/lit/ - Literature

>>13166474
>Buddhism

WHY?

Read Christian books so you can become an insufferably dull tripfag

Buddhism seems to be against pleasures and generally desires because they are impermanent. But isn't suffering impermanent in the same manner too?

>>13166506
Also, if there is no self, how does rebirth work? There must be something common between one life and the other, what is it?

Sorry if I hijack Buddhism rec thread with my questions.

>>13166506
Woah epic critique, how will they ever recover

>>13166513
This isn't critique, I'm just a clueless person asking stuff. Probably asked many times but IDK where.

>>13166521
Try picking up a book

>>13166506
>>13166512

I wouldn't say it's against pleasures. It's not as if you're trying to suppress pleasure (or pain for that matter) what you are trying to do is observe how craving arises and eventually leads to suffering. But this observation is a kind of knowledge, not focus and not the single-pointed concentration that other meditation techniques (borrowed from yogic and other precursor traditions) promote.

I suggest taking a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkJOEPJB2HE

The kind of meditation he recommends, specifically the "right effort" that he talks about, really does work. It really is "immediately effective" (just try it, and see for yourself).

As for the concept of rebirth, it's different from reincarnation (which again is from precursor traditions like hinduism). Rebirth is actually dependent on the very idea of no-self, if there was a self rebirth wouldn't make sense. Put simply, rebirth is flux, birth and death of consciousness over and over again. The self does not "stay", a river is never the same thing twice. You can see this yourself through meditation because meditation sharpens your powers of observation (again as a kind of knowledge, not single-pointedness or concentration) until you can actually observe the arising and passing away "live". At that point you don't need to be convinced of anything, it's like knowing you're awake and not asleep. No one taught you, and no one can convince you otherwise, you just know.

Again take look at the video above and the try meditation he talks about for yourself. Your questions are very important and while you can get intellectual answers from lectures and books and the like, they will never actually change your behavior. You have to try and understand it through direct experience.

I hope you'll give it a shot. And may you be free of suffering in this very life.

>>13166512
>if there is no self
the buddha doesn't make this claim, he says the body/mind/etc (5 heaps) aren't self.

>>13166474
What the Buddha Taught is another good beginner book as well

>>13166512
>Also, if there is no self, how does rebirth work?
Rebirth is a process of becoming, compared to a fire burning - once the fuel (ignorance, clinging) is removed the fire stops burning.
It's more detailed than that but I have little time to explain right now. I might explain more later if I have the time.

DN=for conversion of brahmins
MN=summary of the teaching for newcomers
SN=for exegetes
AN=for monks to teach the householders
KN= nobody cares about this

Here is the audiobook In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon

https://www110.zippyshare.com/v/vYfoMYCo/file.html

https://www110.zippyshare.com/v/VNneVAPs/file.html

https://www110.zippyshare.com/v/5BHkBJjW/file.html

Today people say the first council did not occur. Instead the first council is a story invented by the people creating the second council, in order to legitimize whatever they did in the second council.
Do you think the first council existed ?

>>13166512
>>Also, if there is no self, how does rebirth work?
first it is not rebirth but ''jati'', which means birth.
jati means that after the death a guy who is not enlightened, there is gain jati of feeling, perception, consciousness and more or less of rupa, ie body, forms, external sensual objects...

the problem is that
-all of that stuff endures the fruits of of the past actions which were tainted by karma
-the buddha says that the karma of an action is the cetana[intention] of this action
-as long as actions are tainted by karma, there will be jati of sensation, perception, consciousness and forms and those stuff are inherently bad, and lead to dukkha and they lead to dukkha because people who are not enlightened say that sensation, perception, consciousness and forms are not born, and do not die, and even more retarded, that they are pleasurable
-the only way to avoid the jati of sensation, perception, consciousness and forms is the avoid making actions tainted by karma and that is hard for most people
when there is no action tainted by karma, there is no jati of anything, and that's nibanna
-nibanna is what is not born from something and does not die either from something
-this is why people say that when nibanna is reached, there is no sound, no smellz, no touch no sensation, perception, consciousness and forms and so on.


then people speculate whether jati is physical or mental, like physical jati would be the physical birth of a human, or animal or anything that has consciousness (meaning not rocks nor plants) or whether jati is mental, like anger is born out of frustration with some situation so if you change how view the situation, then anger would not arise, or if you are hurt by an object, you get mad, meaning there is jati of anger, whereas if you still are hurt by an object, but with a different point of view on the world, you would not be upset and no jati of anger.

>>13166534
I will.

>>13166604
>>13166813
Both very helpful replies, thanks.

>>13166474
>>13166642
He's right, What the Buddha taught, Walpola Rahula is a good first approach.

>>13166474
Reminder that buddhism is a religion with hells and gods etc, it isn't just some western mindfulness bs

>>13166905
This
"secular Buddhism" is a meme

>>13166905
tbf karma is not a decentralized cosmic justice system, it has more to do with the conditioning of the mind through volitional actions (ie actions fueled by ill will condition the mind and by extension all of experience which mind is the forerunner of, to unpleasant states and the opposite for actions of good-will and wholesomeness).
The stuff about heavens and hells is true though.

>>13166474
The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

>>13166905
Karma is a mental state, a sort of inertia of one's thoughts if you will.

>>13166474
Just read Hermann Hesse. ;)

>>13166506
>Buddhism seems to be against pleasures and generally desires because they are impermanent. But isn't suffering impermanent in the same manner too?
It's not against pleasure, but rather craving for pleasure and clinging to it. Pleasure and pain are inevitable aspects of life, so it's not like you're doing something wrong by experiencing them - it's actively seeking out pleasure or pain, clinging to them, which leads to suffering. This doesn't mean you have to become an ascetic straight away to begin as a Buddhist. You'll understand the role of pleasure more as you read.
Also suffering is a bad translation of dukkha, here:
>The First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca) is generally trans-
lated by almost all scholars as 'The Noble Truth of Suffering', and
it is interpreted to mean that life according to Buddhism is nothing
but suffering and pain. Both translation and interpretation are
highly unsatisfactory and misleading. It is because of this limited,
free and easy translation, and its superficial interpretation, that
many people have been misled into regarding Buddhism as
pessimistic.
>First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If
anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life
and of the world. It looks at things objectively (yathabhutam).
It does not falsely lull you into living in a fool's paradise, nor
does it frighten and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears
and sins. It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what
the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect
freedom, peace, tranquillity and happiness.
One physician may gravely exaggerate an illness and give up
hope altogether. Another may ignorantly declare that there is no
illness and that no treatment is necessary, thus deceiving the patient
with a false consolation. Yo u may call the first one pessimistic
and the second optimistic. Both are equally dangerous. But a
third physician diagnoses the symptoms correctly, understands the
cause and the nature of the illness, sees clearly that it can be cured,
and courageously administers a course of treatment, thus saving
his patient. The Buddha is like the last physician. He is the wise
and scientific doctor for the ills of the world (Bhisakka or
Bhaisajya-guru).
It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit duhkha) in
ordinary usage means 'suffering', 'pain', 'sorrow' or 'misery', as
opposed to the word sukha meaning 'happiness', 'comfort' or
'ease'. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which re-
presents the Buddha's view of life and the world, has a deeper
philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses.

>>13166506
>>13167086

>It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth con-
tains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of 'suffering', but in
addition it also includes deeper ideas such as 'imperfection',
'impermanence', 'emptiness', 'insubstantiality'. It is difficult there-
fore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the
term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave
it untranslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it
by conveniently translating it as 'suffering' or 'pain'.
>The Buddha does not deny happiness in life when he says there is suffering. On the contrary he admits different forms of happiness,
both material and spiritual, for laymen as well as for monks. In
the Anguttara-nikaya, one of the five original Collections in Pali
containing the Buddha's discourses, there is a list of happinesses
(sukhdni), such as the happiness of family life and the happiness of the life of a recluse, the happiness of sense pleasures and the
happiness of renunciation, the happiness of attachment and the
happiness of detachment, physical happiness and mental happiness
etc.1
But all these are included in dukkha. Even the very pure
spiritual states of dhyana (recueillement or trance) attained by the
practice of higher meditation, free from even a shadow of suffer-
ing in the accepted sense of the word, states which may be
described as unmixed happiness, as well as the state of dhjana
which is free from sensations both pleasant (sukha) and unpleasant'
(dukkha) and is only pure equanimity and awareness—even these
very high spiritual states are included in dukkha. In one of the
suttas of the Majjhima-nikdya, (again one of the five original
Collections), after praising the spiritual happiness of these dhyanas,
the Buddha says that they are 'impermanent, dukkha, and subject to
change' (anicca dukkha viparinamadbamma).2
Notice that the word
dukkha is explicitly used. It is dukkha, not because there is 'suffering'
in the ordinary sense of the word, but because 'whatever is imper-
manent is dukkha' (yad aniccam tam dukkham).
T he Buddha was realistic and objective. He says, with regard to
life and the enjoyment of sense-pleasures, that one should
clearly understand three things: (I) attraction or enjoyment
(assada), (2) evil consequence or danger or unsatisfactoriness
(adinava), and (3) freedom or liberation (nissarana).3

>>13167041
>>13167081

>>13166506
>>13167086
>>13167091
When you
see a pleasant, charming and beautiful person, you like him (or
her), you are attracted, you enjoy seeing that person again and
again, you derive pleasure and satisfaction from that person. This
is enjoyment (assada). It is a fact of experience. But this enjoyment
is not permanent, just as that person and all his (or her) attractions
are not permanent either. When the situation changes, when you
cannot see that person, when you are deprived of this enjoyment,
you become sad, you may become unreasonable and un-
balanced, you may even behave foolishly. This is the evil, unsatis-
factory and dangerous side of the picture (adinava). This, too, is a
fact of experience. No w if you have no attachment to the person,
if you are completely detached, that is freedom, liberation (nissarana). These three things are true with regard to all enjoy-
ment in life.
From this it is evident that it is no question of pessimism or
optimism, but that we must take account of the pleasures of life
as well as of its pains and sorrows, and also of freedom from them,
in order to understand life completely and objectively. Only then
is true liberation possible. Regarding this question the Buddha
says:
'O bhikkhus, if any recluses or brahmanas do not understand
objectively in this way that the enjoyment of sense-pleasures is
enjoyment, that their unsatisfactoriness is unsatisfactoriness, that
liberation from them is liberation, then it is not possible that they
themselves will certainly understand the desire for sense-pleasures
completely, or that they will be able to instruct another person to
that end, or that the person following their instruction will comp-
letely understand the desire for sense-pleasures. But, O bhikkhus, if
any recluses or brahmanas understand objectively in this way that
the enjoyment of sense-pleasures is enjoyment, that their unsatis-
factoriness is unsatisfactoriness, that liberation from them is libera-
tion, then it is possible that they themselves will certainly under-
stand the desire for sense-pleasures completely, and that they will
be able to instruct another person to that end, and that that person
following their instruction will completely understand the desire
for sense-pleasures.'1
T he conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects:
( i) dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha), (2) dukkha as
produced by change (viparinama-dukkha) and (3) dukkha as con-
ditioned states (samkhara-dukkha).2
A ll kinds of suffering in life like birth, old age, sickness, death,
association with unpleasant persons and conditions, separation
from beloved ones and pleasant conditions, not getting what one
desires, grief, lamentation, distress—all such forms of physical
and mental suffering, which are universally accepted as suffering
or pain, are included in dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-
dukkha).

>>13166512
Try reading the Milindapanha, it's a dialogue/debate between an Indo-Greek king and a Buddhist sage:

He who is reborn, Nàgasena, is he the
same person or another?”
“Neither the same nor another.”
“Give me an illustration.”
“In the case of a pot of milk that turns first
to curds, then to butter, then to ghee; it would not be right
to say that the ghee, butter and curds were the same as the
milk but they have come from that, so neither would it be
right to say that they are something else.”
...
“What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
“Mind and matter.”
“Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
“No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are
done and because of those deeds another mind and matter
is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released
from the results of its previous deeds.”
“Give me an illustration.”
“It is like a fire that a man might kindle and, having
warmed himself, he might leave it burning and go away.
Then, if that fire were to set light to another man’s field and
the owner were to seize him and accuse him before the
king, and he were to say, ‘Your majesty, I did not set this
man’s field on fire. The fire that I left burning was different
to that which burnt his field. I am not guilty’. Would he
deserve punishment?”
“Indeed, yes, because whatever he might say the
latter fire resulted from the former one.”
“Just so, O king, by this mind and matter deeds are
done and because of those deeds another mind and matter
is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released
from the results of its previous deeds.”

>>13166512
>>13166632
He also doesn't make the claim that there is a self, since both "there is a self" and "there is no self" are metaphysical statements dependent on preparations/fabrications. In Nirvana there is no fabrication of the idea "self" or "no self." He taught anatta, which means not-self, so that the practitioner could see what is definitely not-self (namely the Five Aggregates).

ātmety api prajñapitam anātmety api deśitam |
“Self” is just a designation, and even “not-self” is just a teaching.
buddhair nātmā na cānātmā kaścid ity api deśitam ||
The Buddha taught that there’s not even such a thing as self nor not-self.
nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛttaś cittagocaraḥ |
What is nameable has ceased, the scope of consciousness (or thought?) has ceased
anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā ||
For the nature of extinguishment (nirvāṇa) is like the cessation of what has never arisen.
- Nagarjuna

>>13166900
Sure costs a lot.

>>13167325
here's a free PDF
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~buddhism/docs/Bhante_Walpola_Rahula-What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

>>13167756
Thank you.

honononono

>>13166905
I agree, but I would say Buddhism is more honest than most religions, and provides the most useful advice.

So what you're saying that Buddhism is just a load of contrarian gibberish horseshit?

>>13168369
>provides the most useful advice
Give me one thing that Buddhism provides that Christianity doesn't?

>>13168427
A practical step by step method of meditation which leads one all the way to the cessation of suffering.

Where in the gospels does the Jesus teach something like that?

>>13168482
He doesn't because suffering is a part of life.
What you told me is basically that Buddhism is a step by step guide to be at peace with killing yourself.

>>13168482
"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you"

Read the Gospel of Thomas

>>13168500
Bad faith arguments 101

>>13168511
What are you talking about?
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that in this life suffering will cease, only that at best you can be at peace with God in your suffering.
Buddhism is just some hippie larp that literally makes no sense. It's like something Russel Brand would invent just so he could keep talking gibberish.

>>13166905
Daily reminder that Analytic Buddhism is based and redpilled.

>>13168521
No it isn’t you moron stop spouting shit to try to look smart.
It’s tje logical progression of the Vedic tradition free from the societal limitations

>>13168530
>logical progression of the Vedic tradition
Never have I ever seen anything logical in Buddhism. You can't really have logic in mysticism. You can have a logical progression I guess, but Buddhist text literally read like shit people say on a drug binge.

>>13168521
I am not saying you are incorrect in what Jesus teaches, merely that you are engaging your Buddhist interlocuter with bad faith arguments. Nowhere does he mention killing himself. Russel Brand is a funny meme, yes, but Eastern Philosophy has been refined as long as Christian Philosophy in the West and does offer many compelling arguments for their own viewpoints. Isn't Jesus himself a bit of a hippie?

>>13168521
Embarrassingly brainlet post and poster

>>13168500
That's what makes Buddhism better. In the Godless, degenerate world we live in today, everyone wants to kill themselves. Buddhism recognizes this while other religions don't.

>>13168544
I’m done.
Keep living in your apocalyptic desert cult head canon

>>13168569
Good for you to be honest. Idiots like that just spew anything and understand nothing.

>>13168500
Ah so you're that one guy that keeps saying that Buddhism's logical conclusion is suicide. Unfortunately I am not eloquent enough to convince you to try the meditation methods for yourself (see the video I posted at the beginning of the thread if natural curiosity compels you) but it doesn't really work that way. Life doesn't end when suffering ends, it's quite the opposite, it becomes more rich and wholesome because you are no longer distracted by the hindrances. Suffering is a great teacher, but like pleasure it should not glorified into something more than it is--which is nothing more than a natural consequence of certain mental factors, formations, which lead to craving and habitual tendencies which lead eventually to suffering.

Also the ordinary meaning of suffering is not quite the same as dukkha (though it is included in it).

>>13168507
iirc the Gospel of Thomas talks about the omnipresence of the kingdom of heaven ("inside you and outside you; chop wood, pick up a rock, I am there etc".). Perhaps you can interpret this as some kind of meditation, but to me, dull as I am, it's not clear. Several of the Buddhist sutras on the other hand explicitly lay out instructions for several kinds of meditation.

>>13166905
"Heaven" and "hell" are just states of being for the mind, karma is not a being that punishes or rewards you, it's a result of becoming.

>>13168548
I'm sorry, I don't really "get" Eastern Philosophy though I've read a little bit about the region's political history.
But literally EVERY time I try to provoke a Buddhist to give it to me straight what the faith is about, they get pissed off and rage. Not very free from suffering. I can defend Christianity meanwhile pretty well under stress. An arrogant thing to say, but I stand by it.
Jesus was more of an ascetic hippie who put himself in dire life threatening situations constantly just to call his enemies fools. The Budha, although a swell guy, just always seems like a rich kid who had his own fan club that got carried away.
>>13168554
Me being an idiot doesn't make Buddhism any more genuine.
>>13168556
I highly doubt that. Considering it relying so much on meditation to distance yourself from your problems, though I'm no expert, in modern psychology that can actually make depression worse. I have a few friends who took to Eastern thinking to fight their depression. Literally doesn't seem to help beyond them being ridden with mystic mumbo jumbo to ignore their pervasive issues for the while they're interested in the subject.
Christianity meanwhile tells you straight, you're a piece of shit, repent. And simple as it sounds, it never ceases to fail.

>>13166474
Google access to insight.

>>13168569
>>13168572
>hehe
>Buddhism is all about inner peace and logic in convoluted texts that definitely don't lose any line of thought in translations
>hehe
>that anon is such a retard
>I'll show him my inner peace by calling him a retard
>hehe
Way to go anon. You sure showed me.
>>13168585
>try the meditation methods
No way in my life will I try that. Like I said before, everyone who I know who tried it, say it works, but you can literally see in their eyes they're still super depressed, but better at repressing it. Which shouldn't be, since you need to overcome it to be fine.
>it should not glorified into something more than it is
Yet Buddhism does just that. What do you have when you remove yourself from suffering? Not pleasure? Maybe not in a direct sense, but at a physical it's basically meditate for pleasure. I'm sure there's more on the spiritual side, but again, I've never seen it being demonstrated.
>dukkha
What you people need to do is to come up with something that isn't in gibberish. Call it willing denial of whatever supposed greater meaning this word has, but if you can't express the term in a short sentence, I can't respect making me look it up.

>>13168604
>Considering it relying so much on meditation to distance yourself from your problems, though I'm no expert, in modern psychology that can actually make depression worse. I have a few friends who took to Eastern thinking to fight their depression. Literally doesn't seem to help beyond them being ridden with mystic mumbo jumbo to ignore their pervasive issues for the while they're interested in the subject.
If you're meditating properly, you're supposed to be confronted with your problems and then either work toward fixing them or becoming dispassionate toward what you cannot.
If you can't do the samadhi (serenity) part of meditation, your psyche will probably fail to cope if you're depressed or have an inability to cope.
>Christianity meanwhile tells you straight, you're a piece of shit, repent.
Meditation is you telling yourself you're a piece of shit and fixing it.

>>13168632
I'm not a Buddhist you fucking mongoloid peabrain

>>13168653
>Meditation is you telling yourself you're a piece of shit and fixing it
>proper meditation is becoming dispassionate toward what you cannot fix
That's retarded.
You can literally do everything you said by merely talking to people who love you or seeing a psychologist without all the bullshit pseud meta mysticism.
>>13168654
I honestly don't care.

>>13168604
>Considering it relying so much on meditation to distance yourself from your problems
It's not about distancing yourself from problems per se. It's about detaching your mind from your physical body. If your friends were meditating for the purpose of running away from depression, then they were doing it wrong, and I'm not suprised considering how leftists have co-opted Buddhism for their McMindfulness

>>13168688
>detaching your mind from your physical body
That's even more retarded. Sounds like something Joe Rogan would say.
I don't know if my friends did it wrong, but I can guarantee they tried their best at it and they're not really leftists, not the crazy ignorant boomer types at least.

>>13168632
>No way in my life will I try that. Like I said before, everyone who I know who tried it, say it works, but you can literally see in their eyes they're still super depressed, but better at repressing it. Which shouldn't be, since you need to overcome it to be fine.

Well then I guess there's really nothing more to say. If you feel you are wholesome and equanimous through your faith, that you can love others freely and have compassion for them even when they are against you, then by all means pursue your faith with all your heart. For me, a belief in god only made me more anxious and the suffering that arose because of it made it difficult for me to maintain any wholesome state, to love my fellow man and so forth.

Meditation is something that helped me actually change my behavior (though I should warn that the single-pointedness styles of meditation that emphasize jhanas or trance states, are not exactly what the Buddha taught and may not lead to actual change in behavior--which is perhaps why your friends say it works but are only repressing their feelings. Repression is unwholesome of course).

Though I have to wonder, if you really do believe in the teachings of Christ, why are you here lambasting and insulting other people and their beliefs? What do you gain spiritually from this?

>>13168682
>I honestly don't care.
Whatever you say faggot

>>13168705
>If you feel you are wholesome and equanimous through your faith
>by all means pursue your faith with all your heart
This is why I can respect people of other faiths.
>a belief in god only made me more anxious and the suffering
>made it difficult for me to maintain any wholesome state, to love my fellow man and so forth
You really need to read the New Testament. If you read Buddhist texts and claim to understand them, the New Testament should be a really easy read for you.
>why are you here lambasting and insulting other people and their beliefs
Because they deserve it? My goal is not as much to insult as to provoke them. See what their inner peace is worth and if they can defend their faith against brute and basic criticism. Rare if the one who can.
>What do you gain spiritually from this?
Why do you think I'm here to gain and not to give?

>>13168739
Your criticism has been pulling up a b-list celebrity and claiming that Buddhism is something they would like
Not worth defending a man with family-guy tier arguments

>>13168767
If you can't defend yourself against a b-tier celebrity with family guy arguments, what chance do you have against a seasoned theologian?

>>13168682
>You can literally do everything you said by merely talking to people who love you or seeing a psychologist
The point is to be able to do it all by yourself without any other help, as any other source of peace is inconstant and stressful.

>>13168739
In fact I have read the New Testament but while Jesus tells you exactly what to do, he does not tell you how. How do I love others as I love myself? How do I turn the other cheek? How do I let go of all my possessions? Intellectually I can see that these are the consequence of spiritual perfection and I should do them, but for me there has always been a gap between intention and action. And because Christianity also emphasizes sin and damnation, the failure to close this gap only caused more anxiety, more self-loathing. Many times I contemplated suicide (ironically with Christianity instead of Buddhism, as you claim) because as you say, Christ teaches that you're a "piece of shit" and should repent, but no matter how much I repented there was no change in my behavior or my thought. I felt a like broken person that was better off dead, that could not even control the most basic unwholesome impulses. Nothing I found in the gospels helped me close the gap intention and action. Meditation closed it almost immediately--or rather it gave me a set of mental tools to do so.

As for your intentions in "provoking to see what inner peace is worth", 4chan is probably not the best place to do this. Go to a Buddhist temple (even one in the west) and try to provoke one of the senior monks. Believe me it's quite difficult.

>Why do you think I'm here to gain and not to give?
What exactly are you giving spiritually then? Re-read your posts, can you honestly say there is something wholesome there might convince an onlooker to explore Christ?

>>13166486
This, horrible religion to placate the poor

>>13168739
>Because they deserve it? My goal is not as much to insult as to provoke them. See what their inner peace is worth and if they can defend their faith against brute and basic criticism. Rare if the one who can.
Does one need to be perfect to be a Buddhist?
What a nonsense. Nobody expects every Christian to be some Christ on earth.

>>13168786
You see the people calling you retarded?
That’s the only argument you deserve

>>13168703
Most people meditation to hone their concentration, they simply intentionally breath for periods at a time so that when a bad feeling comes up they can direct their attention elsewhere. This is running away from the depression.

There are many types of meditation but how Buddhists typically do it is to try to relinquish control. To let everything just be so you are only observing and not interacting with the mind or body. With this style when negative thoughts come up instead of avoiding them you just observe them in a non-judgemental way until they pass.

This is not to say the former is not useful as ones ability to concentrate enables them to get into taoist or tantric energy transformation.

>>13168871
>how Buddhists typically do it is to try to relinquish control. To let everything just be so you are only observing and not interacting with the mind or body. With this style when negative thoughts come up instead of avoiding them you just observe them in a non-judgemental way until they pass.
That's only the Western vipassana movement. Samadhi and jhana have you deal with what vipassana confronts you with. It's not about sweeping it under the rug, it's about understanding the suffering and how to end it.

>>13168500
>Buddhism is a step by step guide to be at peace with killing yourself.
Buddhism teaches rebirth. Suicide is useless in Buddhism and is only conducive to more suffering for you and for others. The point is to be at peace with all of existence in all its pain and pleasure.
Plus, it's hardly nihilistic, since it teaches that the one motivation which continues to arise in the mind of someone who has eliminated craving and delusion is compassion, loving-kindness. The Buddha said that the best reason to practice the Eightfold Path is for both yourself and for others (practicing Buddhism is helpful for others because you are essentially eliminating your capacity to feel any ill-will, to do any harm, and you are cultivating your motivation to help others when it comes to relief from worldly pain and suffering as well as with the ultimate goal of freedom from suffering).

>>13168521
>It's like something Russel Brand would invent just so he could keep talking gibberish.
Russel Brand is a hindu. I think you are mixing up Hinduism with Buddhism.
>>13168544
>Buddhist text literally read like shit people say on a drug binge.
I highly suggest you read some passages from the Pali Canon before making such statements.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html
https://suttacentral.net/mn54/en/horner
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.058.than.html
https://suttacentral.net/an5.41/en/bodhi
https://suttacentral.net/an5.177
https://suttacentral.net/mn41/en/bodhi

>>13168604
>Considering it relying so much on meditation to distance yourself from your problems
It does the opposite - in subtle states of mind your problems and past actions bubble up to the surface. If you have bad moral conduct, then this will disturb you and make it practically impossible to meditate - which is why the Buddha gave very specific instructions to his followers about maintaining strong moral conduct.
The Buddha also did not ignore conventional life, which is why, again, he gave very specific instructions to his lay followers and monks on what not to do (as well as what to do) to live a happy moral life.
>I have a few friends who took to Eastern thinking
This doesn't discredit Buddhism. I would also like to mention that not every Eastern tradition is the same and that not everyone who takes up Buddhism in the West takes it seriously. All it takes is one look at the hippies burnt out on psychedelics with Buddha statues and stuff from other traditions like healing crystals.

>>13166506

Wait, everyone else's suffering is impermanent?

>>13168632
>No way in my life will I try that. Like I said before, everyone who I know who tried it, say it works, but you can literally see in their eyes they're still super depressed
Buddhism is not just meditation. That is just two limbs of a much larger Eightfold Path, which includes a comprehensive system of ethics and morality. Many people get bad results from trying to take meditation from Buddhism while leaving out everything else, ex the secularists who go on vipassana retreats and think they're losing their minds when either their immoral habits disturb them or they realize insights that they didn't prepare for by reading the texts.
>I'm sure there's more on the spiritual side, but again, I've never seen it being demonstrated.
Don't take a bunch of /lit/posters word for it - this place is generally awful for discussion of spirituality and religion. Listen to some Dhamma talks, like those by Thanissaro Bhikkhu or Ajahn Chah. There you will see the effects of the practice in action.
>What you people need to do is to come up with something that isn't in gibberish. Call it willing denial of whatever supposed greater meaning this word has, but if you can't express the term in a short sentence, I can't respect making me look it up.
That's a word from the Pali language which is difficult to translate into English with a single word. Here I'll direct you to the previous posts in this thread which define what dukkha means precisely:
>>13167086
>>13167091
>>13167097

>>13169471
One can be secular Buddhist and still follow Buddhist ethics. Not everyone needs supernaturalism to justify not being an asshole or a hedonist.

>>13168682
>You can literally do everything you said by merely talking to people who love you or seeing a psychologist without all the bullshit pseud meta mysticism.
Fancy mysticism is not essential to Buddhism. Meditation ultimately serves the purpose of understanding what the Buddhists call the Three Marks of Existence: impermanence, not-self and unsatisfactoriness.
When one realizes these insights, they progressively eliminate the capacity for selfishness, greed, ill-will, anger, hatred to arise in the mind - since the idea is that these unwholesome mental states are entirely dependent on a mind that does not see this aspects of existence clearly.
>>13168703
>detaching your mind from your physical body
That is a weird way to word it. I suspect that that anon meant that a goal of meditation is to develop dispassion towards the body, since lust is conducive to unwholesome mental states, since one who has lust is covetous.
Saying that you have to "detach your mind from your body" is a weird way to put it though, and I don't know of any textual basis for such an approach.
This is just one of many goals of meditation.

>>13169547
>One can be secular Buddhist and still follow Buddhist ethics
Yes but then you're not a Buddhist.
Buddhism does not discount the value of other religions or ethical systems insofar as they promote wholesomeness among the people that adhere to them.

>>13169550
>Fancy mysticism is not essential to Buddhism
I should've said fancy out there mystical explanations of ethics and developing oneself to be more compassionate, are not necessary to Buddhism. That was bad wording on my part, since "fancy mysticism" means something different to everyone. For some, mysticism means something like using metaphysics to justify goodwill (not done in Buddhism), while to others, the mere suggestion that meditation can have results beyond "ten deep breaths to calm down" is mystical thinking.

>>13168593
>"Heaven" and "hell" are just states of being for the mind
I hope you are not implying that heaven and hell are just metaphors for mental states. While that is true they also refer to literal realms where beings are born into (or in a more ultimate sense, the manner in which the mind can arise, since mind is the forerunner of all things/experience).

>>13169566
I am not a member of any religion although I practice certain techniques such as yoga and meditation which have their origin in religion. I just would like to say that one can be a secular mystic and still avoid the trap of spiritual materialism/hedonism. My path has been more aided by secular philosophers because to me a naturalised mysticism makes more sense than unquestioning acceptance of monk and saint reports -- though perhaps these monk and saint reports can be verified if they continue (if they ever were true) and lead to further understanding of what might be considered the best model of mind. Even with a scientific metaphysic (model, of course, not clinging...), one need not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do believe in both the ethical aspects of noble eightfold path and the yamas and niyamas of the eight limbs of yoga to be essential to the psychological program(s) they entail.

>>13169672
>one need not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do believe in both the ethical aspects of noble eightfold path and the yamas and niyamas of the eight limbs of yoga to be essential to the psychological program(s) they entail.
That is fair. All I'm saying is that secularism and materialism are incompatible with Buddhism, and that one who doesn't believe in rebirth, in karma...etc is not a Buddhist and doesn't represent Buddhism.
In your new post you don't seem to be implying that though, so I'm just pointing this out and not arguing against you.
I'm also not saying that one can't reap benefits from taking up the practices from Buddhism that they find appealing and abandoning the rest of the religion - they would just not be Buddhist, and while I have no way of proving this to you, I believe they would be greatly limited in their ability to make progress beyond a certain point in the Buddhism system by treating it as a 'take what you want buffet.'
If you are interested in exploring Buddhism further, as always, I highly recommend reading the suttas of the Pali Canon.
They can be read for free in multiple translations here:
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm
https://suttacentral.net/
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/

>>13169723
The argument seems a bit guilty of the "no true scotsman" fallacy to me but perhaps I am being uncharitable. If you do not consider secular meditators to be real Buddhist that is fine by me. I just would like to say that not all secular meditators are druggies or immoralists.

>>13169550
>>13169612
Secular meditator guy here. I like these posts. The three marks can be incorporated into secular thought. So can the noble eightfold path. However, I do not take refuge in the triple gem so I can totally see how people would call that fake.

>>13168838
>as opposed to Christianity

>>13166486
>R Æ V S S Q A N D V S

WHY?

>>13169767
>I just would like to say that not all secular meditators are druggies or immoralists.
That is not the implication at all hence the comment here:
>>13169566
>Buddhism does not discount the value of other religions or ethical systems insofar as they promote wholesomeness among the people that adhere to them.
This includes secular humanism.
Secularism/materialism is incompatible with Buddhism because the Buddha explicitly denied any sort of materialist metaphysics (as well as idealist metaphysics). If you say "I like Buddhism but I think the Buddha was wrong about a bunch of stuff" you're not a Buddhist.

>>13169723
>and that one who doesn't believe in rebirth, in karma...etc is not a Buddhist and doesn't represent Buddhism
It really depends what you think is essential in Buddhism. For example John Yates suggest abandoning belief in literal rebirth, because it reinforces self-view and hinders progress of insight. He uses materialist worldview all the time to explain how meditation works. Yet he's not a materialist, he claims to know Nibbana and believes in some clairvoyant siddhis. For him Buddhism is about attaining Nibbana, not adopting some set of views. Is he a Buddhist or not?
>while I have no way of proving this to you, I believe they would be greatly limited in their ability to make progress beyond a certain point in the Buddhism system by treating it as a 'take what you want buffet.
The Only way would be to compare which system produced enlightened people and which didn't. Or ask an accomplished teacher for oipinion. I'm staying with Yates for now, because he seems quite good at teaching, for Westerners at least. I heard that most Asians taking up meditation practice do it because of belief in rebirth - they want to secure a better future life.
>If you say "I like Buddhism but I think the Buddha was wrong about a bunch of stuff" you're not a Buddhist.
That would rule out most of Buddhists.

>>13170196
>John Yates suggest abandoning belief in literal rebirth, because it reinforces self-view and hinders progress of insight
Believe in a quasi-Hindu idea of reincarnation reinforces the self-view for sure, but for someone who understands the Law of Dependent Arising in relation to rebirth, there is no reinforcement of the self-view at all. I also wouldn't call John Yates the be-all end-all authority of the deep Dhamma teachings such as dependent origination, contact, rebirth...etc. His instructions on samatha meditation are good though.
>He uses materialist worldview all the time to explain how meditation works. Yet he's not a materialist
I would ask what you consider to be "materialist worldview." Is it because he uses neuroscience to explain certain effects of meditation? I don't think that accepting that science can explain things in the physical/material world as we experience it, is a "materialist worldview," if that is what you're implying.
>I heard that most Asians taking up meditation practice do it because of belief in rebirth - they want to secure a better future life
If they're meditating, chances are that they are shooting for stream-entry. They give alms to monks to make merit, they don't meditate to make merit.

>>13170196
>because it reinforces self-view
I would also add that belief in annihilationism reinforces self-view a hell of a lot more than a nuanced understanding of rebirth. Outright denial of rebirth necessitates an identification with the body - that 'this body is all you are, and once the body is gone, all of experience is gone, the subjective mental process cease because it is dependent on the body, the material, the fundamental source of your being.'
You don't have to say "I know rebirth is true" when you don't know firsthand, to be a Buddhist, but I would say that to outright deny rebirth and karma, to say that they're false, is to not be a Buddhist. This is in line with the Kalama Sutta (which materialists love to misinterpret) which states that you should only confirm or deny a teaching when you know the truth of the matter for yourself, first hand. This means to not dismiss rebirth and karma.
I suppose it was wrong to say "if you don't actively belief in rebirth and karma you're not a Buddhist," but if you outright deny rebirth and karma, you're definitely not a Buddhist.
Rebirth and karma are fundamental aspects of Buddhism. The Buddha taught rebirth and karma - if they are denied, and something is taught which denies these teachings, it is not Buddhism. Buddhism is what the Buddha taught, and his teaching should be represented in its entirety when one is trying to represent it.

>>13170180
I am the secular meditator. I think you are confusing me with another person in this thread. I am both dual and nondual and neither about materialism and idealism. I do not know if the Buddha or any enlightened figure was enlightened because I am unenlightened myself and prefer to stay skeptical rather than engage in woo until I can verify with my own experience.

>>13170196
This post is directed at another poster but I would like to respond:

>I would ask what you consider to be "materialist worldview." Is it because he uses neuroscience to explain certain effects of meditation? I don't think that accepting that science can explain things in the physical/material world as we experience it, is a "materialist worldview," if that is what you're implying.

I would say something like this but add that one does not speculate on things like the supernatural without good evidence.

>>13170291
>Believe in a quasi-Hindu
*Belief

buddhism should be ignored unless you're an actual truth seeker. mistranslations and outright lies have destroyed our perception of that religion. listening to these theravada practitioning materialist/atheist fools will just send you straight to the grave with nothing learned. a neo-platonic/gnostic mindset is easier to adjust to for westerners, which is basically everyone here

>>13170329
>'this body is all you are, and once the body is gone, all of experience is gone, the subjective mental process cease because it is dependent on the body, the material, the fundamental source of your being.'
In which suttra the Buddha debate this?

>>13166506
my understanding is suffering and pleasure, particularly letting yourself be controlled by them, are two sides of the same coin in dukkha (the general unsatisfactoriness or "suffering" of life). Recognizing them and all experiences as impermanent is part of getting out of dukkha

>>13170435
Buddhism was Hellenized from the early days after Alexander fren. Its more Western than Christianity

>>13170435

>>13170122
>Buddhism: Produce very little intellectual advancements besides respect elders, everything is despare, just be balanced lol.
>Christianity: Produced many of the worlds intellectual advancements in thinking, Rationalism vs empiricism, nature of reality, nature of morality, greeces did everything Buddhist did and more, stuff that is not mystic bullshit (and stuff that is, but at least thats not it).

>>13170780

>>13168653
Isnt meditation a latinate word anyways and a lot of its original connotations had to do with meditative pray? I have not horse in this race, but it seems to me that people in the west can easily remove the religious eliment of eastern meditation, but we still have a vary religious conotation to the western style.

>>13166905
This doesn't btfo buddhism as much as western buddhist larpers

>>13170822
Meditation is a blanket term, there are many different practices that can be labeled as meditating. Jhana/samadhi, vipassana, metta, mantra, body scanning, etc.

>>13170822
>people in the west can easily remove the religious eliment of eastern meditation, but we still have a vary religious conotation to the western style.
It is true that meditation is not exclusive to Buddhism (only mindfulness/sati/satipatthana/investigation of the Three Characteristics is exclusive to it).
The question is not whether you need to be a Buddhist to meditate but instead - you don't. Buddhism is much more than just meditation - meditation is only 2 parts of the Eightfold Path. Meditation can be found in many other religions and traditions around the world.

>>13170822
>people in the west can easily remove the religious eliment of eastern meditation, but we still have a vary religious conotation to the western style.
It is true that meditation is not exclusive to Buddhism (only mindfulness/sati/satipatthana/investigation of the Three Characteristics is exclusive to it).
The question is not whether you need to be a Buddhist to meditate - you don't. Buddhism is much more than just meditation - meditation is only 2 parts of the Eightfold Path. Meditation can be found in many other religions and traditions around the world.

>>13170888
Yes, but my point is that many cultures, including western ones have there own version of self reflection, but instead of using one from our own history and removing it from its religious connotations, we have used eastern styles and removed it from their religious connotations.

>>13166474 >>13166486 >>13166489 >>13166506
>>13166512
>>13166513
>>13166521
>>13166534
>>13166604
>>13166632
>>13166642
>>13166653
>>13166744
>>13166750
>>13166813
>>13166865
>>13166900
>>13166905
>>13167005
>>13167026
>>13167041
>>13167075
>>13167081
>>13167086
>>13167091
>>13167092
>>13167097
>>13167112 >>13167148 >>13167325 >>13167756 >>13167835
>>13168341
>>13168369
>>13168414
>>13168427
>>13168482
>>13168500
>>13168507
>>13168511
>>13168521
>>13168524
>>13168530
>>13168544
>>13168548
>>13168554
>>13168556
>>13168569
>>13168572
>>13168585
>>13168593
>>13168604
>>13168608
>>13168632
>>13168653
>>13168654
>>13168682
>>13168688
>>13168703
>>13168705
>>13168731
>>13168739
>>13168767
>>13168786
>>13168829
>>13168833
>>13168838
>>13168839
>>13168859
>>13168871
>>13168889
>>13169398
>>13169430
>>13169471
>>13169509
>>13169510
>>13169547
>>13169550
>>13169566
>>13169612
>>13169641
>>13169672
>>13169723
>>13169767
>>13169938
>>13170122
>>13170125
>>13170180
>>13170196
>>13170291
>>13170329
>>13170343
>>13170346
>>13170435
>>13170602
>>13170603
>>13170659
>>13170697
>>13170780
>>13170813
>>13170822
>>13170838
>>13170888
>>13170897
you retards coudent tell what buddhism is if it came out your ass, the buddhism all you twats refer to comes from the Hīnayāna which is the shitty retarded version of the original doctrines compared with the Mahāyāna which stays way truer to the doctrines. You all are fascinated with a buddhism that is most likely the farthest and least familiar with any eastern doctrines aka not buddhism but some shit Westerners love to praise. As a student studying Traditionalism but more so the orientals i can't help but cringe everytime I see you discuss "Buddhism" its more so some-shit the Westerners took in and adapted to their imagination. You guys read some chart and become a Eastern monk and maybe even understand Buddhism itself? gtfo, read guenon's first book so you can get rid of your western prejudices

>>13170932
you puthujjana coudent tell what buddhism is if it came out the void, the buddhism all you beings trapped in a thicket of views refer to comes from Blavatskyian Theosophy which is the shitty Anglo interpretation of the Mahāyāna compared with the earliest form of Madhyamaka which stays way truer to the doctrines. You all are fascinated with a buddhism that is most likely the farthest and least familiar with any Dhammic doctrines aka not buddhism but some shit New Age Westerners love to praise. As a student studying the Madhyamaka but more so early Buddhism i can't help but cringe everytime I see you discuss "Buddhism" its more so some-shit the Westerners took in and adapted to their imagination. You guys some Neoplatonist perennialism and become a esoteric mystic and maybe even understand Buddhism itself? gtfo, read Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā so you can get rid of your inclination towards fabricated dualistic extremes of Absolutism and Sarvāstivādin/Hīnayānin nihilism

>>13170932
ok, but don't mass reply autist.

Guenon and many westerners anyways had a negativity bias for their own history/contemporary intelligentsia. Not saying he wasnt influential and brilliant, buthe's not irrefutable.

I want to take an in-depth meditation course from a teacher. Not particular about mindfulness, Samantha or vipsanna. What should I look for in a good course?

>>13170960
it's a pasta

>>13170960
>their own history/contemporary intelligentsia
He looks like a pajeet though

>>13170966
What's a "pasta" !?

>>13170964
Different traditions emphasize different techniques. Thai Forest emphasizes samatha/jhana while other traditions like the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, emphasize satipatthana. Bhante V seems to emphasize mettā (loving-kindness). Pick whatever appeals to you.
Buddhist retreats are supposed to be entirely free by the way, in accordance with the Vinaya. Avoid secular retreats that charge money unless you feel absolutely compelled to them for whatever reason.
Also avoid the Goenka tradition, it's weird/cultish, the technique has a reputation for being inefficient, and most of the time there isn't a teacher to give you one-on-one feedback like there is at a proper monastery.

>>13170966
oh.

>>13170989
I want to cultivate “constancy” (grit, or consistency of goals longterm) as well as a distraction-free focus. These are my major two faults. Which tradition would emphasize these?

>>13171048
Thai Forest tradition, since it emphasizes jhana which is essentially one-pointed concentration.
Maintain sila (morality/virtue) or jhana becomes impossible, btw

>>13170989
Note that Bhante V prefers metta because (according to his experience with the students in his retreats) it is much faster than other methods. The jhanas he talks about are also different from the concentration jhanas that are based on single-pointedness. They are much more relaxed and comfortable "tranquil aware jhanas" (and as Bhante V would put it: "fun") and are such that you don't actually feel craving toward them as you might with the concentration jhanas.

I recommend everyone try his method first for a month or two before spending 10+ years on other traditions, since the results are supposed to be immediate.

>>13171048
traditions keep you consistent with their views, not with the dhamma. if you want to be consistent with he dhamma, you develop those 5 things, especially sati, sampajāna, samadhi and faith -conviction since if you do not believe the buddha is right, it is idiotic to even do what he says...


"Monks, there are these five faculties. Which five? The faculty of conviction, the faculty of persistence, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of discernment.

"Now what is the faculty of conviction? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, has conviction, is convinced of the Tathagata's Awakening: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' This is called the faculty of conviction.

"And what is the faculty of persistence? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, keeps his persistence aroused for abandoning unskillful mental qualities and taking on skillful mental qualities. He is steadfast, solid in his effort, not shirking his duties with regard to skillful mental qualities. He generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... [and] for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. This is called the faculty of persistence.

"And what is the faculty of sati? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. He remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called the faculty of mindfulness.

>>13171821
"And what is the faculty of samadhi ? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called the faculty of concentration.

"And what is the faculty of discernment? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with discernment of arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to the right ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is called the faculty of discernment.

"These are the five faculties."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.009.than.html

to know the difference between sati and sampajāna

https://suttacentral.net/sn47.35/en/sujato

>>13167112
Buddhist ethics gets its basis in ending rebirth or at the very least a positive one. If you reject the existence of rebirth, then you're left with nihilism. All religions need a kind of soteriology in order to justify their meta and normative ethical schemes. If you remove rebirth, then Buddhism becomes a silly religion.

>>13166744
>KN = nobody cares about this
Considering it includes the Dhammapada, Jatakas and Suttanipata, I'd say you're full of shit.

>>13171918
You can have a deflated naturalist view of karma and rebirth and still follow buddhist ethics in the spirit of secular humanism.

Actually "Dharma bums" by Keruac
Showcases the right mentality pretty well

>>13172106
>You can have a deflated naturalist view of karma and rebirth and still follow buddhist ethics in the spirit of secular humanism.
If you have a deflated view of karma and rebirth, then it becomes merely a preferential thing about adopting "secular humanism". It becomes more of a preference rather than a real justification.

If we all reach the same end regardless of our personal conduct in the here and now, then there is absolutely no argument you can make for a meta- and normative ethics.

>>13172137
That's the most absurd claim I've ever seen. Plenty of meta and normative ethics don't require an afterlife. Perhaps I am preferring certain types of ethics. I do not claim to have all the answers. Yet you do. And I doubt you have experimentally verified metaphysically loaded religious rebirth or karma in any meaningful sense.

>>13172246
It only comes off as as absurd to you because you are naive and refuse to think through the full ramifications of what you say.
>Plenty of meta and normative ethics don't require an afterlife.
And they become immensely weak as a consequence. They have very shaky foundations and potential holes so-to-speak.
>Yet you do
How old are you? I never claimed to have all the answers. I'm just claiming that if there is no afterlife, then an icchantika becomes no different than an awakened Buddha. You can thus not argue for compassion over hatred.

>>13172137
>"secular humanism".
Cringe

>>13172266
I am not a secular humanist. I was responding to him.

>>13172265
So if there is no afterlife there is no reason to be moral? Are you serious? Hahaha. Wait. Let me laugh more. LOL!

I would argue with you further but since you seem to have no background reading in philosophy besides Buddhism it seems pointless.

It kinda scares me to meet people who would be total psychopaths if not for a judging God or metaphysical mechanistic karma farm meting out punishments....

>>13172291
You cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism. Ethical Naturalism is complete nonsense.

My background in philosophy is probably stronger than yours.
>It kinda scares me to meet people who would be total psychopaths if not for a judging God or metaphysical mechanistic karma farm meting out punishments....
One reason for them is because people like you try to encourage a disenchanted view of life that is purely reducible to mechanistic and physical properties.

>>13172306
>it's not me who's wrong! it's everyone else
Sure, buddy. Just keep meditating. One day you'll be enlightened like the Buddha and you won't exist but you never existed anyway and you might exist again after a certain number of kalpas but who knows about that anyway. Normative ethics based on karma and rebirth is definitely not just dressing up your preference for Buddhist ethics in a justification that looks suspiciously like the Emperor's New Clothes...

>>13172324
My biggest preference right now is single-mindedly punching you in the face, repeatedly while reciting the Sutras.

>>13172324
My biggest preference right now is single-mindedly punching you in the face, repeatedly, while reciting the Sutras.

>>13172341
Lol. Nice equanimity. Mind unpacking this:
>>13172306
>One reason for them is because people like you try to encourage a disenchanted view of life that is purely reducible to mechanistic and physical properties.
Rage spasming at your keyboard much? This is such a pathetic sentiment too. Enjoy your cope bro

>>13172350
>Enjoy your cope bro
It's more that you're too retarded to understand the horror of that which I point at, so you don't need to bother coping. Real existential depression is beyond your cognitive capacity. Better to be a New Agey nut than someone who tries to keep it safe with biases from modern naturalism, physicalism, and empirical science. Self-deception can only work for so long.

>>13172378
>depression
despair*
Sorry, late. I must go to bed now.

how can Hinduism even compete

>>13172936
Unnecessary post desu, you're just inviting a shitstorm

>>13172265
>if there is no afterlife, then an icchantika becomes no different than an awakened Buddha
>>13172341
>single-mindedly punching you in the face, repeatedly, while reciting the Sutras.
>Sutras
>icchantika
Ahh, it's you again, icchantika-poster. I recommend reading the suttas on Right Speech before going off on people on like this so aggressively. Try:
AN 5:198
AN 3.67
I should also mention that karma is observable here & now and not only throughout multiple lifetimes (actions, their consequences and subsequent mental conditioning are obvious to anyone who looks).
You are right though that denial of rebirth is incompatible with Buddhism (and one who denies it is not a Buddhist). The Buddha says directly that it is wrong view:
>One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
- MN 117

By far the worst thread about Buddhism here in a while

>>13173031
cringe post^

>>13173047
Sit.

>>13166474
Just read everything lmao
Buddhism is about your experience
not everyone else's and certainly not the writers'
Even Buddha's words were under the context of who he was speaking to. (not you btw)

>>13173031
That's just the nature of these threads imo - the ratio of people genuinely asking about Buddhism vs secularists/Christians/Traditionalists/just shitposters in general trying to start arguments is 1:10 in any given Buddhism thread.

>>13173073
Yeah I know. Hopefully one day we'll see dharma generals were people from different backgrounds can get together to not shitpost 100% of the time

Can anyone who is an expert on these things explain to me why Buddhist thinkers were unable to refute any classical and post-classical Hindu philosophy other than basic logic stuff like nyaya? There just wasn't any serious response or refutations by Buddhists to the rise of Vedanta and Hindu tantra who critiqued Buddhism, it's making me really start to question things, someone help a bro out.

>>13173382
How much contact did the Buddhists really have with India after the Muslims kicked all the Buddhists out?

>>13173382
Because they mind their own business

>>13173572
Not much, since the Muzzies didn't kick the Buddhists out so much as slaughter them and burn down their schools and temples.

>>13173382
By then Buddhism was a shitshow of different schools arguing amongst each other for different metaphysics (see, the Kathavatthu), differing from the Buddha's initial teachings. The forms of Buddhism refuted by the Vedantins were later schools trying to develop their own ideas not supported by the early texts (pluralism, momentariness, atomism...etc) which of course would fall apart once someone well-suited to do so pokes holes in them. Buddhism turns to shit when you try to apply a metaphysics to it, and unfortunately these metaphysical ideas unfaithful to the early texts have prevailed in popular Buddhism to this day, yes even in Theravada (or perhaps especially in Theravada, depending on which sect we're talking about).

>>13173382
By then Buddhism was a shitshow of different schools arguing amongst each other for different metaphysics (see, the Kathavatthu), differing from the Buddha's initial teachings. The forms of Buddhism refuted by the Vedantins were later schools trying to develop their own ideas not supported by the early texts (pluralism, momentariness, atomism...etc) which of course would fall apart once someone well-suited to do so pokes holes in them. Buddhism turns to shit when you try to apply a metaphysics to it, and unfortunately these metaphysical ideas unfaithful to the early texts have prevailed in popular Buddhism to this day, yes even in Theravada (or perhaps especially in Theravada, depending on which traditions we're talking about).

Has anyone reached samadhi states? Can you describe what they are like and how you got there?

>>13173710
I've reached first Jhana. It came after many days of daily breath meditaiton. It was pretty standard - the mind went silent, discursive thoughts were minimal, I felt a feeling of joy/rapture in my chest, I redirected my attention from the breath to that feeling, and there was a sense of an explosion of bliss throughout my entire field of experience. Everything was completely enveloped in the deepest bliss and euphoria I have ever experienced, and it kept getting more intense with each second, like a feedback loop. This was accompanied by one-pointed concentration as well.

>>13173737
did you cum?

>>13173794
can't say I did

>>13172984
This is why I believe Zarathustra's Gathas is not incompatible with Buddhism. The rest of the Zend Avesta is, indeed, incompatible, but Zarathustra was not responsible for them.

I have read a good amount of zen buddhism books. Zazen cured my insomnia and a lot of stuff I have learned from zen has helped greatly with my anxiety. I like how I can literally practice the zen buddhism teachings irl situations, let's me know how truthful it is.
The three pillars of zen is probably the best book I have read, I would suggest starting with it

Isn't there just an authoritative textbook I can use? Something like an "Introduction to Buddhism"? I hate /lit/'s boner for primary texts or specialized books when you lack even the most basic overview of what you're trying to learn.

>>13174580
The Dalai Lama literally wrote one called that last year: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Buddhism-Core-Teachings-Dalai/dp/1559394757

>>13174639
Well, that's perfect. Thanks Anon.

>>13174580
Here's a free PDF of What the Buddha Taught by Walpola Rahula, it is a great and popular introduction to the core teachings of Buddhism:
https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~buddhism/docs/Bhante_Walpola_Rahula-What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf
For more, check out In The Buddha's Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi for an overview of important primary texts.
Lastly, if you wanna go further, check out A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities by David Kalupahana for an excellent overview of the teachings of the various different sects and schools that developed throughout history

>>13168838
thats because theyre at peace anon and dont require material wealth to make them happy

>>13174933
Thanks Anon.

>>13166604
are you free of suffering ?

yeah are you