/lit/ - Literature

1. Heraclitus
2. Buddha
3. Plato (just for fun)
4. Pyrrho
5. Sextus Empiricus
6. Nagarjuna
7. Hume
8. Kant (just to laugh at)
9. Schopenhauer

>>20627029
>What's the Buddhist response to this?
Yes. (unironically)

>>20374101
Just try a guided meditation to Thanissaro Bhikkhu has a website dhammatalks.org where he has free books and guided meditations.
There is a lot of debate on what is the best way to meditate but you don’t have to worry about that at first.

>>20208357
I am one of those guys and I don’t know why.

>>20188761
Both are cool to be honest. But I like Buddhism better.

>>20176571
Buddha wasn’t depressed, the man just saw that suffering was an inevitable part of living a finite mortal existence. Eventually you are going to get sick, get old, and die. Also there will be times when you don't’ get what you want or things happen to you that you don’t want. He doesn’t say life is meaningless or evil just that in life there are things that are outside of your control.

>>20130770
Why yes anon. How was it not?

Not a Buddhist but I’v read some of their stuff

> What's the truest form of Buddhism?

A classic answer to this from Buddhist is that all of the major schools are “true” in so far as they are different ways of approaching enlightenment and teaching the dharma. But if you mean true as in closest to the original form that the historical Buddha taught that would be Theravada Buddhism as it is concerned with the Pali cannon. Though this point is arguable.

> Where did all these weird statues of weird daemons come from?

Your probably thinking of the various wrathful dharma protectors and such. I think these mostly come from Tibet and the Mahayana tradition. They are like guardian angles that make themselves look scary on purpose, like wearing a scary war mask, but really are good guys.

> Did Buddha mention these daemons?

Not sure but I think he maybe mentioned some of them. He definitely talked about bad demons like Mara and various “gods” and other spiritual beings. But mostly he says they don’t matter that much to you as they can’t help you reach enlightenment. They came into existence and will eventually die and be reborn as something else.

> Why do some Buddhism sects teach samsara/reincarnation, and some don't?

I have never heard of a Buddhist school that doesn’t teach samsara and rebirth. You might be thinking of California mindfulness and other pseudo-buddhist modern religions but I am pretty sure all of the major schools teach those.

> Where did this myth about Buddhism not believing in the soul come from, despite debunking showing that anatta actually came from anatman, and in the early scriptures, meant the same thing, in contexts demonstrating that certain things aren't the soul, but that the soul/atman has its part in Buddhism?

I am not qualified to answer this really but my two cents is it’s probably just a difference in understanding what each side means by soul. I think most Buddhist believe that your sense of self that is your personality, memories and alike are not fixed or permanent. Think how you changes since you were a little kid and how much you will change by the time your an old man. Just like how are body is a ship of Theseus with cells constantly dying and being replaced so to with the mind. Now I think, and I stress I am not a Buddhist or Buddhist expert, I think that they believe that the permanent soul that reincarnates is the part of you that observers and takes in all the different sensations and experiences. Also everything you do in your life will leave imprints, tendencies, and potentialities that are likely to manifest in your next life.

Why so little contribution to science despite constantly claiming to be the most scientific religion?

My favourite author? The Shard of course!

Why would any thinking person adhere to Hinduism when you have a more depured, less ethnically exclusive, more philosophically sound and less folk-driven alternative in Buddhism?