/lit/ - Literature

>>16987739
What is a soul?

>>16987743
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

>>16987739
Anatta is a meme. Original Buddhism taught of the existence of the soul, and there are numerous references to its existence in the Nikayas.

>>16987739
Soul is composite? Good times. Soul is non-composite? That's a problem.

>>16987866
lol retard

How can i explain Astral Projection and be a Buddhist?

>>16988975
The Pali Canon mentions astral proyection. In the sutta about benefits of the contemplative life in the here and now, one of the benefits is creating a mind-made body.

>>16988975
Astral projection isn't real. It's hallucination

>>16989043
I as tral project often.

>>16989028
Thanks.

>>16989066
How to astral project? The reddit is fucking useless, I tried those 2 hour lectures but they're just rambling

Outside meditate 15-30 minutes each day are there any other practices, lessons, or conventions of Zen? Or do you just live life normally but try to look at things in a more Zen way?

>>16987739
Well, you're wrong about the south thing, and about Buddhism. I'm not really sure what that makes you. You're at least foolish.

>>16989118

...

>>16987739
Do Buddhists not believe in souls? Than how does reincarnation work?

>>16989108
>How to astral project?
The brazilian Nanci Trivellato teachs very cleary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB6mntSf8ek

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMBNZspmn7I

She has an excellent book about the Vibracional State (also described by Robert Monroe)

>>16989108

If you haven't been doing it instinctually since you were a kid, you're an NPC so just don't worry about it.

>>16989157
Thank you

>>16987977
>lol retard
Reject reddit Buddhism. Reject the false nihilism that has been imposed on it. Joy is found in the soul.

Wow, just smoke a joint and listen to some alan watts dude

>>16987739
Jains also believe in a soul, although Shankaracharya refuted them as well, in addition to the Buddhists

>>16987866
>Original Buddhism
still denied Atta, Ken. There is no real evidence outside the multitude of early suttas espousing Anatta that Buddha believed in the Hindu Atman.

>>16989744
>Adi Shartaracharya
Refuted by Madhvacharya (pbuh)

>>16989118
more like 14 hours a day, at least for monasteryfags

>>16987739
OP has been diagnosed as suffering from a severe case of ātmagraha, root problem: upādāna

>>16987739
>does that by default make me Hindu?
yes a hindu, jain, mahayanist

>>16989157
are there any indian manuals on it?
i feel like if the indians are not teaching it openly then it's probably irresponsible to do it probably could fuck you up or something

>>16987739
The only reason I turned away from Buddhism and accepted Advaita is because of soul stuff.

>>16990477
So Mahayanaists believe in the soul? Is this what they call Buddha Nature? How is this reconciled with the Historical Buddha's teachings? Something about the three turnings of the wheel I suppose?

>>16991498
you cling to so many things, souls, the historical buddha, tiny scraps of knowledge about varying sects

>>16988975
The movie Insidious has made me a bit wary of astral projection

>>16991498
No cling fren, just trwing to understand

>>16991531
>>16991579

>>16991586
aha! so you cling to a need for understanding

sorry, semi kidding, personally i've never had the trouble you have, the question of a soul doesn't even arise, so i find it hard to answer without encouraging you to cling to even more stuff

>>16989166
That's not a nice thing to say

>>16987739
According to Ken Wheeler (Theoria Apophasis on Youtube) Buddhism actually supports the concept of a soul, but most buddhists are simply too ignorant of their own scriptures to realize it.

>>16991498
Mahayanaists believe each perosn has a buddha nature, which is jsut uncontiondal love, but since they seethe when they are told it's just like hinduism, they create circus where the buddha nature is not the same for person A and B, but still the same...
Then they get even more anxious when they say rocks and trees have buddha nature too, which just means again the buddha nature is the same for everybody.

>>16991498
Mahayanaists believe each person has a buddha nature, which is just unconditional love (like christians say god is love, well humanists say buddha is love and hindus say brahma is love), but since they seethe when they are told it's just like hinduism, they create a mental circus where the buddha nature is not the same for person A and B, but still the same...
Then they get even more anxious when they say rocks and trees have buddha nature too, which just means again the buddha nature is the same for everybody.

>>16991989
Everyone is Buddha.

>>16992000
yea dimwits lay people love to hear that

>>16991989
How does this fit in with the teaching of no-self?

>>16987813
Nice try, that doesn't answer his question.

>>16992019
Not him, but the soul or Atman can be understood as sentience, or consciousness. Not the contents of consciousness like eye-conciousness but consciousness as such, that light by which you are aware of its contents

>>16992007
They hear it but they'll never understand.

>>16991967
>Buddhism actually supports the concept of a soul

https://youtu.be/zVabOLLL9ms

Dis true?

>According to Ken Wheeler.....

>>16992000
What was that post?

>>16992195
Fat fuck
Physically disgusting

>>16991967
Based

>>16992703
Cringe

>>16987739
Hinduism does not believe in a soul in the same sense that Abrahamic religions do. There are different schools of thought, but generally to realize your true self, atman, is not to identify with an ego, but with ultimate reality, brahman. The fundamental difference between westernized soul and easternized soul is that the latter has no individuality. Atman is like the Brahman in microcosm, it is not distinct from it, moreover, it is connected to all other selves, it is not a distinct position of self-contained entity.
For this reason Hindu sages tend to be radically pacifistic. Not because it is necessarily morally wrong to harm another soul, but because it is irrational: it would be like hurting yourself, because everything is Brahman folded back onto itself.

>>16991967
holy based.....

>>16993978
So we are the universe "condensed" in one point?

Can you suggest material to understand this?

>>16987866
hello Ken

>>16993978
>Hinduism does not believe in a soul in the same sense that Abrahamic religions do.
What you say in your post is largely true, but even in Advaita Vedanta there is something distinct from both the body and Atman, called the 'subtle body' which does transmigrate and which corresponds more closely to the western conception of soul

>>16994734
>So we are the universe "condensed" in one point?
Yes, but the totality or Totality is Itself partless, undivided, uncondensed. The condensation is only virtual, and exists only for and from the perspective of the condensed beholder. Similarly when a kid spends the whole day playing a video game, and identifies with the character he controls in the game, and begins to worry when the character is at risk of harm, and takes pride in the characters achievements, the whole while he is doing that he never stopped being the kid existing outside of the video game in reality.

>Can you suggest material to understand this?
Not that poster but this short text talking about that topic which you can read online is pretty accessible and doesn't require much prior knowledge unlike a lot of other Hindu texts

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>>16994820
>distinct from both the body and Atman, called the 'subtle body' which does transmigrate
Is this what does the Astral Projection to the subtle dimensions?

And what do you think of I AM THAT from maharaj?

>>16987866
>the axiom of unrestricted comprehension is a meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_specification#Unrestricted_comprehension
It is not a meme and it is what allows modern axiomatic ZFC set theory to overcome Russell's paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox

>>16994820
Interesting !

Right now i am watching Brad Werner talk "read the Bhagavad Gita from the point of you as Krshna".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtm47w4yAeU

>>16994958
>Is this what does the Astral Projection to the subtle dimensions?
I would assume so, since the Atman is omnipresent and so It cannot go anywhere according to Advaita because It is everywhere already. Shankara in his writings cautions that siddhis like these should not be pursued and should be indifferently allowed to happen without attachment or aversion when they occur (that applies to people who have become a monk devoted to spiritual progress though, if you are just some guy experimenting then there is nothing wrong with it IMO) The myths about Shankara using various siddhis contrast to his cool attitudes towards them in his writings.
>>16994958
>And what do you think of I AM THAT from maharaj?
I have not read the whole thing, but I have read portions and liked them. I have read much of Shankara's work and what I read from Maharaj seemed to be a faithful explanation of various insights about non-duality in a way that agreed with Advaita. One of the many interesting things about him is that despite his recorded talks suggesting otherwise he wasn't initiated into an Advaita order like the Dashnami Sampradaya, but into both the Veerashaivia and Navnath Sampradayas, which I guess speaks to how the other non-dual and qualified non-dual sects in Hinduism often in speak in essence about the same thing as Advaita in spite of exterior differences.

>>16989131
The Buddhists believe:
- souls don't exist
- your soul seems to exist
- things that seem to be souls (identity) do exist
- things that seem to be souls leap from body to body
i.e. souls don't exist but we point to viruses and call them "soul"
so reincarnation is just some mechanism whereby a virus is transmitted from one host to another at the point of death / birth

>>16989157
mom overload
I think I just had a...momgasm...omg

>>16987739
Why not be Manichaean?
It's basically Buddhism+Christianity+Zoroastrianism

>>16989131
Let's say reality is a rope, there is a knot on this rope, you call this knot your "self". You think the knot is separate from the rope, because this knot is "you" and the rest of the rope is just the world that you are living in. Enlightenment is when you untangle the knot, you realize it's the same rope as everything else and actually there was no real object called a "knot" it was actually the rope.

This thing that you've been calling a knot, it still exists, there is still a tied up piece of rope there because you haven't untangled it. This tied up piece of rope is what goes through rebirth unless you untangle it and reach enlightenment. I hope you understand.

>>16995652
Wouldn't it follow that if you reached enlightment you'd vanish from the world instead o just dying?

>>16995669
that depends on how you understand Buddhist theory of mind, every major Buddhist school and every internet schizo/armchair expert has a different take tbqh

>>16995669
Enlightenment is basically realizing that all your narratives you've lived your life with are false constructs, spooks as Max Stirner called them. It's the realization that life is meaningless and it's all spooks, once you realize the spooks you can then stop believing in them, but this simply puts you in a mental state where you hold no narratives you still physically exist in the world. I'm pretty sure actual liberation can only be achieved once you die.

>>16992036
If a doctor puts you under general anesthesia, where does your soul go?

>>16995846
According to Advaita Vedanta the answer to your question is given in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Mandukya Upanishad. Before this though it should be said that this sentience is not identical with what we normally regard as our waking sentience, but it is in fact different from the three states of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep as that in which they occur and which observes them as something different from them. The condition or distinction of having an intellect being illumined and controlled as it were by consciousness in the waking and dream states, and the lack of having this occur in dreamless sleep are distinctions.

Distinctions such as these are observed by consciousness. That we are able to observe and make this distinction between the presence of the intellect/mind and their absence is because our sentience itself is separate from the mind and that it does not go in and out of existence, but that it registers this change (the appearance or vanishing of the mind) as what the same unchanging thing observes. Our sentience, consciousness or Atman is transparent, formless, immediate and self-revealing; it has no features other than its constant revealing of its own presence to itself as well as the objects and sensations reflected in it. When there is a complete absence of sensory data, the same sentience is still there abiding, but it is not observing the intellect, thus there is an absence of exterior object and inner objects in the forms of thoughts and memories. In the same way the eye never sees itself but in the absence of light it only registers darkness while still itself existing.

So when you ask what happens to the soul under anesthesia, you are only asking what happened to an exterior sensation or change that sentience detected as something fundamentally extrinsic to itself. The sensation of observing and controlling ones minds, thoughts and body was replaced with and witnessed as the sensation of darkness, which was replace by a sensation of dream or waking for the same abiding entity.

>>16996193
However, this contentless awareness or the experience of darkness and the vanishing of the mind which we normally experience in dreamless sleep is not the same as the Supreme Self as it is in its eternally free self-aware and liberated nature because waking (Visva), dream (Taijasa), and dreamless deep sleep (Prajna) are only states superimposed by the jiva (i.e. the illusory false self consisting of the body and mind, which is an ultimately unreal appearance of individuality within the eternal consciousness or Atman-Brahman which is Itself formless, supra-individual and non-dual) on Brahman regarded as the transcendent fourth in relation to the other three states. So it would be a mistake to regard the state of deep dreamless sleep, or prajna as being equivalent to the non-dual Atman-Brahman Itself which is totally unaffected by maya, samsara, the three states etc. It would also be a mistake to regard prajna as identical to the non-dual Consciousness that a liberated man experiences and knows.

Someone who has not attained illumination abides as a jiva in the state of prajna in deep sleep which causes the perception when they awake that their awareness has changed or vanished during sleep, whereas the illuminated person understands and experiences that they are the unchanging awareness of the 4th state which witnesses the other three. Our real nature is the fourth ever awake and liberated turiya, but under the influence of the Atman-Brahman's power maya the jiva perceives itself as the 3rd state of prajna.

>okay but I asked about anesthesia not sleep, how does this relate to my question
In Advaita the physical world and time and space is included with a pantheistic entity Saguna (qualified) Brahman which expands into and forms the ether and all the elements, this Saguna Brahman is but an appearance of the Atman-Brahman which the superior and omniscient/omnipotent Atman-Brahman controls (and by virtue all movement and causation place directly through the Atman-Brahman directly sustains and causes, as in occasionalism), so the relation of the mind being put under anesthesia and then the Atman-Brahman observing that mind experience darkness are all part of the world which are being continuously caused and sustained by the Atman. So the Atman or one's consciousness observing the waking state of the mind isn't really "put into" anesthesia, but that the jiva seems to experiences this as such is part of the web of the world which an omniscient Supreme Lord observing that jiva weaves. And the same relation by which the jiva experiences the lack of content and a lack of intellect/mind during dreamless sleep is the same relation by which the jiva experience the same when put under anesthesia.

>>16996200
The above distinctions of turiya, prajna, taijasa and visva and their meaning is elaborated on in the Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika, and in Shankara's commentary on both texts. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad along with other Upanishads contains passages describing the Atman-Brahman as an self-revealing conscious entity who is different from the mind/intellect and body and who continues when the mind of the jiva is in dreamless sleep.

Brihadaranyaka Up. 2.1.17. - Ajatasatru said: When this being full of consciousness (vijnana maya) is thus asleep, it absorbs, at that time, the functions of the organs through its own consciousness and rests in the Supreme Self that is in the heart. When this being absorbs them, it is called svapiti. Then the organ of smell is absorbed, the organ of speech is absorbed, the eye is absorbed, the ear is absorbed and the mind is absorbed.
Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.3.11. - Regarding this there are the following verses: ‘The effulgent infinite being, who travels alone, makes the body insensible in sleep but himself remains awake and taking with him the luminous particles of the organs, watches those which lie dormant. Again he comes to the waking state'
Brihadaranyaka Up. 4.3.23.-4.3.24. - "And when it appears that in deep sleep it does not see, yet it is seeing though it does not see; for there is no cessation of the vision of the seer, because the seer is imperishable. There is then, however, no second thing separate from the seer that it could see. "And when it appears that in deep sleep it does not smell, yet it is smelling though it does not smell; for there is no cessation of the smelling of the smeller, because the smeller is imperishable. There is then, however, no second thing separate from the smeller that it could smell.

>>16996193
>our sentience itself is separate from the mind
This is why William Buhlman talks about travel beyond the mind in the subtle dimensions!

>>16987739
The soul believes in itself. Do you believe the soul?
When you believe in the soul, the soul believes in the soul.
You might as well believe in a mirror.

>>16996193
>>16996200
>>16996214
>anon asks a question
>buddhist just anwers him
>advaita vedantin spends three posts using every character available dodging the question
This kind of incoherency is why you fags get made fun of.

>>16987739
discord
.gg
/zRygKwuH8c

>>16994771
LOL

>>16991967
i love that fat nigga like you wouldn't believe

>>16996376
>dodging the question
The short answer is that the soul is the Atman and its omnipresent so it doesn't go anywhere since an infinite and omnipresent thing never moves because if it could move from one position to another it wouldn't be all-pervasive, it merely observes the three states as the fouth, that was the context. I sometimes assume that people already know that the Atman in Advaita is omnipresent. The soul is not identical with the waking state since the former is present in dreams but the latter isn't so. Consciousness or soul is present in dreams, waking and in dreamless sleep, but it only has objects to observe which appear separate from it in dreams and waking.

>>16993978
>For this reason Hindu sages tend to be radically pacifistic
Isn't animal _and_ human sacrifice (in the case of widows) commonplace in Hinduism?

>>16987739
No, it makes you a Platonist.

>>16995652
>>16995174
Why would I want to achieve enlightenment? It sounds boring at best, a lot worse than what I've got going on right now.

>>16995322
It doesn't truly exist anymore, does it? It's like trying to be a practicing true gnostic.

>>16997151
>>Isn't animal _and_ human sacrifice (in the case of widows) commonplace in Hinduism?
Yes killings is all over their Vedas and they had to do a mental gymnastics after jainism and buddhism gain traction.

The Upanishads are a cringe attempt from the hindus to make the vedas compatible with more popular ideas from the jains and the buddhists.


The jains and the buddhists talked about karma, rebirth and ignorance so the poos copied that.

The jains said that nirvana can only be reached inside samadhi and then dying inside samadhi, so poos copied the first part.

The buddhists say you don't need to die to get to nirvana, so the poos copied that.

In the vedas, the poos just talk about rituals and sacrifices, which is useless to buddhist, but not to jains for the ritual part, so they made the buddha as one of their god and now the poos say killing animals is wrong.

With the meditation meme, the poos created Advaita and now they say that only thru meditation people can reach nirvana. that's true like the jains, but false in buddhism.

Don't forget that in the vedas, there is no karma, no rebirth, no ignorance. Just 100% sacrificial rituals of animals and dancing around a fire to please gods.

Then later on with the mahayanists rejecting the buddhist sutras, but still wanting to pas as buddhist, the mahayanists made up the non-duality meme, just like the Advaita. It is not clear which one of the two group of retards create the meme, but they are both non-buddhist, as seen from the content and the style of their lengthy crappy texts.

> Karma
> Rebirth
> No soul
I mean...

>>16987739
Another form of Buddhism that may interest you is Dzogchen. It smuggles into Buddhism a God (Adi-Buddha) and being/ground (luminous mind). Mipham is the best source, the Aquinas of Dzogchen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi-Buddha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_mind#Dzogchen

Imagine being duped into eastern potato religions when so many orthodox Christian spiritual texts are readily available in English.

https://deathtotheworld.com/articles/blessed-hieromonk-seraphim-rose/

>>16998704
Overreliance on positivism. Retroactively refuted by Hegel, see On the Positivity of the Christian Religion:
http://hegel.net/hegelwerke/Hegel1948-OnChristianity-EarlyTheologicalWritings.pdf

>>16989131
Most Indian Buddhist school of thoughts were against the very concept of reincarnation(continuity of a self beyond death) because it goes against their concept of emptiness or sunyata. It's just that the version of buddhism which got imported to China believed in karmic debt and soul reincarnation.

>>16997767
Buddhism has the concept of souls/spirits but denies that they are immortal because that would make them immutable.

>>16997490
You got most of this history backwards. Early buddhism is heavily influenced by hindu schools. It wouldn't even exist without the development of hindu philosophy. It borrows a lot of vocabulary and philosophy from Hinduism.

>>16998745
What period are you talking about here? Northern India was where Mahayana originated and dominated until it fell to Islam.

>>16998729
Can you explain? I can't read a 360 page book here. I don't understand how you can claim Orthodoxy to rely on positivism when its theology is based on revelation. When the authority is divine there's not really an issue with relying on it.

TORQUE HOLE

>>16998704
Christianity is just dull and boring to me.
Jesus was most likely a bodhisattva, but that's about all I will believe about it.
The various doctrines comprise quite a foul little thing to have accumulated such a following worldwide.

Namu Amida Butsu

>>16999163
based
南無阿弥陀仏

>It is profound, it is vast; it is neither self nor other . . . a state of perfect bliss in which existence has its origin.... Here, Sun and Moon lose their distinction.

>>16998680
Any particular books by Mipham that you recommend

>Goes up to God and tells him he's deluded
the balls on this prick

>read thread
>as always, literally everyone has a different opinion on what buddhist and hinduist philosophy are about
Does this never strike you as odd?

>>17000880
is kind of exagerated in budhism
but that effect is similar in all the religious topics

>>16995828
This is completely wrong and misleading
>>16995174
This too
>>16995322
You can't "be" a manichaean any more than you can be any other flavor of gnostic in this day and age, contrary to what /x/ larpers would have you believe
>>16998704
Christianity is inherently incompatible with most branches of mainstream Buddhism, as is any form of Platonism

>>17000913
Christians and Muslims on this board usually tend to more or less agree on the core tenets of their faith at least.

>>17000880
Yeah both Buddhism and Hinduism are not really one religion. Buddhism has many different schools which are very different, same for Hinduism.

I don't think two things can be as far removed from each other as Theravada Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism or Nichiren Buddhism.

>>17000984
Nichiren is a literal cult

Bump!

the question you need to ask is: is buddhism deterministic?

>>17002570
Dependent origination suggests so

>>17002570
yeah but about tendencies

>>17002766
develop your thought please

>>16987739
>does that by default make me Hindu?
Specify roughly what a 'soul' means to you and I'll tell you

>>16997151
Burning widows upon the husbands pyre wasn't a form of human sacrifice. It was a defensive tactic to prevent getting cucked by invading Muslims, they can't force your wife to join their harem if she's dead too.

>>17000916
>This is completely wrong and misleading

In what way? I'd say the recognition of spooks is a big part of enlightenment, including the spooks of "self" and the ego identity. I also think the realization of meaninglessness is part of it too, because if you think there is some meaning to be found in this world you will have desires and attachments to things which don't actually lead you anywhere, you're just a dog chasing its tail. When you stop seeing the world in concepts and narratives, labels and words, when you stop seeing the self and the other, this is a big part of enlightenment I I believe and once you realize how everything is impermanent and empty of any real substance, you will find it easier to let go of attachments.

If I got something wrong then please do enlighten me to what you think it is.

>>16998749
>Buddhism has the concept of souls/spirits but denies that they are immortal because that would make them immutable.
Is emptiness immortal and immutable? Is change Immortal and immutable? Is freedom Immortal and immutable? Is samsara Immortal and immutable?

>>17003650
Nirvana is unqualifiable, it's not a state you can describe and you can't dumb it down to just eliminating spooks, that's simply apathy
It's above that, above qualification and speculation. If it could be described without being experienced, the Buddha would've described it

>>17003859
Sorry I thought enlightenment was different than nirvana, I wasn't talking about nirvana, but the stage before it, the prerequisites you could say.

>>17003859
Some Buddhist sure do like to reduce Nirvana down to almost nothing at all though. They sure are a diverse group.

>>17003859
That's a fairly accurate statement. Nirvana is complete unbinding from the wheel of rebirth and the cessation of suffering. Anything else ascribed to it is adding too much.

could someone please critique this rundown of the state of Buddhist apologia?
>>>/wsr/938498

>>16999710
The one in the pic>>16998680

>>17000916
>as is any form of Platonism
Platonism is very close to Buddhism but with an inverted morality (and moral ontology) that esteems eros and being whereas Buddhism maligns both as metaphysical evils. Platonism is positive Buddhism, Buddhism is negative Platonism.

>>17005432
there is no dependent origination in any non-buddhism

>>17005991
The chain of being in Platonism is the same thing with the same font. Each stage of being depends on the chain of being above it, particulars, to forms, to the One. The One, (which would properly be called the The Zero if they had the concept), from which all being originates and depends, is a superessential non-being, an overflowing nothingness beyond all being and non-being.

For Platonism erotically striving for unity with that superessential nothingness (henosis) is desirable and good. Buddhism negatively aspires for the same nothingness through a subjective retreat out of being, a negative Platonism.

>>17004701
>>>/wsr/938498
the thing required to get enlightened is to understand is:
-what is anicca is dukkha
-what is dukkha is anatta

ie what is conditioned is suffering and what is dukkha is always anatta

Most people manage to think the link anicca-> dukkha, but they dont get the dukkha->anatta (like all the low IQ in ''vipassa meditation'').

So try to see why something suffering is ''not you'' (ie not-self).
or rather, what would you want to achieve in your life, where you would be in a situation where it is natural to see suffering as not-self?
Saṃyukta Āgama 34
Five Monks

Thus have I heard. At one time the Bhagavān was dwelling in Vārāṇasī, at the Deer Park of Ṛṣipatana. At that time, the Bhagavān told a group of five bhikṣus, “Form does not exist as a self. If form existed as a self, then form would not be associated with the arising of illness and suffering. Regarding form, it is also not possible to cause it to be like this, or not like this, because form is not oneself. From form and the arising of illness and suffering, one also grasps the desire to make form like this, or not like this. For sensation, conception, synthesis, and discrimination, it is also such as this.

“Bhikṣus, tell me what you think: is form permanent or impermanent?” The bhikṣus addressed the Buddha, saying, “Impermanent, Bhagavān.” “Bhikṣus, is that which is impermanent, suffering?” The bhikṣus addressed the Buddha, saying, “It is suffering, Bhagavān.” “Bhikṣus, regarding these impermanent and afflicting dharmas, easily subject to change, does a well-learned venerable disciple perceive in these a self or a non-self, and thereby dwell in appearances?” The bhikṣus addressed the Buddha saying, “No, Bhagavān, and for sensation, conception, synthesis, and discrimination, it is also such as this.” “For this reason, bhikṣus, all form that exists—whether in the past, the future, or the present; internal or external; coarse or fine; appealing or unappealing; far or near—all these are not a self, not a true self. Correct contemplation of sensation, conception, synthesis, and discrimination is also such as this.

“Bhikṣus, regarding the Five Skandhas, a well-learned venerable disciple perceives they are not a self, not a true self, and contemplates thusly. Regarding the various realms, because there is no clinging, there is no suffering, and because there is no suffering, there is self-awakening and Nirvāṇa. ‘My births have come to an end, Brahmacarya has been established, what was to be done has been done, and there is the self-realization of no further suffering.’”

After the Buddha had spoken this sūtra, the group of five bhikṣus did not give rise to outflows, and their minds attained liberation. After the Buddha had spoken this sūtra, then the bhikṣus heard what the Buddha had said, and blissfully practiced in accordance.

Saṃyuktāgama
9. Discourse on Disenchantment

Thus have I heard. At one time the Buddha was staying at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. At that time the Blessed One said to the monks:

“Bodily form is impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is dukkha is not-self, what is not self is not mine. One who contemplates like this is reckoned to be contemplating truly and rightly. In the same way feeling … perception … formations … consciousness is impermanent, what is impermanent is dukkha, what is dukkha is not-self, what is not self is not mine. One who contemplates like this is reckoned to be contemplating truly and rightly.

“A noble disciple who contemplates like this becomes disenchanted with bodily form, disenchanted with feeling … perception … formations … consciousness. Because of disenchantment he does not delight in consciousness, because of not delighting in consciousness he attains liberation. To one who is liberated the true knowledge arises: ‘Birth for me has been eradicated, the holy life has been established, what had to be done has been done, I myself know that there will be no receiving of further existence.’”

Then the monks, hearing what the Buddha had said, were delighted and received it respectfully.

>>16987739
heres a quick summary
Modern "No-Soul"(ie no eternal self) Buddhism is "nonsense" and not based on original scriptures, in fact, it is a misunderstanding of the terms Anatta(Pali) or Anatman(Sanskrit) which are Via Negativas, or Neti Neti ("Not this, Not that")
all mentions of this word in the original scriptures are in the context of "this is not the soul, that is not the soul" and so "modern buddhism"(mostly Thervadins it seems) claims that therefore,there is no soul.

"Buddhism today is most famous for everything it originally never taught" -A.K. Coomaraswamy

What the scriptures actually taught was an "ontlogy of liberation" and a "metaphysics of transcendance" by way of "objective negation to reach subjective synthesis" thus eliminating primordial agnosis(ie the false identification of oneself as that which you are not),which is the root cause of suffering.
>>16987866
this

>>17006112
Nice.
Are you the author of this site?

https://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2014/10/what-is-eternalism-all-about.html

>>17006335
i am not, but it seems like a cool site

>>17005432
There are no Forms in Buddhism

>>17007026
Hence why Buddhism is deficient and has no good theory of mathematics or geometry.

>>17007070
lmao in contrast to what exactly? Plato's dialogues? The Quran?

>>17006401
>he doesn't know that AE Hollingsworth and Ken Wheeler known each other
>he doesn't know that blog is run by Zenmar's disciples

>>17007070
maths is a social construct, so does not end suffering

>>17007070
lmao who gives a fuck about maths and geometry, we're not in middle school, we're tryna end suffering here

>>17007070
Who cares? That's not the point

>>17007102
Platonism is the dominant philosophy of contemporary mathematics:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

You can't "dependent origination" your way out of maths. Plato can give being to prime numbers, Buddhism has no explanation. How can a prime number be dependently arisen?

>>17007227
>>17007181
>>17007170
This kills the Buddhist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6_SWzL8nkQ

Dependent arise them apples.

>>17007375
Are you baiting or do you seriously believe this constitutes an argument against anything at all?

>>17007375
imagine being such a pussyslave that you think entertaining a woman is an award.

>>17007378
Mount a Buddhist argument against the Platonic theory of mathematics. A theory of forms versus sunyata and dependent origination hinges on it. If forms exist then ethical consequences flow from that.

Buddhism denies beauty as empty, a daughter of mara to be dismissed and retreated from to achieve henosis with nothingness. Platonist regards beauty as form, to be embraced and assimilated too through eros as the fount of all being.

>>17007400
You don't understand what emptiness means in that context.
>henosis with nothingness
And you don't understand Nirvana either. Educate yourself before attempting to do comparative theology.

>>17007392
Imagine degenerating Eros into Mara.

>>17007407
Platonism has a far better conception of superabundant nothingness than sunyata.

Why can't Buddhism explain maths or prime numbers?

>>17007430
You're operating on false assumptions then making nonsensical claims. You're not looking for an argument, you just want validation. Not interested

>>17007400
Mara represents the same concept as Maya, the Kenoma, the illusion. To dismiss it is to look past the veil.

>>16987866
There is a soul. Its just not this god given eternal thing. You have a soul like you have fingers, and its not more you than your finger is you.

>>17007856
Then what is me?

>>17007892

Jesus never denied that extraterrestrials exist. Therefore, Jesus wants us to believe they exist. But wait... Jesus also never affirmed that they exist. Therefore, Jesus doesn't want us to believe they exist. But wait...

>>16987739
>>16991461
Souls are not fucking real, egoist pussies

>>17007120
i don't know who these people are except Ken, upon looking them up seems like they are in some deep drama bullshit which is unfortunate, im looking for truth, the mouth piece from which it comes from is essentially irrelevant.
Having said that, Ken seems like an alright guy to my knowledge and the people he knows/associates with is not really my concern

Is he right >>16966261?

>>17007400
>Mount a Buddhist argument against the Platonic theory of mathematics
Numbers are Dependently Originated. They're a very clear example of Dependent Origination, actually. Six only exists because of five, four, three, two, one (I'd actually argue that its existence is Dependently Originated from all infinite possible numbers, but that's semantics). Try getting six without five, four, three, two, one. Go find me a six that can't be carved up into three twos, or two threes. Go find me a six that can't be mixed with one to make seven.

>Buddhism denies beauty as empty, a daughter of mara to be dismissed and retreated from
No it doesn't. There's nothing wrong with beauty. It's clinging that's the problem. Buddhist theories of aesthetics emphasize beauty precisely because that which is beautiful is that which stops clinging.

>to achieve henosis with nothingness
You're already Empty, dumb fuck. You don't need to unify with it, hell you fucking can't. Emptiness isn't a "thing", it's not a noun, it's not a material, it's not what things are composed of. Emptiness is just an adjective to describe how things that exist. Things that exist are Empty. They exist "Empty-ly". For fuck's sake, did you even read the Heart Sutra before writing this gibberish? Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness. Things can exist precisely because they are Empty. If they weren't, they wouldn't exist. Something existing "non-Empty-ly" would be incoherent and result in its existence being identical to its non-existence.

>>17009409
right about what? Buddhism is not for the masses.

99% of people already struggle with the five precepts. They literally cant hold them for more than a few hours. And that's not even the first step in buddhism. That's just baby step ''be nice get a good birth''. The five precepts are compatible with any religion.

Pure land and zen have nothing in common with buddhism since they adhere to interdependence and reject dependent origination, like any mahayana guruism fiction.


For theravada, you get sutras, and many commentaries. Normies hate that it's too dry, they want the fary tales and scifi of mahayana (and they made up mahayana for this reason).
Mahayana is the Hollywood version of what unenlightened people think buddhism is. Vajrayana is Mahayana with even more power trips by coomer intellectual entertainers. There's a reason hippies, alan watts , Eckhart Tolle and all the retards on reddit love the clichés '' live in the present moment'', ''nirvana is just unconditional love'' and so on.

So it all depends on what you want. If you want the cushy feel-good globohomo liberal stuff you find in yoga classes, then stay with mahayana and any school will do.

If you dont need some meta narrative to follow the five precepts then just follow them.


If you want to get serious then read all the sutras and try to start the first 7 steps of the paths.
But that's hardly compatible with a wageslavery.

>>17009528
What about tibetan buddhism?
>some meta narratives
Are you implying that theravada makes no metaphysical claims? I don't think that's true

>>17009409
>>17009528

Can any Mahayana bros respond to this?

>>17009567
You can ignore him, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He's taking a stance for ritualistic shitflinging, not out of actual belief. He's assuming that Theravada Buddhism is just Protestantism because of the Pali Canon, despite the fact that the Theravada tradition actually rejects that entire line of reasoning (the Pali Canon is secondary to the actual tradition from the Buddha). Ironically, the Mahayana are far more accepting of the idea of a focus on texts and hermeneutics than the Theravada are.

This is what he wants you to read before you even think about meditating. This is the Pali Canon. It's a literary canon in the Pali language. It's three tipitakas ("baskets"), one of religious praxis, one of monastic discipline and legal codes, the final isn't actually by the Buddha and is instead the result of monks philosophizing and putting words in the Buddha's mouth (this philosophizing IS derived from the Buddha's teachings, and is accurate to them, it's just rewording his actual words).

>>17009528
>Mahayana is the Hollywood version of what unenlightened people think buddhism is. Vajrayana is Mahayana with even more power trips by coomer intellectual entertainers
Could you elaborate? How are mahayana and vajrayana more "feel good" than theravada?

Is it accurate to say that samsara is not "you getting reborn" but just "suffering continuing", since the aggregates that form you are destroyed?

>>17009768
It's accurate to say that "you" aren't reborn, but there isn't a "you" anyways so it's sort of a misnomer. The aggregates aren't destroyed, they're just rearranged radically. We could colloquially call this "destruction", because after all we could tip out fedoras and say that getting smashed by a semi truck going 100MPH isn't "destruction" because all of your atoms are still there, just rearranged, its just that the order that they were put into has been radically altered.

Using the Two Truths Doctrine, Ultimately it would be correct to say that rebirth and suffering continue (ignore nirvana, this is purely people in samsara), and that there is no destruction. Conventionally, I'd say it's totally appropriate to say that yeah, the aggregates are destroyed (radically rearranged) such that what is reborn, although having continuity with you, is not you. If you die and someone gets your heart, another person gets your lungs, someone gets you spleen, etc, via surgery, it's completely correct to say that some aspect of you carries on, but I think we can all agree that the change in the ordering of those parts makes it fair to no longer call this "you", even if we were to say that this is done with parts of your brain, and even if we all accept that this is only a Conventional designation.

>>17009816
So in a sense, I only have one shot at attaining nirvana, otherwise the "next person" will have to take care of it. The common conception that you just get to try again until you get it right is wrong since it assumes there exists an unchanging self.

>>17009835
But isn't there still a continuity? It's not like the spiritual progress meter gets put back to zero. I'd assume your progress continues. But i'm no expert. And i'd guess that 'you' attaining nirvana makes no difference than your reincarnation attaining it because there is no 'you' that continues in parinirvana.

>>17009835
Correct. There is some continuity between the you now, the you (or yous, its totally possible for multiple people to be reborn into one, and one to be reborn into multiple) that you used to be, and the you(/yous) that you will be. However, the order of parts that makes up you now, and the you(s) then and then, won't be the same, so Conventionally I would say that it is totally fair to say that these aren't you.

Having said that, Buddhism rejects the idea that a person's mental phenomena are just "in" the brain and evaporate when the brain gets fucked. This is how things like memories of past lives and various other karmic things work. A fear of spiders you have could come from a past life where the intense fear of a spider (perhaps you got bit by one and died from it) was transferred from that life to yours. You could have a memory of something that happened to one of the people that was reborn as you. The materialist example of physical organs is just a really easy example. Another highly materialist but easy example would be if you went out and fucked a ho in the ghetto and she had a kid. Some part of you, in multiple senses, has gone off to become part of this entity. It's not you, but there is continuity. The line between you and the ghetto-baby is only where you put it, you can put it wherever you want.

Having said THAT, the Buddha cautioned against getting wrapped up in past-life (and future-life) stuff and just focusing on this life. You can't change the past, you lack the perfect knowledge to know where rebirth will take "you", but you have total control of this life.

This is why all Buddhist traditions stress the need for compassion, because while "don't be bad or you'll end up in hell" is good for keeping peasants in line, we see that the stick goes away when you actually start digging, only the carrot is left. Some people might say that they're willing to take the chance that the order that a future rebirth takes will be different enough from them that they won't "feel" the punishments. That's a gamble, however.

>>17009892
Yes, there is. The Jataka Tales is a collection of stories of Siddhartha Gautama's past lives. Why he "got" to be a Buddha is ultimately because countless lives of accruing merit lead to him. "Good karma" has the implication of causing rebirths in the heavenly realms of the Gods, which isn't what Buddhists want, so Buddhists instead talk about "merit", which is a specific kind of karma that leads towards enlightenment. "Karma" is just "actions", so you can instead call merit "karma that leads to enlightenment" as opposed to, say "karma that leads to hells or an animal realm" ("bad karma"), or "karma that leads to a divine realm" ("good karma"). Lacking a divine judge (ala Hinduism) or specific ontologically different colors of karma (ala Jainism), karma just is, we apply the value judgement on whether being reborn in hell is "bad" or not (it's very bad, it sucks, don't let it happen).

From what I've read, "being reborn as or from multiple people" is a theoretical possibility but most of "you" comes from just one person, so while in truth there is no unchanging self so the past "you" isn't "you", in practice most of "you" comes from just one person. Whether this is merely a shorthand or not, I am unsure of.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/10019466