/lit/ - Literature

Compassion is not attachment or possession, the normal conception of "love" is. Read Osho.

>>23055538
Osho wasn't a buddhist

>>23055536
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

>>23055543
So?

>>23055555
Wasted

>>23055536
There's no contradiction since compassion is ove without attachment. You want good for others without expecting anything in return from your own ego. That's what attachment is, the desires from the ego. Compassion is a desire of the soul

>>23055555
So he is not a primary source on buddhism

>>23055579
This is a pretty basic question you don't need a primary source.

>have no desires
>but also have desires
Buddhists need to pick a lane already

>>23055536
look at all those nipples on his head, what does that signify?

>>23055579
Being enlightened makes him the primary source, you retard, you couldn’t find a better source.

>>23055608
he's literally a cult leader and a scammer known for saying funny things like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFgcqB8-AxE

>>23055608
osho is a fraudster glorified by women and NPCs

>>23055538
>>23055536
compassion can't you englithened in the first place

>>23055616
You just proved him 100% right.

>>23055625
Literally every western Buddhist is a woman or an NPC.

>>23055555
Five 5’s. Buddha nature agrees.

>>23055536
Compassion in Buddhism isn't about morality, it's a tool to overcome your individual ego and striving to end the self/not-self distinction.

>>23055543
It’s sad to see Buddhists being just as dumb and dogmatic as Christians.

The second noble truth says all suffering (or however you want to translate "dukkha") comes from three desires: desire for sense-pleasure, desire for existence, and desire for non-existence. The first one is simple, this is the desire for things like cheeseburgers and blowjobs. The second is more broadly about self-actualization or "being somebody". The third in its most extreme form is the desire for suicide, but it also manifests more subtly in the desire to "shut your brain off" by drinking or watching trashy TV.
The "desire" that all beings be well and happy doesn't fit into those three categories.

>>23055675
>desire for existence, becoming somebody, being one of the greats
>bad
I hate b*ddhism now

>>23055536
Ok /lit/ Im going to explain to you a big thing I think most of you don't seem to get about Buddhism: Co-doing, Conditioned behaviour or aggregation
When attachments is used in english refering to Buddhism, it refers to unskilled behaviour where one orients their mind around things that are conditioned, aggregated or some kind of codoing rather than virtuous unconditioned things (which is what Niggana is)
what you are arguing over is not Buddhism

>>23055716
for example: being born is conditioned or co-done with dying, while being deathless is unconditioned. Conditioning your sense of satisfaction from eating food is unskilled and monks practice learning these sensations without sensual stimuli.

>>23055675
i desire to become big and strong troll like golem but upgraded version but they won't let me inject random steroids into my body

>>23055693
It's because you didn't suffer enough yet.

>>23055831
Buddhism isnt about "suffering" its about "unfulfilling" or more like "having standards"
ie you can go to the giga niga pleasure palace for 1000 years but eventually if you don't have any unconditioned wisdom to replicate that shit you'll just be left wanting

I once was treated like an idiot irl because i said that buddhism feels like a nihilistic religion with all the "forget self", "i want to fuck off", "nothing exists" bullshit

>>23055842
well you are wrong lol

>>23055835
I meant that suffering leads you naturally to wisdoms such as Buddhism
But still you don't seem to understand the meaning of suffering under buddhism. Not being fulfilled is suffering.

>>23055536
>"no attachment" is a big thing in Buddhism, but "compassion to others" is also a big thing. Isn't that a contradiction?

true and i have not yet encountered a helpful response to this contradiction

detachment from the world and denial of desire implies detachment from love and true compassion

>>23055842
you were right

>>23055536
Because contradiction is a big thing in Buddhism too :^)

>>23055853
>Not being fulfilled is suffering
suffering is the wrong word for dukkha, ie yes it sucks but it's not suffering like western connotation of suffering at which point it shouldn't be used. Similar to words such as emptiness, attachment and the western misunderstood version of karma

>>23055842
You know how in philosophy, words have very nuanced technical meanings and often aren't translated easily or very well? If you didn't, now you do and that's the problem you face. Gotama often uses words that translated as Void, in the since of null and void or not applicable. Nonsense. Your sense of self as some fixed thing is nonsense. Existence is nonsense. Nonexistence is nonsense. Nonsense is itself nonsense. It's a very igtheistic position, the Questions are absurd.

>>23055854
Being other-focused breaks up the aggregates of delusion. Wanting others to be free of samsara is no different from wanting to be free of samsara. If you can't be free, maybe someone can. Anything else is clinging and only builds ignorance that there is no fixed self.

>>23055869
tl;dr
>mentalism and nothing is free from transmutation
>but also which mentalism we use and which language we use is important and ours is very wrong even if it seems "ok"
Siddy Gothmama-Buddy ^^ :3 is basically Western Hermy~

>>23055866
>it sucks but it's not suffering like western connotation of suffering at which point it shouldn't be used
No that's your own interpretation of it. Stoic philosophers had the same definition of suffering as Buddhism. I think any philosophers would define the unfulfilled desire as suffering. If you ask a regular joe in the street he might say something else, but it's just incomprehension of what is suffering, not a supposed western definition of it.

>>23055854
Instead of detachment as the opposite of attachment, think of attachment as essentially being mentally, spiritually and existentially addicted to certain small and large machinations

>>23055878
>Stoic philosophers had the same definition of suffering as Buddhism
give me 1 example please

>>23055842
Yeah because nihilism supposes a self too. In fact, being a nihilist is pretty weird, even at the time of the buddha. It doesn't make sens that the atheists/nihilists are ascetics. Just like the western atheists/nihilists are not really what they claim: they love to impose their dogmatic ways to other people and go to great length for this.


“Overcome by two misconceptions, mendicants, some gods and humans get stuck, some overreach, while those with vision see.

And how do some get stuck? Because of love, delight, and enjoyment of existence, when the Dhamma is being taught for the cessation of existence, the minds of some gods and humans are not secure, confident, settled, and decided. That is how some get stuck.

And how do some overreach? Some, becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with existence, delight in ending existence: ‘When this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death: that is peaceful, that is sublime, that is how it is.’ That is how some overreach.

And how do those with vision see? It’s when a mendicant sees what has come to be as having come to be. Seeing this, they are practicing for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding what has come to be. That is how those with vision see.”

The Buddha spoke this matter. On this it is said:

“Those who see what has come to be
as having come to be,
transcending what has come to be, are freed in accord with the truth, with the ending of craving for continued existence.

They completely understand what has come to be, rid of craving for rebirth in this or that state, with the disappearance of what has come to be, a mendicant does not come back to future lives.”

This too is a matter that was spoken by the Blessed One: that is what I heard.

>>23055536
No. There is a very similar thing going on in Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. On the one hand, there is the total denial of the self, the apophatic separation from the sensual, but this doesn't entail indifference to others.

I think this explains it well. The idea is to become like the divine, theosis. To be indifferent to something is still to be defined by what one is not. Love is transcendent in that it is the identification of the other with the self. The truly transcendent must fully embrace what it is not so that it has no limit.

>>23055632
Assblasted christer

>>23055931
>There is a very similar thing going on in Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. On the one hand, there is the total denial of the self
No, absolutely not; you have an eternal "soul" in Christianity which was made by your creator and he will reward or punish you for eternity based on how accurate your christology was in your lifetime. Buddhism teaching there is no "self" (anatman) is not in agreement with that concept.
>>23055878
"Suffering" has too many vernacular meanings. When Buddhist philosophers are referring to dukkha, pain and suffering are merely consequences of the big idea, which is that the entities we imagine and impute (dharmas) are in a state of disturbance or commotion, and resultingly we are then in such a state. See Stcherbatsky for a good secondary source or read through some of the nikayas

>>23055987
Kek, Christ is a Jew. Cope harder.

>>23055632
You forgot chuds on /pol/ and /lit/ who read the wheelchair man's book about it

>>23055536
Having compassion for others and acting on this trains you to be less selfish and attached to things. Simple as. Depending on which sources you ask there is a little bit of nuance, compassion isn't mere charity but more of a teach a man to fish thing, it does no good to give a greedy person money, or a violent person things he can hurt others with, and so on.

>>23056014
Yes and that’s a good thing

>>23055854
>>23055675
:^)

>>23055854

You don't have to be attached to feel compassion. Lack of attachment means understanding that there is little you can actually do in the world and you have to accept htat fact that you're not going to change it, nor the basic circumstances of another person. This doesn't mean you don't feel compassion and are indifferent. It means you have no attachment to the suffering. You can certainly help and should help out of compassion--this is right action, right intent, right view, etc, but to become attached is a completely different thing.

Maybe you are confusing "compassion" with obsession.

>>230556
Any person who is a religious follower is an NPC

>>23055632
Any person who is a religious follower is an NPC

>>23055536
It's obviously more virtuous to be compassionate towards people you have no attachment to

>>23055536
Stop consuming tertiary sources and pick up a sutta anon>>23055544

>>23055608
>enlightened
LMAO

Basically Buddhism distinguishes between good attachments and bad attachments
Attachments to bad actions are bad because they involve negative karma and also attachment is inherently bad
Attachments to good actions and good mental states are good because they are helpful, can motivate people and lead to good karma and yet attachment is still inherently bad
The way positive attachments are seen is like someone crossing a river
There is a boat moored on one side and you want to cross the river
You get in the river and paddle your way across but once you have reached your destination, you don't try to drag the boat out of the water and take it with you to your next destination
Rather you leave it moored on the river and go on your way
Also I'm pretty sure Buddhists will say that compassion is something that has developed rather than a specific attachment
You could have an attachment to practising loving kindness, you could have an attachment to the three jewels, you could have an attachment to the desire to be liberated
At a certain point you give up the attachment and you just naturally practice loving kindness

>>23055608
>Being enlightened makes him the primary source, you retard, you couldn’t find a better source.
Lust doesnt exist in a man who has achieved the unachievable. Osho was full of lust. Stupid hippie fuck

>>23055536
Compassion for others indicates detachment from your own perspective.
However the whole Mahayana thing about being so compassionate that you deny your own enlightenment is a load of baloney and definitely not compatible with an ethos of detachment.

>>23055555
quints of truth

>>23055538
compassion is quite literally a "passion", anon. it implies pity and concern. how is it not attachment?

attachment is the condition of suffering. remove attachment and equanimity reigns, which is conducive to compassion/non-judgment.

>>23058144
only sentimental, other- or self-reifying compassion is. light isn't attached to what it illuminates

>>23058175
then justify compassion from a buddhist pov. it makes no sense to me. why "should" one do anything if one is to free oneself from attachment?

>>23058216
you're freeing yourself from states of mind that presuppose, depend on, demand, the domain of suffering itself to be effective. dying alone is a concomitant of the drive for sex and romance, for example. it is what it is. the buddha didn't make it that way. you can experience all the actual love and intimacy within this domain if you want, but you'll never rid yourself of this basis. dying alone may not be guaranteed if you're in the dating pool, but death, aging, and sickness are

>>23058144
>english puns should apply to foreign religio-philosophical vocabulary

>>23055589
Yeah it makes no sense

We have these threads 3x a day and the same people reply in them and yet somehow learn absolutely nothing.

>>23055536
Attachment means possession. When you are attached to say, a dog, it means your love for your pet is rooted in selfishness. If your dog were to die, you would likely be heartbroken because you do not want the dog to die...because it would make YOU upset.

To love without attachment means to love unconditionally, to love fully and with passion, and to love selflessly. You do not love out of self centeredness.

>>23055589
>>23058444
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

>>23055536
>objective negation precipitates subjective synthesis

'Attachments' are echoes of events. They're not yours strictly speaking, and being yolked to them requires assent -- or in this case, difference therefrom -- there is no 'freedom' of the will or otherwise apart from this. Take compassion to be a type of Vision the Pure Land is all around, after all, one has only to step into it, as the clouds part which aptly regards to what degree others are the Rider or being ridden (or worse, demonically driven).

>>23058144
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karu%E1%B9%87%C4%81

>>23058846
>Ananda explains to Unnabha that the path of Dhamma is one with a definite goal — the abandoning of desire — which can only be attained by developing a strong desire to end desire.
Yeah it makes no sense

>>23058992
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81

>>23059006
>Buddha spoke of two kinds of desire: desire that arises from ignorance and delusion which is called taṇhā – craving – and desire that arises from wisdom and intelligence
What if I have a craving for wisdom

>>23059042
Would that be craving for sense pleasures, craving for existence, or craving for non-existence?

>>23059108
A craving for less ignorance and delusion

>>23059042
In that case, "our" Buddha is probably the best Buddha you can get
>There are infinite numbers of Buddha that purified an infinite numbers of "Pure World"
>Those worlds lack suffering and desires being basically various Paradise
>Our world is impure
>Sakyamuni came to our world to teach
>To those with an Impure mind it is an Impure world, to those that is enlightened, it's a pure world
>The impurities are the impure thoughts of the people of the world
>The (our) Buddha's compassion is that even as the world is impure he is creating a world where even the impure can have a chance to become enlightened
>There are an infinite numbers of Buddha with an infinite numbers of Pure Lands, and the current most popular types of Buddhism is hoping to be reincarnated in one of those lands skipping the difficult part
>Another type of Buddhism is the original strand which advocate cultivating your own mind until you become enlightened rather than hoping to be born in one of those worlds
The world that we are in are very accepting of any types of impurities (thought and awareness) you have. I would argue that because of that, Sakyamuni is the best Buddha that could have come

>>23055536
>Compassion is the purest form of love. Sex is the lowest form of love, compassion the highest form of love.

>In sex the contact is basically physical; in compassion the contact is basically spiritual. In love, compassion and sex are both mixed, the physical and the spiritual are both mixed.

>Love is midway between sex and compassion.

>You can call compassion prayer also. You can call compassion meditation also. The highest form of energy is compassion. The word 'compassion' is beautiful: half of it is 'passion' -- somehow passion has become so refined that it is no more like passion. It has become compassion.

>In sex, you use the other, you reduce the other to a means, you reduce the other to a thing.

>>23055536
>Compassion is the ultimate flowering of consciousness. It is passion released of all darkness, it is passion freed from all bondage, it is passion purified of all poison. Passion becomes compassion.

>Passion is the seed, compassion is the flowering of it.

>But compassion is not kindness, kindness is not compassion. Kindness is an ego-attitude, it strengthens your ego. When you are kind to somebody, you feel the upper hand. When you are kind to somebody there is a deep insult - you are humiliating the other, you are feeling happy in his humiliation. That's why kindness can never be forgiven. Whomsoever you have been kind to will remain somehow somewhere angry with you, is bound to take revenge. Because kindness is only on the surface as compassion, but deep in the depth it has nothing to do with compassion. It has other ulterior motives.

>Compassion is unmotivated, it has not motive at all. It is simply because you have, you give - not that the other needs. The other is not a consideration at all in compassion. Because you have, you go on overflowing. Compassion is very spontaneous, natural, like breathing. Kindness is a cultivated attitude. Kindness is a kind of cunningness; it is calculation, it is arithmetic.

>>23055536
>It is the perennial problem: those who have known have come across an unbridgeable gap between their experience and their capacity to express it. What they have known is so vast that whatever they say is going to limit it, and to limit the unlimited is unforgivable. If they don't say anything, then too they are saying something. They are saying that nothing can be said.

>But the experience is so glorious, so nourishing, so fulfilling that to say that nothing can be said about it is to show your uncompassion towards those who are not so blessed with the experience. Unless you say something, howsoever limited, millions will remain unaware that their potential was for the whole sky, and they remained limited in a small world. They never opened their wings into the sky, because they never thought that beyond the cage there exists anything else.

>To let people remain unaware of their capacity to fly, and the infinity of the sky, is certainly unkind. This is such a dilemma: if you say something it is not right, and if you don't say something it is again not right. You have to say something, howsoever small. It may give someone a hint; perhaps it may not quench the thirst but it may provoke a search.

>It may not quench the thirst but it may make you aware of it, that you are thirsty. Even to become aware of your thirst is a great beginning, because one cannot remain thirsty if one knows -- one is going to seek and search in every possible way. And the ocean of life is not far away. We are in it, we are part of it.

>There have been two types of mystics in the world. One Gautam Buddha has called the arhatas. They have chosen to remain silent. They are absolutely committed to the truth and they are not going to compromise on any account. They will not say something which is not absolutely right, they will not say something which is only approximately true, because the approximately true is nothing but a lie. They will not give an example because there is no parallel to their experience, there is no possibility of any comparison. Seeing the situation, one can understand why they have chosen to remain silent.

>But there has been another category of awakened people, enlightened ones, who have tried, although their efforts have not been very successful. By their very nature, they cannot be. But even if one person in a million has become awakened by the efforts of a bodhisattva, the second category of enlightened people, the effort was worth making.

>>23059225
>>>There have been two types of mystics in the world.
there isn't

>>23059218
>>>Compassion is the ultimate flowering of consciousness. It is passion released of all darkness, it is passion freed from all bondage, it is passion purified of all poison. Passion becomes compassion.

that's the hindu dogma, rejected by the buddha

>>23059270
>A religious person is always beyond the book; a religious consciousness is never addicted to words and the verbal. The whole thing is childish. A religious man is in search of authentic experience, not borrowed words, not experiences of others. Unless he knows -- buddhas may have existed, but they are useless. Unless he knows, there is no truth because truth can only be his experience. Only then is it there. The whole world may say there is light and there is a rainbow in the sky and the sun is rising, but if my eyes are closed what does it mean to me? The rainbow, the colors, the sunrise, the whole thing is nonexistential to me. My eyes are closed, I am blind. And if I listen to them too much, and if I start believing in them too much, and if I borrow their words and I also start talking about the rainbow that I have not seen, about colors which I cannot see, about the sunrise which is not my experience, I may be lost in the forest of words.

>>23055536
>all things are empty
>you have to follow the ethical iron laws of karma or its cosmic policing power will imprison you in hell worlds for unfathomable eons

>>23059285
>It happened once that a man came to a Zen master. He had read all the scriptures, memorized them, and had become a great philosopher because he was very efficient at using words, logic. And this Zen master was just a villager, just like the beggar who said, "I am not lost." He had never read the Lotus Sutra, one of the greatest Buddhist scriptures, worth preserving, always keeping near. Just as there are bedside books, so the Lotus Sutra is a heartside book; it is concerned with the heart. The lotus is the symbol for the heart: fully bloomed, in full bloom, it is the heart. And Buddhists think there is nothing comparable to the Lotus Sutra.

>This man had memorized the whole Lotus Sutra. He could repeat it from anywhere. Ask any question and immediately he would answer -- like a computer, very efficiently. So he asked the Zen master, "Have you read the Lotus Sutra?"

>The Zen master said, "Lotus Sutra? Never heard of it."

>The man, the pundit, the scholar, said, "Never heard of it? And people think you are enlightened!"

>The Zen master said, "People must be wrong. I am an ignorant man, how can I be enlightened?"

>The scholar was at ease now, so he said, "Now I will repeat the Lotus Sutra. Can you read?"

>The monk said, "I can't read."

>So the man said, "Okay, then listen to me and I will explain anything you want to ask." He had come to seek a master but now he had become a master. The ego never wants to be a disciple, it is always in search of being a master. How the buddha must have laughed at the situation! The master became the disciple, and the disciple became the master and said, "Listen."

>The master started listening. The disciple said, "Okay." He began to repeat the Lotus Sutra.

>In the Lotus Sutra, it is said everything is emptiness -- this world is empty, hell is empty, heaven is empty, God is empty, everything is emptiness. Emptiness is the nature of all things, nothingness, so be attuned to nothingness and you will achieve.

>Suddenly the master jumped and hit the pundit on the head. The pundit became mad. He started shouting and said, "Not only are you not enlightened, not only are you ignorant, you seem to be neurotic also. What are you doing?"

>The master sat again and said, "If everything is nothingness, from where does this anger come? The world is emptiness, heaven is emptiness, hell is emptiness, the nature of things is nothingness. From where does this anger come?"

>The pundit was puzzled. He said, "It is not written in the Lotus Sutra. You ask foolish questions. It is not written in the Lotus Sutra. The whole Sutra I have memorized -- and this is no way of asking a question, hitting me is no way of asking a question."

>>23059287
>But this is the only way. Theories are not of much help. You can say that everything is nothingness, but just a little hit and anger arises out of nothingness; a woman passes and sex arises out of nothingness; you look at a beautiful house and the desire to possess arises out of nothingness. When Buddha said everything is nothingness, he was saying: If you can understand this, nothing will arise. How can anything arise out of nothingness? Nothingness is a meditation, not a theory; it is a falling into the abyss. Then anger cannot arise and sex cannot arise -- how can they?

>There are two types of persons: one, those who are in search of theories -- and please don't be that type, because that is the most stupid type; and the other type is the wise type, those in search of experience, not of theories.

>>23058992
>Yeah it makes no sense
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"

Did you stop reading before the" going to the park" analogy? It was explained in the sutta.

>>23055536
Compassion acts as an antidote to self-grasping. Further, depending on the school, in some places it is an auxiliary method, in others it is the main one.

>>23055578
>There's no contradiction since compassion is love without attachment.
This. One way I've seen it explained is loving, even the person you love most, just as you would the album or symphony you most love. Once it stops playing (even if you'll never hear it again) you don't freak out and go into this massive depression and/or become an emotional/mental mess

>>23055616
Objectively speaking, this guy himself sounds retarded.

>>23055536
The idea behind Buddhism kind of relies on understanding the nature of how paradox works.
Being detached from this world, makes you more attached to it. Any proper Buddhist would reject that characterization but I'll explain it
When people are really attached to things, they mistreat them. Think of the mother who smothers her children. She's not letting them grow and she's annoying, they may resent her and subconsciously avoid. She wants their love and for them to grow up well, but she's inhibiting both.
Whereas, paradoxically, if she tempered her anxieties about the uncertainty of what might happen to her children with a little detachment from the outcome, she will contribute much more to that outcome being positive and experiencing reciprocal love with her children.
It's not about not caring; it's about accepting your complete lack of knowledge and control over anything so that you may live.
Western religions are actually about the same exact thing, its just that dogma has destroyed our conception of them.

>>23061825
i feel like this same dynamic applies to getting laid.

>>23061922
It does
It applies to most things

>>23061825
just be le balanced