What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times? How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity? Has any person achieved "Nirvana" in history besides Buddha? Did Buddha really reach "Nirvana" at all? How do we know he actually reached that state if there is no scientific evidence of such a state? Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology? Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
>>8152849
Who cares? Just be yourself.
Kys.
I don't have a PayPay account so could we use PayPal
>>8152849
Christ is all and it is only through him that we shall achieve salvation.
Christ is the drop of water that makes all water known in all its qualities and aspects.
'Nirvana' is but a mirage compared to those who live in Christ.
>>8152849
>How do we know it's a more
>we
>4 billion + .5 billion years since creation
>having an ego
lol
the beatles and their related hippie movement popularized buddhism
Just like when whites become muzzies, celebrities Buddhist like Richard Gere and Harrison Ford only pick out the "good" bits and leave out the bad ones, buddishm is not a peaceful religion,just look at kamikaze,The junta in Burma and feudalist Tibet before liberation
>>8152907
Why is /lit/ so Christian? 1000$ in PayPay to whoever can satisfactorily answer the question.
>Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times
It's just cool people doing something different in order to be cool. Atheism was so 19th century, so Buddhism was cool in the 20th century was a reaction.
>more legitimate
It isn't necessarily "more legitimate," it's just different. Whereas Christianity depends on revelation, Buddhism is something which can be figured out entirely by rational means. Both are religious in that they propose a way of living that will allow us to transcend the suffering endemic to this material world somehow.
>did Buddha reach Nirvana
Meaningless question.
>Is Buddhist philosophy legitimate
Just as legitimate as other philosophical and religious traditions which deal with a similar subject matter.
>>8152849
>What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times?
Buddhism appeals to the generations of today, who have renounced the slave mentality of Christianity, yet haven't found a satisfactory direction for their spiritual life. The ideals of giving up everything and living free resonate with the people tied down by standardized work/family-life.
>How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity?
If you mean, how do you know if you're not going to hell after all, then I suppose you can only take a leap of faith there. But as a cultural system of behavior and practices, Buddhism is obviously every bit as legit as a religion as anything else.
>Has any person achieved "Nirvana" in history besides Buddha?
According to the oral tradition, many people have. These are known as "adepts" or ascended masters, who have been freed of the karmic cycle of reincarnation and now guide humanity.
>Did Buddha really reach "Nirvana" at all? How do we know he actually reached that state if there is no scientific evidence of such a state?
Well, buddhism actually states that Buddha was never a regular person in the first place, so he kinda always had a bit of a headstart with the matter. As for scientific evidence, there's no objective, third party evidence that a person called Siddartha Gautama actually ever lived in the first place. And third, there are quite a many phenomena out there we do not have scientific evidence about, even though simulations and math predict their existence. It could be that we are simply not at the level yet, where we are able to observe the related information.
>Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology?
Actually, yes. Studies prove that meditation has many beneficial effects on the human body. Over the years, it has ceased to be a bunch of mambojambo in people's minds, and become accepted as an activity serious real life companies recommend to their employees and doctors to their patients.
https://www.tm.org/benefits-of-meditation
>Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
I believe many people agree that despite the more fanficul mythology behind the Buddhist teachings, between the lines lies a collection of useful and healthy life lessons, that are present and taught in all cultures, one way or another.
>>8153784
>implying he'll actually pay you
>>8153885
The difference between rich and poor isn't ability or luck, it's faith in miracles.
>>8153895
haha
1000¥ in PayPay for you good sir
>>8152849
it's exotic and hip yet practised by those non threatening asian lot -- not like those smelly brown freaks.
I don't care about any of this
>>8154708
Very Buddhist mindset
Buddhism isn't popular any more, It definitely isn't in a "boom", if you go to a western sangha/study club etc. It's all 40+ year old women.
>>8153147
Christian's have better books, and took over from the Greeks and Romans
I'll give you the answers, but you won't accept them.
>What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times?
CIA MK-Ultra research and shit like that, the same as the manufacturing of the hippie/drug subculture. Read about the Esalen Institute, how eastern religions have been purposely brought to the west in one of the more important cultural exchanges of our times. The book doesn't tell you this, but it's pretty much to destroy organized religion so people are easier to control.
> How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity?
Irrelevant, stupid question, bro. Sry.
> Has any person achieved "Nirvana" in history besides Buddha?
idk.
> Did Buddha really reach "Nirvana" at all?
idk.
> How do we know he actually reached that state if there is no scientific evidence of such a state?
idk go fuck yourself. This is probably about what a Buddhist monk would tell you, BTW, if you actually asked him this gob of steaming bullshit.
> Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology?
Yessir, meditation does have proven neurological effects on the brain, the brain is very plastic and manipulable, by either yourself or outside influences, moreso (STFU spellcheck, i don't care if that's not a word) than you'd like to think.
> Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
I want to take a shit in your ass like this is The Human Centipede or some shit like that, fag.
t. Buddhist monk
>>8152907
Being a christian and not understanding how many of the concepts of buddhism relate to your own religion is just plain retarded.
All religions are just people with different points of view trying to explain the same experience. And then you have Islam.
>What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times?
Rise of secular culture and discontent with traditional Western religious views makes people hungry for alternatives, and causes them to project positive aspects onto anything non-Western as not sharing in the qualities they now find detestable in the religion their culture is rooted to. Misinformation about Buddhism then makes it seem more appealing to liberal modern Western sensibilities than it might actually be, in particular making it seem more individualistic, sentimental, anti-authoritarian, atheistic, humanitarian, or superficially (read hedonistically) liberating than it actually is.
>How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity?
We don't.
>Has any person achieved "Nirvana" in history besides Buddha?
According to many Buddhist traditions, yes, numerous people have reached Nirvana and/or become bodhisattvas. Some traditions even have lists of specific people who did this and their attributes. In reality, it is unknown whether anyone has reached Nirvana.
>Did Buddha really reach "Nirvana" at all? How do we know he actually reached that state if there is no scientific evidence of such a state?
We don't know, although the appeal to 'scientific evidence' here is likely misguided.
>Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology?
No.
>Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
There are modern defenders and practitioners of Buddhism that see it philosophically as opposed to religiously, though that dichotomy might be artificial depending on your view. The only way to answer whether it is legitimate philosophically is to engage with the entire project philosophically.
>>8152849
What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times?
Capitalism is a perfect overcomplicated system that reabsorbs it's own contradictions and movements that raise to bring it down
How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity?
The real point of Religion is not salvation trough fidelity but salvation trough dogma and self- righteousness , both promote similar behaviors, so it really is debatable, one could consider Buddhism "superior" because it's anterior to Christianity thus more original.
Has any person achieved "Nirvana" in history besides Buddha? Did Buddha really reach "Nirvana" at all? Nirvana is a realization, it's "gnosis", not a special power, not a jedi mind trick or mental orgasm, it's the liberation of the most powerful prison of all time, our own minds.
How do we know he actually reached that state if there is no scientific evidence of such a state?
Experience of such state is not necessary because you already have the concept of liberation on your mind, why could you conceive something that doesn't exist? you just need to experience it yet.
Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology? Science and Philosophy are complementary, however, meditation if done right has proven to be fantastic for the body because it relaxes the muscles and improves the synapse on your mind.
Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
The eightfold path doesn't provide you with a meaning, but a way of eliminating suffering. Beware, you can't erase pain from thi life because it's substantial to it. Follow the path and you won't have to worry about past errors, desires or lies you have made trough your life
>I'll give you money in exchange of knowledge
If I accepted said money I would be a hypocrite, knowledge is universal and money is a spook which I already ditched long time ago. Good luck, friend.
>>8154928
Oh, I fucked up with the text structure, well, into the trash goes my argument
>>8152907
You walk in the light brother, I hope to see you in his kingdom!
>>8154783
In the west , yes. Definitely no staceys here.
Menopausal women love think of their fantasy of ''oneness'' (this is why they love Tibetan buddhism, plus all the sexual symbolism of it) after they have been riding the cock carousel for 25 years.
>>8152849
>What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times?
Orientalism was a huge trendy thing in the 19th century among educated Westerners. It was primarily non-Buddhist Hinduism, but Chinese and Buddhist stuff was well-represented. This continued to the mid-20th century, with a lot of modernists and literary types dipping into Eastern stuff. Postwar it got a huge boost from not so much the hippies, as much as the deeper intellectual currents which themselves spawned the hippies.
People don't often remember, but the 50s-70s saw a huge explosion in popular or semi-popular esoterica and spiritualism, often mixed with similar trends in psychology. Most of these were quietist and renunciationist, and built on prior orientalist trends, so this understandably included a LOT of Buddhism. An important boost to its popularity was the boost to its plausibility given by the philosophical and other institutional training possessed by a lot of its gurus. Even the major ethnically Eastern gurus tended to be immersed in Western systematic workings-out of Eastern ideas.
The Buddhism you see today is almost entirely post-gnostic/post-hippie stuff in the wake of the 60s-70s.
>How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity?
I would suggest you look into Western quasi-Catholics and other Christian-inclined theosophers and mystics of the 20th century, some of whom were major major figures in philosophy. And that you be suspicious of Western Buddhists acting like the New Hotness with all the answers. Buddhism has a lot of seedy sides - a lot of the creepy cultish behaviour of the aforementioned 20th century gurus still goes on in the East, often in much stronger forms, but it's masked by the weight and prestige of tradition, or by Western orientalism.
>Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology
The verdict is still out. Stuff like mindfulness is probably legit to some extent, at least for a lot of people, but suffice to say, a lot of meditation buffs are operating under wishful thinking. And there are possible risks related to mental illness.
>Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
It's extraordinarily difficult to separate "philosophical Buddhism" from "do it because the wise serene man told you to Buddhism," which is to say nothing of folk Buddhism where you eat tiger penises so the 47th Buddha will smile on your ancestors. Most Western scholars of Eastern philosophy tend to go native, big time, and they invariably become apologists and zealous spiritual seekers when they do so. Food for thought: Rather than looking for a single unbiased account of it, read up on how many big Western gurus have turned out to be simple cult leaders. Some of them are still around.
>>8152849
>more legitimate religion than
>there is no scientific evidence of such a state
>Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology?
>true philosophical standpoint
these tell me that you know shit about religion, science and philosophy, i.e. you're a dumb fuck
>>8152849
1. Its in direct response to fall of organised theology based religion. Buddhism places importance in oneself and meshes with scientific discovery. 'be a lamp unto yourself' sort of thing. also its trendy
2. its not a religion because it has no deity. no ideology is more legitimate than another, especially religious or cosmological ones
3.in Theravada buddhism- yes. in boddhisatva- no
4. nirvana is by its very nature unteachable. he taught in a roung about way how to attain it a la 4 noble truths and the middle way but really you have to find it within yourself
5.we dont
6.it has been proven that meditation has beneficial boons to the mind and possibly body. it has been proven to help cope with depression etc
7.the existence of dukkha dukkha is certainly true, it cannot be avoided. but annica and anicha dukka are arguable. The noble 8fold path is just a guide and is no means a sure fire way of reaching nibbana - is any philosophy 'legitimate'?
>>8154841
>destroy organized religion so people are easier to control.
>destroy a control structure for easier control
full retard
>>8155143
>its not a religion because it has no deity. no ideology is more legitimate than another, especially religious or cosmological ones
pass the loud bro
>>8154924
>We don't know, although the appeal to 'scientific evidence' here is likely misguided.
There actually is evidence that experienced practitioners are "happier" than the average person, and that's the closest we will get
>>8152849
If you don't believe in reincarnation, you're wasting your time.
>>8155800
>It's not a religion
Reincarnation doesn't require faith? Anything that has to do with the spirit is religion.
>What's up with Buddhism's popularity boom in modern times?
Its basic concepts like the belief in absolute cause-and-effect, scepticism and general pragmatism resonate heavily with the philosophies already established here.
>How do we know it's a more legitimate religion than Christianity?
The comparison to Christianity (especially as religion) is kinda dumb.
But it would probably be that it is, by nature, skeptical. Even of itself. Even if it isn't "more legitimate" (by whatever standard you are implying here), it certainly is very comfortable with adjusting its vocabulary to stuff like science, without having to broadly ignore huge chunks of it's narrative each time.
>Has any person achieved "Nirvana" in history besides Buddha? Did Buddha really reach "Nirvana" at all?
It isn't even really clear of Gautama Buddha "achieved nirvana". It is said that he achieved Buddhahood (which basically means that he saw things for how they are, including himself) for a time being. "Buddha" actually is a descriptions for all things. The only reason why he was "called" Buddha, was because it was said he spoke in unity with all things. "As the universe" for lack of a better term. But he wasn't free of all karma, in the end. So he didn't truely achieve nirvana. At least not permanently. He didn't vanish into thin air or anything.
As far as that goes, even Buddha said that there were Buddhas before him and that there would be Buddhas to come. All it really signified was that some people managed to achieve "enlightenment" the same way he did, out of whatever philosophy they were born in. As a person he wasn't really special. Just a bit smarter than others, perhaps.
>How do we know he actually reached that state if there is no scientific evidence of such a state? Has science managed to prove with evidence that Buddhist traditions like meditation have an actual impact on human biology?
A state of enlightenment? There is a scientific basis for that. All it really is, is the complese loss of "self". There is a bunch of research on this, with very clear changes in neuroactivity and -morphology. Just google neurological research into meditation. If anything, neurosciences provides a lot of evidence very much in line with the psychological concepts in the Buddhist philosophy.
>Is Buddhist philosophy (concepts like "Noble Eightfold Path" and "dukkha") legitimate from a true philosophical standpoint, or is it just some fantasy bullshit that some Indian guy spew out of his ass thousands of years ago?
It depends on the various schools. But generally speaking, the basic core of it all is very much a valid philosophical standpoint. Especially if you strip away odd concepts like karma, which seem like a failure in finding the correct language to think about such things.
So certain forms of Theravada and many forms of Chan/Zen Buddhism are quite serious standpoints. I'd even go as far as to argue that Dogen Zenji was a true genius and very much ahead of his time.
>>8156019
Buddhism doesn't really believe in reincarnation as other religions/philosophies do. At least not necessarily. It's about "dependant origination".
After all, true reincarnation would require you to have a truely indipendant identity and a separation of mody and something like a soul. All of which Buddhists do not believe in.
>>8156071
Meh, it's still a religion when it comes to karma and how it affects rebirth imo.
>>8156076
Again, it depends heavily on the tradition.
I have yet to meet a real Buddhist outside of West-China who literally believes in reincarnation.
Shit pham, there isn't even consensus between the temples and the people who live around them as Buddhists. I've heard of someone who was at a Japanese temple and zendo and talked about how the only income of the temple was for rituals of supernatural nature (funerals and exorcisms and shit like that), which nobody who worked at the temple even believed in. They provided it for comfort and because it was the particular form of Buddhism the normal people chose to believe in but they didn't propagate it or anything.
At the very least it is very possible to live a secular buddhistic life and many maaany people do so.
It's even possible to "add" Buddhism to other theologies. One of the Osho in my city is also a Catholic priest. The people who gave him that title didn't give a shit, because to them (Rinzai Zen Buddhists) the one had little to do with the other and his spiritual beliefs were his own.
>>8152849
Here's that reply you ordered
Why do people spread misinformation about Buddhism on this site so heavily compared to any other teachings
>>8156019
>Anything that has to do with the spirit is religion.
nice opinion
>>8153140
The thing is buddhism does not advocate any of the atrocities perpetrated by its followers. There is nothing in Buddhism that tells men to do evil in any shape or form.
I despise how this statement is cheapened because of fucking leftists using it to defend mudslimes. The key difference however is that, difference is like it or not, islam, chritianity etc have evil and discrimination written into their religion. Buddhism does not. The junta, kamikaze are shaping good into bad as opposed to picking out the bad.
>>8155606
You can't control someone if they're being controlled by someone else.
>>8153140
Buddhism in itself has literally no "bad bits", but that doesn't mean it can't be warped or misunderstood.
