What are/is the essential introductory but extensive Buddhist writings?
I am interested in learning and need to recommend a christmas gift for someone to buy me so if there is a hardback, beautiful, big book covering it from introduction all the way through that would be ideal
My diary t b h
Got the perfect book for ya mate:
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses for from the Pali Canon
>>7437231
nice, thanks
>>7437210
> essential introductory but extensive Buddhist writings
Buddhism has more texts than all other religions combined, dozens and dozens of very distinct traditions which contradictory views that emerged over thousands of years in different stages over many countries.
I've been really into Buddhist scholarship and practice for many years now, and having read hundreds and hundreds of books on the topic, there is still an ocean left to read.
>so if there is a hardback, beautiful, big book covering it from introduction all the way through that would be ideal
Absolutely no such thing. Buddhism is far FAR too large for that. It takes a huge book to give fair treatment to a single topic in a single tradition in a single country over the course of a generation or two, or between just two thinkers.
However, a decent "big hardback" that is a giant overview of many tenant systems in just one of the many branches of Buddhism would be "Maps of the Profound Jam-Yang-Shay-Ba's Great Exposition of Buddhist and Non-Buddhist Views on the Nature of Reality" by Jeffrey Hopkins
In general, read the wikis for like 6 hours or so until you have the most basic grasp of some of the terminology. Then:
Read: "Buddhism and Dzogchen: Volume One: Buddhism: A Dzogchen Outlook" by Elias Capriles (I think this is a great starting point because it glosses over many different traditions in a really approachable way without infantilizing the reader like so many "introduction to Buddhism" books found in the west). I don't know if there is a book edition, but the reproducible draft is available online on the author's website.
Read Jan Westerhoff's "Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka" (a philosophical introduction that reconstructs the philosophy rather than paraphrasing it like so many English books do)
and "A Swift Pair of Messengers" by Bhikkhu Sujato
and "Tsong-kha-pa's Final Exposition of Wisdom" by Jeffery Hopkins
I don't think this is a topic which can be understood well in just a few books. Which is why so many Buddhists have no idea what the hell they are talking about (armchair Buddhists), and in a single tradition getting your "degree" from a monastery can take 12-20 years or more.
>>7437210
The Bible :^)
>>7437231
Bodhi's work in that book is really controversial and not well accepted in the buddhological community (by scholars).
He looks at the suttas through the lens of his preferred commentarial tradition, without making that clear to the reader, rather than taking the suttas on their own terms. Furthermore he makes really unjustified claims about the Buddha's life which have no basis in evidence whatsoever, again relying on heavily redacted commentaries and texts which were added to the Canon much much later.
He also severely misrepresents the history of the P. Canon itself, and misleads the reader into thinking the texts are much older and more authoritative than can be proven, or that it emerged for highly political reasons.
To cut to the chase, he takes texts discovered as part of other canons, which are much older, and pretends like they originated with the Pali Canon in his deceptive attempt to place the PC as far more authoritative than it is.
Keep in mind that the earliest Pali Canon texts we have come from the 15th century, with the vast majority coming from the 18th century, and a single badly damaged scrap from 9th Century Nepal. ALL earlier texts come from other traditions and other canons which were subsequently borrowed into the Pali Canon.
TL;DR That shit isn't the Buddha's Words, and many of those discourses utilize the most modified translations discovered, the youngest (least authentic) rather than the earliest ones.
>>7438286
>more texts than all other religions combined
retard detected
>>7437210
By far the best book about it, OP:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0990847705?keywords=the%20mind%20illuminated&qid=1449599852&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
>>7437210
accesstoinsight.com
contains translations of most important suttas
I also like "Basic Teachings of the Buddha" by Glen Wallis
>>7438347
My comparative religion prof. said this and it stuck with me, it makes some sense.
You have single canons that have over half a million pages. And dozens of canons, that isn't including the huge amount of commentarial literature or secondary literature.
One of the smallest Canons is the Pali Canon, and that has over 10,000 pages.
>>7438383
>most important suttas
As considered by one tradition. The Pali Society has admitted that a decent portion are still relatively poor translations and will have to be redone.
>>7438347
You do realize Buddhism is older than both Christianity and Islam, right?
Don't even bother reading Buddhist works in translation, they all are poor and are influenced by the translator.
The same goes with commentary and secondary sources on Buddhism--my teacher once told me that Buddhism taught in the English language is not Buddhism at all.
Either learn the Pali language, or give up on Buddhism completely.
>>7438410
so is atheism
>>7438410
Not him, but Hinduism is older than Buddhism so by this logic it would have more texts than Buddhism.
I'm not saying your prof's claim is factually incorrect, I just would like to see if there's some sort of evidence or a paper about that backs up the claim.
>>7438484
:^)
>>7438459
This I must agree with. Buddhism is simply not something that translates good into English. Get a good teacher in Asia if you want to learn, these books are bad and false.
>>7438496
Not the same anon brah. I didn't correlate the amount of texts Buddhism has with the relative age of Buddhism.
Hinduism isn't older than Buddhism by the way. It emerged out of Brahmanism shortly after Buddhism already had, and over time liberally borrowed from it.
Brahmanism =/= Hinduism. Hinduism, like Jainism and Buddhism, is considered post-vedic. Chronologically it went from what we now call Vedism, to Brahmanism, then branching out to the aforementioned three (Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism).
>>7438575
Wasn't Siddhartha a Hindu prince though? I don't know much about this stuff but you make sense otherwise.
>>7438459
>my teacher once told me that Buddhism taught in the English language is not Buddhism at all
This is complete garbage. Yes, it is important to understand the native word for key concepts, what the term was reacting to, what historical period the text was written and so forth, but to go that far as your teacher did is complete bullshit.
>Either learn the Pali language, or give up on Buddhism completely.
Why? The Buddha didn't speak Pali. The bulk of native Buddhist texts are not even written in Pali.
>>7438583
According to legend he was a Prince born to the Shakya clan, which was Brahmanistic.
In actuality we have no evidence of any of that. We only have a couple of sources which appear contemporaneous to his life, and the details are very scant.
They are non-Buddhist clan treatise that agree on their disdain towards a character named "Gautama the monk". In short they say he is a "dark magician" who "discovered a hidden magic in reality" and was "using it to seduce the disciples of others".
That. Is. It. Everything else is post hoc legend and muddled oral stories.
I thought I had a good answer and it turns out it's apparently not good but maybe it is, there is apparently no good answer to my questions and everyone is squablling. Such is le life
>>7438604
yeah. try reading /d/ instead
>>7438540
Actually English is surprisingly adept at explaining most Buddhist concepts. The actual limitation usually comes down to the translator or speaker in their failure to really engage in technical and thorough English explanations.
Yes there has been a lot of "Buddhist babble" over the decades because translators didn't always understand exactly what they were translating, but that situation has improved considerably the past decade or so.
Of course there is still some baggage from poorer translations being repeated (such as "suffering" rather than unpleasantness/existential lack, or using the term "desire" to mean two mutually exclusive terms in Pali/Sanskrit).
>>7438604
Just read them man. You can still learn from reading a book even if some scholars don't think the translation is the best, or the commentary isn't the consensus or whatever.
>>7438604
I wish it was a simple answer mate. It is a surprisingly complicated and nuanced topic. Don't let that discourage you, but yeah, it will take some effort to truly be well rounded regarding Buddhism/Buddhist scholarship
>>7438625
Yeh, I'm going to, I just had a thought in my head that Buddhism had at bottom a fairly simple philosophy that could be more or less understood in a 400 or so page book but beyond that required meditation and so on to really embody and 'get'. I was looking forward to giving it a shot but turns out my plans were misguided.
>>7438604
It doesn't work like that, Householders aren't supposed to study the Dharma, that's left to the monks; you're supposed to listen to the monks.
>>7438638
Buddhism is one of the least consistent religions, in one passage the Buddha tells people to not drink alcohol and in another he's instructing monks on how to brew grape wine.
>>7438321
It's true that Bodhi's book is misleading in places, but the actual physical age of extant manuscripts is not relevant. The extremely extensive accords between the Nikaya and Agama texts, as well as the internal evidence in the texts themselves, testifies to their antiquity and authenticity. The Pali Canon isn't the end-all be-all, but it is a conservatively preserved library of an Indian Buddhist school in its original language, and available in complete English translation.
If you wanted to be extremely conservative, you could accept as authoritative only the material which is shared between the Samyutta Nikaya and the Samyukta Agama. These represent totally different oral transmissions, separated for hundreds of years, written in different languages, and the Agama version further translated to Chinese. You'd find that the core of the Buddha's teachings as presented in the Pali Canon remains totally intact. See http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Fundamental%20Teachings%20of%20Early%20Buddhism_Mun-keat.pdf
>>7438638
The core beliefs are simple, but the layers above are numerous and complex with many differing sects and schools. If you just want to get into Buddhism then pick up a good book and read it, while remembering the commentator is not infallible. There's a difference between being a Buddhist and being a Buddhist Scholar.
>>7438638
Anon, your innocence is adorable.
>fairly simple philosophy
You are going to love some of the texts mentioned here >>7438286
> but beyond that required meditation and so on to really embody and 'get'
The hilarious part is that there are hundreds of different meditations operating among a backdrop of very diverse contemplative theories.
Some traditions assert that meditation can't get you anywhere, some assert that it is the end all be all and that you don't need much book learning, and others assert that without extensive studying prior to intense meditation, it will be like trying to climb a mountain with no hands.
>>7438656
Pure Land Buddhism goes a step further and says It's literally impossible to gain enlightenment in the current age and plane and the only hope you have is praying to a Buddha so you get reborn into his plane.
>>7438621
>Actually English is surprisingly adept at explaining most Buddhist concepts
Actually, no. Sanskrit and its derivatives are hard to translate precisely into other languages, especially when there are no native speakers around who can explain what the word actually meant in that precise context. If you check Monier Williams dictionary, you'll see how many Sanskrit words actually share the same one word in English language, and you'll see that a single word can have contradictory meanings when translated to English. Plus, Sanskrit authors themselves liked to abuse their own language. For example, there are texts, especially of tantric variety, which can be either read as erotic manuals or as meditation guides. Without someone to explain in to you, you'll get lost.
So, to say that Sanskrit, especially technical Sanskrit, is easy to translate it the same as saying that Finnegans Wake is as straightforward and understandable as Twilight
>>7438656
Yeh, again I'm not interested in all there is to say so I should be fine with a general overview to see if it resonates and then I'll go from there, thanks for the help though
>>7437210
Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: First Buddhism book I ever read. Really drills into your head that Buddhism is about compassion and healing suffering, which I feel is a good springpad into other Buddhist texts because you might end up getting bogged down in scholarly minutia otherwise. it keeps your eyes on the prize.
Three Pillars of Zen: Great, succinct introduction to the Zen lineage and Zen practice. First book I ever read about Zen and I've been hooked since.
What The Buddha Taught: Nice, slim introduction to Buddhism. Guy knows his shit.
Most important thing though is just to meditate and practice mindfulness every second of every day.
>>7438674
Thanks bruv
>>7438647
>but the actual physical age of extant manuscripts
It is when the subtext presented to the reader is that the Pali Canon is authoritative and ancient, or even the most authentic canon.
>The extremely extensive accords between the Nikaya and Agama texts, as well as the internal evidence in the texts themselves, testifies to their antiquity and authenticity.
Many of these texts have been modified over time, or are later additions.
> but it is a conservatively preserved library of an Indian Buddhist school in its original language, and available in complete English translation.
But that isn't true, it ISN'T a preserved library of a specific school. Exactly because the core texts are borrowed from an entirely different school. With many of the texts redacted and many being later additions.
> You'd find that the core of the Buddha's teachings as presented in the Pali Canon remains totally intact.
Please don't present with certainty claims that are actually rather dubious. There is absolutely no consensus on that, with many a scholar finding such an assertion to be absurd.
>>7438666
You'll definitely want to read the Lotus Sutra, Pure Land sutras, Golden Light Sutra and the Mahavairocana Tantra, they're pretty much the foundation of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism.
>>7438665
There is an esoteric element to some Pure Land sects which does hold that the "pure land" is attainable this very life. But yes, generally speaking, save eclectic versions of Pure Land, they reject this life as a plausible opportunity for the soteriological goal.
>hey guys i want a solid book on buddhism
>you must learn the pali language and read sanskrit
lol wat
>>7438638
>I just had a thought in my head that Buddhism had at bottom a fairly simple philosophy that could be more or less understood in a 400 or so
Its core is actually simple.
1) You suffer
2) You suffer because you're attached, you cling
3) You can be free from it
4) Here's the way out
Every form of Buddhism shares these principles, but their differ in method and description of the state of freedom (Theravada says monastic discipline is the best; Vajrayana allows sexual passion to be used as method).
However, whether you're Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, the core method, the one you begin with and the one that brings you to the end, is mindfulness; and all true Buddhist, no matter what school they belong, will teach it.
There is no such thing as a beginners text to a spiritual system. Either you dive straight into the primary texts or you do something else.
>>7438707
And if you want to know how Buddhism developed, try Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins Of Yoga and Tantra.
The author proves that in the beginning Buddhism was about method rather than doctrine, and shows how the method developed until the thirteenth century.
>>7438707
Is there a good book or documentary that explains the differences between each school, and which texts are canon to who? I'd like to read some texts, but I'd like some context as well rather than reading them as just 'Buddhist' texts as opposed to 'Chan Texts' for example.
Also, is the Tipitaka canon to all schools or just Theraveda?
>>7438687
Ok, I'll concede every point but the last one. What is shared between the Samyutta Nikaya and the Samyukta Agama is, in my opinion, everything that matters. You can read the book I linked and come to your own conclusions.
Serious question, is there any modern sutras? I know esoteric sects continually produce new tantras secretly.
>>7438371
This is the most practical and crystalline book for anyone living in our century who wants to be able to profit from the teachings of the Buddha. It is a quite recent book, but is by far the best I have read.
>>7438672
You are really exaggerating.
Give some specific examples of major difficulty in translating key Buddhist concepts from Sanskrit to English.
>Plus, Sanskrit authors themselves liked to abuse their own language. For example, there are texts, especially of tantric variety, which can be either read as erotic manuals or as meditation guides. Without someone to explain in to you, you'll get lost.
That is the exception, not the norm. You only see that intentional style in tantrayana class texts. You are exaggerating quite a bit. Yes, some of these texts were written specifically to be ambiguous without pith instruction or extreme familiarity with the tradition. Also, some of these texts were written to be layered in meaning, with quadruple entendres. By and large, nothing extreme is lost in translation.
With a few years of study these texts are actually very transparent, and this whole "you'll get lost" thing is laughable and only applicable to those not familiar with the tradition and methodology used by these sects. The reason that style of writing was sufficient to keep the meaning hidden back then, was because the techniques were kept secret. In modern times, the bulk of the techniques are known to scholars, and clarify tremendously exactly what is being talked about.
No serious student would actually confuse the text as either an erotic manual or a meditation guide.
>>7438707
>Its core is actually simple.
The core you presented though isn't agreed on by all the traditions though.
For example:"2) You suffer because you're attached, you cling "
The majority of traditions assert that you experience unpleasantness and existential lack because of a fundamental ignorance of the true nature of things, with attachment and clinging to be a mere symptom of that rather than the root cause.
The rest you mentioned is oversimplified but sufficient for someone looking for a glossed over introduction of Buddhism.
>>7438725
>The author proves
Way overstated.
>was about method rather than doctrine
From the earliest council disputes and political issues with Early Buddhism, it is clear that doctrine played a very important role.
Its not what you're specifically asking for but depending on whether you're more interested in the superstructure - which is interesting - or the "stuff" of Buddhism itself, it might be useful to start with something secondary to the canon in order to get your bearings. I'd recommend D.T. Suzuki's Introduction to Zen Buddhism and his three volumes of essays. The primary focus of these is the Zen tradition but he talks a lot about the evolution of Buddhism and why there was a changing of the guard over the centuries - basically the general religious rule that over time mystic insight is "captured," petrifies, and becomes dogma.
Alone With Others: An Existential Approach to Buddhism by Stephen Batchelor is another book I'd also recommend.
I'm not knocking the canon at all, though people in Buddhism threads tend to take anything I say as a heretical Daoist false-flag.
>>7438735
I've read the book before, it is part of my obsessive library.
To me the fact that you think it is everything that matters isn't the same as claiming that the "core of Buddha's teaching is preserved" there. It is perfectly possible that Buddha mythicism is true.
Summary of thread: Don't bother it's too complex for filthy western gaijin
>>7438740
There is are cult or two that is rejected by the bulk of Buddhist traditions that still writes sutras. For example the "True Buddhist School".
However, most serious modern work is commentarial and/or derivative in nature. That includes the "new tantras" you speak of with few exception.
You also have revelations of texts, some being rather public, for example from some very popular atiyogatantrayana sects, but these are not "sutras". These are not commentaries or derivative, for example the revelations by Chogyal Namkahi Norbu, a very well respected Dzogchen master.
>>7438782
I think we are disagreeing on the meaning of words more than anything.
>>7438729
There are several tripitakas from different traditions. Several of which existed at the same time or likely predated Theravada.
Basically, tripitaka functions as a style for organizing a canon that is adhered to by several so called (in modern times) Nikayayana category of traditions.
Is Red Pine a good translator/commentator? I've read good things.
>>7438776
>D.T. Suzuki
Most of his work isn't accepted as serious scholarship anymore. He had a non-Buddhist mysticism thing going which coloured nearly all of his work on Buddhism.
>Stephen Batchelor
Generally garbage.
>>7438800
Fair enough.
>>7438809
Within the Zen community yes. Very much within the orthodoxy dogma.
Afterwhich I would seriously recommend you read some serious scholarship by Hakamaya Noriaki, Matsumoto Shiro, and John R. McRae
>>7438818
>D.T. Suzuki
I often forget the difference between him and Shunryu Suzuki. Which one had to constantly rebuild their sangha from scratch because as pupils got further into Buddhism they realised they were being taught a hilariously corrupt westernised concept?
>>7438841
That was Shunryu.
D.T. was the quasi-Fascist that bastardized core concepts of Buddhism to fit the hyper-nationalism thing going on in Japan at the time. Outside of that his scholarship was really poor, preferring his own fantasies to evidence. His best contributions were some mediocre translations.
Despite this you still have zennist neophytes that eschew scholarship in general yet hail Suzuki as the second coming. Those are the same people that prefer the flowery rhetoric of Watts to actually learning Zen.
>>7438866
Now I've got the find out where I read about Shunryu sending a handful of his students to a Alan Watts lecture and they came back asking if he was serious and Shunryu got furious at them, hilarious shit.
>>7437210
If you're American, just buy this book
>>7438876
my sides
>>7438898
Who needs Buddhism when you can do 'Murican feel-good 'buddhism'-lite
>>7437210
Read the pali canon. Most books that try to talk about buddhism do 1 of these 2 things:
Only concentrate on the meditation and ignore everything else, often even fixating on breathing meditation even though theres like 40 other kinds.
Fill 50% of the book with quotes from the pali canon, then add some very subjective commentary that may misinterpret the sutta.
>>7438646
>Buddhism is one of the least consistent religions
Nonsense, actually within a tradition there is often a great deal of internal consistency.
>in one passage the Buddha tells people to not drink alcohol and in another he's instructing monks on how to brew grape wine.
False. You are mixing up the texts of different traditions. The latter of which wasn't asserting the Buddha in a historical sense.
>>7439026
No, most books on Buddhism doesn't mention anything from the Pali Canon at all. There are more books on non-Theravada traditions.
Stop reading shitty introductory books written by lazy non-scholars.
>that may misinterpret the sutta
Most modern sects of Theravada are based on commentaries and interpret the suttas through those lenses, rather than taking the suttas on their own terms. Furthermore, several suttas were added later to the PC and themselves were heavily influenced by the commentaries, thus distorting the overall message of the PC. Most modern Theravada sects are among the most synthetic of all instances of Theravada historically.
Unless the student is going to read and meticulously study all the Pali Canon, its history, and so forth, they are bound to make some critical errors.
>>7438596
>>7438575
I hate to get postcolonial here, but the entire idea of "Hinduism" is a British fabrication of the 17th/18th century. It's simply a term of geopolitical expediency as the British really couldn't give two shits about the difference between Brahmanism, Shaivism, Vaishnavisim, etc.
Also the combined Buddhist canons Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan, while they certainly form the largest body of religious literature in the world, are most likely not larger than all other religious literatures combined.
>>7439064
>but the entire idea of "Hinduism" is a British fabrication of the 17th/18th century.
Sure, and the same goes for the term Buddhism. However, these terms exist now and still serve various functions. I have yet to find any argument calling for the complete elimination of terms "Buddhism" and "Hinduism" worth taking seriously.
>are most likely not larger
I don't know, it seems pretty plausible.
>>7439106
The case for Buddhism is actually quite different. As early as the 2nd century CE you already had the notion of 佛教/fojiao/Buddhism in China. As an early missionary religion stretching first west into Afghanistan and central Asia, then east/northeast into China and South Asia, finally north into Tibet, it has a long and shining reception history. People have had a term for "Buddhism" for more than 2,000 years.
Hinduism, on the other hand, as far as I know no one tried to concatenate the huge variety of religious practices south of the Indus river into one category until the British showed up. Not even the Mongols or the Muslims did that.
Regarding the size of the Buddhist canon vs. other "religious literatures," the terminology is so nebulous as to befit any interpretation you want. What constitutes a religious literature? We don't want to ask that question here.
>>7438818
I suspect you're right about Batchelor, he wrote a book called "Confessions of A Buddhist Athiest." Alone With Others was spot on, though.
Honestly, you're right about Suzuki but I think you're missing the mark on the whole. I suppose my "Buddhism" is really non-Buddhism in that I don't fetishize the superstructure that was erected in the Buddha's wake and try more to get at what he got at. I don't care for any complex system of thought, its all just ornamentation and vanity; and the key issue isn't a matter of intellection to me. The fact that you mention "serious scholarship," baffles me and I don't know how to respond completely and cogently because its such a ludicrous thing to bring up in my mind. As for mysticism, borrowing from an anon who said it better than I can, "All philosophy is centered around mysticism - mysticism precedes philosophy, and the depth of any philosophy is ontology."
I will share with you something I read recently that has struck me as absolutely paramount, "Not to understand is profound; to understand is shallow. Not to understand is to be on the inside; to understand is to be on the outside."
>>7439128
Sorry, but that is all post hoc. I have seen the assertions concerning fojiao, and though I am not an expert on east-asian traditions, I know that this assertion is rejected by many die-hard nerds of the subject.
There is no word in Pali or Tibetan that translates to Buddhism. From the literature itself it is clear that the concept of religious Buddhism or cultural Buddhism simply doesn't exist as we have it now.
The term was invented by the British in the 19th century.
I bought The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching by Tich Nhat Hanh earlier this year, but haven't read it yet. Is it a good starting point?
>>7439180
>try more to get at what he got at
We really have no idea what he got at. Buddha mythicism is entirely plausible.
>I suppose my "Buddhism" is really non-Buddhism in that I don't fetishize the superstructure
A huge part of that superstructure stemmed from early Mahayana's serious admission that the sangha as a whole had no real connection to the historical Buddha. No direct teachings or texts with reliable authority on what he said.
As such they admitted that they had to rely on reason and inter-subjectively determinable and agreeable methods in order to "get at" what Buddhahood is and is not. Yes of course as time went on the various sects experienced cycles of being more topical then more critical, but I don't see your "trying to get more at what he got at" to be really different than the superstructure you seem to be looking down on.
"its all just ornamentation and vanity; "
Saying ALL JUST to me is indicative of a severely superficial understanding imo.
"As for mysticism,"
You entirely miss the point, which in part was my fault for not being clear enough. It wasn't some influence by mysticism in general, but rather he ascribed to and was heavily influenced by particular belief systems and models which distorted his work greatly. It wasn't like he was working while in some great gnosis, rather he had incorporated an intellectual model about a particular brand of mysticism, and allowed that bias to distort his work.
" I don't know how to respond completely and cogently because its such a ludicrous thing to bring up in my mind. "
You're a goofy motherfucker.
"Not to understand is profound; to understand is shallow. Not to understand is to be on the inside; to understand is to be on the outside."
This deepity shit is far too topical for me and against the grain of the critical spirit I personally prefer to attribute to the Buddha character and the traditions I find to be most rigorous and worthy of study.
>>7439213
I think many Buddhists would say yes. Just remember, grain of salt and when you finish you still are at the starting point.
>>7439282
>We really have no idea what he got at. Buddha mythicism is entirely plausible.
Sure enough, and I don't mean to imply anything contingent on any supposed historical buddha
>As such they admitted that they had to rely on reason and inter-subjectively determinable and agreeable methods in order to "get at" what Buddhahood is and is not. Yes of course as time went on the various sects experienced cycles of being more topical then more critical, but I don't see your "trying to get more at what he got at" to be really different than the superstructure you seem to be looking down on.
The superstructure is invaluable practically speaking, I didn't mean otherwise, just that simply theorizing and postulating is not "getting at" what is to be got at, not completely. Though I know the two, theorizing and practice - and it could be questioned how well the line between the two is defined or whether there is a real difference at all - aren't mutually exclusive maybe I implied it. But I do maintain that there is a degree of difference, that theorizing is a function of the intellect while practice is a function, or rather mode, of being-in-the-world. The intellect functions dualistically - there is that which knows and that which is known, the perceiver and perceived - and is therefore rooted in ego, identity, and selfhood. Being-in-the-world is non-dualistic, is rooted in Anatman, and is the the way by "getting at what the buddha got at" of which I spoke.
"Not to understand is profound(to understand without understanding, to understand by way of being-in-the-world); to understand is shallow(to understand by understanding, to understand by way of the intellect). Not to understand is to be on the inside(anatman); to understand is to be on the outside.(ego, selfhood, identity)"
>>7439534
> just that simply theorizing and postulating is not "getting at" what is to be got at, not completely
You surely must know that this is consistently recognized in every Buddhist tradition. It is considered a basic truism, and something that only complete fools don't grasp.
>and it could be questioned how well the line between the two is defined
Here it depends somewhat on what exactly you mean by theorizing. In general though the line between the two is defined somewhat differently depending on the tradition, in accordance with what they emphasize in their overall methodology.
>The intellect functions dualistically - there is that which knows and that which is known, the perceiver and perceived - and is therefore rooted in ego, identity, and selfhood.
I actually don't agree that the intellect necessarily functions in the dualistic manner you speak of, being necessarily rooted in ego, selfhood and so forth.
Rather, the propensity for thought-structure hypostatization can be made to cease, which consolidates the intellect functioning to being-in-the-world completely. As such it is no longer typically dualistic. Furthermore, before such a complete consolidation, I don't agree that selfhood is necessarily rooted in the operation of the intellect.
Sometimes atiyogatantrayana sects speak of "neither dual nor non-dual" in recognition that the dichotomy sometimes becomes a rumination trap and doesn't adequately relay the total transcendence of non-duality.
This difference between us is a faint shadow of a much larger debate between traditions regarding to what degree duality is overcome, whether it persists in any regard yet seen through as "mere" dream, or whether it completely dissolves leaving a maddening degree of total non-duality.
>>7439650
>You surely must know that this is consistently recognized in every Buddhist tradition. It is considered a basic truism, and something that only complete fools don't grasp.
Sure, I wasn't sure where you were coming from though, so it helps to articulate the most basic aspects as well as the more refined to make sure we understand each other.
As for the rest, it makes me think. I've yet to fully develop some of these nuances that are brought into question so I'll wonder out loud very roughly.
Something that strikes me as central is the idea of unconditioned being. Any number of specific ways of being-in-the-world are restrictive in the sense of excluding other ways of being; this is selfhood and is experience construed from the vantage of the particular. Buddhahood being the unconditioned being-in-the-world is unrestrictive; this is no-self and is experience construed from the vantage of the unity. I'm not going Alan Watts on you and saying you become the cosmos, but that in this way of being "the central focus... is deference in the establishment and preservation of relationships." (Dao De Jing: A Philosophical Translation). A way, therefore, that was neither dual nor non-dual would be one which allowed you to move freely taking on roles, abandoning them, assuming airs as you like, while contradictorily remaining in the knowledge of no-self.
The Zen masters I've read about often seem to have a characteristic whimsy about them
>>7439534
>>7440201
>"Not to understand is profound(to understand without understanding, to understand by way of being-in-the-world); to understand is shallow(to understand by understanding, to understand by way of the intellect). Not to understand is to be on the inside(anatman); to understand is to be on the outside.(ego, selfhood, identity)"
I forgot to mention here, that I understood what you were getting at, but I don't see this deepity style as having much use beyond the poetic.
Chinese for example, it is great for poetry, but really not well suited for detailed logical explanations, while English is much better suited for that. I just don't see the point of importing this style which often was far more necessary due to the natural constraints of the language, when English doesn't have those constraints. So, it just seems unnecessarily vague in English when we have the luxury of far more straightforward and clear explanations.
It also seems that some, not all of course, uses of this style in English is to be intentionally vague, and often it seems because the author doesn't have a clear idea of what they are talking about. Not necessarily saying that is the case here with you, but it isn't exactly rare. I think this is another reason why it should be shunned in favor of clear and straightforward description.
As to the other comment:
>being-in-the-world
To note, I was specifically using this phrase to denote a rather unrestrictive "being-in-the-world".
As for the rest I agree with some of it. There is a general background theme running through your words which appears to be like or influenced by East-Asian traditions. I respect these traditions but often am extremely critical of them for a variety of reasons.
I am more inclined towards primarily Indian and Indo-Tibetan traditions, as well as aspects of some Thai traditions.
http://maartens.home.xs4all.nl/philosophy/Dictionary/books/books%20-%20special.htm
>>7438484
BaZINga!
Buddism: A Very Short Introduction
by Damien Keown
Buddism, the Religon of No Religion, Alan Watts
If you want something for a gift:
Buddhist Inspiration by Tom Lowenstein
Ignore every post on this thread except this one:
Original Buddhist Sources by Carl Olson.
Only in paperback, sorry.
>>7441635
sup Carl
>>7441590
>Buddism, the Religon of No Religion, Alan Watts
JUST
>>7441635
Eh that book is okay. It does an okay job with Pure Land and some of the other Mahayana entries, but it really blunders Theravada and Tantric texts.
>>7441667
Complete garbage. OP asked for stuff about Buddhism not "Watts' personal perennial philosophy"
>>7441753
To be fair, it wasn't even "his", It was effectively a highly bastardized Shaivism and New Age popular in 60's, entirely unoriginal.
>>7441773
You're right, my statement gave him way too much undue credit.
just get dhammapada.
Watts, like Huxley weren't very initiated; they had a very limited understanding of their respected denomination and they constantly soured their relationships with authorized teachers because they preached borderline heresy.
Widely regarded as one of the best introductory texts.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf
>>7441813
By one tradition or two maybe. That text relays some legend and dogma, then presents a narrow doctrine according to one tradition. It doesn't try to critically evaluate what the Buddha may or may not have actually taught. The book doesn't make it clear that the author is relaying one tradition's legend narrative of the Buddha, which others disagree with. It also misleads the reader into thinking they are getting a relatively objective account of the "Buddha's teachings", rather than the likely fabricated doctrines of a politically ambitious tradition generations after the Buddha's death.
There were traditions that were either contemporary with or pre-dated this tradition that fundamentally disagree with critical aspects of these doctrines, which calls into question whether the Buddha taught any of this. Only about a third of scholars think we can reliably discern any of a historical Buddha's teachings, and which ones they disagree over. That is far from a consensus.
>>7441845
>That is far from a consensus.
See: The Nirvana Sutra. This one really fucks with Buddhologists.
>>7437210
===IMPORTANT BOOKS===
>insisting on the setting the samatha first, this book recast the use of the mindfulness through the three angas
[swift introduction to the various sources PLUS good introduction to ''mindfulness'']
A History of Mindfulness Bhikkhu Sujato.pdf
http://santifm.org/santipada/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/A_History_of_Mindfulness_Bhikkhu_Sujato.pdf
Bikkhu analayo:
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/en/personen/analayo.html
>Bhikkhu Anālayo is a Buddhist monk (bhikkhu), scholar and meditation teacher. He was born in Germany in 1962, and ‘went forth’ in 1995 in Sri Lanka. He is best known for his comparative studies of early Buddhist texts as preserved by the various early Buddhist traditions.Bhikkhu Anālayo is a Buddhist monk (bhikkhu), scholar and meditation teacher. He was born in Germany in 1962, and ‘went forth’ in 1995 in Sri Lanka. He is best known for his comparative studies of early Buddhist texts as preserved by the various early Buddhist traditions.
>the direct path to nirvana via the famous satipatthana sutta exposed by a theravadan
Anãlayo satipatthana direct path analayo free-distribution-copy2.pdf
https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/satipatthana_direct-path_analayo_free-distribution-copy2.pdf
plus analayo's non-free book which continues satipatthana_direct-path_analayo
Perspectives on Satipatthana
>My first book, Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization, came out of a PhD I did in Sri Lanka. It was the product of my academic study of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, the practical experience I had gained in meditation, and what I had read about the experience of other meditators and teachers – I tried to bring all that together to come to a better understanding of the text itself.
>At that time I was working on the Pali sources of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta because the Buddha’s teachings were transmitted orally from India to Sri Lanka and then eventually written down in Pali, which is fairly similar to the original language or languages that the Buddha would have spoken. However, the transmission of the Buddha’s teachings also went in other directions, and we have versions of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta in Chinese and Tibetan. So after completing my PhD I learnt Chinese and Tibetan so that I could engage in a comparative study of parallel textual lineages, and this is the focus of my new book, Perspectives on Satipaṭṭhāna.
>>7441893
>Although this was, at the outset, mainly an academic enterprise, what I discovered really changed the focus of my practice. When I took out the exercises that were not common to all three versions of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, I was left with a vision of mindfulness meditation that was very different to anything I would have expected. Contemplation of the body, which is the first of the four satipaṭṭhānas, for example, is usually practised in the form of the mindfulness of breathing and being mindful of bodily postures, but these exercises are not found in all versions. What I found in all three versions were the exercises that most of us do not like to do: seeing the body as made out of anatomical parts and thus as something that it is not beautiful, as something that is made up of elements and thus does not belong to me, and the cemetery contemplations – looking at a corpse that is decaying.
>So then I understood: body contemplation is not so much about using the body to be mindful. It is rather predominantly about using mindfulness to understand the nature of the body. As a result of these practices one will become more mindful of the body, but the main thrust is much more challenging. The focus is on insight – understanding the body in a completely different way from how it is normally perceived.
>Normally we look at the body and see it as ‘me’, but these texts are asking us to take that apart and see that actually we are made up of earth, water, fire and wind, of hardness, fluidity and wetness, temperature and motion. They are asking us to directly confront our own mortality – to contemplate the most threatening thing for us: death.
>I found a similar pattern when I looked at the last satipaṭṭhāna, which is contemplation of dharmas. The practices that were common to all three versions were those that focused on overcoming the hindrances and cultivating the awakening factors. The emphasis is not so much on reflecting on the teachings, the Dharma, but really on putting them into practice, really going for awakening. As a result of this discovery I have developed a new approach to the practice of satipaṭṭhāna which I have found to be very powerful, and this would never have happened if I had not done the academic groundwork first.
>BA: I think that balance is an absolutely central aspect of mindfulness practice. If you look at the Awakening Factors, the first one is mindfulness and the last one is usually translated as ‘equanimity’, but in my opinion it would be better to understand it as balance or equipoise. To be balanced means to be mindful and open to the present moment, to be free from desire and aversion, and this is what the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta continually comes back to.
>>7441899
>This site is dedicated to the teachings of Venerable Ayya Khema (1923-1997), a Theravada Buddhist nun ordained in Sri Lanka . Her teachings (which were prolific) describe simple and effective meditation methods for development of calm and insight, for expanding feelings of loving-kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity towards others, and for overcoming obstacles to practice. She also gives detailed and lucid instructions for the meditative absorptions (jhanas) which provide access to higher states of consciousness, the way the Buddha himself practiced.
http://ayyakhematalks.org/
>an approach focused more on vipassana
In This Very Life, The Liberation Teachings of the Buddha, Sayādaw U Pandita (1992), (Serialised with the Sayādaw’s Express Permission)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pandita/index.htm
>an exposition of the flaws of ''pure vipassana meditation'' which focuses more on loving-kindness meditation
The Anapanasati Sutta --A Practical Guide to Midfulness of Breathing and Tranquil Wisdom Meditation by Ven. U Vimalaramsi
http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/clubs/buddhism/vimalaramsi/main.html
Talks given by Bhante Vimalaramsi at at the Easter Retreat in San Juan Bautista April 2014.
MN 2 All the Taints - Sabbāsava Sutta - Easter Retreat 1 - Day 2 17-Apr-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygzy_SU5n-k&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix&index=2
MN 111 One by One as They Occurred - Anupada Sutta Easter Retreat 1 - Day 3 - 18-Apr-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLZx-ZVXGsY&index=3&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
MN 18 The Honeyball - Madhupiṇḍika Suta - Easter Retreat 1 - Day 4 - 19-Apr-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbE3hSgC3WA&index=4&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
MN 38 The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving - ER1 Day 5 20-Apr 20, 2014
by Bhante Vimalaramsi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i37cB5yeYlk&index=5&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
MN 148 The Six Sets of Six - Chachakka Sutta - Easter Retreat 1 - Day 6 - 21-Apr-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiCtt3VLy9E&index=6&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
MN 44 The Shorter Series of Questions and Answers - Cūḷavedalla Sutta ER1 Day 7 22-Apr 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8_N6FAitbg&index=7&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
MN 43 The Greater Series of Questions and Answers - Mahāvedalla Sutta Day 8 23-Apr-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8JUk95JpCY&index=8&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
MN 21 The Simile of the Saw - Kakacūpama Sutta - Easter Retreat 1 - Day 9 25-Apr-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THyhazOcAkY&index=9&list=PL3sECDBQqxlEIZKN4bYGrHo_jSpgOfjix
>>7441903
>collection of sermons on Nibbana
>This penetrative study[5] shed new light on the early Buddhist views on the psychology of perception,[6] the conceptualizing process and its transcending.[7]
Katukurunde Nanananda Thera, Nibbana - the mind stilled
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/eng/gen.php?gp=books&cat=ms&p=1
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/eng/gen.php?gp=sermons&cat=nn&p=1
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/ms/html/Mind Stilled.htm
a short video on the jhanas
>[YouTube] What is Jhana? By Ven. Henepola Gunaratana Nayaka Maha Thera(Bhante G) (embed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lv0PFLZ12o
>[YouTube] Bhante Gunaratana (1) What is samatha-vipassana? Part 1: samatha (embed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaFOjJtEd2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESQOi9djyaA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41NpmB2le3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=div3NnAIoYU
and all the others videos from this series
>The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation by Henepola Gunaratana
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html#ch1.3
>Mindfulness in plain English, Bhante Henepola Gunaratana.
http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf2/Mindfulness%20in%20Plain%20English%20Book%20Preview.pdf
>>7441880
I like the Nirvana Sutra quite much, but I don't agree that it "really fucks" with the Buddhologists.
I guess you could argue it did to a subset of scholars at one time, before we really understood the origin of the sutra or the fact that there are competing streams of thought regarding the tathagatagharba concept (that are widely different), and initially scholars failed to realize this. These aren't the days of Page having to argue with a few scholars that were out of their area of expertise. Same goes with the all-creating king text.
What bothers me most is how so many non-scholar Buddhists blatantly misunderstand the text and don't comb through it carefully, so they spread nonsense about what the text is saying.
>>7441893
>>7441899
>>7441903
>>7441907
Hit and miss with this list imo. I think Sujato's A Swift Pair Of Messengers should be read first for someone just getting their feet wet, then a History of Mindfulness. If only one were to be read, I think the former over the latter.
I applaud you for listing criticisms of the highly synthetic "insight-only" stuff that relies on among the most modified and least authentic translations, and further privileges fringe cases and commentaries over the general thrust of the suttas.
> Sayādaw U Pandita
>Bhante Henepola Gunaratana
Massively overrated imo, both way too reliant on unjustified appeals to the commentaries over the suttas themselves.
>The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation by Henepola Gunaratana
I think his work, like so much of the work on Jhanas is seriously flawed past the second Jhana. I think Gombrich and Wynne's criticism of how Jhanas are commonly understood are right on the money, their work on this is really unparalleled and extremely important, as it has massive implications as to how most Buddhists are not practicing Jhana (especially past the second Jhana) as the historical Buddha seemed to intend, but rather are practicing it like the Brahmins the Buddha critiqued.
>>7441798
>dhammapada
A later addition and a poor starting point.
What one can learn from this thread: Whatever you want to read is wrong.
>>7442275
I think the takeaway is that 1. many starting points are not ideal and can be really misleading and 2. you have to read quite a lot of different materials with a grain of salt, and only then will you begin to have a real introduction to this massive complex of traditions.
>>7442275
he thinks that communication exists and that written languages are appropriate means of communication
>>7442324
>Hasn't read enough continental philosophy to know that the written/spoken dichotomy is a lie.
>>7438674
I second "What The Buddha Taught".
>>7442652
not the dude you responded to are you able to elaborate what parts of "What the Buddha Taught" are in contention by scholars. As far as I could tell it did a good job of explaining the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path as well as the doctrine or Buddhist idea of no-soul/non-existence of self. Are there major differences between how he presents them in the book and how other groups think about it? Just asking because all of the other stuff I had heard of read about Buddhism seems to align with it.
>>7442664
*responded to, but are you able
>>7442664
To start, the narrative legend is rather different depending on the tradition.
The entire thing is in contention by critical scholars because of the total lack of historical evidence, which is why Buddha mythicism is plausible. Keep in mind that a major school of thought regarding historical methodology reverses the burden of proof in some respect and assumes the historical existence of a character until proven otherwise. While in general, there is a growing criticism of this in favor of a more skeptical and agnostic approach.
Back to the differences in legend per tradition, the differences are rather significant, both in terms of what the Buddha did during his life, what he taught, the states he experienced that led up to his Buddhahood, whether he was even enlightened prior to his birth and was putting on and act (via a long bodhisattva path), and whether he the primordial Buddha incarnated and categorically different than sentient beings.
>Are there major differences between how he presents them in the book and how other groups think about it?
Yes, the traditions (roughly 18 or so) that were either contemporaneous or pre-dating Theravada didn't merely disagree on how to interpret the Buddha's words, but fundamentally disagreed as to what the Buddha said to begin with. This includes all sorts of critical issues whether the minds of sentient beings are originally pure, to whether the Buddha emphasized a bodhisattva path to the monks, to whether arahantship is full enlightenment, to whether or not meditation could lead you to enlightenment at all (rather than merit accumulation and wisdom, meditation being superfluous). We simply don't have corroborating evidence that the 4 arahant truths and the 8-fold path existed in or were privileged in all of these traditions, and so there is room for reasonable doubt as to how early these doctrines are.
This isn't even getting into the issue of dating the earliest manuscripts and our complete lack of early manuscripts from explicitly the Pali Canon (a handful of pages from the 15th century and the bulk coming from the 18th century, all saving a badly damaged scrap of paper dated to 9th century Nepal). ...Or what seems to be the wild political ambitions of the Pali School (Theravada) during the period that we suspect the earliest Pali Canon was written.
Furthermore the denigration and near total collapse of Theravada for over a thousand years until the relatively recent resurgence due to Europeans rediscovering the PC in the mid-1800s complicated the matter significantly. This coupled with massive funds being directed by several countries as a way to "reclaim" an ancient cultural identity as a push back to what was seen as the spread of "western christianity", he have an embrace of a rather synthetic version of the Pali Canon, with little to no distinction between the early reconstructed versions and the highly modified version with significant numbers of texts being added much later.
>>7442717
TL;DR only a third of scholars think any texts can be reliably attributed as the authentic teachings of some historical figure, and which texts exactly is wildly debated.
This is significantly less than a consensus and demonstrates that we have no certainty as to what the Buddha taught (as such even the title of the book is very misleading to naive readers), if this character even existed, and if he did what he did during his life. It really could be that this character is mythical and was imported from the oddly similar contemplative hero archetype already prevalent in Jainism and so forth, with some of these supposed figures having an extraordinarily similar story to the later Buddha narrative. -Then this mythical character was eventually placed into history, which is not an uncommon phenomena.
Who knows.
>>7442664
As an aside, over quite some time, some of these differences fell into obscurity as various traditions died out. And though you did have the occasional denouncement of another tradition or major thinker as virtually a heretic ("an agent of Mara"), very often another strategy was employed across many different countries and traditions to reconcile the glaring differences between the sects. This was to include all other traditions as part of the glory of the dharma through some organizational sub-structure, where each had a contribution through skill-means, where each would best serve different types of individuals with different capacities. This seemed to be a way to retain the validity of the dharma (and of course primarily one's own tradition) despite the growing recognition of entirely different, even mutually exclusive views across a variety of traditions.
Of course then, often each individual tradition framed this in a way where they themselves were the "truest" or for the most advanced individuals, but this didn't always last as some traditions consolidated and heavily influenced one another, taking the prior claims of superiority of one tradition as themselves skillful means in favor of the tradition then accepted as the the more advanced.
This leads to a very interesting rhetoric and relationship between many of the traditions, where they can actively vouch for the validity of another tradition's doctrine and narrative, even if they don't themselves follow it or hold views that directly contradict it, considering it for individuals of lower capacity. By lower capacity, some traditions actually considered this to mean individuals of lessor faculties/natural abilities, while others took this to mean solely differences in personal diligence in pursuit of a path.
I personally find this pretty interesting, as the religion on the whole often avoided the "not a true Buddhist" rhetoric sometimes observed more regularly in some other major religions. Historically likely the most common offenders were specifically Japanese Zen sects, with certain Theravada sects coming in second second, but overtime this died down down considerably, even more so in the last few decades to now.
Sorry for the geek-out if you didn't find this interesting, not trying to waste your time brah, but it does play a part in why over time certain narratives and doctrines fell away, and why there are some imported doctrinal references, as well as lip-service to harmonization, across various traditions, despite often the particulars of said import being of no consequence to that particular tradition and/or being directly at odds with it.
Just read the stuff on wikipedia and take up meditation.
The good shit, not the 'just be mindful bro ;)'
At the end of the day it's about direct experience and not asian niggers that died a thousand years ago arguing about bullshit.
>>7443012
But even the "good shit" common to western Buddhists often ignores huge swaths of different approaches.
That aside, there is a reason why some traditions very seriously asserted that trying to meditate without serious study beforehand was like trying to climb a mountain with no hands. Because often the soteriological goal and how to get there is a lot more nuanced than hipster Buddhists like to present.
Put another way, there is a reason why the pragmatic dharma movement is an abject failure with virtually no noteworthy results.
Or how it is failing to produce the same degree of measurable changes that the strict traditions do, even among the self-styled Western "experts" of advanced practices that claim to have spent significant periods of time practicing.
>>7437210
it depends on what you want: if you want to dwell in your sixth sense that is the intellect, if you still have faith in abstractions, beginning with natural languages, to acquire knowledge, then the books must the read in original language since translation are never good. [translator = betrayer]
[think of mindfulness supposedly translating sati, or feelings for vedana] and other ridiculous attempts by people having faith in languages, to the point to manufacture a bijection between two languages [and not even considering etymology like any american], in order to communicate ideas and change people in reading books.
if you want to practice, for buddhism, then reading the suttas beforehand will not bring you anything, especially in poor translation [any translation with sati=mindfulness can be dismissed], especially if you remain in a doctrine, typically mundane hedonism, opposite to the one advocated by the books.
=>practice first, then read a bit, then practice more.
If you must read anything, take several translations and never have faith in any one.
Is Tich Nhat Hanh worth while? I see his books everywhere
I dunno if anyone else mentioned it, but Shobogenzo by Dogen Zenji.
>>7444915
>then the books must the read in original language
Nonsense.
>[think of mindfulness supposedly translating sati, or feelings for vedana]
All you demonstrate here is what others have pointed out before, that one should eventually look to understand the native terms of key concepts, that doesn't require you master another language or read the entirety of the text in the native tongue. You can seriously expect people to learn Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Korean, and so forth.
By merely learning a language and not becoming naturalized in it, truly mastering it, one would fail tremendously in most cases going through the texts. Often the texts use key words in very specific and strange ways. Furthermore, often there are specific chronological stages to Buddhist lingo, or the language itself (Tibetan for example went through 4-6 major stages since the beginning of Indo-Tibetan Buddhist texts), which can effect the structure of the text and the usage of words significantly.
Most serious translations in modern times are done in conjunction with Buddhologists and/or Buddhist scholar-monks which consistently produce a better product than some wannabe "Buddhist" neophyte bumbling through a language they barely understand.
>if you want to practice, for buddhism, then reading the suttas beforehand will not bring you anything
Completely absurd.
>practice first, then read a bit, then practice more
Practice what exactly? Without some study one doesn't understand the goal, how to get there, or how to properly practice.
>>7445001
Because he affirms laypeople and implicitly comforts their contemplative failures, often providing a Buddhism-lite so people can relax when they can't convert to a serious monastic life and practice.
He encouraged people not to convert from Christianity because "it will bring them the same benefit", but really he means that the Western lifestyle mostly isn't compatible with the actual practices of Buddhism so the practical benefit of conversion is minimal.
So for someone with a casual interest in Buddhism, rather than serious Buddhist practice and/or scholarship, his books are just fine.
>>7445004
What a controversial recommendation. Surprised you think that is a good starting place.
>>7445331
My mother's side of the family is Japanese, and I grew up in Hawaii, so I was raised a Jodou Shinshu Buddhist and went to temple and Dharma School.
It's not the best starting point if you haven't read the basics, but Dogen's works are a good analysis of the Dharma. He's a bit like Japan's Martin Luther in the way he tried to preach to the common man and break away from esotericism.
>>7446337
>but Dogen's works are a good analysis of the Dharma
That is debated heavily in the Zen and scholarly communities. There are some who argue, very persuasively imo, that Dogen changed many of his views later in life, explaining the apparent discrepancy between his early and later works.
His early works are really at odds with the early Indian Buddhism and so directly at odds with mainstream Buddhism, the roots of Buddhism.
It wasn't until his later works does he seem to push a more traditional orthodox model, that compared to the his East-Asian contemporaries, made him see among the most moderate of East-Asian Buddhists of his time (again this regards his later work).
As an aside, there are some critical issues regarding how the lineages following him have been maintained and how it interprets his work (which in turn influences how his work is received elsewhere). A great example being how the Soto sect eventually embraced Kishizawa's "spiritual source", despite it being structurally identical to what Dogen called "the ocean of true being" which he singled out as the view of the heretic Senika. In short giving a heretical position precedence over the warnings of their progenitor.
Back to the issue, keep in mind there are portions of the Zen and scholarly community that thinks that Dogen fabricated his credentials and relationship to the Chinese monastery he claims conferred authority to him. Going as far as to forge documents. There actually is a case to be made that isn't easily dismissed.
If you are interested in an introduction to some of these issues, I recommend you read "Pruning The Bodhi Tree, The Storm Over Critical Buddhism", it is really excellent.
TL;DR I am not entirely convinced that most of Dogen's work is a good analysis of the dharma, much of it is topical rather than reflecting the critical spirit of Siddartha's Buddhism. It better reflects the synthetic East-Asian recreation of Buddhism in its own image (unlike some other traditions elsewhere that managed to escape this topical trap, like some Indo-Tibetan Madhyamaka sects), which imported lots of pre-Buddhist folk concepts which they explained in buddhistic language (in some cases radically inverting key Buddhist concepts and as a result directly contradicting some of the earliest Buddhist teachings, the ones that have the best chance at being authentic to what a historical Buddha taught).
None of this is to say he isn't worth reading. He really is, just not as a starting point imo.
>>7446423
>That is debated heavily in the Zen and scholarly communities
And it rightfully should be. But Dogen's works are as much protest as they are teachings.
>early Indian Buddhism and so directly at odds with mainstream Buddhism
Theravada you mean? Mahayana and Eastern Pure Land Buddhism is quite different as a whole, as much as modern Christianity is from its Jewish roots.
>Back to the issue, keep in mind there are portions of the Zen and scholarly community that thinks that Dogen fabricated his credentials and relationship to the Chinese monastery he claims conferred authority to him. Going as far as to forge documents. There actually is a case to be made that isn't easily dismissed.
I'm not really quite sure to make of this. While it is true that there are many legends surrounding his life, he did go to China. Now, becoming a highly esteemed monk immediately during a time when Japan still paid homage to the Imperial Court does seem implausible.
>It better reflects the synthetic East-Asian recreation of Buddhism in its own image
Again, his works were as much criticism as they were analysis. Like you said, I wouldn't say it's a good starting point, but I think it's essential if you're a follower of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism like I am.
>>7446476
>But Dogen's works are as much protest as they are teachings
So goes the cultural narrative, hard to say for sure.
>Theravada you mean?
In part, to be exact I mean the 20 odd traditions that make up early Buddhism, that includes Theravada, many of these traditions predating it.
>Mahayana and Eastern Pure Land Buddhism is quite different as a whole
I agree as far as Pure Land which arose out of a blend of innovation and pre-Buddhist folk beliefs, but in regards to the core aspects of common Mahayana I have to disagree. You find significant overlap between Mahayana and many of the early traditions, since Mahayana gradually emerged from a protest by several of the early traditions against the Pali School (early Theravada)'s political ambitions and its willingness to explicitly add to and modify some of the few elements of the doctrine that nearly all the traditions agreed on initially. M. Tissa writes about how after getting authority from King Ashoka to head the second council he specifically barred other monks from joining that didn't share his particular views.
So for example you have some some of the early traditions that emphasize the bodhisattva path as superior and plausible for the students of Buddha to engage in, that talk about the supermundane aspect of the Buddha, that assert that there were other contemporary Buddhas from other world-systems, that the key to Buddhahood was merit accumulation and great wisdom rather than meditation, the original purity of the minds of sentient beings, and so forth. Several and in some cases all of these views can be found in varying Mahayana traditions. So by and large Mahayana isn't really so different.
>he did go to China
Whether he went to China or not is not usually the point of contention. The contentious bit is what happened while he was there. It is possible Dogen fabricated important parts of the story. Who knows maybe he was more of a Buddhist autodidact than someone with the formal monastic credentials he claimed. This has led some to embrace him in particular even more so, and others to completely excise him from the family of Zen masters, considering him to be a fraud. What is for sure is that there is a lot more clarity concerning historical Dogen than the air of bullshit that surrounds the Bodhidharma character, who may be entirely mythical.
>but I think it's essential if you're a follower of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism
Totally fair point.
>>7446584
>Bodhidharma
That reminds me, I really have to start reading up on Chinese Buddhism.
It was quite nice talking to you, anon. Read up on Tachikawa-ryu as well.
>>7446626
Likewise.
I do need to read up more on Tachikawa-ryu, as I am a Shingon dilettante, only surpassed by my glaring ignorance of the ins and outs of most Korean sects. I am considering going full time into Buddhist scholarship emphasizing Early Buddhism and Indo-Tibetan traditions, but I would like to have comprehensive general knowledge of other traditions for maximum geekery.
>>7446626
>I really have to start reading up on Chinese Buddhism
By the way, John R. McRae's two books are an excellent place to begin a serious investigation into Chinese Buddhism.
Take care.
>>7438321
>Bodhi's work in that book is really controversial and not well accepted in the buddhological community (by scholars).
Source?
>He looks at the suttas through the lens of his preferred commentarial tradition, without making that clear to the reader, rather than taking the suttas on their own terms.
The notes always mention the commentary's point of view though. You're free to disregard them, Bodhi himself discards some commentary explanations.
>Furthermore he makes really unjustified claims about the Buddha's life which have no basis in evidence whatsoever,
Such as?
Did you actually read any complete biographies of the Buddha?
>Exactly because the core texts are borrowed from an entirely different school. With many of the texts redacted and many being later additions.
This is a pretty damn funny reading of history you have there.
Scholars' problems aside, it remains a fact that this book is actually a very good introduction to fundamental Buddhist teachings.
>>7442054
>A huge part of that superstructure stemmed from early Mahayana's serious admission that the sangha as a whole had no real connection to the historical Buddha. No direct teachings or texts with reliable authority on what he said.
Where and when did "Mahayana" admit this?
>>7437210
When I first started to read about dhyana meditation, the very first thing I wanted to know about was: "What did it feel like when one had accessed a dhyana state." Because I knew that if I could answer that question, then I would be able to gain access to it AT WILL. I just needed to KNOW (from direct experience) what they were talking about. Then I could figure out how to get there.
>
>Oddly enough, one of the best clues as to what this state was like came from reading the Mahasaccaka Sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya (MN 36). It told about the occasion when Gotama himself first realized that the dhyana state might be a pathway to enlightenment. But it also gave me a clue as to how that state was materialized, and just exactly what it was! An extract from that passage follows below:
>
>31. "I considered: 'I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhana, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.[389] Could that be the path to enlightenment?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to enlightenment.'
>32. "I thought: 'Why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states?' I thought: 'I am not afraid of that pleasure since it has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states.'[390]
>
>>7447915
>Footnotes
>389. MA: During the Bodhisatta's boyhood as a prince, on one occasion his father led a ceremonial ploughing at a traditional festival of the Sakyans. The prince was brought to the festival and a place was prepared for him under a rose-apple tree. When his attendants left him to watch the ploughing ceremony, the prince, finding himself all alone, spontaneously sat up in the meditation posture and attained the first jhana through mindfulness of breathing.
>
>390. This passage marks a change in the Bodhisatta's evaluation of pleasure;now it is no longer regarded as something to be feared and banished by the practice of austerities, but, when born of seclusion and detachment, is seen as a valuable accompaniment of the higher stages along the path to enlightenment. See MN 139.9 on the twofold division of pleasure.
>
>I recalled experiences from my childhood when I experienced a pleasant sensation in my head when I would swing on those leather saddle swings in a park that allowed you a nice long back swing and a long forward swing. It gave the sensation of being able to fly through the air. There were other instances where I recalled just calmly watching something (some peaceful event or other, could be just about anything) which I became absorbed in and a tingling sensation would arise inside the top of my head. That was what Gotama was talking about. (You see what I mean about reading the suttas; there are little clues there that can help you put two and two together.)
Similar experiences of concentration occurred when I would be reading an interesting book and became unmindful of the time that had passed because I had become so absorbed in reading the book. Just this is CONCENTRATION (also known as samadhi)! That pleasant absorption in an object of interest. Most people can point to having experienced similar occurrences.
>
>>7447921
>Of course you are correct in saying that you "can't force it," meaning dropping down into an absorption state, or a similar state known as appana samadhi or fixed concentration. Appana samadhi is what I practice now. It allows one to use contemplation (insight meditation) in order to examine and analyze any object (or mental subject, like the teachings of the Dhamma) that one wishes to observe in order to gather more details about it.
>
>In order to reach a state of appana samadhi, the best foreplay for that state is being able to attain to the fourth dhyana. The fourth dhyana is extremely quiet and profoundly peaceful and is the doorway to being able to attain to the four (or five, the fifth being the "cessation of perception and feeling" or sanna-vedayita-nirodha) immaterial dhyanas. Incidently, it is not necessary that one necessarily experience the immaterial dhyanas in pursuit of awakening. Being able to attain the first four are all that is necessary. Because they help one develop samadhi.
>
>In order to have access to these states, as a meditator, one just has to be patient and relaxed and allow them to come to you, then not become overly excited when they do occur because you might upset them if you allow the mind too much movement. Once a meditator has experienced the fourth dhyana, it may occur to him that this is a stable enough state from which to use contemplation (or insight methods of meditation). And he may grow weary of having to go through the previous three stages of dhyana in order to obtain that fourth state. That is when he figures out that he can go directly to appana samadhi at the very start of his sit, and be there within two or three breaths. And then he is off to the races!
>>7447926
>The fourth dhyana (from my experience) is a state where the meditator enters a profound state of tranquility where, unless the mind provokes them into existence, thoughts do not arise and one's awareness is only focused on the utter non-movement of the mind and the peace that this brings. When you get enough of that, though, mental inertia carries you over into something more meaningful wherein the mind is encouraged to engage in movement and thought. And this is when one can begin a practice in a more profound insight contemplation on matters pertaining to the Dhamma that Gotama taught.
>
>Yet, it stands to reason that one should be able to contemplate these subtle teachings by just applying their own waking consciousness to these matters and to reap the same rewards as during meditation contemplation. So, it seems to me that any attention at all directed toward the Dhamma and its deeper understanding would be well worth the time spent, no matter whether one was a master in meditation or not. If you get around to reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's writings, you will find someone who understands the Dhamma quite well from an academic standpoint. I find it hard to believe that that hasn't also translated into a profound integration of the Dhamma into his psyche and personality. It is well known that Bodhi has suffered from migraine headaches all his life, and as a result has not always been able to perform a fruitful meditation practice. Do you see the implication? (I'm certain you do.)
>
>The cultivation (bhavana) of the mind in meditation practice, however, is useful in helping the practitioner carry forward that tranquility into his waking consciousness in the form of a state called passaddhi which just means "calmness" or "tranquility" which permeates the mind of the practitioner after sitting meditation. When I experienced this in my own practice, the description of "a profound inner peace" came to mind as a better definition of this word. When you can extend this passaddhi or calmness for one, two, three hours or more after meditation and between sits, then you are in the midst of mastering mindfulness on a more or less uninterrupted basis in your conscious life. This, from my personal experience, is the pinnacle of the fruit of a meaningful practice in meditation.
>>7447932
>So you see meditation, in and of itself, does not guarantee anyone enlightenment. It is what one does (in terms of investigation into the Dhamma) with the condition that these states provide for the stable mental landscape of the mind as a result of a fruitful practice in meditation that makes the difference!
>>7437210
Having those factors in place is not the same as being able to recognized that they are in place. Don't be too concerned if you are not able to recognize them just yet.
>
>Once you are able to become absorbed in an object, like the pleasantness of the breath or breathing, it should become apparent to you that you are absorbed in the object that you are observing. In the beginning, don't worry about not being able to recognize all the factors of the dhyana process. Just become used to being able to find it and relax into it. Recognition of the factors (which can be very subtle) can come later, once you become more experienced and your mindfulness develops.
>
>The first dhyana arises because you have to create the condition for it to arise. This is where vitakka and vicara come into play. Vitakka is directed attention and vicara is sustained attention on the object of contemplation (like the breath). So, in the beginning of the process, you create the condition for dhyana to arise by placing your attention on and sustaining your attention on the object of observation. This is why vitakka and vicara are factors in the first dhyana. See?
>
>As you transition into the second dhyana, it should become apparent that you are having to put no effort (directed attention or sustained attention) at all into maintaining in the dhyana condition. It happens all on its own because the mind is concentrated and absorbed in the pleasant activity. This is how you recognize that you have attained to the second dhyana.
>
>What the progressive levels of dhyana (first to fourth dhyana) teach you is that the mind is capable of reaching ever newer levels of calm and concentration. When the activitity in the mind settles down completely (little or no movement), you should be able to recognize that you are in the fourth dhyana. Movement can be as subtle as piti (joy or rapture) and sukha (pleasure or happiness). This movement needs to become arrested if the mind is to progress into the fourth dhyana. This is why in the fourth dhyana the affective agitation of piti and sukha have disappeared completely.
>
>When there is no agitation in the mind, it will settle down into the fourth dhyana automatically, which is a deeply sublime state. What you have to refrain from doing is destroying this state by becoming excited that you have attained it. Just equanimously observe and recognize that you are there, and without an emotional reaction enjoy it. It is from this state that insight meditation can proceed with tangible results.
