Why do idiots love this so much? It has merits, but so does any religion/philosophy.
>>988011
Because it's atheist friendly.
is there a darker side to buddhism? any branch of it that advocated violence, or had otherwise crazy beliefs? from what I know, it was mostly an ok religion. regardless if you agree with their teachings or not, they at least usually left people alone.
>>988043
This, pretty much. It allows you to have some sort of religion or meaning in your life besides exploitative capitalist consumption without actually believing into anything that is too unrealistic.
>>988051
There are two extremely close Hindu and Buddhist left-hand traditions that center around death-worship, cannibalism and desecration. You might have heard about those people who drink out of skull goblets and shit.
>>988051
Tibetan buddhism was pretty lulzworthy with a bunch of fucked up practices.
>>988051
the 969 Movement
>>988011
Because people base their understanding of Buddhism on friendly neighbor yoga-practicing hippies, who propagate the "Buddhism is just a philosophy, man" myth. In reality Buddhism has a history of religious violence, pronounced belief in gods, miracles and other supernatural items, basically everything other religions do.
I do prefer Buddhism to Abrahamic religion. Its practices such as meditation have observable non-spiritual benefits, its doctrine focuses on questioning and searching for truth, and though the core beliefs are religious and esoteric, it's more easily malleable into a secular philosophy. But people who think that living in a religious Buddhist society would be better than living in a religious Christian society, everything else staying the same, are deluding themselves. Theocracies like Tibet and pre-Soviet Mongolia beg to differ.
>>988051
>>988066
There are some left-hand schools of Hinduism but I don't think Buddhism is compatible with the left-hand path at all. Being as it is, you know, focused on eliminating one's self.
There IS stuff like self-mummification and skull cups, if you're going for purely visual "darkness" though.
>>988051
>>988066
"The form of the Buddhist khatvanga derived from the emblematic staff of the early Indian Shaivite yogins, known as kapalikas or 'skull-bearers'. The kapalikas were originally miscreants who had been sentenced to a twelve-year term of penance for the crime of inadvertently killing a Brahmin. The penitent was prescribed to dwell in a forest hut, at a desolate crossroads, in a charnel ground, or under a tree; to live by begging; to practice austerities; and to wear a loin-cloth of hemp, dog, or donkey-skin. They also had to carry the emblems of a human skull as an alms-bowl, and the skull of the Brahmin they had slain mounted upon a wooden staff as a banner. These Hindu kapalika ascetics soon evolved into an extreme outcast sect of the 'left-hand' tantric path (Skt. vamamarg) of shakti or goddess worship. The early Buddhist tantric yogins and yoginis adopted the same goddess or dakini attributes of the kapalikas. These attributes consisted of; bone ornaments, an animal skin loincloth, marks of human ash, a skull-cup, damaru, flaying knife, thighbone trumpet, and the skull-topped tantric staff or khatvanga."
"My charming ornaments are made from garlands of human skulls." says the Kāpālika, "I dwell in the cremation ground and eat my food from a human skull. I view the world alternately as separate from God (Īśvara) and one with Him, through the eyes that are made clear with the ointment of yoga... We (Kāpālikas) offer oblations of human flesh mixed with brains, entrails and marrow. We break our fast by drinking liquor (surā) from the skull of a Brahmin. At that time the god Mahābhairava should be worshipped with offerings of awe-inspiring human sacrifices from whose severed throats blood flows in currents."
>>988076
I like the sand portraits
>>988108
>I don't think Buddhism is compatible with the left-hand path at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chöd#Ch.C3.B6dpa_as_.27Mad_Saints.27
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drukpa_Kunley
He was known for his crazy methods of enlightening other beings, mostly women, which earned him the title "The Saint of 5,000 Women". Among other things, women would seek his blessing in the form of sex. His intention was to show that it is possible to be enlightened, impart enlightenment, and still lead a very healthy sex life. He demonstrated that celibacy was not necessary for being enlightened. In addition, he wanted to expand the range of means by which enlightenment could be imparted, while adding new evolutionary prospects to the overarching tradition. He is credited with introducing the practice of phallus paintings in Bhutan and placing statues of them on rooftops to drive away evil spirits.[2] Because of this power to awaken unenlightened beings, Kunley's penis is referred to as the "Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom" and he himself is known as the "fertility saint". For this reason women from all around the world visited his monastery to seek his blessing.[3][4]
"I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha."
This is the guy who converted Bhutan to Buddhism.
>>988011
Same reason people join any group. Love, Acceptance, Meaning, Purpose.
>>988011
Because of the aesthetics
/s
>>988011
Because they're retarded hippies.
Buddhism is as retarded as any other non-evidence-based ideology.
>>988051
Just like any other religion, Buddhism also had worldly ambitions at certain points in history.
>>988307
>mfw Buddhists in Burma are advocating genocide against Muslims
Proof that people are people no matter what they believe in
>>988301
have you ever bothered to try and educate yourself on the matter at all or are you simply talking out of your arse?
i can guess the answer. carry on being ignorant
>>988341
They believe in reincarnation, don't they?
>>988011
Because it makes one appear to others as being a deep and spiritual person, while not conforming to traditional western religion or philosophy.
>>988307
Defending yourself is not the same as global ambitions, it is not even close.
>>988378
These people did not defend themselves. They played a political game of worldly ambition with rival factions.
>>988332
Actually, that blog just gave the best possible explanation for why (Neo-)Buddhism is attractive to Westerners:
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2015/09/24/buddhist-ethics-is-not-buddhist-ethics/
>>988142
Lay practitioners vs Monk practioner differ in practice.
>>988408
The author writes articles on how Buddhism has been reinvented after contact with the Westerners, both here and there.
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/protestant-buddhism/
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/the-king-of-siam-invents-western-buddhism/
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/theravada-reinvents-meditation/
As for the West, somehow, from a religion that goes out of its way to deny the self (not only the deep, upper case Self, the atman of the Hinduists, but also the lower case self) it became a religion and meditative practice that is all about the self.
>>988117
Tantric practices appealed more to the lower rungs of society because they were concerned more with attaining worldly benefits while the mainstream denominations were more philosophically and academically inclined.
Are the fucked up practices in Tibetan Buddhism just due to them adopting pre-buddhist practices
>>988142
HAHA BENIS XDDDD
>>988560
>Because of this power to awaken unenlightened beings, Kunley's penis is referred to as the "Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom"
You don't have such saints in the West.
>>988301
>>988477
Seems to be although they've been remodeled to reflect the values of Buddhism more.
The other thing is that it's damn near impossible for your average layman to attain enlightenment so these tantric beliefs were often advertised as an efficacious and simpler method towards attaining rapid enlightenment.
>>988571
So there's a "reason" to believe in reincarnation?
>>988108
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachikawa-ryu#Sutra_of_Secret_Bliss
>>988650
>reason
I though you only believed in empirical evidence?
>>988681
>>988142
Eh, as far as I understand it "dude sex lmao" doesn't make something left-hand. Left-hand philosophy/spirituality pursues egoistic means and rejects objective morality, and while some tantric practices might incorporate sexuality, they are still directed towards development of selflessness and ego-death, and bound by the karmic principle
>>988730
>Left-hand philosophy/spirituality pursues egoistic means and rejects objective morality,
What's wrong with that?
>>988650
Of course. You want to have the false hope that you're not going to be thrown into a lake of fire after you die, and fail to prove to God that you are as He is.
It is appointed for a man once to die, and then the judgment.
>>988738
I never once said anything is wrong about it, moreover I am a laveyan satanist myself. I was just expressing the opinion that Buddhism is inherently incompatible with left-hand philosophy, seeing as it pursues the absolute opposite of egoism.
>>988703
I don't consider non-evidence based reasons proper.
>>988738
“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels..."
Left hand path leads to hell.
>>988730
Read the rest of the article on Tachikawa-ryu.
>>988744
The version of Christianity you believe has shitty metaphysics, mate.
>implying that God isn't the only being that is as He is
>>988749
>hell
spooky
>>988746
>I am a laveyan satanist
You're a meme.
>I was just expressing the opinion
Read up on Anuttarayoga Tantra.
>>988337
I guess no one likes muslims.
>>988753
It has the advantage of being true though.
I don't have to imply it:
Isaiah 46:9 Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me
>>988650
reincarnation is hindus, numbnuts
>>988808
I Am that I Am.
>>988808
That verse supports my point, that God is the only being as He is.
>>988851
Indeed. And properly in the future tense, I Will Be That I Will Be.
>>988857
Yes. I didn't like implying it. I liked stating it outright.
>>988888
fuck you and your quints faggot
>>988051
nice, i like societies that are insular and xenophobic-ish, glad itll keep existing
>>988895
You can't diss quints.
The happiest guy on earth is buddhist, fuck you
Anyone got book recs on 'real Buddhism' the last book i tried reading was full of hippie nonsense.
>>988977
Buddha by Armstrong. Follows the Pali Canon to trace a biography of Siddartha Gautama. I found The Great Transformation, by the same author, better and more informative, because it deals with Hinduism, the religion Buddha reformed, with far, far greater detail, and also tells you of Chinese religions and philosophies before Buddhism, in addition of incorporating the stuff found in "Buddha."
If you wanted to know a bit better the philosophies of the schools of Chinese Buddhism, including Chan (known as Zen in Japan), I recommend An Introduction to Chinese Philosophy by JeeLoo Liu. The second half of the book deals with Chinese Buddhism.
I also recommend the blog linked >>988408
>>988430 which can succintly tell you why hippie Buddhism is shit.
anyone read any of the books from this series? how are they?
>>989920
>>989920
>>989922
>>988095
Fuck off muslim
>>988011
>Why do idiots love this so much?
idiots love it because they think it is exotic. Of course, idiots do not wish to actually practice it, they think it is too austere, so they fail and claim that it does not work or it is no better than any other doctrine.
>>988352
>reincarnation
>soul
lmao, you just gave yourself away
>>989920
I've only read the DN but it's pretty good (as far as prose, I'm not knowledgeable enough to claim its accuracy). It's nice to have a physical copy at hand.
>>988011
Well because it doesn't have tribal primitive folkore aspects that the Abrahamic religion have.
>>988477
What "pre-buddhist" practices are you talking about?
Tantra is a buddhist development that took place late 6th century in India.
>>990557
It does have those aspects. Just different tribal. Heaven/Hell/Hungry ghosts/etc are part of pre-buddhist baking. Just like the scientific worldview of today creates scientific theories and beliefs of todays world so too did Buddhist create theories around ancient indian worldviews.
Are people actually having "mah religion is better than yours" wars?
anyway probably because unlike other religions Buddhism sets it's goal in a really straight forward way about meditation, increasing your awareness and also it's ethical context is flawless, if you're not into spirituality and mysticism, religions are really not for you, it's a shame because there really is "supernatural" phenomena in the world and you're missing out on the greatest experiences because of your clinging to the physical world, but if you don't open yourself to those kinds of things they will likely never be a part of your conceived life as life is truly what you make of it.
>>991914
>it's ethical context is flawless
Unless you're a slave.
>>989009
>talks about how those forms of Buddhism are still legit
>you call it bullshit
>>989009
Karen Armstrong seems to be a big proponent of new age hippie reinterpretations of religions like Buddhism and Islam.
>>989009
this is vomit inducing
why do people have to over complicate ideas with semantics,poor communication is the cause of so much negativity in this world.
>>993046
Traditional Buddhism is anything but simple.
>>993082
>>993083
I'm not talking about what you wrote, That blog you posted have people arguing about the use of the words morality and ethics interchangeably, it's just silly how much people love arguing about definitions without talking about the actual point, sorry if I wasn't clear I impulsively posted after scheming through that link.
>>993117
"People" as in commenters? Who cares. That's not what I linked the blog for.
I have NOT seen a single author making any distinction between morality and ethics. Every author ever I read seems to use them interchangeably.
For the record, I did find an exception. The first philosopher I met told me morality and ethics are different. Morality refers to the allegedly eternal and always valid and ethics are the relevant product of the times.
So in his take, "be compassionate, be benevolent" would be always valid MORAL commandments, and what compassion and benevolence really mean right here, right now - or in another age, depend on the relevant ETHICS of the day.
>>993162
>For the record, I did find an exception. The first philosopher I met told me morality and ethics are different. Morality refers to the allegedly eternal and always valid and ethics are the relevant product of the times.
So in his take, "be compassionate, be benevolent" would be always valid MORAL commandments, and what compassion and benevolence really mean right here, right now - or in another age, depend on the relevant ETHICS of the day.
hmm that's an interesting outlook actually, my conception of ethics is mostly based around Aristotle as I'm only now getting into Buddhism so I really don't have the knowledge to comment on your point, but it seems like people naturally enjoy revision-ning everything into their idea of the world nothing new,I do find your use of the words "hippy Buddhism" overtly simplified and critical but that's just me.
>>989927
just picked up this book as an intro to Buddhism, is this a decent start?
>>993404
sounds like it based on the Amazon reviews.
>>993494
just to make it clear are you saying it's "based on the amazon reviews" as a form of criticism or that it is "based" as in the modern slang for good, on the amazon reviews?
>>993531
I'm joking by the way you don't actually need to answer that, I obviously already looked at the reviews but I wanted to see if there's a specialist here who knows his shit and can give me solid advice.
>>988108
>its doctrine focuses on questioning and searching for truth
How so? Don't they believe they already have the truth with the 4 noble truths and the 8fold path?
>>994465
The ultimate Truth can be realized only through meditation, and not theorizing or speculating.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/56.htm
Reading The Four Noble Truths on Wikipedia and saying: "I agree" doesn't make you an enlightened one.
To put it in Abrahamic-like terms, the teachings of the Buddha are not a profession of faith that is sufficient to save you.
>Gotama did not give up. Henceforth he would rely only on his own insights. This would become one of the central tenets of his spiritual method. He constantly told his disciples that they must not accept anybody’s teachings, no matter how august, if those teachings did not tally with their own experience. They must never take any doctrine on faith or at second hand. Even his own teachings must be jettisoned if they failed to bring followers to enlightenment.
You have to search for the Truth within you.
>>995913
The only way of assessing the Buddha’s method was to put it into practice. He had no time for abstract doctrinal formulae divorced from action. A person’s theology was a matter of total indifference to the Buddha. Indeed, to accept a dogma on somebody else’s authority was unskillful; it could not lead to enlightenment because it amounted to an abdication of personal responsibility. Faith meant trust that nibbana existed and a determination to realize it. He always insisted that his disciples test everything he taught them. A religious idea could all too easily become a mental idol, one more thing to cling to, while the purpose of the dhamma was to help people to let go. Even his own teachings must be jettisoned, once they had done their job. He liked to tell the story of a traveler who came to a great expanse of water and desperately needed to get across. But there was no bridge or ferry, so he cobbled together a raft and paddled over. But then, the Buddha would ask his audience, what should the traveler do with the raft? Should he decide that because it had been so helpful to him, he must load it onto his back and lug it around with him wherever he went? Or should he simply moor it and continue his journey? The answer was obvious. “In just the same way, monks, my teachings are like a raft, to be used to cross the river and not to be held on to,” the Buddha concluded. His task was not to issue infallible statements or satisfy intellectual curiosity, but to enable people to cross the river of pain and arrive at the “further shore.” Anything that did not serve that end was irrelevant.
The fedora tipping is strong in this thread. As a East Asian who follows Buddhism, it's simply a way of life rather than something spiritual. It's teachings show you ways to deal with everyday annoyances and ignore toxicity around you.
One doesn't have to follow every single aspect of Buddhism either. For example, you can still be a Buddhist but eat meat. Buddha's teachings are not meant to be laws, but guides. They simply show you the way; it is your choice to follow them or not.
I used to be real pissed about atheists and Catholics talking shit but a real Buddhist wouldn't care because you Atheists are moralless and ignorant, while the high and mighty Catholics drown in their arrogance.
>>988051
Japanese Miltiarism though Zen went really great with violence.
See when you have a problem with cutting a man's head off, that's because you have attachment. Attachment to images of yourself, attachment to the man in front of you, etc.
Be unnattached. Dissolve yourself. Just let the blade swing. Do the same thing when it is time for your death.
>>995940
an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a God or Gods. wouldn't you technically be an atheist? if Buddhism is just a philosophy. an atheist can still be moral and be influenced by philosophy.
>>995952
In a technical sense, there are gods in Buddhism, as one can be reincarnated as a Deva.
A full on atheist is someone who holds no spiritual beliefs.
>>995952
The Buddha rejects the Hindu concept of brahman, the conscious, creative principle which lies realized in the whole world (i.e. God with an upper case G) but there are devas (i.e. gods) in the Buddhist scriptures and cosmology.
>>995940
>One doesn't have to follow every single aspect of Buddhism either.
this is what hedonists believe
>>988051
Check out the book "Zen at War".
Now this, monks, is the noble (irrefutable) truth of what (experiences) are suffering: the sufferings of (associated with) birth, the sufferings of aging, the sufferings of illness, the sufferings of death; the suffering of sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair; the sufferings of association with the unloved, separation from the loved & not getting what is wanted. In summary, (all) suffering is clinging to the five aggregates (as ‘I’, ‘me’ & ‘mine’).
Commentary: In this first noble truth, all suffering is summarised as clinging (upādāna) to the five aggregates (physicality, feeling, perception, mental formations & sense consciousness). This means the ordinary experiences of birth, aging, illness, death, grief, separation, etc, are only suffering due to/when there is (self) clinging. This truth or reality is made clear in the following discourse:
An uninstructed…person…assumes form (the body) to be a ‘self’ or a self as possessing form or form as in the self or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that ‘I am form’ or ‘Form is mine.’ As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.
A well-instructed disciple of the noble ones…does not assume form to be a ‘self’ or a self as possessing form or form as in the self or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that ‘I am form’ or ‘Form is mine.’ As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its change & alteration.
Nakulapita Sutta
>>995992
Now this, monks, is the noble (irrefutable) truth of what is the arising of suffering: it is craving leading to new (self) becoming — accompanied by lust & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not to be.
Commentary: In this second noble truth, the Pali word ‘samudayo’ means ‘arising’, ‘origin’ or ‘origination’. ‘Samudayo’ does not mean ’cause’ (Pali: hetu) because this noble truth refers to multiple causes that result in the manifestation of suffering (self clinging). If there is craving but no becoming, suffering will not originate. This truth or reality is made clear in the following discourses:
The craving leading to new becoming — accompanied by lust & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving to be, craving not-to-be: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One. (Culavedalla Sutta)
This monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification… One assumes about craving that ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am’. (Chachakka Sutta)
Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.’ Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering. (Phagguna Sutta)
>>995996
Dependent origination: nama-rupa
What is mentality-materiality? Feeling, perception, intention, contact & attention — these are mentality. The four great elements & the material form derived from the four great elements — these are materiality. So this mentality & this materiality are what is called nāmarūpaṃ.
Commentary: ‘Namarupa’ is a pre-Buddhist Brahmanistic and creationist term (from the Chandogya Upanishad of the Samaveda), which refers to the process of evolution of differentiation into names and forms i.e. to the unfolding of the undifferentiated primal state into the manifest world, prior to which there was nothing that existed (Wikipedia: Namarupa-vyakarana). This Brahmanistic principle is also found in the Biblical Book of Genesis.
To the contrary, in the Buddhist Pali scriptures, the term ‘namarupa’ refers to the mental elements, constituents or facilities and to the physical body of the human being. Here, the Buddha redefined ‘namarupa’ and rejected/made obsolete its original meaning. This is because the naming or differentiating of undifferentiated forms in unrelated to the origination of suffering, since it is craving and (self) becoming that lead to the arising of suffering (rather than differentiating or naming).
Despite this redefinition, many contemporary Buddhists use the translation ‘name-form’ (rather than ‘mentality-materiality’) and some (most famously Bhikkhu Ñanananda in his books ‘Concept and Reality’ and ‘Magic of the Mind’) appear to retain the original Brahmanistic/creationist principle and assert it contributes to the origination of suffering.
In the Anupada Sutta, additional mental faculties are included within mentality, such as zeal (chanda iddhipāda), decision, persistence/energy (viriyaṃ) and mindfulness (sati).
>>996003
Meditation: When the physical body sits erect in meditation, this physical body is ‘rupa’ (materiality). When the mind generates the intention to meditate and uses mindfulness to maintain attention, this is ‘nama’ (mentality). When the mind has contact with the meditation object (such as breathing), perceives (discriminates) the breathing as ‘breathing’ or ‘long’/’short’ and feels the quality of the breathing (smooth, soothing, agitating, etc), this is ‘nama’ (mentality). As the scriptures state: “feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention — these are called mentality”.
In summary, namarupa is ‘the meditator’ or ‘gatekeeper’. When namarupa operates with mindfulness & wisdom, rupa is composed and nama acts to meditate upon & calm the ‘sankhara’ of dependent origination (namely, the body, verbal and mind conditioners). Alternately, when namarupa is flooded or overcome with ignorance and ignorant sankhara, namarupa operates to use its feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention it the pursuit/quest of objects leading to suffering.
Now how is mindfulness with in-&-out breathing developed…? There is the case where a meditator…sits down, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. (Anapanasati Sutta)
In dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a sensual quest. Engaged in a sensual quest, the uninstructed worldling conducts himself wrongly in three ways – with body, speech and mind. (Sanidāna Sutta)
Buddhism is not protestant Christianity, by the way.
You killed this thread by asking why "idiots" are interested in buddhism. This could have been a good discussion if you asked why buddhism is attractive in general.
>>991716
He's probably referring to Bon. However, my understanding is that when Tibetan Buddhism took on Bon, it was mostly by appropriating old Bon deities as bodhisattvas and "guardians of the Dharma," rather than really incorporating Bon practices into Buddhism.
>>991968
... You do realise that Buddhist doctrine is strictly egalitarian and that slavery is almost antithetical to the Buddhist worldview? Yes, traditional Buddhist states practiced slavery, but that doesn't speak at all to what Buddhists actually teach.
>>995982
Uh... what? You literally don't. For fuck sake, much of the Buddha's discourse is directed towards lay practitioners, people who very clearly *do not follow every single aspect of Buddhism.*
>>997532
Bon practices took on new meaning on top of that too. Bon practices used to be about sacrifice and shit, but with the Buddhist push, those sacrifices became tame stuff like bread/wine/vegetarian food instead of killing animal/human flesh/etc.
The Bon gods/spirits became dharma protectors last I read. This is one of the controversy surrounding the New Kadampa Tradition sect. The tibetan dalai lama wants to stop the old worship of wrathful dieties shit but the New Kadampa want to keep it.
This is I guess one dark spot in buddhist world.
>>988051
Bhutan Buddhists kicked out all the Hindus, pretty inconsiderate if you ask me
Who /jhana/ here?
>>997573
>slavery is almost antithetical to the Buddhist worldview
Slavery is explicitly approved in many Buddhist scriptures.
There is almost no indication in any premodern Buddhist source, scriptural or documentary, of opposition to, or reluctance to participate in, institutions of slavery.”
According to scripture, the Buddha himself (after enlightenment) accepted slaves as gifts to the sangha, and he did not free them.
Slavery was normal in most or all Buddhist cultures, throughout pre-modern history.
In most or all Buddhist cultures, monasteries routinely owned slaves.
In some Buddhist cultures, individual monks routinely owned slaves.
In some Buddhist cultures, most so-called “monks” were actually slaves themselves.
https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/buddhist-morality-is-medieval/
>it's ethical context is flawless
It's anything but.
>>998933
>Replying to somebody who's claiming "Buddhist doctrine is strictly egalitarian"
But why
>>988051
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikk%C5%8D-ikki
YARI ASHIGARU GOZAIMAS
>>988051
>is there a darker side to buddhism?
Feudalist structures and slavery persisted and flourished in many Buddhist countries.
>https://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/get-involved/action-toolbox/friendly-feudalism-the-tibet-myth
>>988799
Muslims tried to bomb the bodhi tree, the site where Buddha reached enlightenment. The equivalent would be if Buddhists tried to bomb mecca.
>>999098
Shin wasn't any worse than Zen.
>>999263
>Muslims tried to bomb the bodhi tree
source?
>>997573#
The dhamma has no political views, a lack from which the occidental humanists get upset, because as soon as you hit stream entry, you understand that the purpose of the societies is to create some structures full of rules created by hedonists for the hedonists, so that the structures carry on the next generation, and, more importantly, that no laws, no rules will permit you to become enlightened.
In fact, if you need rules, it means that you are too much in hedonism so that you fail to grasp the dhamma.
Whatever the regime, it will be contrary to the dhamma, because the regime will be created by non-aryans, for non-aryans, with the explicit purpose that the non-aryans prosper, before some other non-aryans come and change the rules in order to favorite some other groups of non-aryans.
At best, a buddhist regime would be the one closest to the paramitas made mandatory, which is a paradox. So at best you have the sanghas, and even monks manage to act contrary to the dhamma...
>>995962
Atheist just means no belief in God or gods, though. An idealist or dualist can be an atheist.
wbb
>>988142
>"Thunderbolt of Flaming Wisdom"
>>988063
>exploitative capitalist consumption
Didn't know this was the cringe channel.
>>1001366
You know what makes it even better? Alcoholic Monks in Korea and Japan drive around in lamborghinis often straight to the betting parlors.
asians say that it takes a long take to be awaken, many lives.
westerners now even claim that, in fact, it is not possible to get awaken like it is claimed. It is jut too hard according to them (because they fail themselves to get awaken as in the suttas).
So westerners invent a new baby-awakening where it is some weak stream entry+a few skills in meditation
