/lit/ - Literature

in the buddhas words

>>21699732
Buddhism is a sect of hinduism
Its ahistorical to associate it with "atheism" or anything like that
Buddhism describes the supernatural and "devas" (gods)
Some parts of buddhism emphasise "no self" however, which is often associated with zen, a more contemporary manifestation

>>21699737
the no-self doctrine refers to false identification with contingent attributes, that is why Nirvana is described as void since it is devoid of all attributes.

>>21699760
Yes
The aether of the mysteries, the 5th element
Space/chaos/quintessence/nonduality
Christianity has poisoned the world with its monotheism, making the divine a contingent variable toward it's own false ego
But like it says in the upanishads, even the gods have their power in the one true brahman

>>21699732
>Buddhism
Is satanism.

Buddhism is when you give the monks food on their way through the town

>before le enlightenment carry le water chop le wood; after enlightenment carry le water chop le wood
Buddhism is like… LE ME!!!!!!

>>21699732
Hinduism, Mahayana, Vajrayana say that ''you've always have been already enlightened'' and they also are bound to observe there is suffering, just like everybody who ever lived. They fail to explain how being already enlightened generates suffering. Those idiots started their religions 2000 years ago and they still have no answer to this.

Don't forget that those people keep saying they are the most enlightened people of all time. They literally say they hacked their minds to access the secrets of God, of the universe and of life itself. And what is their answer to the ''problem of evil''' after they declare that ''you are already enlightened''? Here it is, the thing that most people want to know about, the greatest answer of all time, by the most enlightened gurus of all time :
>well gee there is suffering that's true, i guess huh, gee idk, it's just the way it is, IT JUST IS OKAYYYY

At least the Jews put some effort with their stupidity of ''free will'' and their sadistic Jewish God shit testing the Jews (member the ''kill your son for me, the jew god'', lmao) and their goys.
But no, not the self-declared enlightened gurus who keep spouting that ''everybody is born already enlightened'' lol.

And don't forget that their audience is so braindead they have no problem with this. Over 2000 years, The billions of Poos, the Billions of bugs all over Asia and apparently now even the western roasties who love spirituality say it is just completely fine for the gurus who say they ended suffering to declare '' geee there is suffering it's just the way it is. By the way my own enlightened mind told me it's totally true there is some primordial awareness, you just don't know it yet''. LOL.

in Buddhism, there is no non-duality, people do not have a true nature, people are not the cosmos, people are not Brahma, people do not come from Brahma, people are not nibanna, people do not come from nibanna, people are not Buddha, people do not come from a buddha, people are not their mind, people are not loka, people are not born already enlightened. In Buddhism there is only craving for pretty things and the pretty ideas of having ''a true nature'', and there is the opposite: a lack of craving for pretty things and pretty ideas. People get enlightened when they stop craving for those. The way to get enlightened is to purify the mind, however not with useless incantations and rituals nor with magical objects, nor worship, unlike the Hindus do, but with the mind itself, ie all the time inclining [with the mind] the mind towards what the buddha calls good qualities and then directly knowing the mind as it really is, which is anicca, dukkha, anatta [contrary to what the hindus say], which is the condition for dispassion, dispassion which is the condition for liberation, liberation which is the condition for direct knowledge that dukkha is ended.

You've come to the wrong place. /lit/ is full of monoglot chuds who get their knowledge of anything east of the Hellespont from Wikipedia. Anything you hear here about Buddhism is almost certainly false and at the very least some outdated take from a 19th century orientalist regurgitated by a countercultural boomer like Alan watts

>>21699732
in today's pluralistic world, it helps to examine and compare the foundational texts of the major schools throughout Buddhism's development
then you will see that there are unique insights in Buddhism that are found in Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana alike. Between the three sects (and even between the sub-schools among these three sects) there has been a lot of sectarian rhetoric and polemics, but it is mostly surface-level and based on traditions straw-manning each other. Seeing the common qualities and insights between the three sects, highlights what is unique to Buddhism and not found in any other religious, spiritual, philosophical or mystical tradition: the essentially Buddhist teachings of dependent origination and their non-substantialist/anti-foundationalist understanding of anatman and emptiness. In Mahayana and Vajrayana, Prasanga Madhyamaka is definitive. 'The Buddha saw what all these other philosophers saw, but he also saw something they didn't see.'
However, the fundamental differences between Buddhism and non-Buddhist traditions are not surface-level and merely apparent, these differences are very real.
There are deviations throughout Buddhism's history, and some teachers, particularly modern ones, who clearly deviate into substantialist Advaita or even Samkhya-esque views, as well as atomistic realist views reminiscent of Heraclitus. Those traditions are beautiful and meritorious but they are not the intention of the Buddhist Dharma, canonically.
So you have to use your discernment.
For reading, some good starting points are: In The Buddha's Words (however even this book's translations are influenced by a certain atomistic commentarial tendency, so be careful), What The Buddha Taught, and Buddhism Plain and Simple.

>>21699732
>Buddhism is reconcilable with Christianity
absolutely no
>Buddhism is reconcilable with Nietzsche
no
>Buddhism is a form of Hinduism
sorta/no
>Buddhism is a form of atheism
yes
>Buddhism is a major world religion
somewhat
>Buddhism isn’t a religion at all, it’s a philosophy
no it's a religion

>>21700461
you said the mind is anatta, that phenomena are anatta.
But wordlings, in their delusion, perceive a Self where there is in truth no such Self. So would you say that even though deluded beings perceive a Self to things, the truth of the matter is that things are Anatta, and they always have been Anatta, without self?
Well that is quite literally what "true nature" is in Mahayana. Mahayana true nature is that things always have been without a Self, and that this truth of anatta is always there ready to be discovered if you practice to realize it. The 'true nature' is that things are anatta, and if you realize this, that makes you an ariya. Vajrayana's "nature of the mind" is precisely the realization that experience is without a self, without an agent, without a subject, without an atta. Nothing else.

>>21700726
Oh, forgot one
>Buddhism is Reddit: the religion
Yes

>>21700461
in other words, buddhists are just pajeet egoists.

>>21699737
what compels someone to make statements on things they know absolutely nothing about? why not just not say anything?

>>21699735
>Translation by a Jew.
No

>>21700726
>>Buddhism is a form of atheism
>yes
The Pali canon and sanskrit equivalents of ancient Buddhism mentions gods. The Buddha recognizes the large Indian pantheon and gods of all places, as well as communicating with them. The gods simply do not offer a path to deliverance so worshipping them is at best really secondary. Arguably some mahayana schools make things even clearer with how much devotion to boddhisattva (basically gods, many local pantheon figures were retconned as boddhisattva) plays a part in reaching nirvana.
I could understand if you mean they don't know the true God but that's like calling ancient city religions atheist.

>>21699732
>How do I learn what Buddhism really really really is? These can’t all be true, can they?
Comparative theology.

Buddha is Jesus is Lao Tzu is Buddha

If you understand what they were actually talking about, then you realize insofar as that commonality, it's all true, just they saw different things. Buddha evidently didn't know about the LOA, and Lao Tzu didn't really talk about returning to pleroma. Jesus discussed both aspects; you should see other religions as corroborations of each other, even though they sometimes missed important details of the whole picture.

>>21699773
>Christianity has poisoned the world with its monotheism
No that was catholicism which defined Christianity at the expense of the gnostics.

>>21700280
Wise koan my good sir, take my gold.

>>21701855
in Buddhism there is no first cause or creator, no source of everything, so in that sense it is atheist
otherwise, yes as you say it essentially includes supernatural elements, such as rebirth, the different realms of existence, heavens and hells, karma, past lives. Even the early teachings mention recollection of the virtues of the devas, considering their higher virtues which led them to their higher rebirths. And yes in Mahayana there are celestial aryas (bodhisattvas) who are venerated

>>21701948
>And yes in Mahayana there are celestial aryas (bodhisattvas) who are venerated
A small correction: the Theravada accept the existence of Bodhisattvas, they just believe that you can only Take The Bodhisattva Vow and actually become a Bodhisattva if you do so in front of a living, physical Buddha, and Siddhartha was the last one of those that we had, and he died a long time ago, and Maitreya won't be here for a long time. This is in contrast to the Mahayana position which is "taking the Bodhisattva vow does nothing in this life because you're going to figure out how to actually become a Bodhisattva after you die anyways.

>>21700441
>Hinduism, Mahayana, Vajrayana say that ''you've always have been already enlightened'' and they also are bound to observe there is suffering, just like everybody who ever lived. They fail to explain how being already enlightened generates suffering. Those idiots started their religions 2000 years ago
The Absolute, which is free of suffering and all ills, gives rise to the illusion of suffering in others through Its power, without Itself being affected by that. Problem solved.

>>21701888
>No that was catholicism
Retard

>>21700461
well said

>>21700461
>anatta [contrary to what the hindus say],
Hindu say that the mind (manas) and intellect (buddhi) are different from the true Self (Atman), so it’s wholly incorrect for you to say that Hindus think the mind is the self. The true Self is the partless space of awareness in which the mind and intellect appear, like images on a canvas.

>>21699732
I can explain you exactly what Buddhism is, but Buddhists will seethe.

It's simple. Some people thought that life sucks ("life is suffering") so they wondered how they can stop suffering. They decided suffering comes from our desires because we can't have what we desire, so to stop suffering we must cease desires. This is literally the kernel and essence of Buddhism:
1. Believe life is painful
2. Beieve pain comes from unfulfilled desires
3. Want pain to stop
4. Attempt to cease desires so pain stops

All the other concepts are just AUXILIARY to this core. Nirvana? Just a state of mind where you no longer have desires. Buddha? Someone pursuing this path. Meditation? The path to get there. Etc.

It's escapism as religion.

>>21702008
Catholicism was the first dogmatic Christianity, and it was created to further its exoteric elements in order to obscure its truth and thus facilitate systems of control. That's the nature of all "church" Christianity.

>>21702025
>Catholicism was the first dogmatic Christianity
Retard

>>21702021
You fell for materialism.

>>21702037
No I didn't, try expressing thoughts coherently.

>>21702035
If you say so.

>>21702017
not that anon, but this is a fair distinction to make, and it is certainly a misrepresentation to say that Hindus think the Atman is the conceptual mind or intellect.
It is also important to clarify that this view is still distinct from the view of all forms of Buddhism, where there is no such idea of an Atman in or apart from the aggregates. This is a consequence of dependent origination, where awareness and appearances are mutually dependent and contingent, in the Buddhist view.

>>21702021
What makes that escapism? Escape from what?

>>21702049
ENDLESS PAIN. Did you even read the post?

>>21702040
You gave a fedora tipper explanation late in thread when there are many posts currently up on the board that have moved beyond that.

Thesis: omg buddhism is so cool I love spirituality
Antithesis: Nietzsche was right it's all cope
Synthesis: what Buddhism preaches is true

>>21702052
That was not even close to a coherent post. Please stop posting.

>>21702051
Then literally everyone is an escapist

>>21700474
>take from a 19th century orientalist
It's early 20th century but Louis de la Vallée-Poussin was right about everything and his work was authoritative in the far east.

>>21702025
Just make your own religion instead of desperately trying to coopt Jesus Christ. You have the whole pleroma to pick from, shouldn't be hard. Please don't forget your obligation not to have children.

>>21702072
I love life. Pain is an afterthought for me, it's barely ever there. So no.

>>21700441
>They fail to explain how being already enlightened generates suffering
This is why you need to look into a topic before having an opinion on it. "Being already enlightened" doesn't generate dukkha, performing Samsara does. Being enlightened has nothing to do with it, in fact.

>>21702021
Dukkha isn't pain. Start with What the Buddha Taught, then read the Heart Sutra.

>>21702083
>X is not Y. Start with Z.
Nah, try forming a coherent thought. I can see through you, you have nothing to say.

>>21702093
See >>21702083.

>>21702021
but dukkha isnt pain

>>21702118
>>21702113
See >>21702093

>>21699732
This is a silly conception and sounds like it's based off of skimming posts on this board or looking for the worst reading of them possible. I've even posted on occasional similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, as well as in the Buddhism-Nietzsche thread, but with the obvious note that major differences at their cores make the regular interpretations of them incompatible.

Buddhism is Buddhism (unless it's some clever Nagarjunian tetralemma denying that Buddhism is Buddhism, Buddhism is not-Buddhism, etc., or Zen saying in the vein of, "Buddhism is not Buddhism). It is itself. It can be compared to other traditions, and people wanting to speak of a "universal wisdom" can overplay these similarities (although sometimes the similarities are obvious and don't have to be overdrawn), but ultimately it is still itself, and going to have some rather different teachings than, say, Sunni Islam.

>How do I learn what Buddhism really really really is? These can’t all be true, can they?

Like other religions -- say, Christianity -- this itself is going to be a loaded answer with a variable response. You'll get Protestants saying "sola scriptura," just read (a translation of) the New Testament and Gospels especially (also curated by bishops of the Church over centuries deciding what to leave in and what take out) and come to an understanding of it yourself guided by your own faith and intuition, Roman Catholics and Orthodox folks will have a different idea.

However, in the case of Buddhism, it's a bit hard (to put it mildly) to read the entire fucking Pāli Canon (one collection of it shown here), the scriptures taken by the Theravada Buddhists as the standard and authentic words of the Buddha and his closest disciples. So even if you are going to the most "barebones", fundamental roots of Buddhism as Theravada/Hinayana Buddhism, purporting to be the most authentic and based on the most original and authentic texts, you're going to probably need some scholars or monks relaying it to you in a condensed form, in secondary literature you trust or find valuable.

>>21702118
ok then why want to end it?

>>21702167
>writes an borefest post to say "i can't answer what buddhism is"

Dumbest religion to ever exist

>>21702021
What living religion isnt escapism? Serious question

>>21699732
Depends on the form of Buddhism
t. Chan/Zen studier

>>21702233
only if you pretend abrahamoidism never existed, and i would understand if you did

many adventitiously defiled ITT

>>21699732
>How do I learn what Buddhism really really really is?
Read Dogen's Shobogenzo. It'll answer most of the questions. If you really want to go down the "Buddhism as religion", you'll have to investigate Pure Land (some groups believe, some don't, and those that do believe in it differently than others)

Dogen is one of the masters of Zen, and is considered to be one of the best Japanese writers ever. The Shobogenzo is built off of existing traditions which you might need to investigate as you read, but most are explained by Dogen himself.

>>21699732
Start with the jeets. Badly asked questions will not be answered.
>>21699737
No Buddhist considers himself a "Hindu"
>>21700441
All this seething just to say you hate the idea that life is suffering if you see it that way. Sounds like you're some sort of nihilist.
>>21700474
If that's a bridge in Athens, Ohio then you're right; otherwise even the Greeks are wiki'd.
>>21700632
If you were not born into it then sectarianism is larping and you should read broadly across the different schools. Even with a favored interpretation, it is worth knowing the background of what is being abbreviated, what is being debated, and why.
>>21702021
Escapism in its worst forms but Nietzschean in its best.
>>21702051
Pain is a reductive translation of dukkha. See Stcherbatsky for commentary but in a nutshell it's the idea that life or experience is felt as a sort of constant motion of arising and ceasing. There's no essential enduring object to grasp—which is roughly experienced as "pain" or unsatisfaction.

>>21702319
>n a nutshell it's the idea that life or experience is felt as a sort of constant motion of arising and ceasing. There's no essential enduring object to grasp—which is roughly experienced as "pain" or unsatisfaction.
Irrelevant, the idea is the same: unsatisfaction with life caused by desires -> cease desires.

>>21702238
Christianity.

>>21699732
>>Buddhism is reconcilable with Christianity
Not true
>>Buddhism is reconcilable with Nietzsche
Not true
>>Buddhism is a form of Hinduism
Not true
>>Buddhism is a form of atheism
Only somewhat of a useful label if you're careful with definitions
>>Buddhism is a major world religion
True
>>Buddhism isn’t a religion at all, it’s a philosophy
This "religion"/"philosophy" dichotomy only really exists to the Abrahamic mind. Buddhism is a philosophy and a religion. It can be more "religious" or "philosophical" in the Abrahamic sense depending on the individual's approach.

>How do I learn what Buddhism really really really is?
Read the Suttas with respectable commentaries

>These can’t all be true, can they?
They're not

>>21702355
Stay mad I guess
>>21702364
That's the most escapist religion. What do you think the belief in "eternal life" actually entails?

>>21699732
Buddhism is a waste of time, and no, it is not reconcilable with Christianity.

>>21702364
how is Christianity not escapism? The whole point is to use it as a coping mechanism for the horrifying vale of tears that is real life. The whole point is to direct your attention away from the uncomfortable, evil, oppressive world at hand and to put all your hopes and dreams towards a supposed utopian afterlife where all wrongs will be righted with fire. It's an incredibly potent form of escapism, to believe that it doesn't matter how horrible your life on earth is because The Afterlife (tm) will make everything right when you die.

>>21702433
how is Buddhism not escapism? The whole point is to use it as a coping mechanism for the horrifying vale of tears that is real life. The whole point is to direct your attention away from the uncomfortable, evil, oppressive world at hand and to put all your hopes and dreams towards a supposed utopian afterlife where your suffering will be destroyer. It's an incredibly potent form of escapism, to believe that it doesn't matter how horrible your life on earth is because Parinibbana (tm) will make everything right when you die.

>>21702457
>how is Buddhism not escapism?
Because Buddhism actually deals with the problem, duh. People have been telling you this the entire thread, idk why you have such a hard time with this one.

>>21702457
Sure, Buddhism is escapism. Now explain to me why Christianity is the only religion that isn't escapism. That's what I'm getting at. Why does only Christianity get the pass? I wasn't defending Buddhism at the expense of Christianity when I wrote that.

>>21702457
>put all your hopes and dreams towards a supposed utopian afterlife
That's called Christianity.

>>21702457
no, the whole point is to recognize that what you just called ''real life'' isn't actually real, its a mere magic show, illusion, nama-rupa, to think that any of this is real is the biggest mistake, when you get rid of ignorance you break the cycle

also, there's no such thing as an afterlife, nibbana is to be realized here and now

>>21699732
this escapism talk is backwards
Dualistic grasping is the epitome of escapism, since it entails perpetually desiring for the experience to be other than what it is.
Pleasant feelings are desired to be increased, more intense, longer-lasting than they are.
Unpleasant feelings are desired to be gotten rid of.
Neutral feelings are desired to be replaced by pleasant ones.
In each kind of feeling, there is a fundamental discrepancy where one craves for it to be other than what it is, in a sense, for one to escape the experience of that feeling into the experience of another one. Then when the next feeling comes, one likewise wants it to be different as well.
Someone who has attained Nirvana (or an arya in a moment of meditative equipoise on their aryan insight) does not experience any such desire for their experience to be different than it is, and there isn't that discrepancy, and they aren't endlessly chasing the escape of their presently occurring experience. Pleasant, neutral and unpleasant feelings manifest without the discrepancy of wanting them to be otherwise.

>>21702522

“… Suppose, monks, a magician or a magician's apprentice
should hold a magic-show at the four cross-roads; and a
keen-sighted man should see it, ponder over it and reflect on
it radically. Even as he sees it, ponders over it and reflects on
it radically, he would find it empty; he would find it hollow;
he would find it void of essence. What essence, monks, could
there be in a magic show?

Even so, monks, whatever consciousness—be it past,
future or present, in oneself or external, gross or subtle,
inferior or superior, far or near—a monk sees it, ponders over
it and reflects on it radically. And even as he sees it, ponders
over it and reflects on it radically, he would find it empty; he
would find it hollow; he would find it void of essence. What
essence, monks, could there be in a consciousness? …”

Form is like a mass of foam
And feeling but an airy bubble.
Perception is like a mirage
And formations a plantain tree.
Consciousness is a magic-show,
A juggler's trick entire.
All these similes were made known
By the “Kinsman-of-the-Sun.” (S III 142)

>comes in Buddhism thread
>boldly announces that Christianity is the only religion that isn't "escapism"
>refuses to elaborate further
>leaves

>>21702457
Buddhism can alleviate suffering in this life

>>21702209
Honestly, it's because, 1., I suspect the OP's answer is just baitposting/a snide criticism of "people who speak about religions they're interested in online without even being full experts or authentic 'authorities' on it," and, 2., that even if he gets whatever answer he's asking for, he's not actually going to read such suggestions in his free time and be genuinely interested in such, it's simply a post to while away the time, also 3. whatever responses given skeptically and cynically responded to ("That's not real Buddhism!!! Pseud!!!")

Anyway that aside, I guess you have a point, I should've responded to the main question, if nothing else for other interested readers who might gain something for it -- so, knowing how imperfect such a response is, I'd recommend:

"The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism", by Garma C.C. Chang (note, this is about a later development of Buddhism in the early couple-hundred-years AD, of Hwa Yen Buddhism, one of the great philosophical sources of much Mahayana Buddhist thought, based largely on the cosmically recursive, psychedelic-like philosophy of the Avatamsaka ("Flower-Garland") Sutra; this is because I don't even much care about giving a response to OP's, "What's the EARLIEST and most AUTHENTIC Buddhism?", given the just aforementioned massiveness of the Pali Canon and the inanity I see in such a question).

Charles Luk's (or Lu K'uan Yu's) "Chan and Zen Teaching," volumes 1 through 3.

"Nagarjuna's Philosophy" by K. Venkata Ramanan

The collected works of Wei Wu Wei (pseudonym of the 20th-century English philosopher, Terence Gray), such as, "Ask the Awakened," "The Tenth Person," "Why Lazarus Laughed: the Essential Doctrine of Zen-Advaita-Tantra," "Posthumous Pieces," and so forth.

Chögyam Trungpa's three-volume series, "The Profound Treasury of the Ocean of Dharma", about the three major "vehicles" (yanas) or schools-of-thought-and-teaching of Buddhism, Hinayana or Theravada Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism, and Vajrayana Buddhism, being specifically named:

"The Path of Individual Liberation" (volume 1, on Hinayana Buddhism)

"The Bodhisattva of Wisdom and Compassion" (volume 2, on Mahayana Buddhism), and

"The Tantric Path of Indestructible Wakefulness" (volume 3, on Vajrayana Buddhism)

Few answers like this can be definitive, unique, and equally accessible to everyone. In fact, given how vast Buddhism is, as aforementioned, such an answer like this is inevitably niche, unique, and narrow, many others students or even practitioners of Buddhism on /lit/ bound to give wildly differing answers, and also a selection tailored to either Western-academic/scholarly or Westernized-in-general presentations of Buddhism. A Thai, Japanese, Tibetan, etc. practitioner is also even more invariably bound to give a different answer. I don't place stock on this answer as "the absolute presentation of books to read on Buddhism."

>>21702481
Because Christianity actually deals with the problem through their moral and spiritual teachings, duh. People have been telling you this the entire thread, idk why you have such a hard time with this one.

>>21702522
No, the whole point is to recognize that what you just called ''buddhist practice'' isn't actually real, its a mere creation of sophistry that leaves one unsatisfied, Nirvana, the Buddha’s enlightenment, to think that any of this is real is the biggest mistake, when you get rid of ignorance of the truth of Jesus Christ you break the cycle of being tossed from one false doctrine to another in search or truth. As Ernst J. Eitel once said about Buddhism: “What shall we say of such empty useless speculations, such sickly, dead words, whose fruitless sophistry offers to that natural yearning of the human heart after an eternal rest nothing better than a philosophical myth? It is but natural that a religion which started with moral and intellectual bankruptcy should end in moral and intellectual suicide.”

Also, there's no such thing as Nirvana or Anatta, your immortal soul made in the image of God is to be realized here and now

>>21702545
>he would find it void of essence … What essence, monks, could there be in a consciousness? …”
>consciousness is like void and empty … evidence or source? just trust me lol
nice question-begging Buddha, what an obnoxious dumbass

>>21702581
Christianity can alleviate suffering in this life

>>21702638
Addition: "The Awakening of Faith," a Mahayana Sutra, translated by Yoshita Hakeda

If you want one with a really ancient antecedent, and from the aforementioned Pali Canon, you can read pretty much any translation of the Dhammapada, a reputed collection of the sayings of the Buddha. A surprising number of the even-more-popular Buddhist texts are stuff like the Lotus Sutra, or the Heart Sutra, Mahyana sutras, which are all rejected by Theravada/Hinayana Buddhists as "not authentic Buddhism, simply later additions," so if you're really on the "purist" wave it (supposedly) doesn't correspond to your question.

>>21702640
A lot of Christians are pretty fucked up people, particularly the ones with stances/orientations like this of blindly attacking all other cultures, faiths, and religions. I'm trying to put this out by itself, just by itself, without any particular blind adherence to or praise of another faith -- not even to say other followers of other religions can't also be "fucked up," but just honestly saying this about at least some Christians.

>>21702640
>Christianity actually deals with the problem through their moral and spiritual teachings
Oh I get it you think morality is categorically Christian and nobody else has any sort of morality so to speak. Larping as a fat medieval Frankish rabbi I suppose.

>>21702167
Great post very even handed, thanks (not OP). Would you recommend any short overviews of the absolute basics just so I can get a sense of the different schools, like when most scholars reasonably think they arose and what the major differences are. I know the basics from watching people talk on here and looking stuff up on wikipedia but that's it.

>>21702638
Just saw this so nevermind. But if you have an even more general and easy book before starting with Trungpa that would be appreciated too.

Can you explain something for me if possible, are shentong and rantong used outside of Tibetan Buddhism to describe the general approach in Buddhism toward what ultimately exists or persists after enlightenment. Also if I am interpreting them right then shentong is sort of like nondual vedanta in that there is still a final state or self beyond all contingent appearance. You may have been the poster who talked about this recently. But if that's the case then what is rantong? It's not nihilistic in a positive way right? Is it just against positively describing the ultimate post enlightenment state then?

You see I'm still confused by the basics, I am looking for an over-view so I can get a general sense and then begin examining the different traditions.

>>21702723
>shentong and rantong
There was a very angry poster who went on about this recently. I hope he is feeling more namaste today. I would not try to read Tibetan doxography in terms of orthodox Hindu theology but that's just me. Would be better off reading the principal Yogacara and Madhyamaka texts which informed Tibetan discourse

>>21702723
Ehhh - thanks, but don't put too much stock in me! I'm not an "officially sanctioned Buddhist practitioner" or AKA expert. I'd just recommend Trungpa's 3-volume trilogy -- again, it's not the only answer, it's far from the "objective" answer, but it's a pretty good source, and explicitly about this: from a life-long, born-and-raised Buddhist-practitioner and scholar, recapitulating the gist of the major three schools of Buddhism.

Shentong and rangtong are explicitly Tibetan terms, so they wouldn't be used with those exact word ascribed to them outside of Tibetan Buddhism.

>what is rantong?
It's holding to the view that all is empty of a self-nature, even the concept of emptiness is, and, conventionally speaking, that enlightenment is the realization of such a truth -- that's all is empty of a self-nature or independent self-existence. So far as I understand it.

It's amazing that tibetan and their atheists audience keep pouring the meme that tibetan buddhism is the le better buddhism as soon as there is a thread on buddhism.

>>21702691
>A lot of Christians are pretty fucked up people, particularly the ones with stances/orientations like this of blindly attacking all other cultures, faiths, and religions
The funny thing is that the post was expressing the same sentiment as the posts that it was responding to, but just with the religions switched around. Really activates your almonds.

>>21702167>>21702638

And here we have the idiot with his protestant buddhism again, like clockwork, just to push for mhayana... Who would have guessed.

>>21702167
>>However, in the case of Buddhism, it's a bit hard (to put it mildly) to read the entire fucking Pāli Canon
how is it hard since it takes only 1 month?

let me guess, you think it's easier to read the pompous and self aggrandizing diarrhea of the hindus and tibetans and chinese who are desperate to be seen as better than theravada.

>>21702723
>>Can you explain something for me if possible, are shentong and rantong used outside of Tibetan Buddhism to describe the general approach in Buddhism toward what ultimately exists or persists after enlightenment.
Of course not. They are inherent to the tibetan religion. The buddha never taught shentong nor rantong in the first place anyway.

You have to understand that you think of buddhism and hinduism was created in the middle ages, precisely by the tibetans and chinese and brahmins like shankara.

Let's recap all this crap.
here is the chronology of eastern teachings, ie the brutal mogging of the brahmins by dirty hobos.

Vedas:
The Jews of the East are called Brahmins and they are saying that to please blue gods during their orgies, the Jews, I mean the Brahmins , have to kill horses and cut very special woods in order to burn it and dance around the fire while chanting ''magical & sacred'' sentences called ''mantras''. Brahmins live off the royal families and have a comfy life, spending their day doing rituals mandated by the king, because the local Brahmin told him that the gods were somehow not pleased with the local king, until the king does what the brahmin recommends...
At this point karma, rebirth and meditation are not in the Vedas and do not matter. The only way to live the holy life is to be a born a Brahmin and do rituals around a fire and killing some animals once in a while. Brahmins rave about sacrifices.

Buddhism and so on
Then Buddhism, Jainism and some materialist gurus came along and said the Vedas and Brahmins are full of shit. Sainthood is not hereditary for instance. Buddhists introduce karma, aggregates are not self, and very precise meditation and their only goal is to ''end suffering''. They do not give a shit about politics. The Brahmins get super triggered and write the Upanishads as a counter attack.
The origin of the hindus and the buddhists isn't super clear. The latest theory is that the brahmins were some indo-aryans and settled on the north west of India. The future buddhists and jains were living at the Norf east of India. In the South there was some bums, whoever that was, and nobody cared. As the aryans moved towards the east, they encountered the future jains and buddhists which later mogged the vedas big time.

Upanishads
From now on, in the Upanishads it's wrong to kill animals to please the gods and they say any past killing by their self proclaimed righteous ancestors was ''verily symbolic''.
They say that sainthood is not hereditary and instead Brahmins should meditate once in a while. They do not say what meditation is, since they don't even know themselves. They just heard the word from the buddhists and jains, so they just mention the word and cross their fingers their audience will move past that. The Upanishads is a half-assed work.

>>21702790


Buddhism dies
Buddha died a long time ago already and buddhism along with him. The Brahmins are still seething at the buddha and start to kill whatever remains of buddhism from the inside by making up new teaching like Mahayana in the buddhist monasteries. There is barely any filter at the entrance to become a buddhist monk, so anybody charismatic could join and change the daily rules and the teachings.
The ''buddhist'' brahmins like Nagarjuna create completely new ''buddhist'' sutras for the first time written in perfect sankrit [the language exclusive to the brahmins] in the exact same style, content and presentation as the brahminical texts, replacing the word ''brahman'' by ''buddha'' , and they add that ''those sutras are totally the Budhdas teaching dude just trust me lmao''. Now in buddhism there is a ''primordial mind'' which ''encompasses everything'' and it's the ''true self''. Doing ''rituals'' makes good karma and anybody can be enlightened just by saying ''mantras''.

Middle Ages
Some Brahmin tard called Patanjali decided also to write a manual on meditation. Since Brahmins made that shit up in a rush in the Upanishads , they can't pad their manual with custom teachings, so they copy word for word the buddhist manual. But this time they call it ''yoga''and they use ''the breath'' in order to ''reach Brahman''.
In the middle ages, a Brahmin Poo called Shankaracharya was still triggered by buddhism from 1000 years ago so he tried to refute it by saying '' lol buddha did not use sanskrit so what he says is just wrong bro''. To this day, the Poos still use this midwit to ''refute'' buddhism and sometimes jainism.

Renaissance
Buddhism has been dead for several centuries and what is left is various Brahminical-buddhist intellectuals struggling to differentiate Vajrayana, Mahayana and Hinduism, saying each one is different and better from the others. They make up lots of contrived mental gymnastics, but since they all reject the buddhist claim that ''contionned things rise and fall, so they don't have a true nature'', they don't have much room to differentiate themselves, their teachings get more and more confusing and more and more the same. At this point in buddhism, buddha is literally the ''acosmic essence of the universe'' and to get enlightened you have to do some rituals, following the orders of the newly introduced concept of the local Vajrayana guru [the buddhist equivalent of a brahmin] while saying some mantras to connect to the ''primordial mind'', ie the ''the buddha'', because ''you just have to see that you were already enlightened all this time, you just don't know it yet''.
Hinduism endures the same transformation, only the word buddha is replaced with the word Brahman, ie ''you were always enlightened all along, you just didnt know that your true nature called atman is actually brahman bro''.

>>21702364
Haha. But seriously though what living religion isn’t escapist

>>21702768
Tibetan Buddhism is quite literally tantric demon worship.

>>21702821
>>21702821


>Buddhism dies
Buddha died a long time ago already and buddhism along with him. The Brahmins are still seething at the buddha and start to kill whatever remains of buddhism from the inside by making up new teaching like Mahayana in the buddhist monasteries. There is barely any filter at the entrance to become a buddhist monk, so anybody charismatic could join and change the daily rules and the teachings.
The ''buddhist'' brahmins like Nagarjuna create completely new ''buddhist'' sutras for the first time written in perfect sankrit [the language exclusive to the brahmins] in the exact same style, content and presentation as the brahminical texts, replacing the word ''brahman'' by ''buddha'' , and they add that ''those sutras are totally the Budhdas teaching dude just trust me lmao''. Now in buddhism there is a ''primordial mind'' which ''encompasses everything'' and it's the ''true self''. Doing ''rituals'' makes good karma and anybody can be enlightened just by saying ''mantras''.

>Middle Ages
Some Brahmin tard called Patanjali decided also to write a manual on meditation. Since Brahmins made that shit up in a rush in the Upanishads , they can't pad their manual with custom teachings, so they copy word for word the buddhist manual. But this time they call it ''yoga''and they use ''the breath'' in order to ''reach Brahman''.
In the middle ages, a Brahmin Poo called Shankaracharya was still triggered by buddhism from 1000 years ago so he tried to refute it by saying '' lol buddha did not use sanskrit so what he says is just wrong bro''. To this day, the Poos still use this midwit to ''refute'' buddhism and sometimes jainism.

>Renaissance
Buddhism has been dead for several centuries and what is left is various Brahminical-buddhist intellectuals struggling to differentiate Vajrayana, Mahayana and Hinduism, saying each one is different and better from the others. They make up lots of contrived mental gymnastics, but since they all reject the buddhist claim that ''contionned things rise and fall, so they don't have a true nature'', they don't have much room to differentiate themselves, their teachings get more and more confusing and more and more the same. At this point in buddhism, buddha is literally the ''acosmic essence of the universe'' and to get enlightened you have to do some rituals, following the orders of the newly introduced concept of the local Vajrayana guru [the buddhist equivalent of a brahmin] while saying some mantras to connect to the ''primordial mind'', ie the ''the buddha'', because ''you just have to see that you were already enlightened all this time, you just don't know it yet''.
Hinduism endures the same transformation, only the word buddha is replaced with the word Brahman, ie ''you were always enlightened all along, you just didnt know that your true nature called atman is actually brahman bro''.

>>21702835

Nowadays, the situation is the same with:
- buddhism still dead
- hindus still seethe IRL and online at buddhism and jainism, even though there are 0% buddhists and only 1% jains in India right now lol
- Hindus stopped giving a shit about the Vedas in the Upanishad era. Their rewriting of history started a liberalization of their religion and opened the pandora box of gurus contradicting each others all the time. They all circle jerk on non-dualism or dualism thinking it's the most important thing in life, while the average hindu just doesn't give a shit at all and all he does is praying for vishnu 5minutes in the morning before moving on with his day
- the hinduism-mahayana-vajrayana crowd still desperate to say they are different yet still saying the exact same things
- judeobuddhism taking off, which is just the feel-good atheist version of mahayana-vajrayana. Atheist bugwomen rave about westerners such as ''Sylvia Boorstein'' and ''Steve Hagen''
- more lay people try to do meditation, but they either do the non-buddhist meditation like all the zen ''do nothing'' crap, all the mahayana worship crap, all the vajrayana devotion crap, or do the the meditation from buddhist commentaries also written centuries after the death of the buddha.

>>21702074
>Just make your own religion instead of desperately trying to coopt Jesus Christ.
wish someone had told this to constantine and the church fathers desu

>>21700796
What religion isn’t reddit?

>>21699732
Buddhism is irreconcilable with Buddhism.

>>21702834
>the virgin "yikes those are heckin demons" hand-wringer and the chad "that's MY demon" dionysaic-apotropaic cum shaman

>>21702768
can you point out a single post in this thread that says this

>>21702873
I may have just done this as a meme response to a christkek response to that post

>>21702841
This isn't good enough analysis to be a pasta. Buddhism has always had an auto-pessimism about its viability. If you consider all those references in the nikayas about the dharma supposed to decline within x centuries were literally committed to writing x centuries after the historical Buddha lived it is especially clear just how difficult transmission of the kernel of Buddhism is compared to the exoterical and overt formal religion which orbits it. As an individual it isn't something you should necessarily worry about—Buddhism can be rebooted from a single sutra. The burden is entirely on the adherent. Faith in the "triple jewel" is a polite way of saying do it yourself-so long as there is a community which has transmitted to you the teaching of the awakened that's what you have to go from.

>>21702914
Or to put it another way, "Buddhism" as an institution is not what you are supposed to be taking stock in and clinging to. Seek good spiritual friends and if they are not available be a rhinoceros

>>21702364
The point of Christianity is salvation. What’s another word for salvation? Escape.
I am a Christian, and I don’t see why you’re denying a major aspect of Christianity. Read the psalms or the epistles, tons of imagery of being a prisoner who finds refuge (escape) through the Lord. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and I highly suspect you’re just baiting.

>>21702841
>judeobuddhism
I was quite surprised to see western buddhism that was fashionable from 80-00s is almost completely in the hands of Jews.

>>21702872
Wrathful yidams are fully enlightened buddhas. Yidam practice is in no way demon worship. This is literally Manjushri

>>21702849
>the original Christians were wrong, in fact they weren’t even Christian at all. It was only 2000 years later that I came around and figured out the true faith
Sure, whatever

>101th post
Mahayana is not Buddhism.

>>21703044
Why not?

>>21703025
Yes.

>>21703025
p.s. constantine and the church fathers were not the original christians

>>21703052
NTA. They openly admit they received new revelations compared to earlier buddhism and typically base themselves on texts written at least six centuries after Siddhartha. It was already a syncretism between hinayana and the background of many indian religions at the start, and it became even messier outside of India.

>>21703025
Perhaps anon is trying to say that the magicians like Valentinus and Mani were the real Christians all along.

>>21703166
What fundamental doctrines of Buddhism does Mahayana contradict?

With the million different answers to the question "what is Buddhism?" you'd be safe to assume it isn't anything, and there will be some "Buddhist" faggots that will smugly agree. Why does this stupid third worlder religion plague this site?

>>21703166
The prajñaparamita sutra, which is foundational to Mahayana thought, lifts entire passages from the nikayas/agamas. Due to the religiously competitive nature of the way things were, you had what was essentially commentarial literature being presented as revelation to lend it greater legitimacy. Since I am not a meticulous legalist this does not bother me in the least. And it is entirely possible that it was "revealed" as a sort of sincere inspiration rather than being purely spurious and subversive, assuming one already believes in the ability of the buddha to reveal—remember the original audience here was not the atheist grandchildren of Protestant textual critics but practicing Buddhist monks and lay patrons. So in the north Mahayana won those debates while non-Mahayana kept to a different, though not fully isolated trajectory in the south.

>>21703256
>Why does this stupid third worlder religion plague this site?
It is high time the Christians went back to the Congo or the Amazon

>>21699780
They don't even believe in Satan, let alone worship him.

>>21703300
You typed that thinking that was some epic jab. I am not Christian.

>>21703307
A whole fourth of this thread is off topic christcoping so I will collect my daily (You)

>>21703320
Ok? I don't care.