/lit/ - Literature

what's the significance of the list?

>>19421327
>>19421344
Pratitya samutpada or dependent origination/arising is just an explanation for phenomena. It is not the same as soteriology. What you're calling nonaction in terms of ultimate goal is more properly understood as the cessation of retribution or ripening of effects resultant from volition, which is a wordy way of saying karma ceases to operate as a regulating principle of conditioned existence when one is liberated, which is itself a wordy way of saying you become entirely sovereign as beyond good and bad

>>19421344
>We have seen earlier, in the discussion of the First Noble Truth (Dukkha), that what we call a being or an individual is composed of the Five Aggregates, and that when these are analysed and examined, there is nothing behind them which can be taken as I, Atman, or Self, or any unchanging abiding substance. That is the analytical method. The same result is arrived at through the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis which is the synthetical method, and according to this nothing in the world is absolute. Everything is conditioned, relative, and interdependent. This is the Buddhist theory of relativity.

>>19421400
>It is not the same as soteriology.
Sorry I am a bit confused by what you're saying and how it compares to what is said in 'what the Buddha taught'
>This is how life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula in its reverse order, we come to the cessation of the process:
>Through the complete cessation of ignorance, volitional activities or karma-formations cease; through the cessation of volitional activities, consciousness ceases; . . . through the cessation of birth, decay, death, sorrow, etc., cease.

>>19421586
It's just a causal formula of where phenomena or conditioned appearances come from. So in a sequential way if one link is undone thus goes the next but the just stating this chain itself does not explain how each is to cease, that how would be the soteriological aspect, the teachings on conduct, jñanas, and so forth, since you are referring to the nikayas.

>>19421680
Okay I think I'm following you, but the 3 poisons spin the wheel correct? And eradicating them stops the wheel from spinning?
Can you just explain why ignorance leads to volition?
>since you are referring to the nikayas
Can you elaborate here?

>>19421928
What the Buddha Taught, is that Theravada? Might have it mixed up with In the Buddha's Words, but the nikayas are the discourses collected in the Pali Canon and the other book relies on that. Ignorance/desire are a pretty easy link, you desire what you only understand in terms of a contingent self experience, so in that sense it's not a complete knowledge

>>19422011
>What the Buddha Taught, is that Theravada?
According to the preface the writing of the book is straightforward enough to not get into the distinctions between Theravada and Mahayana.
>Ignorance/desire are a pretty easy link, you desire what you only understand in terms of a contingent self experience, so in that sense it's not a complete knowledge
I see thank you for your assistance

>>19422042
>What the Buddha Taught,
At a glance seems to also be a case of buddhist modernism. You can check out McMahan for more on how that developed. It's a kind of reaction to 19th century western contact and has influenced the way Buddhism is sometimes presented as a de-mysticized psychological science or philosophy rather than an exacting religious faith, and often an essential feature of providing a non-sectarian (effectively "modern") view.

Question for Buddha fags
The Yogachara tradition which I’m studying right now goes as far as saying that karma originates the material world. If so how whence comes the synchronicity of the whole world process? What accounts for we sentient beings having the same experience of a shared world if said world is generated, not by a single intelligent creator like in abrahamic religions, but by a ripening of countless individual karmic seeds? In Berkeley and Leibniz there is a sense in which we create our own experiences too, but what accounted for all our individual experiences being in sync was God. What does it for Buddhism l?

>>19422155
If that is true that is disappointing. Do you know of any intro texts that might offer something more authentic?

>>19421327
lol this thread was clearly made by one of those advaitafags that get's triggered because shankara missunderstood the pratikiasamutpada and ruined his whole critic of buddhism with that mistake

>>19422314
nope. I've read a little of Shankara but nothing of him touching on this concept in particular. Really all i know of Buddhism is from this book 'What the Buddha taught'
But if you have a valuable critique id ask you to contribute.

>>19422301
I don't know if it's less authentic per se but it is "more accessible" perhaps to a secular or post-christian audience. I recommend reading texts and commentaries rather than survey literature.

>>19422300
The personal experiences are not in sync as far as Buddhism is concerned. Similarity is not sameness. And most Yogacara stuff views the world as a mental construct, not of any physical constituents. What are you reading specifically?

>>19422607
Consider the following. When you raise your hand you are not really raising your hand, it's all in your mind. Similarly when I perceive you raising your hand I don't really perceive you, it's all in my mind. Clearly there needs to be a third factor coordinating your raising your hand with my perceiving you raising your hand otherwise intersubjective experience would not be possible and we would fall into solipsism arguing who is the real subject and who is merely a product of one's mind. In Leibniz and Berkeley God is that third factor. Which, if any, is it in Yocachara Buddhism?

>>19422607
Consider the following. According to Yocachara when you raise your hand you are not really raising your hand, it's all in your mind. Similarly when I perceive you raising your hand I don't really perceive you, it's all in my mind. Clearly there needs to be a third factor coordinating your subjective experience of you raising your hand with my subjective experience of me perceiving you raising your hand otherwise intersubjective experience would not be possible and we would fall into solipsism arguing who is the real subject and who is merely a product of the other one's mind. In dualism the third factor coordinating subjective experiences is the material world common to all. In the idealism of Leibniz and Berkeley God is that third factor. Which, if any, is it in Yocachara Buddhism?

>>19422874
"Mind Only" or cittamatra is a case of doxography by Tibetan madhyamikas so that sounds a little suspect. Generally in yogacara it's that all phenomena are arisen in the mind only, which is not the same as a statement of ultimate reality of being due to conscious. Actual texts are quite clear about the mental nature of drawing distinctions of this and that or x and not-x, e.g. Lankavatara sutra, Sandhinirmochana sutra, the Mahayanasamgraha. If there is a "third factor" in a comparative sense it would be emptiness or buddha-nature.