Your thoughts on Buddhism /lit/? I have recently started reading up on it after I really, truly confronted my fear of non existence and consciousness being solely a psychological process.
Buddhists are quietists from a culture (read: entire continent) that never developed individuality.
Go directly to the Upanishads and don't look back. Buddhism is for fuckboys.
>>7925474
Check out the book Buddhism as Philosophy. I have a PhD in phil and think it's a great book on the topic.
Read on it and form your own opinion, if you're drawn to it you might find it fruitful. Zen in particular might be to your liking.
/lit/ in general is far too insular and Eurocentric to offer you anything insightful on this topic, better to just dive in.
I'm a psychology student and I'm doing a project on mindfulness, which is a key Buddhist concept, so I've been doing quite a bit of reading around Buddism, albeit from a secular western perspective.
My first thoughts were that it was brilliant, and a much more effective tool for living a happy life than anything we've come up with in western philosophy. It teaches you how to become separate to your emotions - to observe them, accept them peacefully, and wait for them to pass. Suffering comes from our relationship with emotion - we're either desperately trying to get rid of negative emotion, or desperately trying to increase positive emotion which is all too transitory. With regular meditation practice, you become much less of a slave to your emotions, develop a sense of calm, and become able to 'live in the moment' more frequently. Mindfulness is a big topic in psychology (hence why you might be seeing it as a bit of buzzword everywhere) and is linked with shitloads of positive outcomes - decreased depression, decreased anxiety, healthier immune system, better attention, etc.
That said, I don't think it's perfect. I've been depressed for a few years, and it hasn't improved my life to a great extent. Here are a few of the problems I have with it: Does decentering yourself from emotion like this make positive emotion just as meaningless and transitory as pain? And what is the role of love in Buddhism, if suffering comes from the expectation that temporary things will be permanent, are we supposed to just appreciate our lover today and not be upset if they are gone tomorrow? Unless you accept the spiritual side of Buddhism, doesn't it just lead to a sort of existential pointlessness? I've not actually read any primary Buddhist texts, so I'd be interested to hear answers from anyone who has.
>>7925508
>There is no transformation, radical or otherwise. That buffoon
talking in the circus tent there offers you a journey of discovery. It is a bogus charter flight. There is no such journey. The Vedic stuff is no more helpful. It was invented by some acid-heads after drinking some soma juice.
>>7925591
What this lad said.
Read some of Huang Po's work. He was an early Zen Master.
My thoughts are that Buddhism is fucked up, that I like its focus on self-mastery but dislike its interpretation of karma, that most of its stories are transparently made up to a hilarious degree, and that it reminds me of Christianity in a lot of weird, particular ways.
>>7925508
>muh special snowflake eternal divine spark atman surely this means everything will be alright :333
pussy religion desu
>>7925693
buddha nature is pretty similar to atman doctrine, especially when you get into atman=brahman / nirguna brahman=negative theology of self/God
>>7926513
Buddha nature just refers to the potential for enlightenment.
>>7925610
>Unless you accept the spiritual side of Buddhism, doesn't it just lead to a sort of existential pointlessness?
Basically. But that's to me that's more of an argument against attempts to secularise Buddhism / meditation than against Buddhism itself. Consider developing a spiritual practice.
>>7926616
In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Lord Buddha states, “The Atman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the Atman is. This Atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it.”
>>7925474
Then you misunderstand Buddhism. If you're going to fear something it should be the prospect of a horrible rebirth. There's no such thing as a state of "non existence" in Buddhism
>>7926717
Frivolous Mahayana scum.
>>7925582
>I have a PhD in phil
and I fuck victoria's secret models everyday.
>>7926749
>phds in philosophy are special
easily impressed desu
>>7926717
>Mahayana text
>the Mormons of buddhism
So fake Buddha quotes....I thought /lit/ was better than this.
>>7926766
>to fuck victoria's secret models is special
easily impressed desu
>>7925474
I don't agree with everything in Buddism, mind you iI am not entirely educated on it.
However from what I do know I respect it's thought processes and it's efforts to steer people into something more peaceful I guess.
My main issue is spirituality. I cannot possibly be a spiritualist because I am too uncertain "the spirit" exists. Maybe I am missing out on so many things by denying this emotional feeling of "spiritualism", maybe I am just autistic.
It's best to stick with the Pali canon. Because it is a truely coherent system of philosophy and practice that you can understand by reading the original materials (the suttas themselves). Try suttacentral.net .
Mahayana sutras are too vast and varied for laymen to read (with the exception of the Diamond and Heart sutras), and the tradition is so diverse that it is often contradictory. Moreover, the iconoclasm of the Mahayana tradition does not really make sense unless you are familiar with the Early Buddhism of the Pali canon. For example, the Heart and Diamond Sutras emphasise that you should not cling to or reify the basic Buddhist framework found in Early Buddhism. So these sutras dont make any sense unless you are already familiar with that framework.
Likewise with Zen, I think its iconoclasm makes more sense if you have an idea of the basics of Buddhism from the Pali canon. Without that foundation, Zen will just seem like a load of crazy people doing whatever they want.
In Tibetan Buddhism they get around the complexity of the Mahayana tradition by placing a lot of importance on the mediating power of the lama/teacher. This doesn't sit well with my democratic/protestant sensibilities. The Tibetan attitude of blind devotion to a teacher is not found in the Pali canon.
In terms of secularism: the Buddha of the Pali canon does claim supernatural powers - flying, teleportation etc. and there is lots of talk of devas and gods flying around. In some parts of the Pali Canon it is stated that someone who does not believe in rebirth does not have "right view".
Nevertheless, I do think that a secular buddhism can be developed from the early canon, one that does not require belief in rebirth and remains true to the core of Buddhism. In the same way that Zen is a Chinese development of Buddhism that is still a valid interpretation of its core values.
I'd recommend looking up the youtube videos and books of Stephen Batchelor.
Buddhism is a patriarchal rewriting of Jainism, just as Protestantism is to Catholicism.
Discuss.
>>7926776
As opposed to the real Buddha quotes from what? It all dates hundreds of years after his death. Not to mention, hinayana has no legitimate claim to being the original school of buddhism.
>>7926855
Is Protestantism more patriarchal than Catholicism?
Is Buddhism more patriarchal than Jainism?
Interestingly, the position of female mendicants is one of the issues on which there are contradictory views preserved in the earliest strata of Buddhist texts. On the one hand, 'nuns' are just as capable of enlightenment as men, and they an essential part of the fourfold buddhist community (monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen), on the other they are portrayed as subservient to monks, and a potential source of trouble.
The Pali canon is mostly quite self-consistent, but on this issue there clearly seem to be opposing views preserved.
>>7926881
'hinayana' ("lesser vehicle") doesn't exist, so it doesnt claim anything. it is a Mahayana ("greater vehicle") insult for non Mahayana schools.
The Mahayana schools are a later historical development from the suttas preserved in the pali canon (and their parallels preserved in sanskrit, chinese, gandhari etc). That's just historical fact. Apart from anything else, Mahayana sutras assume the pre-existence of non-Mahayana sutras.
>>7926881
>As opposed to the real Buddha quotes from what?
from pali canon, as opposed to mahayana texts which are fake buddha quotes coming far after the pali canon and full of heresy
>>7926931
>which are fake buddha quotes coming far after the pali canon and full of heresy
I wouldn't say that, it's just a development of Buddhist philosophy and practice by people who have forgotten more about early buddhism/pali canon than you will ever know.
Absolute visionary, literary, philosophical geniuses. Unfortunately the profusion of mahayana texts is too vast to comprehend in the protestant "bible study" manner. But parts of it are fascinating. Nagarjuna for example.
mlg time
>>7926749
God, i love those kind of shorts!
>he needs a religious doctrine to find peace
>>7926696
I think for the majority of people who don't really concern themselves with these existential questions, Buddhism is definitely an effective way to relieve suffering, even in a secular way.
>Consider developing a spiritual practice
If only it were that easy. My life would undoubtedly be happier if I was spiritual, but if you don't believe, you don't believe.
>>7927467
Also, there's nothing 'spiritual' in traditional Buddhism. Rebirth, different realms of existence, gods, are just physical facts of the universe, the Christian matter-spirit dichotomy doesn't apply.
>>7926836
Do you have any recommendations for English translations of primary texts in each of those traditions?
>>7925610
>more effective tool for living a happy life than anything we've come up with in western philosophy
I think this statement is made in ignorance of virtue ethics, the chief aim of which is living a good life. I prefer stoicism-that is actual stoicism informed by modern scholarship and actual knowledge of the subject beyond the same couple ancient philosophers-to Buddhism. I find Buddhism often seems to be too inwardly focused. Mindfulness is well and good, and I consider it a cardinal virtue, but I think too much is excluded in Buddhism that hinders one in being a truly rounded person. A good understanding of stoicism (or perhaps Aristotelianism) allows for greater abilities to live a rich life among other people.
I think you have made a couple of very common mistakes in understanding Buddhism. It is not a philosophy about feeling good. Enlightenment isn't some state of immense bliss. One understands that negative mental states are impermanent, so you can suffer and be enlightened. Enlightenment is better thought of as being a state in which one does good without effort, as naturally as breathing. It is a religion of doing, not a religion of withdrawing from life to pursue positive mental states. Remember that after the Buddha achieved enlightenment he spent the rest of the decades of his life building communities and teaching. He was an active participant in the community.
You practice Buddhism to be better at life.
It should also be noted that they do not reject emotion. They reject certain emotions but there is nothing in their core principles which would prohibit anyone from feeling anything ever.
Buddhist are allowed to love.
>>7927539
But there is a distinction between the desire, form and formless realms.
>>7926696
Even with the spiritual side it does not meet the requirement you think it does. There is nothing like the Abrahamic conception of God to them, so there is no law giver to provide a basis of morality. Buddhism is a kind of virtue ethics. You use very similar lines of reason to ground western virtue ethic systems as you do for Buddhism.
Buddhism is a kind of virtue ethics.
>>7928147
For the Pali canon I'd recommend "In the Buddha's Words". It's an anthology - if you are still interested after reading this you can read the whole canon in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation. There is a book, but most of the translations are available here:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/in-the-buddha-s-words/29
For Mahayana:
Bob Thurman has a good lecture series on the Vimalakirti Sutra
This is a reasonable paraphrase of the Lotus Sutra http://www.rksanantonio.org/GuideLotusSutra.pdf
Which is a key text of Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. I don't know how much sense it makes if you don't have a foundation in Buddhist concepts.
Jay Garfield has a good book on the philosophy of Nagarjuna.
I don't know what to recommend for the Diamond sutra. The Heart sutra is only a paragraph long, so you can read lots of translations if your interested.
For Zen sayings I recommend Ruth Sasaki - Record of Linji. There is a PDF.
How are they facts of the universe? I don't think this has been proven yet anon.
>>7928675
I meant 'from the Buddhist point of view'. My point is that the supernatural stuff in Buddhism is just how people in 300 BC India thought that the universe was structured. Gods and devas are not outside time and space, they are subject to physical laws, and will die and decay.
A central theme in Christianity is making the leap to believe in things unseen (Job, binding of Isaac), in Buddhism you test propositions against your experience, so they talk about 'confidence' in the Buddha rather than faith.
For these reasons although the supernatural and reincarnation are taken for granted throughout all kinds of traditional Buddhism, I don't think that they are essential.
For secularists, 'awakening' and arhatship or buddhahood actually posesa bigger problem than reincarnation. For someone from a secular point of view it is impossible the believe that someone has permanently removed suffering from their life. So you have to redefine what nirvana and awakening are. And there is some support for that in the early canon - the Buddha suffering from back pain etc.
>>7928206
Whoops, I meant to write western psychology rather than western philosophy. As far as I've understood it, virtue ethics hasn't really influenced any psychological treatment to a great extent.
Also, I don't think I said that Buddhism was about 'feeling good' (i.e. positive mental states). I know that it's more about promoting a fulfilling way of life, regardless of whether or not they felt happy at that time. I just personally didn't really find it offered any fulfillment, unless you accept the spiritual side. I also don't think I said Buddhists 'reject' emotion - they accept it, and decentre themselves from it.
You say Buddhists are allowed to love, but can they love in the same way that we typically do in the west? In the west we have these myths about eternal love and soulmates, whereas they have the opposite (and more realistic) view that everything is transitory and it is better not to become attached to anything. That's certainly a good way of preventing suffering in the event of losing a loved one, but I wonder if the few people in the west who believe in eternal love and actually stay with their partners all their lives are the happiest of all, even if they're just deluding themselves. I don't know if a Buddhist could have that sort of blissfully ignorant relationship.
>>7929510
As far as I've understood it, virtue ethics hasn't really influenced any psychological treatment to a great extent.
I live with someone, and date someone else with degrees in psychology who say that modern therapy has been knowingly influenced by stoicism since it's inception. I can't offer any proof because I was never interested enough to look into it.
>In the west we have these myths about eternal love and soulmates
I doubt a Buddhist could love like this, but I don't think this is a problem because that conception of love is stupid. Love is better thought of an activity. If you have the internal feeling that we call love but you are a bad person to the object of this 'love' then you don't love them. You cannot separate the internal world of the lover and their actions.
>I just personally didn't really find it offered any fulfillment, unless you accept the spiritual side.
I don't see what the spiritual side offers that is important to Buddhism. None of the Greco-Roman systems of virtue ethics have any sort of spiritual element to them, nor does modern virtue ethics. What part of attaining enlightenment seems weak without the spiritual part.
Buddhism is nice and all but the idea that we should strive towards non-action, non-attachment, etc. doesn't sit well with me. It feels like a denial of what it means to be a human.
Bring at peace is overrated. The truly enlightened ones are those who are able to return willingly to the game of attachment, even after seeing it for what it is.
>>7927467
>if you don't believe, you don't believe
*unless you take psychedelics
Buddhism is disgusting. Did you know it's the one major world religion that doesn't condemn Usury?
Neoliberalism and the growth of middle class Westerners embracing various flavours of Asiatic mysticism go hand in hand.
Why has Yoga become so popular in recent years? It's a massive billion dollar industry.
Also don't forget Hitler was a massive fan of the Bhagavad Gita, and so on
Don't be a useful idiot for global capital
>>7930256
As has been stated elsewhere in the thread Buddhism is not about quietism. You do act as a Buddhist.
>>7928206
>Remember that after the Buddha achieved enlightenment he spent the rest of the decades of his life building communities and teaching. He was an active participant in the community.
>>7930060
Yeah that conception of love is stupid, but I think that people who buy into it and are actually successful with it (i.e. a long-lasting monogamous relationship) will be far happier than I ever will be. The older and wiser I get, the more I wish I was living a stupid and unexamined life. Studying psychology and philosophy has only made me more miserable if I'm being honest. This is why I feel like I need the spiritual side too, so that life has something more to offer me than just simply living and dying. I think I might be a nihilist, although I don't want to be. I might just be going through an existential edgelord phase though, it would definitely be nice if it passed.
>>7930256
>unless you take psychedelics
My next plan 2bh. I gave them up when I started getting depressed a few years ago, because I didn't want to do anything stupid if I had a bad trip. At this stage I think I may as well give it a go again with something like psilocybin though, there's every chance I'll have a very positive experience, and I don't really have anything to lose.
>>7925474
Yeah, you think you have. But wait til you have an NDE. Because then, you're going to realize that you can never really accept death until you are walking through its door. Not knocking on it.
>>7925508
>developed individuality
the self is a spook. enlightenment is also a spook. Buddhism is basically nihilism. it's about understanding the void and emptiness and eternal cycles of things, replacing duality perceptions with unified ones.
western philosophers have been stealing from eastern mystics since Schopenhauer.
>>7930722
* actually since Socrates (if you consider the influence on gnostic ideals).
>>7930722
When people ask me how to mediate, I first tell them that it is something they can not experience.
Once they understand that, there's almost no need helping them to achieve mediation, outside of the basics, since it can be achieved in many ways.
Outside of abrahamic traditions, nothing from the orient is worth reading.
>>7925474
I like the Lotus Sutra, partially because I like Kannon. You might also like the diamond sutra.
>>7926696
Existential pointlessness is a given. Buddhistic practices seem to be a good way to deal with it, regardless of its spiritual side.
>>7931807
>Existential pointlessness is a given.
It really isn't. You are making the mistake that so many people on 4chan (and generally make), which is that since you reasoned it and you cannot see otherwise it must be the standard philosophical viewpoint. It's the same with people who presume determinism. physicalism, or moral non-realism.
a physical process you mean
each breath is a ministep
towards the infinite lotus plane
ctrl+f "scam"
no results found
thought this was the high iq board
>>7925474
we want to be at peace with ourselves and we are trying to achieve that state through some mental effort. But peace consists only in lack of mental effort. It cannot be achieved through effort. Nor can we try to give up effort, because that is effort, nor can we try not to try because that also is effort. So we are stuck in this impossible situation and this is essentially where every single person in the world who is following any religion or spiritual path is stuck. In fact, all you arrogant people on the chan who think you are so much more spiritually advanced than those "redditors" you whine about, you are actually stuck in the exact same place (sorry, had to throw that in). You may think you are more advanced because you have a far more advanced set of concepts with which you relate to reality, but you are still being trapped by thoughts and concepts just like a mentally retarded person. In fact a mentally retarded person could in a sense be closer to the truth than you because they havent created such a complex web of concepts. Often the more advanced concepts are, the more difficult it is to untangle them.
Any time there is a goal, whether that goal is ultimate reality, enlightenment, knowledge of God, bliss, etc, that goal does not exist because the goal is something you are imagining (reality is what's already there) and the very act of imagining that goal prevents you from seeing clrearly what is already there.
So this means the only purpose that all religions and spiritual paths truly serve is to gradually drive you insane by the fact that they do not work. Note I am not saying that prayer and meditation techniques do not have effects, they absolutely do, it is possible to have spiritual experiences, it is possible to talk to God, etc, the thing is they never lead to the goal as promised. They never, ever lead to liberation, enlightenment, gnoses, salvation, knowledge of God, peace, bliss, etc. All they do is make you circle around some imaginary goal until you eventually go crazy and give up, thus finally settling into the peace of the present moment. That is how they work.
>>7926855
I don't think there is much reason to believe that tbhf, the doctrines differ significantly in some areas and there are sections of the Pali Canon that deal with Buddha discussing this or debating Jainists.
>>7930256
People often tend to think there is a greater emphasis on giving that stuff up then there is actually meant to be and they perceive it as depressing and empty when its the opposite. First off, its perfectly okay to be a lay-person who tries to implement what lessons they can from Buddhism while still living an ordinary life and not abandoning all possessions. Secondly, its not about denying things that are enjoyable and part of being human, its more about waking up from a false illusion and experiencing the bliss and freedom of not being confused by it.
You can still engage with life and pursue enjoyable activities but in a way that is freed from desire and attachment. The only non-action part of Buddhism has to do with not taking action in a way or with a mindset/motivation that would cause karmic effects, its not like you are supposed to sit down and do nothing all day.
>>7930294
Despite some affluent westerns embracing Buddhism its not at all inherently pro-capitalism, pro-exploitation, pro=neoliberalism etc. Some of the most important important parts of Buddhist teaching such as the parts having to do with desire, attachment and craving are entirely antithetical to the current neoliberal order and consumerism.
Leaving aside the fact that Yoga is not a major part of Buddhism, becoming a billion dollar industry is almost inevitable when something becomes really popular and its no surprise that it has because Yoga is really good for your physical health and it makes you feel mentally great.
>>7933141
>>7931456
read the sticky before posting
>/lit/ is a slow board! Please take the time to read what others have written, and try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own.
>>7934054
It seems to me that you are making an assertion based on your personal experience and nothing much else. All across the world there are religious orders and hermitages/temples/etc of all different sorts and in many of these place there are people who spend much of or even all of their life there and they are content and in some cases they are regarded by others as being genuinely enlightened. Who are you to say that all of these people are fake or deluded and that none of them are successful when you have never even met most of them?
>>7934727
>It seems to me that you are making an assertion based on your personal experience and nothing much else. All across the world there are religious orders and hermitages/temples/etc of all different sorts and in many of these place there are people who spend much of or even all of their life there and they are content and in some cases they are regarded by others as being genuinely enlightened. Who are you to say that all of these people are fake or deluded and that none of them are successful when you have never even met most of them?
Having to make a guess a clothes of the emperor type scenario is much more likely.
There are also people who are considered enlightened that say enlightenment doesn't exist, or that it is nothing special, ordinary, a pile of dried shit et cetera.
