/lit/ - Literature

There are different kinds of Buddhism. There are “secular Buddhists” that strip the religion of all its supernatural elements. Don’t know what that looks like, but it sounds completely soulless.

>>17446573
sutras to read for an introduction


>start
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
>middle
https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
>finish
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html

>>17446611
Thanks. So, I read these first and then the book?

>>17446573
>Also, are Buddhists atheists?
Buddhism isn't "atheist" in any meaningful sense. They're only atheists about a supreme, eternal creator God.

>>17446627
yes, you will find them again in the books

>>17446627
more info about all the collections here
https://readingfaithfully.org/canonical-collections-for-practice/

also the original PTS editions have been rewritten

https://americanmonk.org/free-pts-sutta-ebooks/


The Pali Text Society has made its Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma books available for non-commercial use since 2013. The Sutta books have been edited on the Buddhadust Website and Stephen Torrence and myself did most of the work to reformat the web pages into eBook versions.

What is special about these books? These are the unabridged editions of the original PTS Sutta books which were some of the first translations which have been referenced by several modern translators who followed later. Unabridged means the triple dots which used to represent missing repetitions have been expanded or “rolled out” with those missing repetitions. It is cost effective for electronic editions and some people swear that something is “lost” in translation with these repetitions represented by the triple dots (…). The texts have been formatted on the Buddhadust website in a nice grouped poetic way which helps a great deal with sorting through all of the information while reading. Lastly, since these books are quite old, they were written in an older English religious style so your vocabulary could use a little brush up!

Click on the book that you want to download. Epub, Azw, Mobi, PDF formats are supported at the github link location.

>>17446573
Yes, it's a great book, definitely good if you're new to Buddhism. Supplement it with the Dhammapada, which is very short and easy to read.

>>17446573
>are Buddhists atheists?
No. In fact, Buddhism admits the existence of many gods, including Hinduism's Brahma, but does not consider them to be the ultimate truth and reality. To be a god is not the highest possible achievement.

>>17446719
This site says you should read only one sutta from the Majjhima Nikaya per day but is that really necessary? I don't want to take six months to finish it.

>>17447259
It says that MN is okay if you want to spend 15min per day reading 1 sutra per day.

DN+MN+SN+AN+Snp+Dhp+chinese parallels https://suttacentral.net/sa-2 and https://suttacentral.net/sa-1 can be read in a month is you are a neet.

>>17446654
>>17446940
Does a Buddhist has to believe in flat earth with indian subcontinent as one of the four islands and insects being born from moisture too? If not, how do you know where to draw the line?

>>17447633
Where do the suttas say this?

>>17447633
the line is https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

>>17447644
Other anon few days ago recommended this fun 700 page book:
https://www.arrowriver.ca/book/cosmoBook.php
>>17447647
Thanks, but I bet you can find other suttas with different delineations.

>>17447783
Did the Buddha ever mention things like insects being born of moisture or the Earth being flat directly and unambiguously? I'm pretty sure the only things in Buddhism that can be taken to be true without doubt are the Buddha's own words.

>>17447799
yeh being born from moisture is one of the several kinds of births. That may be straight incorporation from jainism or hinduism since it in Mahayana too

The Buddha said to Subhuti, “This is how the Bodhisattva Mahasattvas master their thinking: ‘However many species of living beings there are—whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all these beings to nirvana so that they can be liberated. Yet when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.’

https://plumvillage.org/sutra/the-diamond-that-cuts-through-illusion/
“Mendicants, phoenixes reproduce in these four ways. What four? Phoenixes are born from eggs, from a womb, from moisture, or spontaneously. These are the four ways that phoenixes reproduce. Of these, phoenixes born from an egg can only carry off dragons born from an egg, not those born from a womb, from moisture, or spontaneously. Phoenixes born from a womb can carry off dragons born from an egg or from a womb, but not those born from moisture or spontaneously. Phoenixes born from moisture can carry off dragons born from an egg, from a womb, or from moisture, but not those born spontaneously. Phoenixes born spontaneously can carry off dragons born from an egg, from a womb, from moisture, or spontaneously. These are the four ways that phoenixes reproduce.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn30.2/en/sujato

>>17447799
IMO generally Lord Buddha kept anything unrelated to the path outside of the teaching (ie cosmology, biology etc), and with the exception of using these subjects to demonstrate a point, in which case it would be unnecessary or even harmful to describe anything that ancient Indians could not get their head around. I may be wrong.

>>17447799
>Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation.
>What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation. What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation. What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation. These are the four kinds of generation.
Maha-sihanada Sutta

>>17447848
Seems like a stretch, no? Why would he say inaccurate things on purpose?
>>17447841
>>17447852
That's weird. Any other examples of glaring inaccuracies in the suttas?
I wonder what a monk would say about this.

>>17447874
The originality in buddhism is about this >>17447647
ie the dependent origination (which is not the interdependence or unconditional love is nirvana of the Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta)

>>17447874
I wouldn’t say it is to much of a stretch because in at least one place Lord Buddha said that the amount knowledge he had was quite more substantial than what he taught, but he refrains from teaching it because it does not lead to dispassion etc., which in theory could include modern science and so on. I’ll see if I can find the quote.

>>17447900
I might be a brainlet but don't get what this has to do with what I said

>>17447902
Did the Buddha just have a lot of knowledge or was he downright omniscient and prescient?

>>17447920
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu describes the Buddha’s wisdom as being that whatever he sets his mind to, he can find that thing out. Sort of semi-omniscient.

>>17447902
Yeah but he could have simply not mentioned the whole moisture thing instead of saying something inaccurate. And if asked by confused laymen, told them "oh that just falls under egg-born generation"

>>17446573
Tell me the differences between the three sects of Buddhism.

>>17446573

Buddhism combines the proselyting of a drab moralism with the promise of psychophysical sedation. The aspirants own social failures and feelings of inferiority and despair become validated by the teaching of Buddhism that our lives in samsara are inherently full of suffering and the inability to satisfy desires, "Wow, this is literally me" thinks every vapid teenager and every other person whose critical thinking is overcome by emotion. That it can easily and often is coopted by materialists is only natural. People who take an interest in Buddhism often express an antipathy towards 'being', typically because suffer from inwards flaws that make them seek to disassociate them from themselves, to metaphysically 'cuckold' themselves out of existence as it were. They then project this attitude onto everything and everyone which is why they take to proselytizing their newfound beliefs because it helps to fill the hole in their heart. Everyone who obsesses over "Buddhist philosophy” and related thinkers all do so because they have some ingrained flaw, either they are ugly, too short, don't have good social skills, unintelligent, the list goes on, either that or it's because they've messed up their life in some way. Reading these figures acts as a consolation because that way it helps one convince themselves that none of these things actually mattered or have real significance, because "it's all just sumyata lmao etc', it functions as a form of catharsis, it's all very transparent and amusing for us to observe.

>>17447799
Quick search confirms he believed in at least some necessary parts of flat-Earth world system, like giant jambu tree:
>When the Buddha was staying with the fire ascetic followers of Uruvelakassapa, he displayed several miracles as a prelude to converting them. In one of these, he fetched
in an instant a fruit from the Jambu tree “after which Jambudīpa takes its name.” He
offered it to Uruvelakassapa, saying that it had “superb colour, superb aroma, superb
flavour,” but the ascetic declined, not feeling worthy of such a gift. [Citations from Vin Mv 1]
or giant mountain Sineru/Meru:
>The Buddha asked, “What do you think is greater, bhikkhus? Sineru the king of
mountains or a pile of seven pebbles the size of mung beans?” The bhikkhus
replied, “Sineru king of mountains is greater, bhante, in comparison the pile of
pebbles is of no significance.” “Even so, bhikkhus, is the suffering remaining to a
noble disciple who has attained to vision … compared to the suffering which has
been eliminated by him.
SN 13:10
>This earth and Sineru, king of
mountains, will be burned up and consumed
AN 7:66

>>17448006
more?

>>17448065
https://www.arrowriver.ca/book/cosmoBook.php

>>17447993
Actual non-meme answer:
Theravada relies on the Pali canon (the suttas) and is generally considered the oldest branch. It's centered around monks rather than laity, and is doctrinally quite barebones and minimal (outside of the rural temples whose practices have degenerated through syncretism). The goal of Theravada is to break free from the suffering of samsaric existence by attaining Nibbana/Nirvana. Thus the theravadin ideal is the arahant.

Mahayana takes the Pali canon as valid but adds its own scriptures, the Mahayana sutras, that greatly expand on the philosophy and cosmology of the suttas. For that reason, it's more complex and has a lot of variations and influences from local religions. For example, it introduces a lot of other Buddhas which are sometimes very important (like Amitābha in Pure Land Mahayana), concepts like dharmakaya, storehouse consciousness and buddha-nature... While Theravada is essentially focused on basic principles and direct practice, Mahayana is much more philosophical and diverse.
The Mahayana ideal is the bodhisattva, who vows to liberate all beings before being liberated himself. Mahayana also sees Nirvana and samsara as fundamentally identical, so it has a different perception of enlightenment.

Vajrayana is a subset of Mahayana. It's mainly practiced in Tibet. It's esoteric and has a bunch of weird and sometimes extreme practices, and adds its own texts on top of the Pali canon and Mahayana sutras, but it's still a branch of Mahayana for all intents and purposes.

A common analogy is to say that if suffering is a poison, Theravada is simply avoiding the poison, Mahayana is taking an antidote, and Vajrayana is building an immunity to it by taking it.

>>17447997
Cringe

>>17448006
In that particular sutta you could more easily concede that the Jambu tree is used as a metaphor.
Still, it'd be nice to have a bhikkhu's opinion on this

Why are Buddhists on the internet so mean?

>>17448320
Are they?
Everyone on 4chan is mean anyway

>>17447993
Theravada is supposed to be the least corrupted sect, among all surviving sects.
Mahayana says there is a true self and it is buddhanature.
Mahayana says that Theravada is incomplete and that Mahayana is the only way to reach full enlightenment.
Mahayana says that the Buddha told this true way to only the few people who could understand it.


Vajrayana is a subset of Mahayana. Vajrayana says there is a faster way than Mahayana to reach full enlightenment and the Buddha told this method only to very few people in Mahayana who could understand it, who created Vajrayana.


Mahayana and Vajrayana appeal to the unenlightened people who love their the messiah-complex.

>>17448332
Yeah. I'm finding them generally a prickly bunch of people. Maybe I've been unlucky with who I've interacted with

>uh oh buddhist cosmology sounds like it was written by dumb premodern people
Because it was! And to them such teachings were an expedient means to achieving equanimity, non-attachment, etc. The suttras are not read like biblical literalism, they even tell you various teachings are provided on the basis of the audience capacity to learn. This has been said since day one, and isn't some later invention of exegesis. There is no need for you to literally endorse Buddhist cosmology; it is however compatible with Buddhist doctrines on rebirth, dependent origination, etc., all of which again are taught for the sake of the path and not for being held as ideas to cherish and cling to.

>>17448320
What? Buddhism threads have the most polite anons, who go out of their way to explain things or post recs and sources. Look at other /lit/ threads, other 4chan threads for something even worse.

>>17448350
Even outside of 4chan?
I think it might be that a lot of western Buddhists go all out and end up miserable because they mistakenly think they must renounce everything.

>>17448320
People on 4chan are commonly unrepresenative of thier sects general behaviour in real life

>>17448353
Yeah, but where do you draw the line between those expedient means and the actual immutable teachings?
The four noble truths are immutable and eternal. but what else?

>>17448349
Careful, you're going to summon the "protestantism" dude.
I agree with you though I wouldn't be so dismissive of Mahayana. As long as it helps, it's good. The Buddha warned about how popular false dhamma would become after his death, but at least these schools retain the core teachings.

>>17448365
That picture represents the exact feeling I got from the Doctrine of Awakening

>>17448381
Seems there is no longer a need to call it out!

>>17447997
>Everyone who obsesses over "Buddhist philosophy” and related thinkers all do so because they have some ingrained flaw, either they are ugly, too short, don't have good social skills, unintelligent, the list goes on, either that or it's because they've messed up their life in some way.
major projection here buddy

>>17448368
Nanavira Thera said Dhamma is akalika - timeless, so every part of Dhamma that cannot be experienced directly in this life can be safely discarded, like memories of past lives.

>>17447997
You sound like you would benefit from meditation.

>>17448402
I mean, his post is completely right except for the last sentence.
>>17448406
It's a copypasta, anon.

>>17448412
Isn't that an implicit endorsement of secular Buddhism? I'm very skeptical of that kind of "Buddhism" that seeks to excise all the metaphysical and supernatural teachings to make it more compatible with scientism.

>>17448368
That's a valid concern and we do end up with a wide set of interpretations. In Mahayana Buddhism there is a central effort to distinguish between ultimate and relative teachings, modernists gut as much religion as possible from Buddhism and call it psychology and science instead, best-sellers on Amazon emphasize that Buddhism is about racial equality, and so on. There is no pope to stop anyone. It's important to be well read but more important to practice what is taught.

>>17448447
So it's a matter of common sense and personal interpretation, then.
As far as I know Mahayana considers the only absolute teachings to be the sunyata and the two truths doctrine so that doesn't help much.
Theravada seems mostly silent on the matter, especially since the forest tradition has chosen to place more emphasis on practice than philosophy. Perhaps they made the right call?

>>17448415
The first and last sentences are pure hyperprotestant gushing over muh King James Tripitaka. But it is true that Mahayana teaches that it supercedes other teachings. I don't think a fair response to that is thinking that Sri Lanka has unvarnished pure Buddhism or that the northern Buddhists are smelly pagan peasants who don't understand the religion. That doesn't really grapple with any of the tenets of Mahayana it is just surface level question of one's personal tastes.

>>17448467
>As far as I know Mahayana considers the only absolute teachings to be the sunyata and the two truths doctrine so that doesn't help much.
Mahayana requires the two truth teaching since mahayana is explicitly in opposition to the sutras, so their only way out to make people believe Mahayana is legit is to say that in fact all the sutra teachings are temporary and the true teaching is mahayana

>>17448434
>metaphysical and supernatural teachings

But how can these aspects be anything more than things you happen to like the idea of?

>>17448473
>hyperprotestant gushing over muh King James Tripitaka.
kek, never change
I don't see what's wrong with the first sentence, it's a fact that Theravada has always obsessively sought to preserve the purity of the teachings whereas Mahayana takes them to be more adaptable/relative/upaya. Mahayana doesn't even really consider corruption of the teachings to be possible, whereas theravadins are so anal about purity that a debate on Nibbana made it to the local news in some SEA country.

>>17448467
Not sure what the Theravadin take is but I'm sure they will have to fend off more literalist Westerner converts than Mahayana does, they seem to be attracted to it in any event. I think it seems unlikely a learned bhikku would insist you believe insects are born from moisture instead of eggs or that the world is a plane around mount Meru. He probably isn't worried about it. It isn't a smoking gun that would undermine the dharma in the way invalidating parts of the Old Testament would threaten Christianity.

>>17446573
What do you guys think about the dialogue that Wagner sets up between East and West, Christianity and Buddhism, in his Parsifal?

>>17448485
I'm not sure what you mean. What about the four noble truths then? If the metaphysics of Buddhism are ultimately meaningless, why wouldn't all of the dhamma be like this?

>>17448488
When you talk about preservation, is that even possible for a massive corpus of memorized literature? You can preserve the words but that is not the same as meaning. I think there is value in Theravada but I don't consider it to be for its antiquity. One should look at what is being taught, what are the interpretations of the texts. All we have are interpretations. Even if you learned Pali you would still be an interpretor. Mahayana fundamentally is an interpretation of those same texts, and doxographically speaking, a response to the Abhidharmika readings of the canon. I am told Abhidharma is not even that influential on modern Theravada anymore, so that would seem to make modern Theravada closer to Mahayana than not.

Imagine thinking this is buddhism:


In the Dharmakshema version the Buddha declares that

In truth there is Self (Atman) in all dharmas [which is] indestructible like a diamond

This self can assume all manner of forms, including those of the gods Shiva and Vishnu. It is eternal, unchanging, blissful, pure, inviolate and deathless:

... if the non-eternal is made away with in Nirvana, what there remains must be the Eternal; if there is no more any sorrow, what there remains must be Bliss; if there is no more any non-Self, what exists there must be the Self; if there is no longer anything that is impure, what there is must be the Pure

Earlier the Buddha taught non-Self to meet the needs of the occasion. In theNirvana Sutra he teaches the truth of the Self, which remains once the non-Self is done away with:

What the Buddha says here is that he spoke thus to meet the occasion. But now the thought is established [of non-Self, he means to say what is true, which is about the inner content of nirvana itself ... If there is no more any non-Self, what there exists must be the Self.

>>17448495
>they seem to be attracted to it in any event
Because the ideal of the arahant only exists in Theravada. There is no concrete path to liberation in Mahayana, so a westerner who takes the teachings to heart and want to free himself from dukkha in the most literal sense would logically be drawn to Theravada.
>it seems unlikely a learned bhikku would insist you believe
I agree, though western monasteries sometimes take the strictness of the teachings to heart even more rigidly than asian ones. I guess the only way to get a clear answer would be to ask directly. Does Thanissaro answer mails himself?

>>17448517
>the Buddha taught non-Self to meet the needs of the occasion.
Theravada admits this too. Though they don't use it as a pretext to teach literal hinduism.

>>17446654
>Furthermore, Samantabhadra states that the 'All-Creating King', is the essence of all things, beings and Buddhas and that to know this Awakened Mind is to attain the essence of Reality. Samantabhadra states that the "All-Creating Sovereign, mind of perfect purity" is the "existential ground (gnas chen) of all Buddhas" as well as the ground, "cause", "stem", and "root" of all things. The Kunjed Gyalpo also states "there is no other Buddha besides me, the All-Creating One," and "all that exists is my own being. The entirety of the animated and inanimated world is my own being."[13]

>>17448511
>is that even possible for a massive corpus of memorized literature?
Why shouldn't it be?
You're arguing semantics. It's also nonsensical to think only the texts would be preserved but that the teachings would get diluted, since they are inseparable as far as the sangha is concerned.
>Mahayana fundamentally is an interpretation of those same texts
The difference being all the Mahayana sutras.

>>17448501
I think we need more context than a brief paraphrase. It's not wrong that fixation with understanding cosmology or one's past lives for their own sake as knowledge would be unconducive to liberation.

>>17448547
>It's not wrong that fixation with understanding cosmology or one's past lives for their own sake as knowledge would be unconducive to liberation.
Of course, it's just that you need to have some kind of solid basis for practice, otherwise why are you even practicing?

>>17448527
I disagree that there is no path in Mahayana; that's a highly sectarian view. The Mahayana view that 'Hinayana' is the inferior vehicle, which even if it is derogatory, at least acknowledges that path exists. I presume we are both from non-Buddhist cultures so there is little reason to rush into the doxographies of history and I would encourage people to study texts that appeal to them in their message rather than pick a school based on extra-Buddhistic priors and then limit themselves out of some imagined orthodoxy.

>>17448546
>You're arguing semantics. It's also nonsensical to think only the texts would be preserved but that the teachings would get diluted, since they are inseparable as far as the sangha is concerned.
You sure have great faith in language. A little unusual for a Buddhist imo but whatever.

>>17448590
I said there was no concrete path to liberation, not that there was no path. By its own admission, Mahayana says the arahant is incomplete. The path of the bodhisattva is different, and can't be called a concrete and direct path towards Nibbana, as the bodhisattva's priority is the liberation of all beings before his own.
>I would encourage people to study texts that appeal to them in their message
Yes. But going into Buddhism expecting a guideline towards liberation, then stumbling upon the bodhisattva vow is bound to confuse someone who doesn't know about the doctrine.

>>17448434
>Isn't that an implicit endorsement of secular Buddhism?
You have to assume some kind of slippery slope to assert that. Nanavira said belief in past lives is fundamentally irrelevant when it comes to practice leading to enlightenment, not that rebirth and devas don't exist.
>metaphysical and supernatural teachings
I think these things create more problems than solutions, e.g. danger of compartmentalization of Dhamma practice from the rest of life.

>>17448568
I just don't think anyone's basis today would be cosmology or the thirty marks or whatever other marketing was used in early Buddhism to sell dharma. That was a way of teaching to a learned audience in classical India. Admittedly if you take this to its extreme you can deny everything but one some pragmatic level we have to reject an all or nothing approach, or we would be nihilists/eternalists

>>17448602
>You sure have great faith in language.
That's not it. I'm saying the sangha hasn't only preserved the texts, but also the practices, and that they are intertwined.

>>17448617
>danger of compartmentalization of Dhamma practice from the rest of life.
What do you mean by this exactly?
If you disregard the entirety of Buddhist metaphysics, you start getting to the point where the supernatural attainments beyond the jhanas are just an invention, which is a problem.

>>17448619
What do you think the basis today would be?
Either way, Maitreya isn't going to come anytime soon, and by the time he's finally born here, we'll most definitely be dead. So the only option is to apply the current teachings, as archaic as they may seem, no?
>one some pragmatic level we have to reject an all or nothing approach, or we would be nihilists/eternalists
The most respected western monks today seem to put a lot of importance and emphasis on the noble truths, the three marks and the noble eightfold path, at the very least I guess you can't go wrong with those.

>>17448612
Fair points. I do think the bodhisattva ideal is a sort of consequence of skepticism of arhantship (e.g. if we are just supposed to seek a private liberation why did the Buddha teach; obviously Theravada resolves this differently) but I am not invested in the marketing claims of superiority made for one path or the other.

>>17448653
>if we are just supposed to seek a private liberation why did the Buddha teach
Because a deva bugged him until he gave in, he originally intended to keep his attainments to himself. I don't think the path towards personal liberation precludes a compassionate attitude towards the suffering of other beings.

>>17448620
It's an implicit assumption. I'm not against faith based claims in a Buddhism thread I am just saying that in the absence of that it is the simple truth that interpretations change on the basis of the audience. Having a monastic community and sacred language is a bit like having a wine cellar in terms of preservation but perfection cannot be demonstrated to a non-believer.

>>17448677
>perfection cannot be demonstrated to a non-believer.
Well, that's the point of sotapanna.

>>17448645
I think its fair to focus on a curated set of teachings if they are thought to be expedient. The Theravadins do this in their anthologies collated from the canon and Mahayanists do this in their Sanskrit and Chinese literature and commentaries. I think anything resembling an extreme literalism is largely incompatible with Buddhist philosophy given the fairly regular emphasis on analysis of phenomena, whether into aggregates or as dependently originated. The same scythe would then turn to being obsessed with where insects come from. What insects are you even worried about? You may become one at that rate!

>>17448709
>being obsessed with where insects come from.
I get you but the point that was originally made was "why would the Buddha teach something that's factually wrong?" which was apparently not the best call, since he just had to either teach the truth or remain silent and we wouldn't even be having any doubts right now.
Obviously it's not an important question in itself and shouldn't be dwelled on.

>>17448633
>What do you mean by this exactly?
You can live with two worldviews: scientific one and Sutta one. For now it's fine, but to attain higher levels of concentration you need to unify your mind and forge a single worldview. Before that doubts will manifest during meditation e.g. "If causality expounded in the Suttas is just a shadow of causality as understood in science then I'm wasting my time" and you cannot avoid that, because you know in the back of your mind that science might be the answer and there is a lot of evidence for that.
>If you disregard the entirety of Buddhist metaphysics, you start getting to the point where the supernatural attainments beyond the jhanas are just an invention, which is a problem.
It's not a problem. If these things are true, you'll stumble upon them during practice anyway.

>>17448810
>you know in the back of your mind that science might be the answer
But normally that worldview is shattered upon stream-entry, yes? So the point of practice is to bear with the doubt until you get a glimpse of Nibbana, after that you'll know you're on the right path?

Has anyone written about Annihilationism in buddhism?
No I'm not looking for a blog post from a 4chan buddhist or guenon fag.

>>17449075
>Has anyone written about Annihilationism in buddhism?
The Buddha
well, spoken, not written, but whatever

>>17448843
>But normally that worldview is shattered upon stream-entry, yes?
Not necessarily, because as I uderstand it now, stream-entry changes the way mind process objects of consciousness, but I don't know.
>So the point of practice is to bear with the doubt until you get a glimpse of Nibbana, after that you'll know you're on the right path?
Without a doubt, yes.

>>17449075
Third row meticulously argues against both eternalism and annihilation/nihilism as views to be refuted (as well as the wider tetralemma of four views that cannot be demonstrated, that is to say: is, is not, both, neither)

>>17446600
>completely soulless
We need no such baseless concepts such as a "soul". Buddhism can be constructed with no-soul.

>>17449613
I think he was using "soulless" in the figurative sense.

>>17449547
Anything in the suttas?

>>17449629
It's been a while but I think DN 1 (Brahma's Net) covers this stuff right off the bat in dismissing some fifty or sixty odd views. There are other canonical sources but the Madhyamaka school(s) systematize the rejection of eternal and nihil as being essential to any other teachings being possible.
>>17449613
>>17449624
Yeah it seems the point is that secular Buddhism has no pathos it's just checking in with the latest neuroscience updates and being vegan.

>>17449075
>Annihilationism
what do you call Annihilationism

>>17449613
not if you have justification or understanding of what you're trying to do retard

>>17449075
>Has anyone written about Annihilationism in buddhism?
try this

http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_%27%27buddhist%27%27_will_tell_you_about.

>>17450015
>there is currently no text in this page
Just from the title though I assume it addresses the common misconceptions according to which the Buddha taught "no self" rather than "not self" and all the things that result from that misunderstanding.
It's good to keep in mind that just because anatta doesn't mean "no self" doesn't invalidate the teachings according to which the self is to be found in no conditioned phenomena, i.e. in samsara.

>>17450015
This article almost reads like a stream of consciousness. I genuinely enjoyed reading it but if you have no foundation in what the author is talking about it would be impossible to parse. I suspect he may be enlightened.

>>17450015
>http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/
Not this shit again, Ken-sama

>>17450164
>that pic
What is that aesthetic called

>>17450384
Vapuddha

>>17450384
Neo-MySpace

>>17446600
supernatural elements are metaphysical bloat distracting from the liberation effort

>>17450400
There's no soteriology possible if you believe you're just big bang science atoms though. That's its own form of metaphysical speculation, like thinking neuroscience proves Buddhism.

>>17450391
what does it mean

>>17450418
Never mind I'm a retard

>>17450418
Absolutley no idea anon

>>17450411
simply believe in neither, or rather not believe in either

>>17450439
I mean that's in effect what is taught in the literature, that material atomism can't be found in analysis and that magic is illusion etc. So the entire debate really only takes place in secondary or tertiary discussions. Someone who genuinely grasps what is taught would not be overly invested in miraculous or scientific justifications unless they were expedient for teaching. To make those into teachings themselves is mistaken.

>>17450470
But supernatural attainments are literally a part of the path towards nibbana alongside jhanas, formless jhanas and brahmaviharas.

>>17450484
The whole point of superpowers is their relativity. So even if you attained these they would simply be your capabilities of experiencing or projecting experiences; there would be nothing super about them for you, as they are just a more intense mastery of phenomena, which are all without substance to begin with, being appearances. If they were substantial such attainments would be impossible due to permanence of the substance(s). So we should not want for either superpowers over things or to have a detailed materialist knowledge of things because these are equally imputed clingings. It's simply true that someone accomplished in the path would not be bound by ordinary assumptions.

>>17450548
That's the shunyata interpretation, I don't think theravadins see it like that.

>>17446573
>Is this a good starter book for someone who knows nothing about Buddhism
Yes, a good start.
Well, perhaps some historical books about the civilization of Ancient India would be useful.
>Also, are Buddhists atheists?, always wondered about that.
Dharmist. Neither.
For Buddhism, this is more of an indifferent question or meaningless.
Some Buddhists may be closer to theism, others closer to atheism.
In general, Buddhists, imitating Buddha, try not to talk about things that are not related to the Buddhist path from a Buddhist point of view.

>>17448368
The people below are responding well.
Here everyone determines on their own head and it's okay that the line will move. Useful and necessary, what is right for you. And others should not be criticized for their choice: each has its own head. I am observing that things that naturally do not fit will sooner or later be "spun out" by the mind.
2500 years ago in India people perceived as natural a little different things as now, we can assume that then people knew less, but understood more. Imagine what nonsense everything we know now will be after 2500 years!

The 14th Dalai Lama once said: "If a Buddhist was determined in relation to Mount Meru, you may not consider me a Buddhist." (I quote from memory). He is just like a teacher: speaking with a Tibetan shepherd he can say one thing, say about Meru, with a Western physicist another. What is right? Both!

I want to make a guide pic for Pure Land Buddhism for Mahayana and Tibetan Mahayana. Unfortunately, I am rather unfamiliar with Tibetan, Japanese, and Vietnamese Pure Land traditions. Is there anyone ITT familiar with these other practices and texts?
So far I have:
>Going Home to the Pure Land - Venerable Wuling
>The Three Pure Land Sutras
>Chapter from the Avatamsaka Sutra on Samantabhadra's Beneficence Aspirations
>Ksitigarbha Bodhisattva Fundamental Vow Sutra
>Taming The Monkey Mind
>Essence of The Infinite Life Sutra by Venerable Master Chin Kung
>Buddhism of Wisdom and Faith - Thich Thien Tam

Really I would like to organize the books around the ideas of Faith, Vows, and Practice.

>>17451212
It's a nice idea but don't you think that most people who know enough about Buddhism to be aware of Pure Land, let alone interested in it, will know where to start anyway? Guide pics are usually meant as introductions to beginners.

>>17451212
Guide for these would be great

>>17451269
I assume that some might be drawn into Pure Land Buddhism to begin with, not everyone starts the same after all. Some might be drawn to Pure Land teachings from the get go.

>>17451314
I'd say that is pretty rare since westerners tend to turn to Buddhism if they've already found monotheism unsatisfying, and Pure Land practices (especially Amidism) are similar in some aspects to the monotheist practices westerners are used to.
I know there's one anon practicing Pure Land on /lit/ though so just wait for him to come to this thread.

>>17451345
I might be that one anon honestly. I've yet to see another.

>>17451212
A chart doesn't have to have thirty books on it. You could make a smaller more focused chart. I am not overly familiar with Pure Land myself, but from memory the 'Shingon Texts' compilation that BDK publishes makes reference to Pure Land, as later Shingon Buddhists after Kukai, namely Kakuban, sought to reconcile the Shingon esoteric school with Pure Land.

>>17451377
Oh right, I remember you mentioning you specifically practiced Chan Pure Land so it makes sense you'd be unfamiliar with other countries' practices. Well, I can't really help, sorry.

>>17451402
It's all right. I'll keep looking for more source material. The chart won't be too large.
>>17451396
I'll keep that in mind and make it shorter then.

>the Pali Canon
basic gestalt me pham

>>17451427
>suffering bad

>>17451427
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/theravada.html

>>17451427

>>17451453
This unironically

I've noticed Buddhism threads have had less shitflinging and more interesting discussion lately, that's nice.

>>17451695
Guenonfag is being quiet these days. Im not even a buddhist, I just come for the discussion

>>17451706
Even putting guenonfag aside there are less dumb "buddhism is nihilism" and similar bait posts.

>>17451695
The Guenonfaggot is temporarily off the monitor. He usually single-handedly creates a shitstorm.

>>17451714
Very much so. I wish most religious threads were like this

>>17451737
If only people weren't so easily provoked, he'd eventually grow tired of samefagging his own posts and leave by himself.

>>17451784
> he'd eventually grow tired of samefagging his own posts and leave by himself
I am not so optimistic. It is a self-supported system (schizoposting).

>>17451887
Even schizos end up leaving if nobody's paying attention to them, like that other guy obsessed with castaneda

>>17451990
Let's hope you're right.

>>17451784
Guenonfag here, the “Guenonfag is always just talking to himself and samefagging” shtick is just not true, it’s simply a cope perpetuated by people who are sore from my BTFOings of them and Buddhism. Most of the replies to my posts are Buddhists arguing with me when I post about the contradictions and illogical things in Buddhist philosophy.

>>17452034
I summoned him, I'm sorry

Why is the Sutta Nipata considered the most profound part of the Pali canon?

I've tried to make an effort to see some things as impermanent, in order to prevent suffering from attachment, but I can't help but be attached anyway (and therefore feel sad when the thing is over/finished). It feels more like a reflex than something that can be consciously controlled. How do Buddhists manage it?
Say I finish a great book or show, even though I was aware the whole time that it was going to end eventually, getting to the ending still gave me that painful feeling I'm sure you know. I think it's a good example of "knowing something is impermanent but suffering from it anyway".

>>17452054
I think it's a dirty fake.
This one calls itself "Guenonfag" (literally), before he called himself "Guenonposter".
He spreads itself like a virus.

>>17452117
>How do Buddhists manage it?
Lots of meditation, renunciation, sadhana and yogic methods. The thing about Buddhism that not every seems to get is that it involves lots of practice. You won't transform your mind simply by agreeing with a concept or philosophy, you will only run the risk of creating a disconnect in your intellect and emotions.

>>17452118
>I think it's a dirty fake
I may be an anonymous shitposter, but I’m a man of my word

>>17446735
Thanks for this!

>>17448536
>"there is no other Buddha besides me, the All-Creating One," and "all that exists is my own being. The entirety of the animated and inanimated world is my own being."
Is this basically like the concept of Brahman?

Just finished pic related. Interesting book covering the recent history of a town called Ngaba in tibet. The town was recently notorious for young monks self-immolating in protest of the Chinese government. Not much discussion of actual buddhist practice or beliefs, but still interesting and well written.

Carry on.

>>17453319
What did you like about it?

What's the most extreme Buddhism?
What's the most nihilist Buddhism?

>>17453803
All Buddhism is extreme in its nihilism

>>17453885
>spelled out plain as day in text after text that the middle way of Buddha avoids the extremes of eternalism and nihilism
>uh that's just extreme nihilism bro

>>17453931
The nihilism the Buddha denounces is what you'd call materialism or the belief that there is nothing after death. It is most certainly not philosophical nihilism, which he'd agree to, but say there is an escape from in Nirvana.

>>17454021
I think I probably meant the least spiritual Buddhism in the west

>>17451714
Heh

>>17452064
Because the last two chapters are supposed to be oldest

>>17454589
Old != deep

>>17454021
I don't think Buddhism concerns itself with meaning

>>17452190
How much time should a beginner meditate daily to start seeing concrete results?

>>17452117
insight into things being conditioned leads to see them as dukkha, which leads to see them as not self. This is how you kill desire and can't be disappointed when things finish.

>>17454961
I understand the process, I just fail to go beyond pure intellectual realization, so I don't feel it.
>insight
Does this literally mean it should be done with vipassana?

>>17446573
woah Buddhism is based

>>17454988
Can women attain nibbana or are they both precluded from buddhahood and nibbana?

>>17454966
intellectualisation alone will go no where and stunt your understanding too

>>17451706
>>17451714
>>17451737
>Guenonfag
Who is he? And what does he want? Is he a René Guénon fan?

>>17455021
just buddhahood

>>17455647
>Who is he?
Many different people

>what does he want?
Honestly at this point just to stir shit up

>Is he a René Guénon fan?
Yes, but he has ruined any proper discussion of Traditionalism

>>17455021
>>17455654
>buddhahood and nibbana
Theres a difference?

>>17455670
Nibbana alone leads to arhatship, there are also two types of arhats
A Buddha is above an arhat because he possesses more capabilities, such as near-omniscience (whereas Nibbana alone doesn't make you omniscient)

>>17455678
Thanks for the clarification

>>17454912
it starts getting good at 30 but 20 should be fine really as long as you are consistent

Why is Buddhism so black and white?

>The self doesn't exist!

um okay maybe it's just socially constructed and less stable than one might think

>Life is suffering!

Okay maybe it's the human condition to want more always but a lot of life is fine

>>17456276
It's not, you misunderstand Buddhism. Both of your statements are inaccurate.

>>17456276
>>The self doesn't exist!
wrong
No self and "The self doesn't exist" are two completely different things

>>17455660
>ruined any proper discussion of Traditionalism
More coping, good discussions about traditionalism go on here all the time, with or without me

>>17456205
As a beginner, should I go for samatha first, pick one of those objects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasina and meditate on it?

>>17456411
kasina is an abidhamma invention pushed by the pragmatic dharma retards nowadays

meditation is done through the 7 first steps of the path, so those first.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?"

"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward."

"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"

"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?"

"Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of rapture? What is its reward?"

"Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of serenity? What is its reward?"

"Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?"

"Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?"

"Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they actually are? What is its reward?"

"Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?"

"Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward."

"And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?"

"Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship."

>>17456534
>kasina is an abidhamma invention pushed by the pragmatic dharma retards nowadays
Wait a second, isn't it mentioned in the Visudhimmaga and endorsed by monks?
I thought there was even a story in the suttas about a bhikkhuni attaining nibbana through one of the kasinas.
I've read the sutta you posted, but it's not a practical method on how to actually meditate, nor are the seven first steps of the path.

>>17456276
>um okay maybe it's just socially constructed and less stable than one might think
Yes it arises in dependence on conditions, therefore having no intrinsic existence. But this is also true of all such phenomena not merely imputed selves. Buddhist philosophers are the sort who will go to lengths to demonstrate there is no pot or chariot or table
>Okay maybe it's the human condition to want more always but a lot of life is fine
"Life is fine" is the most therapeutic reading of experience there is. If you are content with that you will get nothing from any religious or philosophical system because all they do is rock the boat

>>17456411
nigger just sit down lol

>>17456774
>t. zen master

>nigger just sit down lol

>>17456411
Then a certain monk approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Lord, ‘factors for awakening, factors for awakening,’ it is said. To what extent are they said to be factors for awakening?”

“They lead to awakening, monk. Therefore they are said to be factors for awakening.

“There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening… persistence as a factor for awakening… rapture as a factor for awakening… calm as a factor for awakening… concentration as a factor for awakening… equanimity as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in letting go.

“When these factors for awakening are developed, the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the mind is released from the effluent of becoming, the mind is released from the effluent of ignorance. With release, there is the knowledge, ‘Released.’ One discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.’

“They lead to awakening, monk. Therefore they are said to be factors for awakening.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN46_5.html

>>17446573
>Also, are Buddhists atheists?, always wondered about that.
No lol. Buddhists believe in all kinds of superstition and supernatural ideas.

Which type of buddhism is best?

VOTE VOTE VOTE

https://strawpoll.com/9pgeep52y

>>17457367
Theravada, but all branches are fine except """secular""" buddhism

>>17457487
Only secular buddhism is valid in the west, all else is larp.

>>17457512
Wrong and cringe.

>>17446573
Walpola Rahula is a great introduction.
The guy was a secretary during a council of all Buddhisms. He summed up everything without partisanship.

>>17457514
Gay

>>17457514
All the metaphysical baggage is just a bunch of stuff you happen to like the idea of. It's not even a real belief.
But it's your choice I guess.

>>17457731
Sounds like you're projecting hard, honestly
The "metaphysical baggage" is intertwined with the teachings, Buddhism without rebirth, the jhanas, the multiple realms etc is not Buddhism, just lukewarm mindfulness bullshit for bored startup employees

>>17457767
If you say so, chantard

>>17458219
Yes. Read the suttas, you'll see why secular buddhism doesn't exist

ken wheeler.

>>17457767
>rebirth
moment to moment rebirth exists even in materialism
>the jhanas
exist, even in the most secular form of buddhiusm
>the multiple realms
useful in representing semi-stable states of the mind one can fall into
not very useful otherwise
>>17458234
Neither flat earth and birth from moisture, therefore your larp buddhism is false

Buddhism noobb here.
Do you have good references on mettā meditation? I have seen the *Deliverance of The Heart* on the chart, but if possible I would like something shorter, just to begin with and then try to learn more after practice.
I've tried going through the guided meditation on dhammatalks, but I found myself a bit clueless.
Frankly, I think my problem is that I don't know what the hell is happiness, or rather what is meant by it.
Is it perpetual serenity? Joy? Something else?
Does the book address this question?

>>17458611
>moment to moment
That's one of two types of rebirth
There are other important concepts that are incompatible with the bugman secular view though
>pratityasamutpada
>the supernatural attainments on the path to arhatship
>the tathagata's omniscience
>the explicit "seven more rebirths" aspect of the sotapanna
>buddhakshetra
>maitreya's current incarnation in the tusita heaven
etc
>flat earth and birth from moisture
kek you really got filtered by this didn't you?

>>17448213
The paragraphs above don't seem to justify your last sentence. Can you explain?

>>17458742
Ignore his last sentence. Doxography is largely for monastics.

>>17458793
Idiot.
>>17458742
It's just a comparison that is made from time to time to put the three vehicles into perspective, it's not some kind of wise saying.
https://www.namchak.org/community/blog/three-different-paths-theravada-mahayana-and-vajrayana/
https://www.shambhala.com/snowlion_articles/dealing-with-emotions-the-vajrayana-approach/

>>17457512
That Stephen Batchelor stuff is not very good though. I do agree we need a Western version of Buddhism, it just doesn't exist yet.

>>17459087
What exactly should be adapted to fit westerners without diluting the core teachings?

>>17459100
Should we start with metempsychosis?

>>17459100
Until Westerners overcome hating religion because they don't like theology anymore they will not understand Buddhism, which is a religion. They think it is not a religion because Buddhists are 'atheists.' It's s difficult gap to breach.

>>17459263
That implies an immortal soul.

How seriously do you take the notion that Buddha was an Islamic prophet?

>>17459317
Not.

>>17459298
It could be made to work. People have bolted worse together. From the Timaeus you could argue the souls are aggregated or that their nature is to be wiped of memory and corporeality so they are not truly permanent but only appear so.

>>17447633
>https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
I though Vasubandhu invented this cosmology, and that it was metaphorical

>>17459368
I don't see why standard Theravada couldn't be adopted as-is by westerners. You could argue Mahayana has too many specific cultural elements that could be misunderstood due to its incorporation of local religions into itself, but theravadins have always been autistic about "liturgical minimalism" or whatever you want to call it.

>>17459394
sry greentext fail

>>17459087
Neoplatonism gets close. The One is beyond being, union with the One could very well be nirvana.

>>17459397
It could be and it is in some cases. But I also doubt a single imported Buddhist school would be dominant or retain its character here indefinitely. When the Japanese imported Buddhism from China in waves (or the Tibetans from India for that matter), things got renamed, existing classifications are reinvented to suit the new perspective, different tenets become emphasized, new practices emerged, and so forth.

>>17459430
Maybe we'll see this happen eventually, but for now it seems that western Buddhists are intent on keeping the practices, terminology and points of emphasis as pure as possible relatively to their asian counterparts.

>>17459430
>>17459437
> I'm a Buddhist but it bothers me when things change

>>17459441
Huh? Where the fuck did I say this

>>17459394
Is that Abhidharmika Vasubandu or Vijñanavadin Vasubandu, because his later perspective would be that cosmologies are mental imputation.

>>17459443
I kid, I kid. It seemed ironic to me to speak of a Buddhist school retaining its character indefinitely, and I was inferring it was being brought up as a bad thing.

If you're the other guy, you were talking about keeping things pure. Same irony.

>>17459441
Based illiterate schizo. If anything western Theravadins will eventually start coining Pali neologisms and if they want to spread outside of the urban professional class, letting people keep some form of Jesus.

>>17459470
I don't think it really matters for a school to retain its character as long as the Dhamma itself is preserved, it's not a bad thing as long as it doesn't dilute or distort the important teachings.
And yeah I did mention purity because if you look at well-known western bhikkhus, they tend to take the "orthodoxy" of theravadin practice very seriously, the only exception being Ajahn Brahm.

>>17458695
Bump, I'm a toxic asshole and need some help

>>17459566
You can just look up metta meditation for help, but metta can be summarized as this: Even people who make me angry resemble me in character.
For every thing others do that makes me angry, I surely do something that makes them angry. There is no raw justification for it, and even if I feel justified (and even if I am justified), that we disagree at all speaks to the imperfection of the world. Therefore, stop seeing the differences between you and others as a result of their being flawed. Rather, we disagree because the world is flawed, and if the world was perfect we would agree and be brothers.

Suppose your father leaves you his house in his will because you said you wanted to have it, but your brother needs the house, and says you should give it to him. Metta would be recognizing that in a perfect world neither of you would desire or need the house. So regardless of whether you are right to have the house because your father left it to you, or your brother is right to have the house because he needs it, the conflict is not a result of your father's, brother's, or your imperfection. It is because the world is imperfect, and therefore you should still treat them all (including yourself) as beloved family. One of you can still be right, but you can't get angry at your family for something that is really the world's fault.

>>17458234
maybe you should get into Hinduism or some other lifestyle fad

>>17459087
Batchelor must be based. I recommended a book of his on /r/buddhism and got downvoted into oblivion. it really triggers the reddit buddhists.


Do I need to buy a shrine like all the /r/buddhism guys do?