/lit/ - Literature

>>2694483
Are you the Buddhist anon of /lit/ who makes those awesome buddhist posts?

>>2694487
Nope, I got bored of /a/ and decided to discuss some random subject of interest I've had for a long time. However I wouldnt mind having some nice discussion with the other knowledgeable Buddhist anon. My knowledge only extends up to madyamaka. My knowledge beyond madyamaka level is limited to my own incomplete theories. If the other anon has knowledge on that I'd like to see their posts

>>2694487
>/lit/
>awesome buddhist posts

in my opinion one should not try to know the philosophy of other culture if one does not do a critique, ie a reflexive exercise of knowledge, of one's own first. one has to be able to reject the things one is attached to so one can try to know something different.

otherwise it would be just some hippie shit.

I never understood how Buddhism teaches reincarnation, but rejects the idea of a permanent self. If there's no soul, what's getting reincarnated?
I also never understood where it derives morality from. Buddhism and Hinduism talk about right action, right speech, etc. but don't explain how one determines such things. For example, casual sex seems to be frowned on, if only a little. Why? How do they determine ethics?
Also, the whole idea of the Buddha is that he escaped the cycle of reincarnation through enlightenment. But from what I understand, the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of the Buddha. That makes no sense to me.

Thanks.

What do you think of westerners who attach themselves to Buddhism to appear enlightened and a special unique slowflake against the backdrop of an atheist and/or Christian dominated society? You know the type of people I'm talking about, the ones whose knowledge goes as deep as 'its real peaceful'.

Does it rustle your jimmies?

>>2694521
>I never understood how Buddhism teaches reincarnation, but rejects the idea of a permanent self. If there's no soul, what's getting reincarnated?

Not OP, but I will tell you what I do know from a book called Shogun. Buddhists believe (to my knoweldge), that you keep coming back to lfie until you reach perfection. Then you go hang out in Nirvana.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

>>2694526
but what does that mean, to come back? how is it the same person? is there something like a soul that they believe in?
>then you hang out in nirvana
but what hangs out there? what form have you taken at that point?

>>2694487
Which awesome Buddhist posts?

It's incorrect to assume that Buddhists don't believe in a soul. They believe in heaven and hell, demons and angels, worlds that you aspire to reincarnate into and those you wish to avoid. No soul? They just don't use the word soul.

>>2694512
we live in globalised world bruh

>>2694521
I'd suggest you listen to Alan Watts or Shunryu Suzuki, instead of wikipedia.

>>2694544
I didn't use wikipedia, I used a textbook and a college course. I guess they were shitty.

>>2694521
The Buddha noticed that life is suffering or at least contains it. He wanted to fix this. He's found insight into the matter and gave instructions. Buddhism basically is this guy Siddharta's method of making life less shitty.

These things are determined by insight into actions and consequences. Casual sex, while nice, comes with a lot of ways to induce suffering. There may be diseases or unwanted children. One of the parties may have more feelings for the other than the other way around and can become hurt. Other people might become hurt by it. Then there's reputation. The stability of society. It would save humanity tons of shit and suffering if people would stop fucking around.

The real trick though is that once you get into the habit of not fucking random people you change your outlook. You don't walk the streets on the hunt anymore. You can treat people as people instead of as items to be consumed. Which in turn makes life more pleasant for everybody.

There are a lot of things that seem quite harmless but cause a lot of suffering. The Buddha said that it is better to refrain from such things, because both you and your fellow people will benefit from it.

The Dalai Lama is actually seen as an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (basically the compassion saint of Mahayana buddhism). The Tibetans are a strange bunch though. Their flavour of Buddhism is very esoteric.

>>2694521
1. Reincarnation was used as a placeholder word that can be related to a non-Buddhists. As your understanding of Buddhism begins to grow, you will begin to abandon the term reincarnation all together.

2. Where as other moral system are based on divine guidance/human events, Buddhist morals are based on universal events. This encompasses past/present/future events as well as human/animal/other sentient lifeforms of all size. The thing about casual sex/right action/speech etc is all about events of present/future/past + influences of those action both your mind of the present/future/past and the its actions of future/past/present. The conclusion is hard to explain if you havent done a bit of research.

3a.
>buddha escaped cycle of reincarnation.
again as before, this term is used to describe to non-buddhists/newbies.
3b.
>dalai lama as Buddha
Buddha is a title. The Buddha that founded Buddhism is named Guatama. Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of another Buddha. Remember the term reincarnation is used only for the non-buddhists/newbies. Buddhism is built upon layers and layers of "truths"

>>2694560
holy shit thank you.
are you also this person?
>>2694537

I been interested in buddhism but I don't understand how can I keep worshiping my God.

>>2694563
>Remember the term reincarnation is used only for the non-buddhists/newbies
for describing what though? I'm sorry.

>>2694560
thank you very much

>>2694570
teehee
http://www.amazon.com/Living-Buddha-Christ-Thich-Nhat/dp/1573225681

>>2694574
Already read it, not satisfied

Is there a point in doing anything extra (like reading buddhist books), besides looking at your thoughts? Reading books, if you only get them intellectually, are mere entertainment and that is fine, am I right? They might even lead you astray, if you don't really get the content.

Also, how do you look at your thoughts?

>>2694571
Theres a thing Buddhists/NonBuddhists like to quote. Its about some random guy asking Buddha some question about whether there is soul or not, whether there is heaven/live after death or not, etc. The Buddha's answer was silence. The silence wasnt that Buddha didnt know, Buddha was said to have talked about
reincarnation/soul etc with his students. It was mainly about context. The person asking the question can be anyone of any background, whatever type of person he/she maybe, any answer Buddha may give will make the said person form theories/speculation/dogmas/various preconception notions about the said answer/etc. Anyway, the answer to your question isn't very simple thus I avoided it. The answer is laid upon layers and layers of buddhist context that must each be understood before trying to understand what exactly Buddha was speaking of when he said "reincarnation." Buddhism doesnt have a 1 single book because the subject itself is very complicated. Buddhist scholars throughout the history have tried to explain the hard concepts through various books upon books upon books. Each requiring the previous reference book to understand the proper context of the books. In my current understanding reincarnation can be understood as "process of beings."

>>2694577
There are many benefits to books/anything else besides your thoughts. Your thoughts forexample is a collection/result of things from your past/present which includes all the things you've learned through your experience and through someone else/something else. If you profess independence from books before you even start to understand how your thoughts are put together, your pursuit of knowledge wont go anywhere

>>2694577
Buddhism is usually said to consist of the three jewels, the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. The first is the Buddha himself and Buddha nature, the direct insight and experience. The second is the Buddha's teachings, which are also partly theoretic. The third is the community.

They are all very important. It's like getting /fit/. You should have a gym and gym bro's for comraderie and mutual motivation and help. You should also have a skilled instructor so you don't fuck up. And you should look into educating yourself about the subject as well.

I think it would be best to look into flavours of Buddhism in your area that you find interesting and give them a visit.

>>2694616
>>2694619
But you won't understand your thoughts through books. You should begin with your thoughts, right?

I was implying that it doesn't matter what you think, it's still your ego thinking. You should just watch your thoughts, that's all.

Some sort of knowledge would be necessary, I agree

>>2694653
The whole "just watch your thoughts" thing is mostly a zen thing. And mostly a westernised zen thing. Of course, direct experience is important. But you also need a framework and guidance. At least at first.

>>2694656
>The whole "just watch your thoughts" thing is mostly a zen thing. And mostly a westernised zen thing.
What do you mean? would you mind going in depth about this? I have no idea how to just watch my thoughts. Any book or youtube video, whatever, would be greatly appreciated :)

>But you also need a framework and guidance. At least at first.
I agree

bump

Monks I've spoken too have given the opposite advice. That if you were to learn only one thing, that thing should be meditation. Books are secondary, and even a distraction for some.

>>2694936
That's what I thought.

I'd still be grateful if someone recommended me some books/videos that deal with looking your thoughts :)

how do I learn to meditate to get better will power

OP, or other Buddhists in thread, do you know of any collection of Buddhist myths and parables? There were a few scattered through Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces and they really piqued my interest.

One was about previous incarnation of Siddhartha named Prince Five-Weapons who defeated on ogre not with any of his five weapons (symbolic of our five senses) but with the strength of the soul within his body. The other was a cautionary parable about a demon who tricks a merchant leading a caravan through a desert to dump their water into the sands so they could reach the lake on the horizon before nightfall (it was a mirage).

I'm not looking for a enlightenment, just some cool stories to share with people.

Good books on the mechanics of meditation? I feel like I'm doing it wronf

how do i cast spell

>>2695632
You're already taking the wrong approach; there are no "mechanics" to meditation. Just sit in an upright posture and focus on your breath.

There are supposedly many different types of meditation (Zazen, Vipassana, TM, etc) but ultimately you are always going to be sitting quietly and breathing. Just start with that.

>wanting to learn about shit like meditation from a book

Go to a fucking temple and get someone to teach you. You're supposed to be instructed in traditions like this by an experienced teacher, not a how-to guide you buy off of Amazon.

Sage for bored western dilettantes discussing eastern wisdom traditions.

>>2695690
bumping because you are ignorant

>>2695690
i lold

>>2695690
you sound bit butthurt that westerners are interested in buddhism

I'm interested to learn more about buddhist religion
i have quickly read the wikipedia page about Buddhism but i don't understand what is Buddha considered: a prophet? just a enlightened man? was he in touch with god?

>>2695886
Buddha = Awakened One. Basically a person that can see through reality. His original goal was very simple, to end his suffering but later on decided to teach this way to other people.

>I'm interested to learn more about buddhist religion
>i have quickly read the wikipedia page about Buddhism

buddhism is reactionary

>>2695886
for theravadans, buddha is a special being.
for mahayanists, the buddha is a trancendental being, akin to a deity.

>>2695690
Would you believe me if I told you that memetic transmission can occur through various media?

1. Explain.
2. So why should I care if it is?

>>2695894
what do you mean by reality?
is there a god in buddhism?

>>2695836
>bumping because you are ignorant

I've read a fair bit of Zen stuff, mostly for school. I don't have a problem with Buddhism itself, just some of the people who claim to practice it. More than most other religions, it seems to be a magnet for the sort of new-agey personality that I detest. That's unfortunate.

>>2695859
>you sound bit butthurt that westerners are interested in buddhism

If their interest is genuine, if they aren't attention-seeking tools who ignore all of the rigorous aspects of the tradition, then I don't really care.

>>2695690

I'm with this guy… but not against Westerners into Buddhism (like that other guy thinks above). When I was a teenager, I was heavily interested. First I learned from a friend's (Japanese) father who had spent some of his twenties in a Zen temple, and later visited some myself. It's not that books were not useful, but trying to learn on one's own is like practicing any other religion outside of community: It is impossible.

I'm not a Buddhist now, but I'm not disappointed I had that experience.

>>2695929
hey assclown, buddhism is "foreign" to japan just as much as it is to "the west"

>>2695926
Depends on different schools of Buddhism. Some say there are gods/goddesses but should not be worshiped because those gods/goddesses are merely higher beings that are still bound to the universal constant of birth/decay/death/etc(albiet bit longer process compared to lower beings(humans)). Other schools reject the notion of god/heaven/hell completely as dellusions that men created for short-term comfort.

considering buddhism is an aryan religion it's more legitimate for europeans to practice it than it is for them to practice some semitic shit from the desert

>>2695926
>is there a god in buddhism?

A Supreme Reality of sorts. How or if it's deified depends on the school of thought and the temperament of the individual adherent.

>>2695931

oh right, China was into Chan before it was cool

Why's Buddhism such a trendy religion?

Why have I encountered so many people who believe things like "Buddhism has never caused religious violence" (which is why Sri Lanka is such a peaceful utopia) or "Buddhists don't use their religion to control people" (because no rich or powerful Buddhist has ever used the Karmic cycle to justify their place in the world while suppressing those beneath them)?

And then there's all the shit about "Buddhists don't believe in a God or gods and Buddhism isn't dogmatic and Buddhists don't believe in heaven or hell."

Now I know that there are a variety of Buddhist sects but some of them certainly believe in a God or gods or spirits of some kind, are dogmatic, and believe in heaven and hell.

But seriously I encounter people all the time who spout this kind of nonsense. Self proclaimed white kid "Buddhists" who don't even know what the four noble truths are.

>>2695935
>considering buddhism is an aryan religion

>"aryan"
>2012

Are you going to start talking about phrenology next?

>>>/int/
>>>/pol/

>>2695936
>>2695934
so one could follow the buddhist religion but still don't belive in god?
what are the branches that have no gods?

>>2695943
good post. I'm an admirer of buddhist philosophy but I hate the superficial orientalist view of it that most people have.

>>2695943
buddhism is popular in the west because it's the only religion that has an answer to the industrial consumer society of the modern west. hebrew based religions are about dominating nature and producing wealth, sure they have a bunch of crap about how great poverty is but just look at renaissance italy or protestant connecticut to see that stuff is superficial and the judeo-christian is really predatory.

>>2695936
This again is misleading. Supreme reality understood by most lay buddhists is more of an mixture of hindu concept of Brahman. Buddhism's notion of reality is basically nirvana. Theres a split/vagueness regarding nirvana. Most people attribute nirvana as heaven 2.0. This is completely wrong in most schools of buddhism. Mahayanist especially the madhyamaka school of thought says that nirvana is our current reality. The reason we dont realize the nirvana is because of our preconception of what reality is and our inability to let go of those preconception because of our earthly desires/attachments/etc.


>>2695949
A strict buddhist does not worship gods or even think about god/s. There are ofcource syncretics/misinformed buddhists that believe buddhism endorses worshipping gods.

>>2695961
>it's the only religion that has an answer to the industrial consumer society of the modern wes
hgugugusughsugdughdsughdsug

From what my buddhist pal told me a couple of months ago if your soul does enough good then it ends up as an angel and that angel is then able to attain the memories of all of its past lives. Was he telling the truth or just bullshitting me?

buddhism is overrated

>>2695978
He's bullshitting you, or he's one of those trendy white kid Buddhists who knows nothing about actual Buddhism.

Buddhists believe that a "good enough soul" will go to Nirvana which, depending on the sect, is either paradise or a kind of universal oneness with everything.

>not checking you own categories before trying to know something different
>2012

this thread

>>2695985
> trendy white kid buddhists

as opposed to you, a white washed asian kid trying to get in touch with "his roots" by watching japanese cartoons and hanging out at some "temple" near his upscale gated community

>>2695985
>Buddhists believe that a "good enough soul" will go to Nirvana which, depending on the sect, is either paradise or a kind of universal oneness with everything.

universal oneness is part of hindu concept called brahman that somehow most buddhists/nonbuddhist attribute as a buddhist concept. totally inaccurate.

>>2695961
>buddhism is popular in the west because it's the only religion that has an answer to the industrial consumer society of the modern west. hebrew based religions are about dominating nature and producing wealth, sure they have a bunch of crap about how great poverty is but just look at renaissance italy or protestant connecticut to see that stuff is superficial and the judeo-christian is really predatory.

You probably shouldn't attempt to make sweeping indictments of religions you know fuck-nothing about...

>>2695996
dude, christians fucking tell you their religion is about getting rich! ever heard of the "protestant work ethic"? what a fuckin' assclown.

>>2695985
He's a fat thai buddha. assuming he was bullshitting then.

>>2695949
>so one could follow the buddhist religion but still don't belive in god? what are the branches that have no gods?

>so I can call myself a buddhist without actually changing any of my beliefs or challenging any of my preconceived notions of reality?

This is the sort of thing that people are criticizing ITT.

>>2695943
buddhism is more about context/history. Buddhism unlike other religion doesnt have a single text. Its a wide subject covered throughout the history of Buddhism. Your confusion is noted. The whole "no god vs god/no heaven vs heaven/no soul vs soul" thing becomes clear if you study the historical development of buddhism.

>>2695985
nirvana is "extinguishing the self" which can mean oblivion or it can mean giving up your ego and submitting to the will of the group but it doesn't mean some "afterlife" like in the religions based on the egyptian tradition

>>2695993
I'm not Asian. I'm a white kid fed up with all the trendy white kids I have to work and study with.

I believe that religion shouldn't be something like a fashion accessory. If people want to turn to faith for answers to death and morality and whatnot, they shouldn't pick a religion based on how hip it is.

All these kids I know were raised Christian so that's too "mainstream" for them. They want to be spiritual but they have to be spiritual in the coolest kind of way, which is just wrong.

>>2695998

> Thinks American Protestantism is representative of the mainstream of Christianity.

>>2695998
>dude, christians fucking tell you their religion is about getting rich!

>Enormous religions like Christianity are monolithic and their followers' beliefs are totally uniform.

...swag.

>>2696009
> thinks his obscure hippy church negates 2000 years of christian tradition

Do we really need more hipsters without an understanding of spiritual concepts becoming 'buddhists'?
Do we really need this thread?

>>2696011
> uses black slang

you think the black church isn't about making money?

>mfw white people near me

>>2696017

W.. what the fuck are you even talking about?

>>2696008
>mfw cultural capital becomes more important than authenticity in ontology and epistemology.
>my face is sunyata

>>2696008
oh, so you're actually a christian fanatic who hates that the sheep are leaving the flock, well, since you're the resident buddhism expert you surely know all things are temporary including christianity. deal with it.

>>2696028
whole lot of implying in that post

Tell me, how am I a Christian fanatic and when did I ever put up the pretense of being an expert on Buddhism?

I'm aggravated by hipsters, isn't that understandable?

>>2696006
I'll expand a bit. Nirvana = extinguishing of the self delusion. The reason is that Buddha never wanted someone to destroy their self (if there is one(thats a debate for another time)) but rather the delusion of self that sufficiently nurturing the self makes one happy. theres a whole discussion on why self-nurture doesnt lead to happiness because self-nurture is merely a short sightedness of human nature. it basically boils down to cause-effect. If someone asks what the most important Buddhist concept is, I'd say cause-effect. Almost every single buddhist concept is based on cause-effect. Perfect understanding of cause-effect is seen as buddha-hood in some schools of Buddhism

>>2696033
wtf is a hipster? you sound like some uptight jesus freak

>>2696037
Does Buddhism have anything to say about the idea of an unmoved mover? Or is it truly eternal samsara?

>>2696038

Not that guy, but are you in high school or something?

>>2696038
>you sound like some uptight jesus freak

When at first I was a rich Asian kid trying to get in touch with his roots by watching anime.

Stop with your bullshit ad hominen attacks please.

>>2696037
i saw an interesting islamic critique of buddhism calling it a "death cult" and talked about how trying to extinguish all your desires and give up on life is misguided and unhealthy.

You think this is representative of Christian tradition? I don't go to Church, but the "prosperity Gospel" you indict Catholicism and Orthodoxy— which are the mainstream of 2000 years of Christian tradition.

You're either a massive idiot, or a troll.

>>2696006
>"extinguishing the self"

This concept exists in pretty much every religion

>>2696047
bro you've been spewing ad hominems in buddhist threads for weeks every time i check /lit/ there's some angry kid (you) ranting about "fake white buddhists" and "hipsters" and shit.

>>2696052

Was supposed to be responding to >>2696015

>>2696054
really? but christianity offers "eternal life" to believers so how do you figure?

>>2696056

oh wow, "you indict is alien to…"

I should not be typing here on painkillers

>>2696038

>>2696058

Eternal Life != Getting Rich

They aren't even comparable.

>>2696055
That's not him. That's me.

I love turning white people against each other. It's very funny.

>>2696058

There's a concept of self-extinguishment in Hesychasm. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll try to find some relevant text

>>2696041
>>2696041
>>2696041
>>2696041
God damn it. Stop arguing and answer, please. :(

>>2696052
dude, it goes back to judaism when god let abraham sacrifice an animal instead of his son, this is a signal giving man dominion over nature, in the east you would never sacrifice an animal to save a human life.

>>2696041
One of the basic principle/axioms of Buddhism is that nothing is eternal. If samsara were eternal then there is no point in trying to "reach" nirvana. There is abit of dicussion on unmoved mover/first cause on buddhism, mostly from the early buddhists. One of the answer is unknowable/unprofitable aka silence by the buddha. The other more logical is explored much deeper by nagarjuna and the likes.

>>2696069
>in the east you would never sacrifice an animal to save a human life.

citation needed

>>2696063
but the point of "extinguishing the self" is ending yourself, you end your desires, in "eternal life" all your desires are fulfilled in heaven. in buddhism the end point is having no desires, in christianity the end point is having all your desires fulfilled...totally different!

>>2696075
Thanks. When I said samsara, I was just wondering if it is supposed to have always been cycling. I do know the whole point is to get out of it. You answered that already, though.

>>2696076
you know some asian religions with animal sacrifices?

>>2696091
IIRC, early early Chinese king-ancestor-worship buried all of the dead monarch's servants with him when he died as offerings/companions in the afterlife. They got replaced by statues though.

>>2696069
actually early hindus practiced animal sacrifice.
so did some chinese religions

Janism/Buddhism arose around the time when Hinduism (aka brahmanism/premodern hinduism) was as a decadent age (sacrificial animals/bunch of superstitions/etc). Those 2 will later on reshape hinduism to a more respectable hinduism that you see nowadays.

>>2696091

Hinduism, Sikhism, traditional Chinese practice...

>>2696055
>bro you've been spewing ad hominems in buddhist threads for weeks every time i check /lit/ there's some angry kid (you) ranting about "fake white buddhists" and "hipsters" and shit.

And you think that was me?

I can tell you that it wasn't. I browse 4chan quite sparingly anymore.

Incredible as this may sound, it's possible that others have had similar experiences and share my viewpoints on the matter.

>>2696069
>dude, it goes back to judaism when god let abraham sacrifice an animal instead of his son, this is a signal giving man dominion over nature

Being granted a position of stewardship over nature does not imply destroying it or doing whatever you want to it. The sort of attitude you're describing comes from the 'enlightenment' and related strands of philosophy. Traditional Christian and especially Islamic thought places great emphasis on the value of nature both as a gift and a manifestation of divine attributes.

>>2696134
>Being granted a position of stewardship over nature does not imply destroying it or doing whatever you want to it.

This.

>Traditional Christian and especially Islamic thought places great emphasis on the value of nature both as a gift and a manifestation of divine attributes.

This also.

>mfw militant environmentalists bitch about how the Judeo-Christian establishment serves only to destroy the planet

>>2696146
i thought global warming was a conspiracy of jewish scientists to kill americas economy

>>2696146
>mfw the lapsarian narrative presents the world as a shitty simulacrum of Eden

>>2696157
Yes, of course.

Why don't you go talk about it on /pol/.

>>2696146
yeah but there seems to be something in western ideology that drives exploitation of the land. for instance when the french first arrived in cambodia they gave the peasants fertilizer to double their harvest but instead the peasants all planted half as much land, the french were like wtf is wrong with these damn savages

>mfw christfags and former christfags shitting up this thread

it's weird tho since most asian civilization is built on large scale hydraulic engineering so they certainly control water and nature to improve production

>>2696169
christfags are worstfags

>>2696169
Where?

And what's wrong with Christians and former Christians posting ITT?

>>2696182
this thread was supposed to be about enlightenment not worshiping sky-gods.

>>2696165
>yeah but there seems to be something in western ideology that drives exploitation of the land.

Certainly, but this is mostly a modern development.

>>2696165
>yeah but there seems to be something in western ideology that drives exploitation of the land

Yeah, capitalism.

>>2695998
When you are making statements about Christianity at least take normal Christians as examples, not the retarded ones that defied the Pope because it was hip thing to do.

>>2696169

Not a Christian.

>>2696186
>sky-gods

lol

>>>/reddit/
>>>/out/

>>2696195
>implying the pope isn't a heretic

>>2696186
>sky-gods

The Abrahamic deity is a sky god now?

And it certainly seems reasonable to me that a discussion on one religion would branch out to touch on aspects of other religions.

>>2696162
>Calvinism
>traditional Christianity

>>2696194
but this seems to come out of the judea-christian religion, i mean the renaissance began in italy, as close to the vatican as possible and not in constantinople or ireland or something, seems like the church has stimulated this

>>2696198
>The Abrahamic deity is a sky god now?

One would think that an absolute creator deity would be a God of all things.

But if said deity is depicted sitting in the clouds in religious artwork, that's totally what Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe, even if it isn't I suppose.

>>2696198
the term for christian/western god is "invisible sky-daddy". He is invisible to 99% of the people, and lives in the sky/heaven, and is daddy like because he forgives all your sins. But in a Buddhist view points those are nothing but our own self delusions created by our own fear of dying.

>>2696198
well actually it's a mountain god which is slightly different but similar enough in practice

>>2696208

Keep in mind that the Renaissance also marked the beginning of Christianity's fall from influence/power in Europe. It brought about an inversion of traditional values.

>>2696197
>implying he isn't the only one that can decide who is or isn't a heretic

>>2696217
well if the pope hires somebody to paint a big picture of his god floating on a cloud, who am i to disagree?

>>2696218
>the term for christian/western god is "invisible sky-daddy"

Sure, if you're 14 years old.

>>2696208
I think that the birth of Capitalism has more to do with the industrial revolution that the Renaissance.

And the Vatican's current policies are rather contrary to Capitalism, what with espousing welfare and measures to combat global warming and whatnot.

>>2696224
mmm, i'd say the french revolution marked the end of christianity's influence in europe, the renaissance may have been the beginning of the end for catholicism tho

>>2696229
It's true though. Crude as it may seem to you christians, this is how the non-christians see christians when they first learn of your religion.

HOW ABOUT THAT BUDDHISM, FELLAS.

I want to know what the deal is with minor dieties like Red Fudo who seems to show up in Japanese (and others) Buddhist art. What's the deal? Is there a legitimate pantheon? Are they bodhisattvas?

>>2696230
yeah, but the renaissance is the beginning of capitalism, it's the beginning of finance capital and also timed wages, of course in a very "proto" form but the roots of it are all there

>>2696218
>the term for christian/western god is "invisible sky-daddy". He is invisible to 99% of the people, and lives in the sky/heaven, and is daddy like because he forgives all your sins.

Mhmm. Well actually, God is supposed to be invisible because he has no actual body, what with existing outside of the material universe, and for that same reason "he" is actually genderless.

And heaven isn't actually located in the sky, or hell under the earth, that's just where painters like to put them, for very obvious reasons.

>>2696237
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acala

This is what you're looking for. Lore/history is there

>>2696237
i think that stuff is a cooptation of pre-buddhism popular religion sort of like how even though mary isn't a diety there were mary cults in europe to make up for the loss of female pagan gods

>>2696235
>It's true though. Crude as it may seem to you christians, this is how the non-christians see christians when they first learn of your religion.

Well hopefully these non Christians are smart enough to do some research and learn about what Christians actually believe, rather than going off of weak first impressions.

>>2696245
>>2696247
>>2696237
Originally the Hindu deity Acalanātha (whose name in Sanskrit signifies ācala "immovable" + nātha' "protector, Acala was incorporated into esoteric Buddhism (late 7th century, India) as a servant of Buddha. Its either a political syncreticism, or syncreticism via ignorance, or something close to those two

>>2696237
>What's the deal? Is there a legitimate pantheon? Are they bodhisattvas?

Some sects have a pantheon, some view them as Bodhisattvas.

There isn't one kind of Buddhism, mind you.

>>2696252
Why do you need to be smart to do some research on Christianity? The only ones that do research are those that are CURIOUS. Smart people will naturally avoid superstitions

mu!?!?!

>>2696262
I know. I know most about it in the context of Japanese art. The juxtaposition of Esoteric Buddhist and Pure Land Buddhism in the same small region is nuts.

Thanks, everyone. Sounds like syncretism to me too.

>>2696241
it's the european flavoring to semitic religion, europeans love to have statues of epic dudes doing epic shit, sure they tried to kill off icons for a while but you know europeans aren't going to stand for that shit in the long run, they need to see some buff naked dudes throwing lightning bolts n' shit, it's just in their blood

>>2696263
>Smart people will naturally avoid superstitions

Which is why no great scholar or scientist ever has been religious.

Oh wait.

And anyways, it's smart to understand other people's viewpoints, rather than to have your own strawman interpretations of them.

>>2696272
Exactly.

The depiction of God in European artwork has very little to do with the actual concept of "God."

>>2696273
Learn to read between the lines. Smart people will naturally avoid superstitious. Curious people are will research into almost subject. Smart people can be curious, thus their personalities will overlap. Curious people can be smart as well and so etc.

>Which is why no great scholar or scientist ever has been religious.
What are you trying to say? This sentence lacks any sort of clarity. Religious people can be smart and smart people can be religious too. However the smarter the person gets the less religious they become. Thats what most of the polls are showing. There are lesser % of religious amongst the scientists than the general population and higher % of atheists/non religious among scientists than general population.

>>2696309
you realize there's a difference between studying religion and being religious?

>>2696309
>However the smarter the person gets the less religious they become. Thats what most of the polls are showing. There are lesser % of religious amongst the scientists than the general population and higher % of atheists/non religious among scientists than general population.

Correlation does not imply causation.

>>2696295
>The depiction of God in European artwork has very little to do with the actual concept of "God."
The "actual" concept of God is written by man through various bibles. And interpreted by man through various communities. Thats why there are different sects of Christianity. Each professing to their own version of God. Every one of them is influenced by societies's view on how God should act, what God should look like etc. And those people will/have reshape the God's image/concept to their version. So to say that the depiction of god in European artwork has very little to do with actual concept is false.

>>2696328
>The "actual" concept of God is written by man through various bibles. And interpreted by man through various communities. Thats why there are different sects of Christianity. Each professing to their own version of God. Every one of them is influenced by societies's view on how God should act, what God should look like etc. And those people will/have reshape the God's image/concept to their version.

Yes, but none of those Christian/Jewish/Islamic sects actually profess that God is a man with a tall beard who lives in the sky.

God is a spirit. That's something shared universally by the Abrahamic faiths.

>>2696353
>but none of those Christian/Jewish/Islamic sects actually profess that God is a man with a tall beard who lives in the sky

er, that God is a tall man with a beard who lives in the sky

>>2696353
Daniel 7:9 is pretty close. But I'll admit that it's a symbolic representation.

>>2696353
yeah but for europe there is jesus who is sort of a man god who "rose to heaven" which does match the old aryan sky gods, if christianity wasn't based around this maybe osiris would be the god of europe since they were both competing "oriental" cults in the empire

>>2696369
Yes, Jesus was a man, and Christians believe that he was God.

But only one part of God. Like a slice of God or something.

And the "rising to heaven" thing is just more symbolic language from the Gospels.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-india/

better start readin this if you want to know the roots of classical indian philosophy

>>2696380
>Like a slice of God or something.
sounds delicious.

If god could make Jesus and not be diminished in size or power or what ever measurements he justifies himself in. Why did he make adam and eve and not loads of Jesuses in the first place?

and if the response is that we are all little jesuses, why should the main jesus be special and called the son of god?

and if the response is that his mom was a virgin, then why am i not more special for being directly descended from Adam, a man who was once pure without knowledge of good and evil(which would mean he didn't understand the associated consequences of eating the apple, but who am I to criticize gods unfair rules). Jesus was never that pure.

hahahahah this is hilarious

nobody has even really criticized buddhism yet in this thread but there have still been but hurt people managing to get into arguments and turn the thread into a one about hay-zeus

>>2696463
>If god could make Jesus and not be diminished in size or power or what ever measurements he justifies himself in. Why did he make adam and eve and not loads of Jesuses in the first place?

Because he wanted to make sentient creatures like himself, and not split himself into lots of pieces.

And we aren't all little Jesuses because we're not God.

You should do a little reading on Christian theology. Even Wikipeida would be acceptable.

>>If god could make Jesus and not be diminished in size or power or what ever measurements he justifies himself in.

Also an entity that is by its very nature infinite cannot be diminished in anyway, no matter how many times it may want to manifest itself as human.

>>2696468
That because nobody understands Buddhism ITT(including me). Catholicism is easy, be good = go to heaven, be bad = go to hell. Buddhism is about devoting your life to trying to understand Buddhism. Who's got time for that shit? I got coke to snort, girls to fuck, books to read and nightclubs I haven't yet danced in. I can't be bothered to eliminate suffering or enlighten myself. Life is too short, and i'm too busy having a good time.

>>2696505
This is basically true. Even after 6 years of casual research Buddhism is a very slippery topic that must never be held by a static definition.

>>2696219
I thought it was a fire god.You know that fascination with burning bushes and the like

How is it possible for a Buddha to be born in the world, when the point of Enlightenment is -escaping- Samsara?

>>2694521
reincarnation was a concept ingrained deeply in Indian culture long before the advent of Buddhism. From the perspective of Siddhartha's path, as everything has a ciclical nature, reincarnation is undergone by less as a permanent idea of a self and more of the journey of a changing entity. Consider a molecule of iron- in nature, it can only be forged in a supernova, meaning that its matter was once defined as a star. But now that iron is flowing through your blood veins, and is known as blood. This molecule of iron was once in the marrow of a beast, part of a plants rigidity, forged into a plow that tilled the earth, or even contained in a sword that killed. It is all of those things, and none of them. It's an iron molecule, but is it truly permanent? Hardly; it can be broken up into protons, neutrons and electrons and reformed into another form.
Now imagine your own self as being part of countless other multitudes of life forms- to which creature does your body belong to most? Not at all. We could all be labeled as stars, water, bacteria, carbon, etc.
Thus is reincarnation, and all creatures have Buddha nature, friend.

>>2697127
thats a very limited view of the "reincarnation" and certainly a very material view of reincarnation

>>2697079
I think you're bit confused on the terminology.

Buddha = title give those who are enlightened
Enlightened = free from samsara

The Buddha you're/we're referring to is named Gautama.

Gautama wasn't enlightened before his birth. This rebirth gave him the final push to enlightenment.

>>2697212

>Gautama wasn't enlightened before his birth. This rebirth gave him the final push to enlightenment.

But Siddhartha, it is said, was destined to be the Buddha. He was not simply smart or lucky.

>>2697253
Destiny is nothing but a guesstimate based on given circumstances of past+present and future predictions with a bit of knowledge on politics/religious/culture affair. The one making the statement about destiny is nothing but a wise man of the village. Every village from every country has one of those. They are basically the elders that have lived a long time and have some knowledge on politics/religious/cultural affairs of the kings/princes. Its not hard to make some predictions.

>>2697253
I think it was said that he was destined to be either a great warlord or a spiritual leader.

Buddhism is a deconstruction of Reality genre

Does anyone know good meditating techniques? Or is the only one just being aware of your breathing and eventually building on from there? Because I tried it and it was super difficult (completely expected) but it also made me feel lightheaded and generally horrible. Also I just cant shut up my mind!

absolutely new to this; but interested.
reading ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE.... any advice for newcomers to your philosophy?

>>2699808
Buddhist philosophy is tied with the religion. If you want to go deep inside the philosophy you must read up on the religion. Protip: Never apply any western religious/philosophical standards to Buddhism. They are very misleading. Any sort of "similarities" is misleading.