/lit/ - Literature

Because your 17 and haven't read anything

Because he managed to expound elaborate metaphysics in an incredibly straightforward and irrefutable way. His "philosophy", as much as you want to call it that, is really just an all-encompassing set of instructions which, if one follows to their logical conclusion, leads one to the highest truths and out of much of the earthly angst that plague everyone, prince and pauper alike.

>>11636817
In order to even begin to contest that title he would have had to explain a lot more than he did and not refuse to answer questions. That "I ain't gotta explain shit it's magic" meme fits him well.

>>11636848
So you haven't read much either buddy?

What do I read to read the Buddha.

>>11636877
https://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/scrndhamma.pdf

>>11636857
I have actually, there were many instances of him refusing to answer questions about certain topics because he thought it might be an impedient to the questioner's progress (or because he didn't have an answer). Without passing judgement the merits of that approach, insofar as considering him as a philosopher he is clearly inferior in that regard to people who actually defended their ideas by answering all questions put to them and by being prolific debaters. Furthermore he wasn't even very original because you can trace most of his ideas to the pre-Buddhist Upanishads.

>>11636817
>philosopher
>>11636817
>Buddha

>>11636904
>he is clearly inferior in that regard to people who actually defended their ideas by answering all questions put to them and by being prolific debaters.
He would probably agree, and consider them to be fools for exactly the reasons why you outlined. "Philosophy" at its core should only be seen as a path to egolessness, not something to entangle the ego in further.

>>11636920
I agree that philosophy is generally inferior to eastern thought (with the exception of neoplatonism, hermiticism, certain mystics etc) but stating that philosophy should just center around egolessness is to mistakenly assign everything under the name of philosophy to eastern ideas. Even though it maybe of a comparatively less worth, there are still valid applications of philosophy outside of ego/spiritual-related stuff such as political philosophy just to use one example.

basically zero evidence the buddha ever existed. Not to say he didn't, but we just don't have the evidence. So to refer to him as a philosopher is misleading - much better to refer to the later buddhist philosophers who elaborated what the buddha ostensibly said.

Several books have come out in the past 3 years positing 1) buddha never existed, 2) buddha was actually a central asian rebelling against zoroastrianism, 3) buddha was from a completely distinct cultural complex in northeast india which had nothing to do with the brahmanical background which traditionally frames his story. Read Gregory Schopen, Chris Beckwith, and Johannes Bronkhorst.

everything i've seen in this thread reflects protestant inflected transformations of Buddhism formed in the 19th century. the buddhist tradition is vast, encompassing everything from deconstructive dialectic to apophatic mysticism to sex magic. Any generalization will fall flat. And which of these aspects the "the Buddha" embrace? We have no idea. The earliest buddhists spent all their time circumambulating stupas and worshipping relics.

>>11636833
>your
Lemme guess, you think Jesus or Jordan Peterson is the most logically sound philosopher. Am I correct?

>>11637033
It's clear to me that there was some figure known as "the Buddha" in 6th-4th century BC north-east India. Just what exactly he taught and how he lived I cannot say, but I get the impression he was probably some sort of "secular" (for lack of a better term) yogic master who later came to be deified / exalted by followers of schools claiming lineage from him. He would probably not recognise "Buddhism" as it exists, but so long as it leads people towards liberation he probably wouldn't care about the specifics.

>>11637033
Out of all of those only #3 seems even remotely plausible

>>11637054
it may be clear to you that there was a figure known as "the Buddha," but it's not clear - and in fact less and less clear - to scholars who actually study this stuff in the 12-odd relevant languages through which we're trying to reconstruct the early history of Buddhism. There was no evidence of writing in India really before Ashoka, and the pali canon was assembled between the 1st century bc and third century ce. We just don't have the evidence to either support or deny the existence of the Buddha. Very nagarjuna, isn't it?

>>11637103
Put it this way - the idea that there WASN'T some sort of influential spiritual teacher that the resulting Buddhist lineages claim lineage from strikes me as more absurd than thinking that there was one, a lack of concrete evidence notwithstanding

>>11636877
You need to read about Zen. Otherwise you might find out about Tibetan and Indian Buddhism (both of which make up the general public understanding of Buddhism and do not serve as great guidance to the teaching of the buddha.

>>11637124
yeah that's fine, and the scholarly reluctance to posit an historical buddha might be a case of slothful induction. My point, I suppose, was just that there's no evidence someone named the buddha ever existed, and as an extension of that, even if someone who fits the description did exist, our earliest accounts of what constitutes buddhism (in combination with the earliest inscriptional data and archaeological remains) are so disparate that we can't reliably reconstruct what that original buddha's message may have even been. Like I mentioned in a post above, lots of stupa circumambulation and relic worship in the earliest strata of buddhism.

>>11636904
>(or because he didn't have an answer)

>>11636904
The buddha was known to refuse questions or answer through some unconventional action. This Has been carried on for over 2000 years of buddhist teaching. Mainly these questions regard the nature of enlightenent put in words, or the "meaning" of some specific concept. It depends on the question really. If you have any examples go ahead.

>>11637203
The Pali Canon gives some 26 questions that he wouldn't answer, although we can presume that there might have been more.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

If you want an example of an eastern doctrine that provides coherent answers to all of them while not getting bogged down in the details, Vedanta is one such example. For some people certainly that depth of teaching can be too much and gets confusing but other people prefer it and find it more serious. Unlike Buddhism Vedanta doesn't present itself as the solution for everyone but the texts and commentaries explicitly talk about how not everyone has the capacity for it and how Bhakti or Karma-Yoga is more suitable for those people, either as a preparation for knowledge in this life or to attain a state in the next life where they do have the intellectual capability needed for it.

>>11636817

>coughs in latin

>>11636817
Because most people are drawn to philosophy because they are lacking and seeking to compensate, while he had everything and was therefore not sidetracked by ambition.

>>11638075
some of these questions are really stupid.

>>11638208
I see, you're far from being enlightened.

>>11638215
yeah, suffering follows me.

>Buddha
The will to NOTHINGNESS!

>>11638081
That's because he's smoking that kush, isn't he? Just look at his face.

>>11638081
spinoza's ethics is the height of logical formalism in philosophy. It's funny though that that very formalism of his 'scholastic method' came to Europe from Buddhist central asia, where it appeared centuries earlier in Vasubandhu and other early mahayana writings

>>11638222
>*sees a horse being beaten and breaks down and cries like a bitch*
>I-If only I had s-some detachment