying over time.
I don't remember if it happened during or after the Buddha's students writing down his teaching, but there was one major split: one branch called itself the Great Wheel/Vehicle, being more folk-friendly and advocating helping the common man reaching enlightenment, the other called itself the Elders' school, focusing on reaching enlightenment for themselves, along the line of secluded autist priests.
After that it went on a boom, everyone and their mother found a Buddhist school. I remember there were some obscure Tibetan one with a ritual where the coming-of-age monk has 3-ways sex with a virgin and his master, if he came out unshaken even after such lewd experience he would be considered enlightened, so so they thought. And Buddhism did have bloodshed in their history too, at least I remembered they had conflict with Islam in the old India and got almost massacred.
>>227246
Siddhartha himself didn't concern with external bullshit, he actually just practised meditation real hard after accumulated a lot of knowledge and real life experience, to the point his mindfulness was so nurtured he finally saw the world as how it is. So if anything I think he would consider Zen Buddhism to be closer to his way of doing things (not having an official holy text that no one can dispute, taking it easy and enjoying life as it is). But actually in the lore there was one time when a normie asked him that since there were so many schools of philosophies and religions out there in India at that time, he was confused as which one should he lived his life according to. The story is here, took me quite a while to find it in English: http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/Suttas/K/kalamaSutta.html
If he were to see the state of the world today, he would advise us the same thing instead of affirm some kind of Buddhism with full conviction like every leader of their school of thought would do, I guess.
>>223531
I kekked so hard
>>223630
Sour grapes: the religion
What's your opinions on 'secular buddhism'?
>>227665
watered down shit for hippies
>>227665
The only Buddhism true to Buddha's teachings.
>>227665
Watered down. It will make sense for most people who don't try to explore the religion itself. But if you dig any deeper, you'll find the leaks. The leaks are the missing parts that "secular" buddhism tries to deny.
The problem with this is it carries the western cultural baggage as "true" or default and tries to remove the "eastern" cultural baggage. Unequal footing makes comparison bad, if you study the buddhism you should aleast try to understand your own bias first.
>>223143
> elite priests do fuck all whilst kids kill themselves working
http://www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/nepal.htm
>>227700
What leaks?
>>227712
Problem of rebirth, bodhisattvas, karma, etc
I see the rejections as the "secular"'s own bias projecting. You really have to understand the terms and place in the buddhist metaphysics to understand how these all fit. If you remove things like these, it causes leaks like "why not suicide durrr" type of statements.
>>227700
what literature would you recommend to study and learn the 'purest' buddhism?
>>227737
Not him but obviously core texts in the Pali Canon and the Dhammapada.
>>227722
Rebirth is not reincarnation. Rebirth is along the lines of the impermanence of the state of a person's consciousness. Bodhisattvas are people who are completely committed to becoming enlightened, they're to monks what monks are to casual practitioners. It's the path of the highest level of commitment within Buddhism. Karma is the actions of and reactions to actions which were influenced by the desires of those who took said action.
>>227722
>f you remove things like these, it causes leaks like "why not suicide durrr" type of statements
I don't see how, could you clarify?
>>227737
You can study buddhism by reading some books by the monks. Or in some sutras or some compilations like Dhammapada, etc.
In truth, you can get purest of Buddhism from single sutra like Heart Sutra. But these are too condensed for most people. I'd simply recommend beginner's book as start. "What the Buddha Taught" is fairly light and readable. Understanding the history, the climate, the predecessors, the competing systems, the future developments, and etc are the key to developing clarity later on.
how exactly does buddhism handle use of violence?
It is typically understood as non-martial, yet there is no taboo on actions.
What basis is there to use force?
>>227786
There really isn't any. I'm pretty sure its always been against violence, and in certain cases, even self-defense. Even the idea of self-defense is debated. Some schools accept that, others say its not right as violence begets violence. I'd assume wirathu monk is mainly using the pragmatic approach to the issue in burma. Either the muslims get what they want or we don't let them. What do the muslims want? A country of their own and others to be muslim. So his rational probably stems from nationalism (I want to protect my country and my religion).
>>227781
I got interested in buddhism last year and it helped me get out of a rut, I only really read from the whole mindfulness and secular buddhist approach since, to me, I don't believe in the supernatural but I do believe that it's philosophy can lead to an improvement of ourselves. Then I started reading the Dhammapada but sadly I stopped and then it all faded away into a corner, as happens to me with a lot of my interests.
I'd like to get back on it and get a bit more serious, I've looked into joining some local communities but since they all belong to some particular sect I don't want to be carried away in a certain path. I'd like to study buddhism in an open mided way, I'll take a look at those
>>227786
Buddhism is absolutely incompatible to violence, and does not condone violence to preserve one's life, not even against assailants. Then there are those who misappropriate or misunderstand Buddhism and call for or commit violence and call it righteous, but it is not in accordance to Buddhist teachings.
>>227818
There are many paths to Buddhism. You could join a sangha/community and get teachings there. You can read about it online/through books. You can read about it and discuss with local community that you join. Its still a practice oriented tradition (mainly meditation) which changes the perception/understanding of certain buddhist works.
If you're re-learning again, I suggest re-read the basics and old stuff. What I've found with Buddhism is there are many layers to Buddhist works. You will need to re-read the basics later on as you progress down the road for other meanings that you have missed before as well.
Join a buddhist club/community that has open discussions. Read/learn buddhism on spare time and debate/discuss at the community. This is what I'd do if I was in your situation.
>>227820
so why did they invent Kung fu then?
>>227885
Who is "they"?
>>223064
>he doesn't know Asian Wrath
>>227991
May he kill them all desu senpai
buddha save this thread
>>230045
buddha: "be ye lamps unto yourselves. Rely on yourselves, and do not rely on external help. Hold fast to the truth as a lamp. Seek salvation alone in the truth. Look not for assistance to any one besides yourselves"
^Whoa look at all these weird nonsense.
Han Yu was a Neo-Confucian and harsh critic of Buddhism. He once petitioned the Emperor to ban the religion, a plea that nearly cost him his life.
Han Yu felt that Buddhism was fundamentally incompatible with China.
He believed that Buddhism was a dangerous foreign cult, which encouraged people to neglect the social relationships exalted in Confucian texts.
Essentially Buddha was one of the many philosophers within the Vedic paradigm that struck a chord with many who felt disenfranchised by the priestly and warrior class. He explicitly did not want to form a religion. But a sect was formed after his death and his teachings took the fancy of the biggest Indian ruler of all time Ashoka. He was the first to try and spread any Indian belief system outside India. Which is why Buddhism has such a large population outside India compared to the heartland. In India itself people did not associate the Buddha as the founder of a new religion since 90% of his teachings were pre-existing in the land but as someone who had great understanding of the universe as proposed by the Vedas.
>>223048
>buddhism as practiced by asians not hipsters
Pure Land Buddhism is literally the most pleb shit ever. Its on par with the cult of St. Mary that knows nothing about Catholicism and just prays to Mary when they want something.
>>232719
The most plebest is most similar to the best of Christianity, Gnostics.
Like they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
>>226652
Rare here, anyway. /tg/'s elder scrolls lore threads are as much about eastern religion as they are about video games.
>>226949
This is copypasta, though
>>232698
Can you post more? I'm really into reading Buddhist criticism from ancient literatures. I know they had many from Hindus and Confucious.
>>232702
>Vedic paradigm
>Dharmic religion specifically rejects Vedic authority/rituals
India was the hub of Buddhism till the late 10th century I'd say. They certainly considered Buddha to be the founder of a new religion.
>Buddha was espousing Vedas
kek literally Hindu mouthpiece.
>>232702
>debunking the authenticity of a school of thought by putting it into a historical frame of reference
Is there a name for this fallacy?
>>224989
>thinks you need to believe in buddhist cosmology to derive benefits from meditation
He's being stupid but if you actually want to follow the Buddha, instead of merely benefiting slightly from meditation, then you need to trust the Buddha on the issue of karma and rebirth (all the stuff about Mt. Sumeru is a different story and has no weight whatsoever on the teachings, as opposed to karma and rebirth that are fundamental). Meditators that are advanced enough and have a high enough aptitude for it are supposed to be able to recollect their past lives anyway so I guess someone who really wants to verify this could do so. There's also the unresolved (and actually really widespread) issue of very young children talking about past lives or concepts they couldn't possibly know about at the time. And of course karma and rebirth are not merely explanations about mysterious stuff, but have an actual place in the practice here and now. It's something that shouldn't be merely dismissed as silly or bullshit.
>>225184
>phenomenology leading to a morality than anything else.
The Buddha explicitly refuted his teaching being a mere path to morality. Really leading a moral life isn't that hard, it certainly doesn't require all the great elaborations and explanations the Buddha has given. It gets more complicated when it turns out that things don't end in a single lifetime and a lifetime of good doesn't prevent you from turning 360 later and engaging in a lifetime of evil. Whether you call it dhamma, or Buddha's teaching, or Buddhism, it's the same: it points at something higher than just being good.
>>224827
Did you miss the point where he realized that such conditioned happiness-es are nothing compared to unconditioned happiness?
So is buddhism still about worshiping dozens of arcane gods?
>>233724
Is it even a fallacy? Anyway, I think its part of critical historical contextual analysis.
Don't put much faith in the post you're replying to though, its got some historical analysis, but the facts are missing or wrong.
>>233750
It never was
>>233765
>Is it even a fallacy?
If applied in such a sense I would certianly say so.
It's like talking about somone in third person who's standing right next to you.
>>233729
I do not know what you call morality, but the principle of equanimity is part of buddhist morality and is one of the most important aspect of a buddhist life.
>>233832
It is, but the goal of Buddhism is not merely having morality.
>>233857
there is no difference between life and morality
Some questions for those knowledgeable on the subject:
Why should I want to reach Nirvana? - Is it wrong to be content with an endless cycle of rebirths?
Does it matter which school of Buddhism a person follows? Or will all paths lead in the right direction?
Also what is your personal opinion on syncretism?
And is syncrestism with faiths such as Tibetan Bon more acceptable than say, syncretism with an Abrahamic religion?
>>233937
>Why should I want to reach Nirvana? - Is it wrong to be content with an endless cycle of rebirths?
I think the general idea is that you might certainly feel content, even after realizing samsara is what it is (although I would argue that you don't) but you will never be content.
>Does it matter which school of Buddhism a person follows? Or will all paths lead in the right direction?
The path determines how long it will take for one to reach the supreme enlightenment.
>Also what is your personal opinion on syncretism?
No real issue.
>And is syncrestism with faiths such as Tibetan Bon more acceptable than say, syncretism with an Abrahamic religion?
A monotheism that puts forth an omnipotent god and eternal souls isn't compatible in profound ways. The traditional beliefs of Tibet were, on the other hand, much more malleable, as shamanism/paganism tends to be, just like with the Catholics in South America.
>>233937
>s it wrong to be content with an endless cycle of rebirths?
there is nothing wrong nor right, there is something appropriate or not with respect to some personal goals.
the most common approach to the dhamma is what people call suffering. suffering is a bad word and so I stick to the original one: dukkha. dukkha is what is not adequate, convenient, relevant in life. what is not relevant in life is anything conditioned since, by definition of conditioned, we never have enough control to get what we want perpetually.
since most of the population is hedonistic (belief in self+ identification of the self with the desires+ preference of desires avoiding pains or even leading to pleasures), and that hedonism fails more or less quickly, even when we have the (financial) means to delay as long as possible any lassitude from our pleasures, the sole manner to be happy is to reach some absolute [=which is not conditioned etymologically]
Like I explain here https://4ch.be/his/thread/108709/#109207
hedonism would be adequate if it worked. the dhamma results from the observation that even riches fail to sustain happiness. the worst part is that even when we are happy, we rarely are aware of the happiness WHILE being happy: happiness is always in the past.
Like I explained
our pleasing perceptions + knowledge that they are pleasing sensations DURING the pleasing sensations + identification of we with these pleasing perceptions = happiness = to be happy + to know that we are happy WHEN WE ARE HAPPY [instead of knowing that we WERE happy]
There are then two options to establish firmly the happiness:
-to continue to identify ourself with the senses, from which we must pursue the pleasures, the most lasting and intense as we can, given our means; and to find a method to enjoy the sensations WHILE we experience pleasure
-to stop identifying, through our senses, with our perceptions, with the pains but equally with the pleasures since they lead to pains just as pain itself
>>233937
>Why should I want to reach Nirvana? - Is it wrong to be content with an endless cycle of rebirths?
A person might look at the idea of samsara and feel content with (though for a person that truly realizes the implications of samsara this probably won't happen), but in his next life he might hold a completely opposite point of view. Or he might be in a birth so terrible that he can't even have the luxury to think about that (or so blissful that he doesn't even feel the need). The main idea is that samsara is dukkha- suffering, unsatisfactoriness. It is impossible to ever be truly content with it due to its nature, and due to that contention itself being conditioned and dukkha. Nirvana is the unconditioned, unborn, not suffering and so on and so forth, that is to say it is the only *real* contention and happiness (as in one that is unshakable and not dependent on conditions), the end of suffering, unsatisfactoriness and stress. So one wants to attain ("reaching" isn't very appropriate IMO) Nirvana because one wants to be free of dukkha and reach a state of unbreakable happiness.
>>233937
>Does it matter which school of Buddhism a person follows? Or will all paths lead in the right direction?
the end is the same, but your choice of schools depends on you.
the gross break down is this:
-if you are a hedonist [have faith in hedonism as defined above], you can look at the tibetans since their wager is that before controlling the desire in order to cease it, you can change it and get a insights in pleasures.
since pleasure is what the hedonist loves, it is normal that he looks at this sect
-if you are a mild hedonist and a rationalist [typically if you think a structure, an order is important, if you have faith in the reason to gain knowledge] then go to Zen.
they have their little riddles which is supposedly here to break your thoughts and make you abandon your faith in whatever you think is rationality.
they also practice a lot sitting, which is detrimental since there is walking meditation, standing meditation, lying meditation.
sitting like they do destroy your knees if you do not train from childhood.
-if you are not really a hedonist [you do not really believe in permanent, pertinent, personal self, nor really believe in pursuing pleasures and avoiding pains], nor really a rationalist [=you already know that your thoughts when uncontrolled are a burden], then go to theravada since this sect goes directly as the cessation of desire of conditioned phenomena [=pleasures and pains basically]
this cessation of desire of conditioned pleasures is too hard for most people [especially westerners, since in occident we are the most hedonistic] and some times a few people are even afraid of this.
this is why the tibetans are adequate for most people, but sooner or later, we must learn to stop our quest for our senses
see the above link for further details
>>233937
>Does it matter which school of Buddhism a person follows? Or will all paths lead in the right direction?
The answer to this will depend on who you ask. A lot of theory on which path leads to what, and takes what amount of time, has been elaborated in the past 2500 years, but of course such a thing did not exist back in the Buddha's time. I personally think that the key is to take the Agamas or the Pali Canon as the fundamental guiding line, since they are the common share of Buddhisms. As long as one is able to discern what the Buddha really is teaching there should be no problem.
Pure Land has historically proven to be more problematic, but it wasn't like that for all PL traditions.
>Also what is your personal opinion on syncretism?
It's probably fine as long as it doesn't obscure or cause misunderstanding about the Buddha's teaching.
>And is syncrestism with faiths such as Tibetan Bon more acceptable than say, syncretism with an Abrahamic religion?
Syncretism between Abrahamic religions and Buddhism is not possible. Ideas such as the existence of a creator & omnipotent being, souls, eternity etc. are in direct opposition to what the Buddha taught. Nevertheless, this doesn't stop anyone from liking Jesus or benefiting from a particularly good attitude or practice; in modern times many Christian monks wanting to put stress on contemplative practices have benefited a lot from contacts with Buddhist meditators, for example.
Syncretism with simpler faiths generally doesn't pose a lot of problems, for example Shinto gods being seen as bodhisattvas has no effect on Buddhist teaching.
>>234124
As a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism, Gelug school I'd sort of agree and disagree. Desire can be used in a skillful way, but it has little to do with hedonism and those who practice tantric methods which seem "hedonistic" are highly realized, not your average joe. At the base the core difference is boddhicitta and the wisdom realizing emptiness, not if one is "hedonistic" or not.
>>234124
>see the above link for further details
You should be aware that your walls of text, selective quotations and patronizing attitude (literally spamming when no one has asked for the contents of the copypasta) might have a detrimental effect. There too much information for beginners and the information is also narrow and filtered through your own understanding. You shouldn't do that.
>>223209
>HURR WHAT HAS BUDDHISM GIVEN US?
One of the most definitive and reliable routes to a happy and meaningful life. What the fuck else is religion for? Science and technology have nothing to do with religion.
>>223209
Christianfag here. You are worshipping at idols. Stop that.
>>227238
>>227246
>>227251
>but in fact there are a BUTTLOAD of branches of Buddhism's, all claim to be the One True Way
>shit loads of branches each claims themself to be the True Buddhism, what is the actual truth?
It doesn't work like that. The question for the majority of history has been about which is the "better" way, not which is the true one. The arising of such disputes also had many reasons, from simple intellectual disagreement to protest against the state other schools found themselves in. Sometimes they just didn't care.
>it was really just a matter of local convention and actually did not signify much about Buddhism.
True, but it doesn't change the fact that the class of beings known as devas are a legitimate part of Buddhism.
>but there was one major split: one branch called itself the Great Wheel/Vehicle, being more folk-friendly and advocating helping the common man reaching enlightenment, the other called itself the Elders' school, focusing on reaching enlightenment for themselves, along the line of secluded autist priests.
>After that it went on a boom, everyone and their mother found a Buddhist school.
These are completely inaccurate.
>And Buddhism did have bloodshed in their history too, at least I remembered they had conflict with Islam in the old India and got almost massacred.
India was rather about Muslims attacking Buddhists, but of course there has been (and still is unfortunately) bloodshed. None which could be actually justified without looking like an idiot, we should add.
>(not having an official holy text that no one can dispute,
Lack of text does not imply the thing you think it does. An extremely strong and pretty much "official" oral tradition was maintained, because monks that were going to teach were supposed to be able to expound the dhamma well, even regarding things they had not yet realized themselves.
Jiddu Krishnamurti is one of the most recognized and distinguished philosophers of 20th Century. He didnt like buddhism or any path/religion.
summed up
>a mind will only arrive at the conclusion that it is conditioned to accept.
>buddhism conditions your mind, so you will only accept a truth and conclusion that you interpret is correct, which is never the ACTUAL TRUTH
If you have time, here he is in dialogue with Buddhist scholars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhVupJ6UERY
Read "Freedom from the known" by J Krishnamurti. Good book to start and very short.
>>234268
Doesn't even make sense. The truth path and true cessation comes from the Dharma jewel as espoused by Shakyamuni Buddha, the Dharmakaya.
>>234268
The problem is that he thinks the mind can't be unconditioned, whereas Buddhism says it can. His main argument for anything basically seems to be that you can't ever go past subjectivity, whereas again Buddhism maintains the opposite.
What was his aim then? It surely couldn't be to show people how to arrive at truth, since anything he says on the matter (and especially anything he picks from this or that path/religion as useful) will necessarily arise through the conditions of his own mind. So was it just empty philosophizing? Or did he claim that he could expound something that is neither a path nor religion, unconditioned, and points to "ACTUAL TRUTH"?
>>234298
K thinks that the mind cannot be unconditioned, and that buddhism is just another form of spiritual authority and conditioning (not unconditioning itself)
Realizing that your are conditioned and all "paths" are further conditioning is the first step.
His philosophizing was more about pointing out how destructive and counter productive paths and conditioning are but he never gave a path because he knows that it would just be another path for people to follow and condition themselves to. One must experience (not find, not seek) truth for itself to know it. If he were to tell you how to find it or where you would only see it when you saw something that agrees with your conditioning.
>>234268
>a mind will only arrive at the conclusion that it is conditioned to accept
But that's wrong.
Thoughts only arise in dependence of sensory contact, that much is true.
But the brains ability to abstract information and create world of relative truth by putting lables on what comes in throught the sense entries is based on transcendential awareness that precedes sense contact or consciousness.
The minds knowing essence or the one who knows becomes apparent when you enter the stream.
>>234382
Sounds like "K" wants to condition my mind.
>>234382
To each his own, of course, but Krishnamurti really doesn't say anything much different from the Theosophists and all the people who were and are developing ideas of a vague, intangible "truth" that surpassed the ones found in "religions" or "paths" even though they had not arrived to that truth nor realized anything worth caring about (Krishnamurti's adultery story is a pretty big obstacle before his credibility).
The Buddha expounded the dhamma and produced a body of teachings whose depth has been unequaled by anyone. His life post-awakening, actions, words and the effects of his teachings are all in support of the realization that he claimed. In contrast to this, some people speak in vague terms, are unable to say anything that hasn't been already covered or refuted (even though they think they haven't been), don't really make claims about realizations but don't deny them either, and proclaim grandiose ideals for everyone that they haven't been able to realize for themselves in the first place.
The dharma is like a physical workout routine that has been established after perfect understanding of everything about the body. It needs adjusting according to the individual dispositions of people, but the principles should work for everyone. This is what sets the Buddha's teaching aside. We can say that in the light of this analogy Krishnamurti wants us to believe that you cannot understand how the body works, and that even if you do, you can't explain it to others, and also that the workout you derive from this understanding will be useless because you cannot understand how the body works. I find this a bit absurd.
>>223048
concerning the failure of hedonism
>Fleshlights are fucking amazing, I always love cumming buckets with one but as anon here said, while it's so much fun, you have to deal with clean up afterwards which can be a real mood killer when you've got this lovely buzz of just having fucked the shit out of something.
If I was to become Buddhist, do I need a formal conversion or to visit some kind of temple? Or can I just start following the path?
Also as a homo, are there any schools that I should avoid?
I have heard that in general western Buddhists are okay with homos, but I also know for example most followers of Theravada in the east are homophobic.
>>223048
At one time, a certain monk went to his fellow monk and asked: “Friend, how is understanding fully purified?” and the other replied: “When one sees as it really is the arising and ceasing of the six-fold sense base, then understanding is fully purified.” Dissatisfied with that answer, that monk went on to another monk and asked the same question, and he was told: “Friend, when one sees as it really is arising and ceasing of the clinging aggregates, then understanding is fully purified.” But again that monk was dissatisfied with that answer, so he went to another monk, asked the same question, and was told: “Friend, when one sees as it really is the arising and ceasing of the four great elements, then understanding is fully purified.” But still dissatisfied with that answer, he went to yet another monk, put his question again and that monk replied: “Friend, when one sees as it really is that everything that arises also passes away, then understanding is fully purified.” Dissatisfied with all these answers, that monk approached the Lord and told him of the question he had asked and the replies he had received.
>>234721
Then he addressed the Lord and said: “Lord, how is understanding fully purified?” The Lord said: “Suppose a man has never seen a kimsuka tree so he goes to a man who has, and asks: ‘What is a kimsuka tree like?’ and that man replies: ‘Well, my man, a kimsuka tree is blackish, something like a charred stump.’ So for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it. Not satisfied with this answer to his question he goes to another man who has seen one, and again puts his question. And the other man answers: ‘Well, my man, a kimsuka tree is reddish, something like a lump of meat.’ So, for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it.
Still not satisfied, he goes to another man who has seen a kimsuka tree and puts his question to him. And the other man answers: ‘A kimsuka tree has no bark and its seed pods burst something like an acacia tree.’ So, for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it. Still dissatisfied, he goes to another man who has seen a kimsuka tree and puts his question yet again. And that man answers: ‘Well, a kimsuka has thick leaves and gives close shade something like a banyan tree.’ So, for the time being, the tree is to him as the other man sees it. All these good folks have given their explanations according to the clarity of their understanding. In the same way, the understanding of the monks you have asked has been purified according to their individual inclinations and they have given their explanations accordingly.”
-- S.IV,192
>>234725
The past should not be followed after,
And the future not desired.
What is past is dead and gone,
And the future is yet to come.
But whoever gains insight into things
Presently arisen in the here and now,
Knowing them, unmoved, unshaken -
Let him cultivate that insight.
-- M.III,187
>>234718
>If I was to become Buddhist, do I need a formal conversion or to visit some kind of temple? Or can I just start following the path?
You can just start following the path. Read some buddhist texts and watch some some videos on it. I recommend 'What the Buddha taught' and the Dhammapada.
The buddha didn't have any prejudice towards anyone so buddhists are okay with homo's.
>>234754
And the Lord said to Magandiya: “It is like a man born blind, who cannot see either color or shape, the even or the uneven, the stars, the sun or the moon. He might hear someone speaking of the pleasure of a lovely, unstained, pure white cloth, and start searching for one. But someone might deceive him by giving him a greasy, grimy, coarse robe and say: ‘My good man, this is lovely, unstained, pure white cloth.’ The blind man might take it and put it on. Then his friends and relations might get a physician or surgeon to make medicine for him, potions, purgatives, ointments and treatment for his eyes. Because of this he might regain his sight and restore his vision. Then the desire and attachment he had for that greasy robe would go, he would no longer consider the man who gave it to him a friend. He might even consider him an enemy, thinking: ‘For a long time I have been defrauded, deceived and cheated by this man.’ Even so, if I were to teach you Dhamma, saying: ‘This is that health, this is that Nirvana,’ you might come to know health, you might see Nirvana. With the arising of that vision, the desire and attachment you had for the five clinging aggregates might go. You might even think: ‘For a long time I have been defrauded, deceived and cheated by the mind, by clinging to body, feeling, perception, mental constructs and consciousness. Conditioned by this clinging there was becoming; conditioned by becoming there was birth, conditioned by birth, old age, dying, grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair came into being. This is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’ And Magandiya said to the Lord: “I have confidence that if the good Gotama were to teach me Dhamma, I could rise from my seat no longer blind.”
M.I,511
>>234766
He would also need to take refuge. Simply following the path is good, but refuge is the gateway to practice.
>>234773
At one time, the Lord, having stayed as long as he liked at Benares, set off for Uruvela. Then turning off the road, he entered a woodland grove and sat down at the foot of a tree. Now at that time a group of about thirty high-born friends and their wives were enjoying themselves in that same woodland. One of the friends had no wife, so a prostitute had been brought along for him, and while they were enjoying themselves she took their belongings and run away. So these friends began looking around for the woman and as they roamed about they saw the Lord at the foot of the tree. They approached him and asked: “Lord, have you seen a woman?”
“What, young men, have you to do with a woman?”
So they told the Lord what had happened and why they were looking for the woman. And the Lord said to them: “What do you think? Which is better? To seek for this woman or to seek for yourself?”
“Well then, sit down and I will teach you Dhamma.”
So those friends sat down and the Lord gave a progressive talk, that is, on virtue, on heaven, on the danger, the futility and the disadvantages of sense pleasures and the advantages of giving them up. Then, when the Lord knew that their minds were ready, malleable, free from hindrance, uplifted and gladdened, he explained to them the teaching which is unique to the Buddhas – suffering, its cause, its overcoming and the way to its overcoming.
-- Vin.I,23
>>234718
>If I was to become Buddhist, do I need a formal conversion or to visit some kind of temple? Or can I just start following the path?
Start first, you can take refuge later when you feel ready and willing (and when you can). Refuge has no transcendental significance anyway, and is taken again and again, but it signifies the personal intention to commit to practice.
>Also as a homo, are there any schools that I should avoid?
>I have heard that in general western Buddhists are okay with homos, but I also know for example most followers of Theravada in the east are homophobic.
You should be fine in the west, the homophobia is due to cultural problems and not due to the teachings, the Buddha didn't even find it necessary to address specifically.
>>234718
I believe Chogyam Trungpa was a homosexual and might be a good place for you to start reading?
>>234859
Malunkyaputta said to the Lord: “Sir, as I was meditating, this thought came to me: ‘Those speculative views about the world, whether it is finite or infinite, whether it is both or neither; those speculative views about whether the soul is the same as the body or different from it; those speculative views about whether the Tathagata exists after death or does not, whether he both exists and does not exist, whether he neither exists nor does not exist; the Lord has not addressed these views, he has sidestepped them and ignored them.’ Sir, if you do not explain these views for me, I will leave this training. If you know the answers to these questions, you should explain them to me. And if you don't know, then it would be honest and say so.”
“But Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you: ‘Come, be my disciple, and I will answer all these questions for you?’ ”
“No, sir.”
“Then, did you ever say to me: ‘I will become your disciple only if you answer all these questions?’ ”
“No, sir.”
“So, who are you and what is your complaint, you foolish man? If one were to say that they would not become my disciple until all these views had been explained by me, he might be dead before it could be done. It is as if a man had been shot by a poisoned arrow and his friends might get a doctor to help him.
>>234886
And he might say: ‘Wait! I do not want the arrow removed until I know the name of the man who shot it, what caste he is, whether he is short or tall, fat or thin. I do not want the arrow removed until I know whether the bow that shot the arrow was a spring bow, a crossbow or a longbow. I do not want the arrow removed until I know whether the bow was made from reed, wood or bamboo, or whether the head of the arrow was a calf-tooth head, an ordinary head, a jagged head or an iron head.’ Long before all these questions could be answered, that man would be dead. In the same way, if someone were to say that they would not become my disciple until all the questions about whether the world is infinite or not were answered, they might be dead before it could be done. Living the holy life could not be said to depend upon whether the world is infinite or not, whether it is both infinite and finite, whether it is neither infinite nor finite or any of the other questions. Whether the world is infinite or not, there is birth, there is aging, there is dying, there is grief, sorrow, suffering, lamentation and despair, and it is for the ending of this that I teach. Therefore, understand as not explained what has not been explained by me, and understand as explained what has been explained by me. And what has not been explained by me? All these speculative views that you ask about. And why? Because it is not connected with the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, it does not conduce to good, to turning away, to fading, to calming, to higher knowledge or to Nirvana. And what has been explained by me? The Four Noble Truths. And why? Because it is connected with the goal, it is fundamental to the holy life, it does conduce to good, to turning away, to fading, to calming, to higher knowledge and to Nirvana.”
-- M.I,426
>>234875
Stay away from Trungpa.
>>234890
When one has freed the mind, the gods cannot trace him, even though they think: ‘This is the consciousness attached to the Tathagata.’ And why? It is because the Tathagata is untraceable. Although I say this, there are some monks and brahmins who misrepresent me falsely, contrary to fact, saying: ‘The monk Gotama is an annihilationist because he teaches the cutting off, the destruction, the disappearance of the existing entity.’ But this is exactly what I do not teach. Both now and in the past, I simply teach suffering and the overcoming of suffering.
-- M.I,140
>>234919
The naked ascetic Kassapa said to the Lord: “Reverend Gotama, it is hard to be a true monk, it is hard to be a true brahmin.”
The Lord said: “That is what the world says Kassapa. But if a naked ascetic was to practice all kinds of self- mortification, and if this was the measure of difficulty, then it would not be true to say that it is hard to be a true ascetic or a true brahmin. Because anyone, a householder, his son, even a slave girl who draws water, could go naked and practice self-mortification. But there is another type of asceticism about which it is true to say that it is hard to be a true ascetic, a true brahmin. When a monk develops a mind free from hatred or ill-will, full of love, and by the destruction of the defilements, dwells with a mind freed through insight, then that monk is a true ascetic, a true brahman.”
-- D.I,168
>>234901
What? You don't like crazy wisdom and getting stripped naked, dragged around in a drug crazed drunken monastery for the grand orgy? :^)
>>234942
Where do earth, water, fire and air find no foothold? Where do long and short, small and great, pure and impure, name and form all finally cease? The answer is:
It is in the consciousness of the Noble One -
Invisible, boundless and all-luminous.
There it is that earth, water, fire and air
No footing find.
There it is that long and short, small and great,
Pure and impure, name and form
Finally cease.
When consciousness ceases, so does all this.
-- D.I,223
>>232702
>since 90% of his teachings were pre-existing in the land
Would be interested in reading more about this. Is. Is interested.
>>234957
Be an island unto yourselves, be a refuge unto yourselves, take for yourselves no other refuge. Let the Dhamma be your island and your refuge. And how does one do this? Concerning this, one dwells contemplating the body in the body, feelings in feeling, mind in mind, and mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly conscious and mindful – having put aside the attraction and repulsion of the world. And those who live like this now and after I have passed away will attain the highest. But they must be anxious to learn.
-- D.II,101
>>234962
it's incorrect
>>234967
I tell you this. Let an intelligent person who is sincere, honest and straightforward come to me, and I will instruct him, I will teach him Dhamma. If he practices as he is taught, then in seven years he will attain in this very life by his own knowledge and vision that goal for the sake of which young men go forth from home into homelessness, and he will abide in it. Never mind seven years, he will be able to do it in seven days. Now, you may think: ‘The monk Gotama only says this in order to get disciples.’ But this is not so; let he who is your teacher be your teacher still. You may think: ‘He wants us to give up our commandments.’ But this is not so; continue to live by your commandments. Or you may think: ‘He wants us to give up our way of life.’ But this is not so; continue to live your way of life. Or perhaps you will think: ‘He wants us to practice things that are wrong or not practice things that are right, according to our teachings.’ But this is not so; continue to avoid the things your teaching considers wrong, and practice the things that your teaching considers right. But there are unskillful things not yet given up, things tainted, leading to rebirth, fearful, with painful result in the future, things associated with birth, decay and death. And it is for the giving up of these things that I teach Dhamma. However, if you practice correctly, these tainted things will be given up, and the things that lead to the purification will grow and develop. You will attain the fullness of perfected wisdom by your own knowledge and vision, and abide in it in this very life.
-- D.III,55
>>233729
>He's being stupid but if you actually want to follow the Buddha
You know, Buddha told people not to follow him. He simply wanted to help others by sharing his insight, he discouraged people from taking his word for it or caring about his person.
>you need to trust the Buddha on the issue of karma and rebirth
Do you think you can share your understanding of these topics?
>>234978
Hearken to this, you who are watchful -
Those who sleep, let them awake.
Watchfulness is better than sleep.
The watchful are free from fear.
Whoever is watchful, mindful, composed,
Focused, gentle and insightful,
Studying the Dhamma at the right time and one-pointed,
They will overcome the darkness.
Therefore, rouse yourself and be watchful.
The ardent one, discriminating and meditating,
Cuts the bonds of birth and death
And attains the highest wisdom in this very life.
-- It.41-2
>>234588
At one time, the Lord was staying near Alavi, at the cow path in the Simsapa Grove, lodging on the leaf-strewn ground. Now, Hatthaka of Alavi was walking about and he saw the Lord seated among the leaves so he approached him and asked: “Good sir, do you live happily?”
“Yes, my boy, I live happily. Of all the people in the world, I am the happiest.”
“But sir, these winter nights are cold, the dark half of the month is a time of frost. The ground has been trampled hard by the cattle’s hooves, the carpet of fallen leaves is thin, there are few leaves on the trees, your yellow robe is thin and the winds blow cold.”
“Despite this, I still live happily. I will ask you a question, answer as you wish. What do you think about this? Suppose a man has a house with a gabled roof, plastered inside and out and with well-fitting doors and windows. Inside is a couch spread with a fleecy woolen rug, a bedspread of white wool, a cover embroidered with flowers, spread with a costly antelope skin, with a canopy above and scarlet cushions at each end. The lamp is burning and four wives wait on him with all their charms. Would such a man be happy or not?”
“Yes, sir, he would be happy.”
“Well, what do you think about this? Is it possible that distress of body and mind due to greed, hatred or delusion could arise in him, causing him to feel unhappy?”
“Yes, sir, that is possible.”
“Well, my boy, that greed, hatred and delusion that could cause distress of body and mind has been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm tree stump that cannot grow again in the future. And that is why I live happily.”
-- A.I,136
>>234987
>You know, Buddha told people not to follow him. He simply wanted to help others by sharing his insight, he discouraged people from taking his word for it or caring about his person.
He wanted people to trust his teaching and try it out for themselves. Thus one can "follow the Buddha". There's the whole footprint analogy and all.
>Do you think you can share your understanding of these topics?
If the thread is still up when I get back I can try.
>>233937
>Why should I want to reach Nirvana?
You shouldn't, but if you want to suffer less and believe there is a way of doing so, then you may realize the worth of contemplating Buddha's teachings. Rebirth also has nothing to do with spiritual immortality, it's about the impermanent nature of consciousness.
>syncretism
There's very little to it in this case. Buddha sought to help others understand themselves. He also considered it the absolute truth of self-understanding. But don't take his word for it. If you find the right path then wrong paths will disappear from your mind. If you don't find the right path, then syncretism is merely another untruth making you suffer.
>>234996
Then the Lord said to Maha Moggallana: “Are you drowsy, Moggallana? Are you drowsy?”
“Yes, Lord.”
“Well, then, whenever the thought of laziness besets you, pay no attention to that thought, do not dwell on it. Doing this, it is possible that it will pass. But if, by so doing, that laziness does not pass, then you should think and reflect in your mind about the Dhamma – review it in your mind as you have heard it and learned it. Doing this, it is possible that the laziness will pass. But if it does not pass, then you should recite the Dhamma in detail as you have heard it and learned it. Doing this, it is possible that the laziness will pass. But if it does not pass, then you should pull your ear lobes and rub your limbs with the palms of your hands. Doing this, it is possible that the laziness will pass. But if the laziness does not pass, then get up from your seat, and having splashed water on your face, look in all directions and gaze upward into the starry sky. Doing this, it is possible that the laziness will pass. But if it does not pass, then you should firmly establish the inner perception of light – as by day, so by night, as by night, so by day. Thus with a mind that is clear and unobstructed, you should develop a radiant consciousness. Doing this, it is possible that the laziness will pass. But if it still does not pass, then aware of what is in front of you and behind you, walk up and down with your senses turned inwardly and your mind not straying outwardly. Doing this, it is possible that the laziness will pass. But if it still does not pass, then lie down on your right side in the lion posture, with one foot on the other, mindful and clearly conscious, with the thought of rising later. Then, after waking, you should get straight up, thinking: ‘I will not indulge in the enjoyment of lying down, reclining and sleeping.’ Train yourself like this.”
-- A.IV,85
>>235012
>He wanted people to trust his teaching and try it out for themselves
That's not trust, at least not as I see it. He always said that what mattered was that they confirm it through their own contemplation. They were never to take his word for it. It was however the truth, according to him, but it was a truth everyone had to find out for themselves. He simply pointed in the right direction. It's not a matter of following in his footsteps because therein lies the truth, it's that in finding out the truth you'd end up in his footsteps because that was the path to the truth, but not because he'd tread it before them. I mean, Buddha himself spoke of other Buddhas before him, to show that the truth didn't originate with him, he just discovered it independently of others.
>>235026
Say one dwells contemplating mental states; ardent, clearly conscious and mindful – having put aside the attraction and repulsion of the world. As he does this, either some bodily feeling arises, some bodily discomfort arises, or drowsiness scatters his thoughts to outward things. Then he should direct his attention to some pleasurable object or thought. Having done that, gladness arises, from gladness comes joy, because of joy the body is tranquil, with a tranquil body one is happy, and the mind of one who is happy becomes concentrated. Then he thinks: ‘The aim on which I set my mind is now attained. So let me withdraw my mind from that pleasant thought.’ Then he withdraws his mind from that, and neither starts nor carries on contemplating thought processes. Then he is mindful and knows, ‘Logical and wandering thoughts have stopped, I am inwardly mindful and happy.’
-- S.V,156
>>223234
now I wonder how you can sit around all day with such a butthurt
>>235026
It is like a leper with his limbs all ravaged and festering, being eaten by vermin, who tears his open sores with his nails and scorches his body over a charcoal pit. The more he does it the more those open sores become septic, evil-smelling and putrefying. And the scratching brings but little relief. In a similar way do beings who are not yet freed from attachment to sense pleasures, while being consumed by the craving for and burning with the fever of sense pleasures, continue to chase after them. And the more they chase after them, the more they crave and burn for them. And this brings but little relief.
-- M.I,508
>>235026
The Lord said to the monks: “Body is not self. If it were, it would not be liable to affliction, and one could say: ‘Let my body be like this. Let not my body be like that.’ But since the body is not the self, it is liable to affliction, and one cannot say: ‘Let my body be like this. Let not my body be like that.’ And it is the same with feeling, perception, mental constructs and consciousness. What do you think? Is body permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.”
“Now, is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?”
“Painful, sir.”
“Now, is it fit to regard what is impermanent and painful like this: ‘This is mine, this is I, this is my self?’ ”
“No, sir.”
“And it is the same with feeling, perception, mental constructs and consciousness. So, any kind of body, feeling, perception, mental constructs or consciousness, whether past, present or future, whether gross or subtle, whether internal or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding be regarded thus: ‘This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.’ When a noble disciple has heard this and sees this, he becomes detached from body, feeling, perception, mental constructs and consciousness. Being detached, passions fade, with the fading of passions he is free, and when he is free he knows he is free. He knows: ‘Birth is ended, the holy life has been lived, what has had to be done is done, there is no more of this.’ ”
-- S.III,66
>>235026
Now, on one occasion, the Lord rose from solitude towards evening and sat warming his back in the westerly sunshine. Then, Venerable Ananda came to see the Lord, and while massaging his limbs with his hands he said: “It is strange, it is wonderful, how the Lord’s skin is no longer clear and radiant, how all his limbs are slack and wrinkled, how his body is stooped, and how his sense faculties have changed.”
The Lord replied: “So it is, Ananda, so it is. Old age is inherent in youth, sickness in health, and death in life”.
-- S.V,216
good quotes anon , I've saved a lot of these
Buddhism is ultimately a nihilistic way of life in the sense that nothing we do in the real world matters as it's an endless cycle of suffering caused by desire.
The ceasing of desire removes one from much of everyday life. You could argue it creates a class of begger monks (which historically has happened often) who don't really contribute to material society.
>>235026
In what way could one say: ‘The monk Gotama is an annihilationist, he teaches the doctrine of annihilation,’ and be speaking correctly? I teach the annihilation of greed, hatred and delusion. I proclaim the annihilation of evil unskilled states. It is in this way that one could say: ‘The monk Gotama is an annihilationist, he teaches the doctrine of annihilation,’ and be speaking correctly.
-- A.IV,183
>>235179
Jambukhadaka the wanderer came to Venerable Sariputta and asked: “They talk about Nirvana all the time. But what exactly is Nirvana?”
“The destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is Nirvana.”
“Is there any path, any way that leads to Nirvana?”
“There is such a path, such an way.”
“And what is it?”
“It is the Noble Eightfold Path – Perfect View, Perfect Thought, Perfect Speech, Perfect Action, Perfect Livelihood, Perfect Effort, Perfect Mindfulness and Perfect Concentration.”
“And an auspicious path it is, and an auspicious way to the realization of Nirvana it is too. It is enough to make you energetic.”
-- S.IV,251
>>235173
Buddha never said that nothing matters. Suffering matters, living virtuously matters. Everything mattered to him, that's why it was virtuous not to make others suffer and teach them how to suffer less and how to spread less suffering. It mattered that living without virtue lead to perpetuation of suffering.
>>235200
Detached from sense pleasures and unskilled states of mind, one enters and abides in the first jhana, in which logical and wandering thought are present, and which is filled with a joy and happiness that is born of detachment. And with that joy and happiness born of detachment, one suffuses, drenches, fills and permeates the whole body so that there is no spot in the entire body that is untouched by that joy and happiness born of concentration. Just as a skilled bath-attendant or his apprentice, kneading bath powder which has been sprinkled with water, forms from it in a metal bowl a ball of foam from which no moisture escapes; in the same way, one suffuses, drenches, fills and permeates the whole body so that no spot is untouched.
-- D.I,73
>>235205
Develop the meditation called mindfulness of in-and-out breathing because it is of great fruit, of great advantage. And how is mindfulness of in-and-out breathing developed, how is it made much of, how is it of great fruit, great advantage? Concerning this, one who has gone to the forest, to the root of a tree or to an empty place, sits down cross-legged with the back straight, establishing mindfulness in front of him. Mindfully one breathes in, mindfully one breathes out. Breathing in a long breath one knows: ‘I am breathing in a long breath;’ breathing out a long breath one knows: ‘I am breathing out a long breath.’ Breathing in a short breath one knows: ‘I am breathing in a short breath;’ breathing out a short breath one knows: ‘I am breathing out a short breath.’ One trains oneself, thinking: ‘Breathing in I shall experience the whole body.’ One trains oneself, thinking: ‘Breathing out I shall experience the whole body.’ One trains oneself, thinking: ‘Breathing in I will tranquillize bodily activities.’ One trains oneself, thinking: ‘Breathing out I will tranquillize bodily activities.’
-- M.I,425
>>223064
Or he could stay in his parents' basement shitposting on 4chan I guess.
>>223064
So its a NEET's religion. Perfect for 4chan.
>>235173
>nothing matters so you shouldn't care about the suffering or becoming a buddhist
literally the dumbest post in the thread
>>235232
It's the opposite of perfect for 4chan. 4chan is largely about distraction, letting your mind be grabbed by this topic and that topic. Buddhism is the other direction, it involves not letting your mind be distracted. That's what meditation is, basically.
>>235204
When the Tathagata or the Tathagata’s disciples live in the world it is for the welfare of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare and happiness of both gods and humans. And what is a Tathagata? Concerning this, a Tathagata arises in the world, a Noble One, fully enlightened Buddha, of perfect knowledge and conduct, happily attained, a knower of the worlds, a guide unsurpassed of men to be trained, a teacher of gods and humans, a Buddha, the Lord. And what is a Tathagata’s disciple? He is one who teaches Dhamma that is lovely at the beginning, lovely in the middle and lovely at the end, in both in the letter and in the spirit. He makes plain the holy life, entirely complete and purified. This is the Tathagata and this is the Tathagata’s disciple, and when they live in the world, it is done for the welfare of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the welfare and happiness of both gods and humans.
-- A.II,147
>>235235
>things not said in the post
>>235204
The noble quality of love should be thought about like this: ‘One concerned only with his own welfare, without concern for others, cannot achieve success in this world or happiness in the next. How then can one wishing to help all beings but not having loved himself succeed in attaining Nirvana? And if you wish to lead all beings to Nirvana, you should begin by wishing for their mundane welfare here and now.’ One should think: ‘I cannot provide for the welfare and happiness of others merely by wishing it. Let me make an effort to accomplish it.’ One should think: ‘Now I support them by promoting their welfare and happiness, and later they will be my companions in sharing the Dhamma.’ Then one should think: ‘Without these beings, I could not perfect the requisites of enlightenment. Because they are the reason for practicing and perfecting all the Buddha-like qualities, these beings are for me the highest field of merit, the incomparable basis for planting wholesome roots, and thus the ultimate object of reverence.’ So one should arouse an especially strong inclination towards promoting the welfare of all beings. And why should love be developed towards all beings? Because it is the foundation of compassion. For when one delights in providing for the welfare and happiness of other beings with an unbounded heart, the desire to remove their afflictions and suffering becomes strongly and firmly established. And compassion is the pre-eminent quality in Buddhahood; it is its basis, its foundation, its root, its head and its chief.
-- Cp-a.292
>>235052
The Buddha shouldn't just be considered as the man himself. When one follows the Buddha, one follows the path of all Buddhas. I agree with what you say about treading the same path if you could correctly search for truth. However a Buddha is needed to point out how that search is to be done, so you have to trust him on saying things that are true (why learn the dharma otherwise?). But that trust has to be taken further into actual testing so that it becomes knowledge instead of just faith.
>>234987
I'm a bit sleepy so I hope I can put things coherently enough.
In essence karma is what causes actions to have consequences. It is like an energy, created by intention and action. When the conditions are right it bears fruits (karmic fruits) good or bad in the future, but that future might be a couple minutes away or many lifetimes away. These results condition the mind, so they condition existence, but do not govern it as if things were written beforehand. For example I intentionally hurt a living being, this creates a "force" that might later manifest itself under the right conditions. For example in a period when I'm feeling weak I will remember that action and, under the sway of the already negative state of mind, I will feel even worse. In this way karma conditions existence.
Rebirth is about experiencing different types of existence that are each governed by certain specific factors. It takes place in 2 levels. One is the level that is brought up in modern 'secular' discourse, which is rebirth in the mind. Moment by moment the mind is reborn; sometimes it is more equanimous, sometimes it is tormented, sometimes feels thirst for sensuality, sometimes is elated etc. So the mind in this body goes through all realms of existence.
The second level is physical rebirth. This is actually not really separate from rebirth in the mind, because the one implies the other. Physical forms, however subtle or gross, are more coherent than mental forms so a body seems to be continuous until death. These forms eventually have to lose coherence and crumble, but as the mind goes on and needs its support, such a support will arise. The form this takes depends on the ripening karmic fruits. So different bodies support minds. Death is just between 2 thought moments as the previous physical aggregate runs out of battery and the torch is passed on to a new one.
>>238180
Now both of these, especially karma, is not immediately knowable to unenlightened beings. Rebirth in just the mind is easy enough to understand and to know, but physical rebirth is different as it can't be known without the recollection of past lives. The workings of karma are explained with a certain amount of detail, but total knowledge of it is Tathagata Only territory. Not only can issues like what kind of rebirth X or Y person will take or what kind of effects will X or Y intention or action will have not be known by normal beings, but even seeing the chain of karmic cause-effect as it applies to this life is hard and not obvious.
Because of these reasons one needs to trust the Buddha on these 2 issues. Dismissing them because they make us uncomfortable in this or that way is detrimental to the path and reduces the Buddha to a liar who was making things up. Then it is possible to also verify these and turn trust into knowledge as much as possible.
>>223209
>technological, scientific, and philosophical innovations
Believe it or not, anon, but there is more to life than that.
>>238432
Yes, fuck helping our neighbour and making a valuable contribution, let's just leech off farmers and meditate in our monasteries so we can get le ebin enlightenment and have mental superpowers.
Magical Egoism is the death of everything and the Church was right to repel every form of it as heresy.
>>237969
>However a Buddha is needed to point out how that search is to be done
Unless one becomes a Buddha oneself.
>you have to trust him on saying things that are true, [...] [although] trust has to be taken further into actual testing so that it becomes knowledge instead of just faith
Is that's an acceptable truncation of your post? Either way, I don't see it that way. Not to say that one can't approach it with some manner of faith which can then be laid to rest, as you after all must have desires and attachments since you're not enlightened and wanting to be enlightened is a desire itself, but I don't think it's a necessity. Approaching and practicing Buddhism with a mindset of "let's see if this will help me understand myself" and no aspect of faith doesn't seem the least bit impossible.
>>238443
You only have to scroll up a little to read about how it's all about helping yourself as well as others, as opposed to failing to help yourself and neglecting to help others, as you claim it is. It's right here:
>>235255
>>235269
Reminder that Hurcules became the first guardian deity of Buddhism
>>238492
>neglecting to help others
Yeah sure, from someone who just dismissed technology, science and philosophy it's rich.
If millenia and millenia of buddhist monks were truly practicing a doctrine that allows you to freely act on the world like they claim, you would expect to see some production on their part after a while. Instead all we got is a bunch of sanskrit rolls that never went beyond the walls of their monasteries.
Meanwhile Christian monks copied profane books, and produced food, beverages, philosophy and science.
>>238552
Buddhism doesn't dismiss anything, it's a path to ending suffering so that one may attain existential fulfillment, or at least diminish one's feelings of existential lack. It's true that it posits that books, food, beverages, philosophy and science are insufficient for attaining existential fulfillment, but that is not the same as dismissing them. If someone has a bleeding wound, and suffers not only from the pain but the mental distress of being wounded, then a Buddhist wouldn't neglect attempting to patch it up. The wounded person won't attain existential fulfillment that way, but will likely suffer less existential lack, and that is good to Buddhist. And as you say, there are a great many people contributing to the topics you mentioned. Buddhists and Buddhism don't sneeze at those. They don't seek to bring an end to them or discredit them. They merely speak the truth they have recognized within themselves: it is not sufficient for existential fulfillment, and as we have attained existential fulfillment (or at least a greater measure of it) we must contribute with what we've learned and perceive is the greatest help of all.
>ctrl f "Shankaracharya"
>no results
Shameful. Anyways, there you go OP, this guy was a Hindu who criticized Buddhism. Have fun reading his arguments.
>>238636
>but that is not the same as dismissing them
Well then, how come it's just not there?
>>223209
>Jews contributed-
Stop right there. Exactly what DID the Jews contribute to? Last I checked they didn't become a thing to care about until Christianity and Islam came about and are you honestly going to tell me that Christianity contributed shit? At most you can say is the Monks and what not in Christianity at least preserved alot of the shit that was lost in the Roman empire. As to the actual advancement of society?
Sorry to say but we didn't start advancing as a society when those religions came, we had civilization and advancements before them. They just happened to get on the train around when it was really picking up.
Also, Buddhists didn't enforce by Inquisition flat earth and the sun going around the earth theories. At least the Buddhists have a idea of what the hell their doing. Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths can't decide wither or not to preach what their religions teach or do what they want.
>>238659
Does eating food mean you dismiss philosophy? When you read a recipe on how to make meat souffle (is that a thing? What is a souffle?) do you expect to read a treatise on Hegel between ingredients? Supposedly in Buddha's own words, translated to English:
>I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha
"Dukkha" being suffering, stress, unsatisfactoriness, existential lack, or whatever one wants to call it.
>>238675
Oh wow a Tibetaboo poster.
>are you honestly going to tell me that Christianity contributed shit?
I don't know if he will, but he should. The reach of Christian scholars goes far beyond the wall of their temples, and Jesuit education was for a while the undisputed nec plus ultra.
>Sorry to say but we didn't start advancing as a society when those religions came
After Christianity, there were hospices and other places for the poors and destitute. Christianity also pushed monogamy and forbad divorce mostly, which was a wide improvement for women's condition, since they couldn't just get thrown out once they weren't desirable enough anymore.
>Buddhists didn't enforce by Inquisition
No instead they enforced millennia of theocracy upon an underclass of peasants.
>flat earth
Yeah fuark off.
>>238686
>Does eating food mean you dismiss philosophy?
Yes it does if all you've been doing for 2500 years is "eat food".
>>238717
What of 2500 seconds?
>>238729
No, that's fine.
>>238733
After what amount of time does it turn into dismissal?
>>238747
Probably when you die before having done anything.
>>238778
So eating is to do nothing but philosophizing is to do something?
>>238787
Eating doesn't help anybody but yourself. It is obvious to everyone who doesn't practice in a form of meditation solely focused on oneself.
>>238811
Unless you're pregnant or nursing.
Checkmate.
>>238823
Did you just seriously loop on yourself?
You still didn't answer >>238659 and instead went on a wild tangent.
I'm aware of the claims of Buddhism you know. Anybody can write "uuuh, akshually we're all for acting proactively on the world" in their sacred texts, that doesn't make it a real consequence of your philosophy.
Buddhism is a mortifying religion that produced nothing of value and promotes magical egoism and confinement on oneself.
>>238843
Doesn't "Buddhism doesn't concern itself with technology because it seeks something which according to its truth and the truth of its practitioners can't be found through technology" answer your question on why there isn't much talk about technology in Buddhist tradition?
>>238860
>answer your question
No, since it wasn't only about technology, but also science, philosophy, and even goods like food and beverages.
You would expect that the most devoted practitioners of a religion that pretends it can have proactive effects on the world would, in time, show some of those effects after a while.
>>238908
I did address food, and what goes for technology also goes for philosophy, science, and alcohol: they are not enough for attaining greater existential fulfillment. As for the effect of Buddhism on "the world", which I am going to understand as "living beings" and most "living people", it has had a rather obvious effect: practitioners have for thousands of years experienced less existential lack. But don't take my word for it, google interviews with practitioners, or why not try it yourself.
>>238991
You're talking about meditation, on which buddhism doesn't hold any patent.
>they are not enough for attaining greater existential fulfillment
Yes, yes, I understood earlier all that matters to you is the practice of Magical Egoism, which is why I wrote >>238443 which led you to try and deny that was the case, and now here we are.
>>239013
No, there is much more to Buddhism than meditation. What you contemplate during meditation varies wildly between practitioners of meditation. Meditation itself is just a way of gaining greater control of your thoughts and emotions. Once again, Buddha tried different types of ascetic meditation involving self-annihilation and world-denial and such, and found they increased the existential lack he experienced.
>Magical Egoism
I have addressed that in several posts, as well as linked to other posts and quotations of central Buddhist texts. Do you disagree with the idea that what they suggest is helpful, or do you simply not believe the claims?
>>239059
Indeed, I do not believe the claim, and in fact I believe all buddhism promoted is blind subservience to temporal powers and obliviousness to the world.
I'm aware Gautama rejected asceticism, but frankly I can't see the difference between buddhism and asceticism (outside of the claim it contains of not being asceticism, of course).
>>239095
>Indeed, I do not believe the claim
That they try to help others to the best of their abilities? What temporal powers? Obliviousness to what?
The difference between Buddhism and asceticism is that ascetics focus on rejecting and dismissing the outside world or oneself. Buddhists don't do that. They seek to control their own and the outside world's influence on their own existential fulfillment. The reason it's been called "the middle path" is not because it takes aspects of asceticism and hedonism, but because it neither rejects like asceticism nor indulges like hedonism. An ascetic's response to something is that he tries to get rid of his awareness of himself who is being affected, or his awareness of the world which is affecting him. A hedonist's response is to try to increase how affected he is by things he approves of, and to get rid of things which affect him in a way he disapproves of. A Buddhist's response is to accept that things are affecting him, he seeks to neither approve nor disapprove, as he's found that both are sources of existential lack.
But definitely don't take my word on this, I haven't read much about asceticism. I recommend googling it, you'll no doubt find better explanations.
>>240508
why would you bump this. this thread was a fucking shitshow. I had to stop reading halfway down because it hurt how bad it is.
>>238675
>>238707
I will teach you the burden, the taking hold of it, the taking it up, and the putting it down. And what is the burden? The answer is the five clinging aggregates. What five? Body, feeling, perception, mental constructs and consciousness. This is the burden. And what is the taking hold of the burden? The answer is that it is the person of such-and-such a name, of such-and-such a village. This is the taking hold of the burden. And what is the taking up of the burden? It is that craving for sense pleasures, craving for becoming and craving for unbecoming – that is called lifting up the burden. And what is the putting down of the burden? It is the withering and fading of craving, the giving up of craving, the renouncing of it, freedom from it, the absence of it. That is the putting down of the burden.
The five aggregates are the burden.
The seizer of the burden is the person.
Taking it up is sorrow indeed,
And putting it down is happiness.
If one lays this heavy burden down
Without taking up a new one,
Then one has pulled out craving, roots and all.
That one is fulfilled and free.
-- S.III,25
>>238843
You place a lot of value on technology and things that are made. What would you do without them?
I think the one thing Buddhism has done for my life is that it's helped me become a more calm person and stopped me from making rash decisions. Also helped me consider the opinions of others and the lives of people around me.
I learned from my mother, who taught me Vietnamese Mahayana tradition. I recently did a Refuge back home in Vietnam too. I'm definitely not a perfect Buddhist, but I do take in the key points and use them to make life easier.
To all the Christians that come on here to insult us, I say let them come. Let them talk shit about us, for they dirty their own mouths and ears first when they insult us. Buddhists have always been peacefully expanding. We have no need for forced conversions or holy wars of Abrahamic religions. No matter what they say, we just keep doing what we do.
>>241205
Your picture just gave me a seizure. Buddhism is truly the religion of violence.
>>223048
>Mahayana is not a single tradition. It is a variety of forms the live teaching has taken as it was internalized by people belonging to different cultures and lifestyles over ~2600 years of the realization-transmission cycle.
>
>The same direct experience (of Enlightenment) is introduced in different ways. Everyone agrees it is about seeing (aka insight) and cultivation (aka liberation), but how exactly the two are approached varies wildly.
>
>The method of vipassana (insight meditation) is radical attention to present moment, with experiences interpreted in context of Buddhist teachings. We could say vipassana relies on three activities: the study undertaken before meditation, the active-watching during meditation, and the review in post-meditation. That's it, there is nothing magical about vipassana. It's all about what you study, and what you pay attention to, and how you connect the two.
>
>Before you can do active watching, you have to tame your mind and make it into an instrument of insight. The same taming also serves as a pre-realization part of liberation-cultivation (remember, it's not just insight, there is also liberation). This preliminary meditation is known as samatha, but it really is not that different from vipassana. The only real difference is in the level of skill, familiarity, and insight. This is like with learning to play guitar: first you do scale exercises, then you play whole pieces, then you improvise. In all cases you are playing the instrument, the difference is in your sensitivity and control. Samatha is mostly about tranquility, vipassana is mostly about insight -- but there is no one without the other.
>
>>241247
>Not all schools of Mahayana differentiate between samatha and vipassana. Most Zen schools (I believe) teach one meditation, zazen (did you know "zen" is the same word as "jhana"?). This is like giving student a guitar and saying: here, learn to play this. No scale exercises, no sheet music. This is accompanied with plenty of very deep oral instructions on what a good music sounds like, but no specific mechanical exercises. I'm simplifying to make a point. Most teachers do provide some guidelines (e.g. basics of anapanasati; common mistakes etc.), but the emphasis is definitely on self-learning.
>
>While in Theravada the pendulum seems to swing almost too far the other way: "Teacher, but when are we going to play music?" -- "Forget about music, dummy, and focus on your study and exercises, that's where music comes from!"
>
>In Tibetan schools practice and study seems to be pretty balanced. They do differentiate between shamatha and vipashyana at beginner stages and speak about "unity of shamatha and vipashyana" at more advanced stages. As far as specific techniques, at least in some schools (Gelug) Tibetan vipashyana takes analysis of the four jhanas as its object of investigation. Four jhanas are also approached in context of Generation Stage meditation, while what you know as satipatthana in Theravada can probably be compared with Completion stage meditation in Vajrayana... And then there are Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which are like playing jazz improvisations...
>
>Much of it depends on the student and on a particular teacher. An enormously talented student can learn playing just by watching a teacher, but most of us need gradual instruction. Some teachers believe in analytical understanding, others think technique can only come from drills, while yet others believe it's all about the feeling etc.
>
>>238492
>Unless one becomes a Buddha oneself.
Of course, but even that is technically dependent on a previous Buddha, because one becomes a bodhisattva by seeing and being deeply moved by a Buddha. The state of Paccekkabuddha also exists, but those won't be teaching others.
>Approaching and practicing Buddhism with a mindset of "let's see if this will help me understand myself" and no aspect of faith doesn't seem the least bit impossible.
That's up to each person to decide, but the texts themselves are quite clear that faith, unless taken to the extreme, has no detrimental effect on practice but rather a positive one. After one point trust would necessarily arise anyway, I mean if you practice many aspects of the path well and see the good effects for yourself, you will necessarily say that this Buddha guy knows what he's talking about. That's why there's also the analogy of the doctor; a patient might approach the treatment with a mindset of try and see, but if he gets well after following it he can't neglect the doctor's role in his healing.
>>238552
>Meanwhile Christian monks copied profane books,
Buddhist missionaries, especially in Ashoka's time, have been pretty successful because alongside the religion they brought knowledge and culture. Nalanda University was a center of learning not only in Buddhism but also in many other disciplines.
>and produced food,
Mainly Japan and China have a cuisine known as "temple food" which was developed by Buddhists. It didn't happen in non-Mahayana countries because Theravadan monastic law requires monks to beg their food.
>beverages,
People took the precept against intoxicants seriously it seems, as they should.
>philosophy and science.
See the first point for the part about science. Outside of monks lay Buddhists developed technology, as an example the first printed texts in the world are Buddhist sutras. The first oil paintings are Buddhist works.
Since Buddhism itself is also philosophy, and a philosophy unequaled by anything else mankind has produced we should add, this point doesn't even need addressing.
This brings us to the question people should have asked before: in what way can religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, doesn't matter) claim advances in the fields you mentioned for themselves? Did the monks that copied profane books claim they did it for God or Jesus' glory? Did scientists who were Christians started their research in the name of religion, or was it because they were simply curious? You might argue that the west developed diverse technology and philosophy more than the rest of the world because they wanted to understand creation, but in that case that's a discredit to them since they didn't accomplish that objective. Not to mention all the bad things that came with technology and even philosophies.
>>223048
High as a kite philosophy.
If you want true happiness just do it. Go out and get it.
>>241494
>>241220
Christianity is truly the religion of epilepsy.
>>238656
but hinduism is caste system, primitive and worships rats
the buddha was a fat happy chinees man
>>238843
>Buddhism is a mortifying religion that produced nothing of value and promotes magical egoism and confinement on oneself.
>you'll be the greatest help to world if you learn to still your mind
-Ajahn Chah
thanks buddhistbro for this thread, answers and insight into buddhism, some of us or atleast I appreciate this a lot, buddhism seems to get a lot of flak on 4chan but then again 4chan is full of some of the biggest morons on earth, thankfully it's also full of some of the most sane people on earth
>>242165
>buddhism seems to get a lot of flak on 4chan
It doesn't get enough honestly.
It should get equal treatment to all the other religions/spiritual movements more mentioned and scrutinized appropriately.
If anything it gets put on a pedestal a bit to much by people put of abrahamic religions
>>241494
That literally only applies to someone who's lazy. And it only solves the laziness problem. Can I think laziness is the exact opposite of happiness and be sane at the same time? And can I obsess this much about laziness, to the point of not knowing general philosophy, and not be lazy? No and no. Therefore, you are the one who's high(or long time insane) and lazy and you are just projecting it into the this whole thread and a whole religion.
>>242232
if the criticism it got was sensible, sure, but most of the criticism I see around is /pol/ tier ignorance
