/lit/ - Literature

>>5551379
There is more then one kind of buddhism, they do not all agree with what you are talking about. You should read more about it.

>>5551392
Which schools of Buddhism don't believe in the cycle of rebirth?

Do any take a positive view of suicide?

>>5551379
There are many schools of Buddhism, anon, such that there is no monolithic "Buddhism". Generally, though (from what I've seen), most schools are founded on the Four Noble Truths, which are not contingent on reincarnation.

The purpose of rising above suffering is so that life will be more enjoyable than death. Death has no suffering, so it is appealing for as long as you suffer. If you are free from suffering, however, death no longer becomes appealing in this sense.

Are you looking to religion for justification to live, anon? (Or even not to die?)

>>5551379
>Does Buddhism make any sense if one does not believe in the circle of rebirths?

Yes, of course. Some Mahayana schools teach that rebirth is a convenient truth not an ultimate truth. A fake 'truth' that can lead you to a set of structures, then you can discard the convenient truth as you progress. It's the bottom rung of a ladder that you can remove when you're halfway up. 'This chair exists', for example, is a convenient truth, but the ultimate truth contradicts that and says that "chair-ness" is an artificial construct and a 'chair' doesn't exist; just the material object with a crude semantic tag.

You have to remember that rebirth was inherited from early Hinduism, so was needed as a convenient truth for particular social models of that era.

>>5551379
>Does Buddhism make any sense if one does not believe in the circle of rebirths?
No.
>Why attempt to liberate oneself from suffering with spiritual practices when the eternal nothingness of death is readily available?
Congratulations, you've reached Buddhism's secret level.

>>5551418
I thought that the final goal of a buddhist practice is to reach the state of emptiness, not bliss and certainly not "enjoyment".

>>5551379
>Does Buddhism make any sense if one does not believe in the circle of rebirths?

No it doesn't. Buddha taught rebirth specifically, over and over. It just doesn't vibe with our retarded Western Scientism so Buddhism in the west is handicapped.

> Why attempt to liberate oneself from suffering with spiritual practices when the eternal nothingness of death is readily available?

Why wait for death when you can alleviate suffering now?

If you are talking about suicide it'll cause you more suffering, the process itself is painful physically and psychologically.

>>5551427
>Some Mahayana schools teach...
>Mahayana
>ever correct about anything

Fake buddha quotes don't matter.

>>5551483
>I thought that the final goal of a buddhist practice is to reach the state of emptiness, not bliss and certainly not "enjoyment".

That's because you never actually read what the Buddha taught. He described Nirvana in all sorts of blissful and harmonious ways.

>>5551483
Also I don't really see how a mindset that shies away from the abandonment of all desire can provide a lasting sense of happiness. You could argue that if one fails to achieve life satisfaction with a flawed practice might commit suicide, but I'm afraid that clinging to life while holding a pessimistic view on human condition will make one vulnerable to anxiety.

>>5551498
>you can alleviate suffering now

muh shortcut to nibbana

I'd say most of it does. Take Four Noble Truth for example. Chances are through you life a lot of things you strive for are going to be unsatisfying, you'll get hurt a lot and basically shit's gonna suck. Buddhists devised a lot of handy tricks to help you deal with those thing.

About as much sense as Taoism or Zen, neither of which relies on any concept of rebirth.

>>5551622

I'm getting tired of westerners spreads misinformation about Buddhism

>>5551652

fuck off dude

>>5551652

they don't actually read any of the canon. Instead they listen to Alan Watts and read zen blogs.

>>5551740
That's a hell of a lot more than most actual buddhists.

>>5551745

actual buddhists are very familiar with the buddha's teachings.

From my research into buddhism it's basically a suicide cult if you take away all the curry nigger superstition

nirvana=nothingness

currys believe when you die there is no nothingness only another life in this earth

they hate this because their lives suck so much they want it to end forever

so they think reaching some bullshit state in this lifetime will free them from the cycle

and then smart white people come along and tell these dahl gooks there's no reincarnation

so what do they do? they bisect their bodies on train tracks to end their fucking misery

if the buddha were alive today and grew up with a scientific world view then he would simply kill himself

because life's a bitch and then you die, only fear of death is coming back reincarnated

>>5551791
>if the buddha were alive today and grew up with a scientific world view then he would simply kill himself

This is why westerners should stick to their own religions...

In Buddha's time there were plenty of hindu "materialist" schools that argued exactly what our atheists today argue.

He argued with annihilationists like a prince named Payas who actually performed some fucked up experiments on his prisoners to "prove" that there was no soul or afterlife and death was just the end.

The western view on the soul/afterlife is nothing new and Buddha thoroughly refuted such dogmatism.

How come edgy white people ion the west never convert to Sikhism?
You get to have a cool hat and a sword.

>>5551889
they also never shave and cut their hair

>>5551891
perfect for lit

>>5551877
But materialism back then was closer to idealism than to modern materialism.

Buddha didnt deal with anything comparable to what we have today.

>>5551990
Though he did deny that seeking non-being was the goal of his teaching. He said that neither clinging to being nor clinging to non-being was correct.

>>5551889

>>5551402
>Which schools of Buddhism don't believe in the cycle of rebirth?
None. It's just that some schools don't focus on it (Zen comes to mind). But even in Zen works you will see the goal described as "liberation FROM birth-and-death".

>Do any take a positive view of suicide?
No... the closest is self-immolation, as described in the holy text the Lotus Sutra, imitated by some Tiantai and Tibetan folks... but it's NEVER in the context of "escaping suffering"... NEVER. That kind of suicide is done as a fervent wish to "donate your own body to the Buddha" as a proof of your absolute detachment and commitment to the Buddha-Way.

Suicide done out of desperation, depression, or aversion towards living is seen as a weakness in Buddhism, one that will lead to a worse rebirth.

When will people learn that death is an impossible concept to individuals and philosophy and the cycles of death and rebirth are actually part of how we perceive reality

>>5551889
wearing the cool hat would be cultural appropriation so you cant do it

>>5551379
>eternal nothingness of death is readily available?
It isn't. Consciousness and the self come from the immaterial, universal mind, imbued with your karma. The material mind is the illusion in which the universal mind manifests itself according to your past deeds (karma), and only by realising that it's an illusion, and completely understanding the universal mind, leaving your material mind behind, can release you from your earthly fetters.

So it's not as simple as you might think.

>>5552230
>can you release yourself from your earthly fetters
grammar error, my bad.

>>5552230

>implying the universal mind could ever be subject to delusions or karma
>implying a perfect nature could ever be fettered
>implying your individual actions matter
>implying individuals exist to even practice buddhism

Buddhist cosmology is insane when u really think about it

>>5551652
Even better is idiots that will spout nonsense in an attempt to gain /lit/ approval for the length of a thread by repeating what other idiots before them have said.

>>5551740
Don't discredit Alan Watts. He admits how the western worldview makes it near impossible for many of us to understand the original intent of eastern philosophy.

>>5551652
I like how this faggot used improper grammar to seem like an ESL so he can pretend to be a native buddhist understanderer

>>5553278
>Don't discredit Alan Watts

a guy who pretended to be a catholic priest because he didn't want a real job, lol

>>5554915
That sounds awesome.

I fucking hate my "real" job

>>5554915
>real job

He didn't want to get drafted to war. A brilliant idea.

>>5551379

Stoicism should be the answer if death leads to nothingness.

Buddhism if there are cicular rebirths and theism if there is a heaven and hell.

>>5555134
>Death leads to nothingness.
>Lead as dull and empty a life as possible... for... reasons.
Why not just go full servile Buddhist monk?

>>5555157
I don't think you get stoicism

>>5555157
Stoicism is pretty much buddhism.

>>5555168
women are biologically unable to get stoicism

>>5555180
I think I must have had a bad case of it when I was younger, but the symptoms were masked by the servile Christianity that infested me then.

Most the time I'm kind of placid faced.

this thread is now similarities between Buddhism and Stoicism

GO!

>>5551379
Because nirvana is experienced, the nothingness of death is not.

>>5555134
So Stoicism is the right answer then?

And yeah reincarnation makes sense in the way that everything is constantly becoming something else, but what impact does how you thought a thought have on your next life as a tree?

Buddhism just pulled the rules for ending the cycle right out of thin air.

>>5555741
>but what impact does how you thought a thought have on your next life as a tree?

karmic residue, everything is connected.

>>5555781
It's made up m8. There are no instructions in life aside from eat, breathe, fuck; shit animals have figured out. Buddhism was invented in a time of turmoil as an alternative to Indians tearing each other apart.

>>5555790

>he thinks he can get away with murder
>he thinks his actions are meaningless

lol you can screw up your karma all you want, you're not gonna trick me m8

Don't wish for anything. It's never what you you think. Think of the things you least want to do, and chances are you'll be happier with it.

>>5555798
Sounds like some hefty slave morality. Sure is a heavy burden to carry!

Is it also bad karma when goats are killed in a landslide? Or grandma gets cancer?

It's made up to keep people controllable.

>>5555810
>Is it also bad karma when goats are killed in a landslide?

If someone intentionally caused it then he will acquire some bad karma, sure.

>grandma gets cancer

It's a combination of many things, karma, choices, and unpredictable chaos...

>>5555830
Well consciousness is just neurons firing through biological infrastructure, and no different fundamentally or more affected by "karma" than a wildfire or Avalanche.

Stop being an imbecile and show me evidence and your reasoning for believing this karma shit.

>>5555837

karma is causality...you think your intentions and actions are free from effects and consequences?

how bizarre!!!

>>5555861
you lack a judge to deem actions positive or negative

>>5555873
A negative action is any action which results in an effect that you (as the observer) would find unfavorable.

It's not some magic force, it's literally cause and effect. Don't do things if you can't deal with the consequences.

>>5555873
>you lack a judge to deem actions positive or negative

suffering is negative
harmony is positive

>>5555887
yes, but everything is in the eye of the beholder.

Some people are in mental
hospitals for cutting off their own limbs.

Some people like hardcore BDSM.

Dogs eat actual feces.

humans do many substances which destroy their health.

I understand causality, but to say your actions influence what will happen to "you" in another life, is going to need some evidence.

>>5555900

can you agree that they will have consequences in "this" life? first of all?

karma and rebirth are separate matters.

>>5555900
In all of those cases, the entity doing them considers those actions to be desirable. They only appear distasteful to a third party.

>>5555919
Yes, I agree. But if you kill someone after months of meticulous planning and preparation, and are never found out by ANYONE, then I don't see the repercussions of that.

>>5551402
There is one school of thought and some fringe thinkers from others schools that completely reject the cycle of rebirth. They go further can say there i no need to ever bring up the Buddha because he is done and dead. They say that there is only momentary rebirth while we are alive (a selfing process) and that is all the Buddha was teaching us to rid ourselves of.

It has been years since I have looked into this particular sect, so I don't remember the name of it, however you can find it in the readings of one of the (unfortunately many) classes available on this website:

http://www.acidharma.org/aci/index.html

I am 100% sure it is there in one of the PDFs, but I don't remember which one, so if you are sincerely interested I would start skimming a lot of those.

>Do any take a positive view of suicide?

Only in certain situations, if you are enlightened yes. If not, then it is considered almost surely thirst for non-existence, a type of craving and delusion.

There is a story for example of someone who kept falling out of nirvana (which is debated as to whether this is even possible), and after the 6th time of entering nirvana, he killed himself so as to not fall out of it again.

>>5551427
>Some Mahayana schools teach that rebirth is a convenient truth not an ultimate truth.

Which? And further, you do understand that there is far more than one understanding of provisional truth than it being a "fake truth", in fact the notion of fake truth, as in rebirth being a provisional lie, is about as fringe as it gets.

>>5551448
>Why attempt to liberate oneself from suffering with spiritual practices when the eternal nothingness of death is readily available?

Because the goal is achieve freedom in this life. Or better yet, to master wisdom and compassion so that one can help others achieve freedom in this life.

>>5555928

Psychological ramifications.
Have you read Macbeth???

>>5551483
>I thought that the final goal of a buddhist practice is to reach the state of emptiness

No, at least concerning emptiness and liberation, there are two views, first there is the bathing of suchness in emptiness, seeing suchness as its nature, but still remaining in suchness and being free in that state, as it removes the constructed delusions from the suchness. While the other view (that is more fringe and is highly criticized by the historical Buddha and most Mahayana) is that emptiness is some sort of final reality that transcends suchness and that one should strive to abide in that, such a thing is a zen trope and is one of the reasons why zen gets so much shit.

It is important to understand that the vast majority of Mahayana, the final goal isn't liberation for self., but rather it is mastery of wisdom and compassion to lead other beings to freedom.

>>5556184
>There is one school of thought and some fringe thinkers from others schools that completely reject the cycle of rebirth.

Not any legitimate school of buddhism, only dogmatic westerners do this.

> no need to ever bring up the Buddha because he is done and dead....They say that there is only momentary rebirth while we are alive (a selfing process) and that is all the Buddha was teaching us to rid ourselves of.

They should give this cult a different name, it is nothing like buddhism specially if it rejects the buddha's significance.

>>5551652
>I'm getting tired of westerners spreads misinformation about Buddhism

Agreed.
99% of westerners that speak about Buddhism spread misinformatiom about it, just like 99% of eastern lay people. Buddhism is complicated and harder to fully understand, which is why a geshe degree takes 20 years. Specialized academics and seriously trained Buddhists are almost always the only ones that can begin to be trusted.

>>5553278
>Don't discredit Alan Watts

Academic Buddhologists have already done that, he isn't taken seriously as a scholar and is criticized for pushing his own brand of ideas rather than Buddhism in many cases.

>>5556202
>, just like 99% of eastern lay people

yep. I'm of the opinion that you can't be a "lay buddhist" anyway.

You either go full monk mode or don't bother at all.

>>5555741
>Buddhism just pulled the rules for ending the cycle right out of thin air.

Nah, it pulled the rules from observing how the moment-by-moment selfing process is ended and peace gained during a specific set of trances called the "inner-recreation-of-the-experiences-of-death", which is a form of the bardo trances that can experienced while alive. Also it asserts that additional information was collectively gleaned during samadhi access to past life information, which is a sub-concentration states that is a spin-off from the first jhana.

>>5552171

>When will people learn that death is an impossible concept to individuals

after you teach us i guess

>>5555837
karma is mental imprints and propensities

>>5556198
Why would you assume this? The texts which speak of it are in Tibetan and at least one of the major figures which pushed this view was also Tibetan.

I don't like Western Buddhism either, but just because you haven't heard of it because you are some extreme Buddhist-geek doesn't automatically mean it is some western fabrication.

>>5556206
You ever hear of lay-yogis?

Furthermore, where is your Pali Canon support for such a view?

>>5556217
>The texts which speak of it are in Tibetan and at least one of the major figures which pushed this view was also Tibetan.

Name the "school" and "book" in particular ?

There have been "buddhist figures" in many schools who have spread misinformation.
Their commentaries should be compared to the original canon to spot their lies and mistakes. Simple.

>>5556219
>Pali Canon support for such a view?

Yes but I'm not going to quote you entire chapters to make an argument...

The path to nirvana is the path of the recluse/monk. It's the path that buddha took specifically. That's what works and that's what he recommends.

You can't half-ass it, fornicate and drink alcohol, watch movies and go dancing and then do some meditation, read a buddhist commentary and call yourself a "lay buddhist". That didn't work for him, and it will never work for any buddha.

A buddhist is one who is on the path to enlightenment and the lay buddhist is not on that path at all.
The lay person is the common person, they can never attain nirvana in this life since they are steeped in pleasures, distractions, attachments, ills and fetters.

And they can't even hope for a helpful rebirth, they are just squandering this life.

>>5556221
>compared to the original canon

What are you talking about? Original cannon? The Pali canon was created due to political pressure by King Asoka to "unify the Buddhisms" and create a kingdom-wide religion. He placed the monk Moggaliputta Tissa in charge of this project, who according to his own writings, banned all monks from other schools and views from even participating, including from the 18 schools which predated the pali school (what became theravada).

I don't know how in the world you can think this is "the original" or that it qualifies as an actual authority, considering the major contradictions it shares with schools which predate it, ON MAJOR issues such as whether or not arhats are even enlightened, the emphasis on the bodhisattva school, and the original purity of the minds of sentient beings.


>Name the "school" and "book" in particular ?

I already linked a source that has the texts, it was 5 years ago or so when I went through the site and I know it was translated from Tibetan because it was when I was learning Tibetan and the PDFs I am talking about presents the Tibetan and then the English. It is on that website for someone who is actually very seriously interested and willing to go through the many PDFs.

>>5556229
>Yes but I'm not going to quote you entire chapters to make an argument...

You could list them and just quote very specific parts.

>The path to nirvana is the path of the recluse/monk. It's the path that buddha took specifically.

No, he wasn't a monk, he was a recluse-yogi, which is what a lay-yogi can be.

>You can't half-ass it, fornicate and drink alcohol, watch movies and go dancing and then do some meditation, read a buddhist commentary and call yourself a "lay buddhist".

No shit, but that doesn't mean that lay Buddhists that are not like this still have a chance. If a lay-yogi is practicing all the time, doesn't fornicate or drink alcohol, has cut out entertainment and studies and meditates as much as they can, they are still by definition lay practitioners by virtue of them not being ordained. Consider the many lay yogis which were recluses in Tibet, that were considered by the monastic schools to be legitimate masters.

>dancing
Even some monasteries teach a certain kind of dance as part of practice, but this isn't what you were talking about.

>>5556241
but that doesn't mean that lay Buddhists that are not like this don't** have a chance.

sorry

>>5556233
>What are you talking about? Original cannon?

The Pali canon. Go read it.

>>5556233
>I already linked a source that has the texts

That guy was not allowed to teach Tibetan buddhism due to spreading misinformation and his erratic behavior.

>>5556241
>If a lay-yogi is practicing all the time, doesn't fornicate or drink alcohol, has cut out entertainment and studies and meditates as much as they can, they are still by definition lay practitioners by virtue of them not being ordained.

You don't need to be ordained to live as a recluse and follow the buddha's teachings.

However a lay buddhist is not a recluse, and does not subscribe to all the teachings, he picks and chooses what is convenient so that is why he is not even on the path.

>lay yogi

semantics. irrelevant.

>>5556247
>That guy was not allowed to teach Tibetan buddhism

He was taught and certified as a Tibetan teacher, I don't like the guy at all, but the fact is, the PDFs have a shit ton of information in it, including texts which were not yet translated (only like 1-2% of Tibetan texts are currently in English, so pulling a genetic fallacy and trying to discredit a much much older text is just unjustified). The office for the dalai lama called him out, but he was not "not allowed to teach Tibetan Buddhism". I can't believe you are making me defend this guy.

>>5556247
>The Pali canon. Go read it.

Did you read what I posted? I am very well versed in the text, more importantly its history. Its roughly 10,000 pages are derived from a political decree and in no way represents the "original teachings", there were 18 schools which predated the Pali school and have major views which disagree.

>>5556251
>However a lay buddhist is not a recluse

Semantics, because a lay-yogi/lay Buddhist in the tibetan sense certainly can be and often is a full blown recluse.

>>5556256

He wanted to teach Tibetan buddhism in Dharamsala but the Dalai Lama told declined his request because of his erratic behavior.

Other monks told him to renounce his vows and stop wearing the robes because he was basically giving them a bad name, he was mocking them.
So I don't think he has any authority on anything, specially if he contradicts orthodox teachings...blah

> I am very well versed in the text

Then smarten the fuck up and stop pasting links to charlatans. The canon is the best we have, everything else is footnotes or misinformation.

>>5556262

lay-buddhist partially follows the vows and life-style of a recluse. Your typical hispter buddhist, your typical asian buddhist who doesn't even meditate and keeps 4 vows sometimes...casuals through and through.

recluse/monk follows all the vows, try to follow them all the time strictly, like Buddha did and suggested.


Being ordained is not the issue, intending to take on all the vows and restrictions is the issue. A lay-person does NOT intend to take them all on, that's why he's a casual, an imposter and not a buddhist at all.

>>5556271
>because he was basically giving them a bad name, he was mocking them.

I have actually seen interviews with monks who had called him out, and it mostly surrounds him having sex.

>So I don't think he has any authority on anything, specially if he contradicts orthodox teachings...blah

The PDFs are not his teachings, at all. He teaches rebirth on top of that, in the PDFs there are countless excerpts from various Tibetan texts, which is where these references can be found.

It is like saying that the Diamond-Cutter sutra, something he emphasizes, is somehow invalid because it can be found on that website. It is a rather stupid form of the genetic fallacy and has no bearing on the texts in question.


>Then smarten the fuck up and stop pasting links to charlatans. The canon is the best we have, everything else is footnotes or misinformation.

The best we have? What does that even mean? We know for sure what many of these earlier schools taught and how exactly they contradicted the Pali texts. How about some intellectual honesty and admit that we simply don't have "original teachings" and thus we don't have a "the best we have", furthermore to compare everything else as misinformation or footnotes compared to this politically motivated text which disagrees with teachings that pre-date it, is exactly a case of wishful thinking and intellectual dishonesty.

Does it make the study more difficult? Yes, but that is the situation we are actually in, they are no "original teachings" and the Pali text has absolutely no claim to authority, so no, you please smarten the fuck up and stop pretending.

>>5556278
>Your typical hispter buddhist, your typical asian buddhist who doesn't even meditate and keeps 4 vows sometimes...casuals through and through.

This is pretty much what I said, but in technical terms a recluse isn't a monk and thus they cannot be conflated because they were never ordained. These types of lay Buddhists can achieve enlightenment, which is why is said 99% of lay Buddhists, not 100%.


>A lay-person does NOT intend to take them all on

I don't agree with this definition at all. If it works for you fine, but stop pretending it is the only valid usage of the term, Tibetan Lay recluses for example, absolutely follow the vows, and their intentions are not in question.

>>5556281
>The PDFs are not his teachings, at all. He teaches rebirth on top of that, in the PDFs there are countless excerpts from various Tibetan texts, which is where these references can be found.

blabalbalbal no one cares, rebirth is a central doctrine and one of the most important pieces of wisdom the buddha expressed.

>The best we have? What does that even mean?

The canon is the closest we get to original ideas passed down verbally to the monks. What is so hard to understand? Nothing predates it, and nothing has more authority. Period.

> they are no "original teachings" and the Pali text has absolutely no claim to authority

go read your mahayana and tibetan heresies plz. you're clearly lost.

>>5556284

to you "lay" means unordained ?

to me "lay" means not a recluse or a monk.

to me "lay" means a casual who fails to live up to the vows and doesn't intend to take them all on.

When a lay person takes them all on, gives up sex, pleasure, music, eats 1 meal a day, begs for food, etc...when he functionally LIVES like a recluse/monk then it would be insane for me to call him a casual or "lay person" practicing buddhism.

Buddha was NEVER "lay" when he renounced his family and sat under the bodhi tree to attain enlightenment, he was a recluse. Functionally the same as monk but without anyone to "ordain" him.

Recluses and monks are not "lay" because they are hardcore.
Lay = casual.

>>5556289
>blabalbalbal no one cares

Uh no, OP started this thread because he cared. Why are you acting like a child?

>rebirth is a central doctrine and one of the most important pieces of wisdom the buddha expressed.

Though I agree with this, it isn't actually clear if that is the case and is an ongoing debate in Buddhology.

>The canon is the closest we get to original ideas passed down verbally to the monks. What is so hard to understand?

This is simply untrue and you clearly have a lot of studying still to do.

>Nothing predates it, and nothing has more authority. Period.

Then why did King Ashoka place a group in charge to unify the Buddhisms, and why do all the historical accounts of where and when Theravada emerge, place it well after over a dozen other schools?

Why would we need the Monk Tissa to, in his own words, ban other monks from the council, if there was somehow an unbroken lineage?

the original eighteen schools are: the Abhayagirivasin, the Avantaka, the
Bahushrutiya, the Dharmaguptaka, the Haimavata, the Jetavaniya, the Kashyapiya, the
Kaurukullika, the Lokottaravada, the Mahaviharavadin, the Mahishasaka, the
Mulasarvastivadin, the Prajñaptivada, the Purvashaila, the Tamrashatiya, the Uttarashaila, the
Vatsiputriya, and the Vibhajyavada.

Therefore Theravada, the Vaibhashika, and the Sautrantika
are not included among the first eighteen original Buddhist schools of the First Promulgation.

Just accept that you are are out of your depth.

>>5556298
>to me "lay" means a casual who fails to live up to the vows and doesn't intend to take them all on.

That is fair enough, but certainly it is not the only use and not how it has been used in several primarily Buddhist countries.

>it would be insane to call him a "lay person"

Only if you have some negative stigma attached to it, in many usages there is none.

>Recluses and monks are not "lay" because they are hardcore.

In the Tibetan use, often the lay yogis/recluses are often considered more "hardcore" then the monks and practice longer everyday

>>5556298
>Functionally the same as monk but without anyone to "ordain" him.


One might consider that Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta ordained him. They are considered his teachers after all

>>5556305
>it isn't actually clear if that is the case and is an ongoing debate in Buddhology.

It is 100% clear.
Except to dogmatic and casual westerners who fail at buddhism.

>This is simply untrue and you clearly have a lot of studying still to do.

Which texts predate the Canon and have more authority? name them specifically and provide links to their amazon or wikipedia pages so I can inspect them.

>the original eighteen schools are:

No one asked for your misunderstanding of history and personal ideas about schools and sects. Show us a source that predates the Canon. Go.

>>5556309
>lay yogis/recluses

This to me is a contradiction of terms. I can allow it because people have different ideas, but I wouldn't say this.

To me it sounds like a "lay monk"...what? lol!
Being "ordained" is not how you get rid of the casual or "lay" title imo.

>>5556317
>No one asked for your misunderstanding of history and personal ideas about schools and sects


These are not my personal ideas. No one asked for your anti-histoical theravada fanboi understanding either. You are acting like a typical western lay Buddhist that has no studied the history.


So you first, show me an accepted chronology that places theravada before the schools listed.


Check out Warder, A.K, Baruah, Bibhuti, Yijing. Li Rongxi, etc to start.

Hell, none of wikipedia even agrees with you, and these are constantly edited by theravada fan boys, so you're in the minority. Check out their sources too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajyav%C4%81da
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahu%C5%9Brut%C4%ABya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praj%C3%B1aptiv%C4%81da
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmaguptaka

Enjoy clinging to your loaded questions though bruh, and really awaiting that timeline that says theravada came first.

>>5556317
>Which texts predate the Canon

Not having a text predate the canon doesn't mean anything, we have commentaries which describe their views and we know they existed before theravada. Nor does it provide authority to the texts, even an undergraduate religious studies major can spot this bullshit.

Learn how historical reconstruction works, and also consider that the vast majority of both Buddhists and scholars laugh at the idea that the Canon was the original teachings and that no teachings predate it.

Hell the canon as is today is highly modified and edited. I suppose you think the first and second council didn't happen either because there was no text emerging directly from it?

>>5556363

So you can't support your original claim about the Pali Canon. Thanks for trying.

>we have commentaries

Do they predate the Pali? No.

>implying commentaries are worth a damn, ever

lol...neophytes, when will they learn?

>>5556396
>So you can't support your original claim about the Pali Canon.

The narrow criteria you demanded was a loaded question. It presupposed that the only valid historical reconstruction is by having a text directly emerge from it, but written texts in India were widely shunned for a long period of time.

We have writings from Tissa himself, as well as the decree from King Asoka.

All religions follow a trend, where there are competing oral histories and one group with political motivations gets the idea to write them down, there mere act of writing doesn't authenticate their teachings over the other oral lineages.

Similarly, we know, for a fact, that there are over a dozen oral lineages which predated Theravada, and we know, for a fact, that these lineages disagreed on several critical points.

>neophytes

Well, you are not a trained Buddhist, nor a buddhologist, you don't have your degree in religious studies and you haven't been able to provide an accepted chronology that places the Pali school (theravada) as predating the aforementioned schools.

Your faith in the Pali texts is that it is somehow a "valid" ORAL lineage for several hundred years and then got written down, while at the same time dismissing other oral lineages, for no reason.

The fact is, your FAITH in those texts as being "original" or "authentic" in accurately expressing the words of the historical Buddha is about as neophytish as it gets.

Go ahead an toss out all scholarship on the issue, and keep clinging to the idea that the Pali is not a modified set of texts.

I ask you again though, so you dispute that the first and second council occurred because no texts emerged directly from it?

Still waiting on that chronology, or proof that these 18 schools held the same views as theravada.

>>5556396
>>implying commentaries are worth a damn, ever

>Not realizing the entire Pali Canon is a commentary.

>>5556396
>Do they predate the Pali?

They are the same age.

>>5556381
The earliest texts that mention the Buddha do predate the Canon, there are non-Buddhist clan-treatise which discuss Gautama the monk and how he is a "dark magician" and has "discovered a secret magic hidden in reality, and is using that magic to steal the disciples of others".

It is one of the ways we know that the Buddha actually existed and that his life was so far removed from when the texts were written (by hundreds of years, how accurate those legends must be).

You do know that the mahaparibbana sutta has the Buddha teleporting around and doing all this magic n shit right? You consider that an objective historical source?

>>5556455
Pretty much this, of course they are not accurate or authentic accounts, and of course they are exaggerated, but a lot of fanboys of these texts want to have their cake and eat it too, they disregard the magic as either legend or poetic exaggeration, but then still hold to the notion that the actual teachings are 150% out of the mouth of the historical Buddha through the magic of an unbroken oral lineage, which we know is bullshit. One of the main reasons the great schism occurred is because the Pali school was trying to add more vows then were accepted and "known" to be valid teachings at the time. I don't understand how any theravada student and assert with a straight-face that their texts are ancient and part of an unbroken line, and then reference the highly modified Satipatthana Sutta as their primary source for deriving practice from, while ignoring the older versions of the text that exist.

If you don't meditate, don't bother discussing Buddhism. All its ideas arose from the meditative brain state and not otherwise.

Also if you have or aspire to have a wife or children, you are nowhere near ready to truly grasp Buddhism.

Buddhism can be distilled down to the psychological insight that craving causes attachment, attachment to impermanent phenomena causes suffering, therefore detachment is peace.

Everything else is just building on this solid rock foundation. Getting lost in debates on origins of texts etc is just missing the point. If you don't implement the discipline of detachment in your own life, you will suffer here there and everywhere and it may extend into a next life.

Therefore, detach.

>>5557480
thanks doc

>>5557480
>If you don't meditate, don't bother discussing Buddhism.

it's far worse than that.
If you don't leave the normal life and venture into the forest, become a beggar, giving up money, material goods and pleasure, forget about Buddhism.

>>5556192
Only affects weak people. Macbeth was a fag.

>>5551791
hahaha fuck sake i am laffin

10/10

>>5551756
bullshit

BULL. SHIT.

ever been to Thailand? They don't know fuck.

>>5551791
I understand what you are saying. BUT...

But not existing didn't prevent me from coming into existence this time. What will stop it next time? I know what you mean though; about acting a certain way will prevent existence. Wtf? Who makes the rules?

buddhists should suicide, technically

DETACH FROM THIS FLUX OF IMPERMANENT PHENOMENA

>>5559119
suicide?

Seems more straightforward.

>>5559052
>ever been to Thailand? They don't know fuck.

The actual buddhists in thailand are well versed with Buddha's teachings and meditate regularly. Are you confused or something? Why wouldn't actual buddhists be familiar with buddhism lol...

>>5559168

Leads to more suffering.

>>5551379
It seems to me that leaning on the cycle of rebirths is part of the suffering and ignorance and one must break through this repetition i guess what i am trying to say is if you choose not to delude yourself with the cycle of rebirths you have obtained true Buddhism.
i mean why do you want to act just to avoid becoming a bee? i would rather live to be happy just to be happy. fuck whether or not i become a bee.

>>5559923
>i mean why do you want to act just to avoid becoming a bee?

Because that's part of the formula that will put you on the right path, without it you will be lost in simple hedonism and the pursuit of pleasure.

>i would rather live to be happy just to be happy.

Most people do which is why they live utterly horrible lives full of suffering and insanity, bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over.

>what i am trying to say is if you choose not to delude yourself with the cycle of rebirths you have obtained true Buddhism

Rebirth isn't just an trick idea, it's one of the most important and central ideas to Buddhism. If you don't understand and accept rebirth you really don't know buddhism at all. Period.

>>5559820
The average Thai knows about Buddhism as much as the average West Virginian knows about Christianity.

>>5560700

no one is talking about "average buddhist". We are talking about actual buddhists.

The initial argument was:
>"actual buddhists are very familiar with the buddha's teachings."

To which you (or someone) lost their mind and decided to contradict.

>>5560709
How did Buddha find the way to not be reborn? To end the life cycle? I don't want to exist again, in any form.

>>5560729
>How did Buddha find the way to not be reborn? To end the life cycle?

Insight into his nature via meditation. Overcoming harmful attachments and aversions.
Read Theravada buddhism for more info.

>I don't want to exist again, in any form.

This sort of aversion (or death-wish) will actually push you towards rebirths.

>>5559064
I don't really get what you're saying but it's not like you were sitting there, not-existing, waiting to be thrust into life.
You didn't come from non-existence into existence. because is no you, where there is non-existence.

We're humans. We have a natural desire to keep on living and to produce more humans.
We're here because our parents were humans too.
To commit suicide is to go against our true nature for no reason.

>>5560757
>We're here because our parents were humans too.

This is what people actually believe.
This is an explanation to you? lol

>>5560773
Yes. Everyone who is reading this was taken care of by people who helped them go from being a baby to being able to read. They helped because they're human and that's the kind of thing that humans do.

>>5560757
>true nature

you seem to have it all figured out!

>>5560815

>raising a babby
>the conditions required in order to come into existence

these are different things

>>5551379
I dont know. but look for what he means by rebirth. You may be get a surprise.

You'll know rebirth intuitively if you practice the noble eightfold path. Once you reach closer to stream entry and detach from a sense of self, you can gain access to better(controlled) dreaming, out of body travel(visiting the described realms in buddhist canon like the heavens, hells, pure abodes, formless realms) and can vividly see past lives to gain insight on the three marks(suffering, impermanence and not/non-self).

You cannot and I repeat CANNOT gain proper insights without a stable meditation practice which induces concentration to see reality as it is.

Death is seen detrimental for an unskilled and untrained mind because it again forms habits and grasps after death and thus making way for another rebirth, over and over again.

Follow the noble eightfold path, you will discover everything and more about reality.

>>5552247
ur stupid

>>5561056
fuck off the eightfold path is simply a means to control the general populace.

No different than Deus Vult of the Crusades.

You think the universe gives half a fuck what your livelihood is? or your intention? or your fucking speech? Get the fuck out of here.

>>5556190
this isn't entirely true.
if you take zizeks point in Buddhism he says this is the Mose cynical and most corrupt of the Buddhist philosophy. that somehow you will come down from nirvana, sacrificing yourself , to help others (all living being) achieve nirvana. the point is not simply to achieve it and tell people "look I've seen it and been in it" and then come back. you're pretty much Jesus at that point. the point is for each individual to access nirvana in his own experiance.

>>5561238
The noble eightfold path is actualizing the dharma and to be free from suffering by cutting the fetters.

Caring about how the universe perceives you is idle pondry. Suffering is very real. By following the path you will achieve peace, happiness, bliss and contentment beyond all measure.

Is anyone here actually buddhist? Active in their local sangha and such? I'm tempted to go to Wangyal Rinpoche's institute down the road just for some direct transmission and because it's the only one I've seen where the website doesn't hound you for donations.

>>5551379
No, it doesn't. Maybe to gain some kind of happiness in this life, but the whole point of buddism is to reach nirvana and end the cycle of death and life. You can just kill yourself I guess.

Kinda off-topic but everybody should read this manga.

>>5562857
so give us the name...

>>5562883
It's the filename. Buddha, by Osamu Tezuka.

>>5551379
All those Buddhists already assumed their final form and left us to suffer.

Ask yourself this: if suicide is the logical conclusion of a philosophy, is it surprising such a philosophy no longer remains? Its kind of like why Marxism is still around today. It has nothing to do with the logic itself, just that the philosophy assumes roles in all manners of life, so its nearly impossible to move beyond. Antinatalism has a fairly easy conclusion to reach, and thus it isn't widespread.

>>5562895
>All those Buddhists already assumed their final form and left us to suffer.

What is a bodhisattva?

>>5562900
Suicided already.

Buddhism reminds me of when I was 12 and made a Facebook account and listed "Mahayana Buddhism" as my religion because "Mahayana" sounded cool and I had skimmed the wikipedia page on Buddhism and found it pretty chill, plus the fact that it was japanese just like anime, unlike the western abrahamic religions which are all pretty gay because westerners can't even get cartoons right etc.

>>5551379
you don't know what lies after death, but its best to be prepared. a cool heart with no attachments is the best position.

>>5562857
Buddha is an awesome Manga, maybe Tezuka's best work.

>>5558099
go to bed Rodya

>>5562407
Or I could shoot heroin

>>5563367
That's measurable, shortlived, and requires outside forces.

>>5563406
He could kill himself, which is permanent.

>>5563654
winrar winrar chicken dinner.

Buddhists have yet to explain why suicide is worse than enlightenment. They both end suffering, but one is easier and guaranteed to last forever

>>5564027
Well, if you're a Buddhist then you would have to believe that enlightenment is the one that lasts forever, since being a Buddhist pretty much necessitates belief in rebirth which makes suicide an impermanent and utterly retarded solution to the problem of suffering.

>>5565165
Why do Buddhists believe in rebirth? Can you explain it for me?

>>5564027
because if there was no rebirth, then suicide is thought to just put you in the state of nirodha-samapatti (a non-experience, all experience, perception and feeling is cut off, not even a nothingness, just a non-experience), which is great, but it isn't as glorious as living in nirodha-dukkha (nirvana).

Furthermore, nirvana is thought to be unproduced, unconditioned, uncaused, and unfabricated, and as such suicide could never cause nirvana.

>>5565432
But WHY do they believe this? What evidence is there for rebirth, or that your soul/essence somehow carries on? And how does acting a certain way in this life prevent you from coming back.

It seems very dogmatic.

>>5565303
It was a common cultural belief at the time. Buddha taught that rebirth, but not reincarnation, was true. I suppose the foundation of it is in believing in codependent arising of phenomena. Even if your self and consciousness as you know it now ends, it leaves remnants which will eventually lead to the arising of another self and consciousness. Whether that is the same as "you" or not is irrelevant, since Buddhists talk about things like a mindstream, meaning a lineage of consciousness, and deny any kind of eternal soul or existence (a requisite for reincarnation but not rebirth).

Buddha gave a parable about rebirth where he asked that if you have a burning candle which you use to light a second candle, when the first candle runs out of fuel and is extinguished, is the second flame of the same substance or a different substance than the flame of the first? He likened this the nature of rebirth, where a rebirth is directly cause-and-effect (karma) but the substance is neither the same nor different.

>>5565641
That candle analogy cleared things up a lot. But who dictates what "right speech, right livelihood, right view, etc" are? I totally understand the whole destroy desire to destroy suffering and achieve peace/detachment. But the idea that sitting, or thinking a certain way will cause you to not suffer in the next birth is just... like wtf?

>>5565652
The aim of the eightfold path is to eliminate defilements. Buddha's teaching was primarily a method to do this. What is "right" with regard to the eightfold path is what reduces defilements. What is "wrong" with regard to the eightfold path is what increases defilements.

If you are really interested, then you need to go read sutras. Buddha was directly concerned with the method of achieving the cessation of suffering. Any kind of dogma was secondary. Buddha was only concerned with good and bad insofar as what was good was what led to the cessation of suffering and what was bad led to the continuation or intensification of suffering.

>>5565638
I didn't say I believed this, I am relaying what the Buddhists assert.

>or that your soul/essence somehow carries on?

They don't believe in souls or essences.


>What evidence is there for rebirth

They assert that evidence for this comes from two distinct trance states, one is called the "inner-recreation-of-the-experience-of-death" and the other is a variant on the first jhana, where one can see into one's past lives.

>dogmatic

"When a Buddhist looks through a telescope, they are not scared by what they might find. They are not scared of science. Science is an essential part of Buddhism. If science can disprove rebirth, then Buddhists should give up the idea of rebirth. If science disproves non-self, and shows there is a self, then all Buddhists should abandon non-self. If science proves there is no such thing as kamma, but instead there is a big God up in the sky, then all Buddhists should believe in God. That is, if it's provable science. Buddhism has no sacred cows." -Ajahn Brahmavamso

>>5565665
Thank you for your time. I still don't really understand though; why does ceasing suffering THEN dying stop you from being reborn instead of just killing yourself?

>>5557907

If you wanna get your dick wet give up Buddhism

>>5559826

How do you know?

>>5565670
In which of their texts can I read about Jhana and the trance states?

>>5565675
Because nirvana is a state that must be achieved. Ceasing suffering is "crossing over to the other shore." It is not ending this life. Ending this life will only give rise to another life that is trapped on this shore, the shore where we all suffer.

Nirvana is a state that can exist for living beings. It isn't necessary to die to become enlightened. Buddha achieved nirvana in life, and then died, an event called mahaparinirvana. Suicide only achieves death. It achieves nothing else. Death is not related to nirvana, and has no effect on whether suffering continues or not.

>>5565652

>you to not suffer in the next birth

That isn't the case though, the idea is that enlightenment ends the cycle of birth.

I think of it like some sort of indeterminate system that is subject to collapsing into specific states due environmental decoherence, and this system can tuned away from such decoherence. Eventually with enough tuning the system becomes decoupled from all decoherence and no longer collapses at all, remaining in this indeterminate state of neither existing nor non-existing.

>>5565675
>why does ceasing suffering THEN dying stop you from being reborn instead of just killing yourself?

Not him but why does it matter? No one's gonna stop you from fully crossing over to see there really is beyond death.

To me, and I guess the buddhist, the elimination of suffering is the main focus. Even if you don't attain nirvana, or even if it turns out that death really is the end, the life that you lived will have been greater and probably the world around you too. So if there was some sort of gatekeeper that judged man's every action then your actions will ultimately speak for yourself.

>>5555837
I hate how people use this kind of 'false science' as a way to escape philosophical arguments. Science is a polished form of empiricism based around certain principles and yet that does not exclude science from various other philosophical or moral problems. Since when does 'neurons firing through biological infrastructure' invalidate intentionality and morality? You seem to think that neurology results in determinism or somehow colors things as 'objective' in a way when all it does it provides a basis to view what the act of making a conscious decision is like in the material realm without commenting on the ontological, epistemological, metaphysical or any other philosophical questions. If your 'neurons firing through biological infrastructure' is proven to have a causality that exists outside of man and outside of intentionality then you can have your pseudo-morality validated. Science only proves the possibility of a material context but a material context is wholly different from a subjective context and proving the material context in no way infringes on the validity of the question of the problem of evil and other such issues. If you want to ally yourself with the idea of objectivism or perspectivism please don't use such embarrassing arguments as "neurons firing through biological infrastructure" or also "probabilistic quantum particles flying through space" which usually also disrespects the original science of the matter.

Your argument anyway, that because neurology shows that consciousness has a base connection to material reality means that its equivalent to natural phenomena, like natural disasters, is basically pseudo-Stoicism with a Scientism slant. Its like Aurelius' statement that man must conform to Nature except that you're using it to justify perspectivism but I don't see the logical link between the two.

>>5565685
Buddhism has over half a million texts. The early Buddhist texts also make it clear that there is no permanent consciousness that moves from life to life. In terms of the inner-recreation of the experience of death/bardo trances, these are more pith/inner-pith instructions, which are given privately in most cases, but there are texts that mention some of the experiences, generally in esoteric form. If I were looking for discussion about specific methods and such, I would probably look for discussions on Tögal/thogal practices, which can naturally bring about some of the visions discussed. However, these again are considered so advanced that the real meat of these practices are usually kept pretty secret and are passed orally.
Jhanas are discussed throughout, and quite a lot in the Pali Canon (about ten thousand texts), most of the time they are discussed it is not in the context of this specific variant of the first jhana. As it is a fruit gained from mastery over the first jhana absorption.

It is a special form of "higher knowledge", chalabhinna, and the specific term you would probably look for would be "Remember one's former abodes" or pubbe-nivasanussati.

There are many texts which speak of this, but I haven't studied this in years, so the only one off the top of my head is probably the Lohicca sutta. It may just be a reference to it though and not one that gives advice on how to bring it about (which is something like, after having attained mastery with the first jhana, which is critical, coming out of the first jhana and directing your mind on your memory in general, then going into the first jhana, then coming out and directing your mind to the earliest thing you can remember, then going back in, and then trying to remember even before that, and then going in and coming out and specifically trying to remember past lives then going back in; or something like this).


There is also a a textbook that came out a few hundred years later that is like a manual on meditation and specific non-normal powers that can come from it, written by a traveling monk that went around to various monasteries and wrote what they asserted and practiced, it starts with a V but I can't remember the name of it right now.

>>5562951
>Buddhism reminds me of when I was 12 and made a Facebook account

The fact that this comment is not grounds for a banning really shows how time flies.

>>5565675

Because just killing yourself keeps you as this sort of indeterminate system that is still subject to environmental decoherence, which forces it to collapse into specific determinate states.
The process of ceasing suffering is a process of being decoupled from environmental decoherence, so the system remains this sort of indeterminate thing that is unconditioned and neither existing nor non-existing.

And again, if we are talking about if rebirth isn't true from the get go, then the idea is that suicide just leads to nirodha-samapatti, which is great, but not as great as actually living in nirodha-dukkha.

>>5565772
Everything is impermanent and changing bruh.

>>5565788
So being alive after reached nibbana is better than being kill?

And according to Buddhists, what happens after death to the "life flame" if you will, is different for a true Buddha vs a suicide victim?

>>5551379
The idea of Buddha is, in a condensed definition, one who seeks enlightenment by investigating within and with one's self. Just look at the story of Siddhārtha Gautama

>>5565791
Second. Nothing that changes is real.

>>5565791
Doesn't that contradict the second law of thermodynamics?

>>5566055
Does that mean ideas are then more real the material objects?

>>5565996
>So being alive after reached nibbana is better than being kill?

Yes because nirodha-dukkha > nirodha-samapatti


>is different for a true Buddha vs a suicide victim

Yes

>And according to Buddhists, what happens after death to the "life flame" if you will

It stays in an indeterminate state, neither existing nor non-existing. Other traditions go further than this and say that one assimilates with the Buddha-bodies.

>>5566249
the second law isn't a thing, it is an observed regularity in nature

>>5565768
>there is no permanent consciousness
Then why didn't Buddha kill himself?

>>5568857
Seriously, how dense are you people that keep bringing up this suicide thing? In the Buddhist worldview, that would have solved absolutely nothing and only worsened the original problem of suffering that Buddha set out to solve.

>>5568857

the only way to "suicide" in buddhism is to nirvana yourself.

Consciousness is a temporary phenomena with no "essence" but it still gets restructured after you die into another form of existence, via dependent origination.

>>5551498
opiate overdose does not cause any pain at all. So the process is only painful if you're a moron who isn't smart enough to do it a quick, painless (if not euphoric) way.

>>5556281
>It is like saying that the Diamond-Cutter sutra, something he emphasizes, is somehow invalid because it can be found on that website.

the Diamond Suttra is not invalid because of that, it's invalid because its another "fake buddha quote" created by Mahayana monks.

Simple.

>tfw can't stop craving

help me
I hate consumerism and it disgusts me, but I'm tangled in its net

>>5556202
This is true for almost any topic with any real depth or complexity. The thing is we now live in an age of independent thought, where people are willing to disregard what is said by learned people and replace it with their own opinions. The appeal to authority "fallacy" is also used all of the time to attempt to move the topic away from the hard truth that most people have no idea what they are talking about most of the time on most things, so that lay people can justify their shitflinging. On a public forum like this with immediate access to posting hilarity ensues.

Learn to enjoy it or it will drive you mad.

>>5569499
Can you expand on this?

What steps have you taken so far?

>>5570198
Sauce pls. Google give nothing.

>>5570333
I'm sorry but I don't have it either, saved it from someone else.

If you stop desiring things not having sauce will not cause you suffering

>>5562857
>tfw

>>5569498
>"fake buddha quote"

Mahayana monks don't assert it to be from the historical Buddha, so you're full of shit.

"In the Buddhist view, any theory or concept has to be drawn from and applicable to meditative practice, what is not being considered empty speculation."

>>5569498
You mean like the Pali Canon which was written by monks hundreds of years later that didn't know the Buddha, nor knew someone who ever met the Buddha nor knew someone themselves who had met the Buddha, etc.?

Much invalid.

>>5570651
Isn't the dalai lama just the reincarnation of buddha?

>>5570629

Monks don't? Yet the Sutra itself does, over and over... :^)

>At one time the Buddha was staying
in the Jeta Grove of the Garden of the Benefactor of Orphans and the Solitary together with a gathering of great bhikùus, twelve hundred fifty in all.

>>5570651

Oral tradition. The Pali Canon is the only authority we have about the buddha, everything else is fake and can be thrown in a toilet.

>>5570278
none

I'm just always dissatisfied with what I posses and with my situation in general
nothing is ever good enough, I always want something more, something better

I live with a Buddhist nun (Tibetan Buddhism).

Some of you are really off track. Ask me anything.

>>5571176
> Ask me anything.

What do you wish to be asked?

>>5571181
Whatever you want anon.

>>5571186

How can I get a girlfriend, according to this "buddhist nun". What would buddha suggest?

>>5571189
I doubt she has any more knowledge on the subject than you do.

>"buddhist nun"
Are you implying she isn't real or isn't a buddhist nun?

>>5571194

>ask me anything
>can't answer a simple question

>>5571197
What makes you think she know's any more than you about HOW to get a girlfriend?

If you asked her, why you're unhappy when you don't have a girlfriend, then she'd might have something to say.

>>5571207

Well you can tell this "nun" to bugger off, she's no use to modern man.

>>5571215
Aren't you a pleasant one.

>>5571215
>Well you can tell this "nun" to bugger off, she's no use to modern man.
>nun is no use to man

hehehe funny

>>5557583
Well said m8. Actually, I'll just copy that and sell it.

>>5570696
>The Pali Canon is the only authority we have about the buddha


That is rubbish, it isn't an authority. There were competing oral traditions that predated the Pali Canon and the school that wrote down the cannon.


Only the completely naive actually believe the Pali Canon to be a authoritative concerning the historical Buddha. It reportedly took 6-8 months to recite the canon a single time, but we are to assume this tradition somehow magically lasted intact for several hundred years? How then do you reconcile this with the other competing oral lineages that existed from the very beginning?

>>5570665
are you serious? No

The Dalai Lama himself says he is just an ordinary man, but there are certain traditions who believe him to be more, almost like a deity, basically a manifestation of an enlightened person, though not even these wild beliefs assert him to be the historical Buddha or a reincarnation of.

>>5570690
>Monks don't? Yet the Sutra itself does, over and over...

What is your point? You mentioning this only shows your ignorance of the traditional way of writing in Mahayana and why it is written like this. They never were meant to be historical claims, and if you observe very early discussions between Mahayana and Theravada, you see the reason mentioned explicitly. Mahayana asserts that Theravada texts to not authentically relate the Buddhas teachings, nor be an accurate account of events. In response to the tone in which Theravada writes its text "I have heard that once the Buddha did this and that", Mahayana began doing the same thing so new students wouldn't be confused into thinking that Theravada was anymore more authentic (which it isn't). Furthermore, Mahayana asserts that the path that is discussed in the Pali isn't even the path to Buddhahood, nor the path that the Buddha walked, and they would instead try to reconstruct this path through logic and inter-subjectively agreeable experience (reconstructing the path of the buddha-to-be or bodhisattva instead of "merely" the path of the Buddha's disciple). Because of these two things, they wrote in the manner they did, with explicit declaration that any teachings inline with the buddhadharma could be written as if said by A buddha.

Other monks, both theravada and otherwise, also point out that this traditional style was also meant to show the authors devotion and reverence for the buddhadharma. So doing this is a sign of respect.


I wonder how you can think they are "fake buddha quotes" when no serious monk did or does think they are words of the historical Buddha or actually mention historical events, in fact this whole style and tradition was extremely well known, it wasn't some secret to anyone...except apparently you.


tl;dr You are making a huge hermeneutical blunder, a very very basic one. This is like page one Buddhology.

>>5571176
>implying that a single nun knows the entirety of all Buddhist traditions or even the tremendously large set of traditions that are called "Tibetan Buddhism", which consists of hundreds of thousands of texts and even mutually exclusive views.

Yeah no.

>>5569485
And how exactly does being totally at ease prevent consciousness from coming back?

>>5571521
This. I have also read that a purpose for presenting a text's content through a brief narrative surrounding a Buddha was a way to distinguish it from "false teachings" that were occasionally created by non-buddhist aristocrats, sometimes even being accused of being possessed, to explain how they could commit such shameful fraudulent acts.

Beyond this, Indian Buddhism laid an especially solid ground for this writing style, allowing the preaching of authentic Buddha Word by individuals other than the historical Buddha or on those individuals' own realizations. In both cases it was well understood by its intended audience not to be the historical Buddha, the concern and debate would surround the content of the material and whether or not it was inline with Buddhist understanding, how effective the material was, its proper context, or whether it was some sort of useful innovation/novelty.

>>5572301
being totally at ease in this life**

>>5559820
>The actual buddhists in thailand are well versed with Buddha's teachings and meditate regularly.

I live in Thailand and can confirm that this is utter nonsense. If you're exclusively talking about monks, you have a chance of making a case. The monks spend all day walking from market stall to market stall, guilting the Thais into a mantra for pocket change. The monks remove their flip flops, the market seller bows their head, the monk chants for thirty seconds, then shuffles over to the next stall. If you go to a pagoda to speak with one, you find they know thai superstition and the particular south East Asian brand of monotheism rather than Buddhism.

If you mean the Buddhist people of Thailand, then not. Absolutely not. Their full knowledge of Buddhism consists of offering food to their shrine once a week, putting knives beneath the bed to chase away ghosts at night, giving money to the monks for a prayer chant, and observing certain days like hungry ghost day.

I've tried discussing Buddhism with many, many Thai Buddhists, and none of them had even heard of the four noble truths.

>>5570665
He's supposed to be someone who could have reached enlightenment but put it off so he could help more people, though I think the current Dalai Lama said that he's not going to reincarnate after he dies this time.

>>5572301
Well, it depends on how you conceive of consciousness. The Orch-OR theory for example fits well in the Buddhist view. Extrapolating then, proto-consciousness is a quantum-system, namely a {partially} self-collapsing wave-function, which is subject to a environmental decoherence, leading to apparent collapse. Upon apparent collapse you have proto-consciousness forced into certain states via measurement from a wide variety of other wave-functions, and so including getting stuck in another birth cycle and becoming what we know to be consciousness.

The process of becoming totally at ease is really the process of tuning the system via the zeno effect, tuning the self-collapsing wave-function, making it more prone to self-collapse and less likely to experience the apparent collapse, or more specifically, the collapse-like states that result from environmental decoherence. In short, tuning away from environmental decoherence, becoming free from it. If enough self-measurement occurs {tuning}, then the system can actually completely decouple from environmental decoherence. The system self-measuring means it no longer is merely a "partially" {meaning subject to environmental decoherence} self-collapsing wave-function, but one completely decoupled.

>>5572455
cont.

I have spent some time over the years discussing this with someone with their degree in physics and philosophy, who is a fan of Orch-OR, and if this or very similar musings is true, then you actually have various "predictions" which emerge. For example, proto-consciousness is basically a particle/wave in 5th dimensional n-space (according to Orch-OR), and though it was once unstable, through specific types of measurement/meditation via the zeno effect, it becomes stable in a sense. The implications emerging from being inline with what is understood of the zeno effect(s) is that a continually observed particle never actually decays, which means this decoupled self-measuring wave-function, and the 5th dimensional conscious particle/wave it describes, would persist.
Furthermore, if the zeno effect(s) actually fit into this speculative model as assumed, then the equations currently had for the zeno effect actually loosely imply certain general forms of meditation (by extrapolating simple meditative analogues insofar as what the system is measuring and how it is measuring, such as measuring the environment with rapid strong concentrated pulses should lead to temporary relief from decoherence, while self-measurement leads to eventual decoupling, which for the sake of conversation and simplicity, might be compared to concentration jhanas and then to insight practice) and how they would actually influence the system differently over time, and could even account for the apparent differences in the type of arrival points discussed by various forms of Buddhism, say the difference between a system becoming decoupled from the environment, and a system being totally absorbed by the environment and taking it as its basis, becoming totally illusory.


/endhomelessschizophrenicmanrant

>>5572404
I am surprised this even had to be said, this is pretty well known in the Buddhist academic community to be the case. Eastern lay peoples notoriously practice non-protestant "buddhism" (as in, not being in line with the texts), which is really just their local folk-beliefs with a buddhistic flair.

As far as the monastic community, for sure. Thailand is considered especially bad, with many foreign traveling monks reporting that Thailand monks don't even read the sutras (if they do, it is a very small number and it not the norm), often they will keep them locked up and pray to them or whatever.

Why do Westerners have such a fantasy concerning how Easterners practice Buddhism? All of Buddhist history is filled with the masses slowly straying from the protestant views (generally the lay community more than the monastic), and then another great-reformer (all the big names in Buddhism) pops up, noticing that people are not even practicing Buddhism but have perverted it, and then shepherd people temporarily back towards the protestant view (generally influencing mostly the monastic community).

>>5557583

On detachment though:

>>Viveka and viraaga are the two Paali words which have been translated as "detachment." The two, however, are not synonymous. The primary meaning of viveka is separation, aloofness, seclusion. Often physical withdrawal is implied. The later commentarial tradition, however, identifies three forms of viveka: kaaya-viveka (physical withdrawal), citta-viveka (mental withdrawal), and upadhi-viveka (withdrawal from the roots of suffering).

Kaaya-viveka, as a chosen way of life, was not uncommon during the time of the Buddha. To withdraw from the household life, renounce possessions, and adopt a solitary mendicancy was a recognized path. The formation of the Buddhist monastic Sangha was grounded in the belief that going out from home to homelessness (agaarasmaa anagaariya.m pabbajati) could aid concentrated spiritual effort. Yet to equate the renunciation which the Buddha encouraged with a physical withdrawal which either punished the body or completely rejected human contact would be a mistake.

The Buddha made it clear that the detachment of a noble disciple (ariyasaavaka) — the detachment connected with the path — was not essentially a physical act of withdrawal, let alone austerity. Kaaya-viveka was valuable only if seen as a means to the inner purging and mental transformation connected with the destruction of craving. This is illustrated in the Udumbarika Siihanaada Sutta in which the Buddha claims that the asceticism of a recluse who clings to solitude could lead to pride, carelessness, attention-seeking, and hypocrisy, if not linked to the cultivation of moral virtues and the effort to gain insight through meditation.

>>5572492
>Why do Westerners have such a fantasy concerning how Easterners practice Buddhism?

I guess it would be like someone from Vietnam, Cambodia, or Thailand visiting England or America and finding that nobody had heard of Adam and Eve or the crucifixion of Christ.

>>5572577
Well about the specific point concerning the lay community not knowing the 4 arhat truths sure, but a step removed from that, there are simply a much larger number of things to be known to even have a basic protestant grasp of Buddhism (as we are dealing with thousands of texts and not a "single" book). It would be more akin to finding people who don't know many specific details from the bible, large and small (which is extremely common)

The Thailand monastic community surely knows a basic gist of the 4 truths, despite them being generally one of the least educated monastic communities.

>>5572563
I don't think that sutta is making the point that physical withdrawal or austerity isn't essential. It is pointing out that despite it being essential there are still obstacles that can arise from not properly treading the withdrawn life. In the sutta the Buddha, at the end of his lecture, still goes out of his way to claim that to reach the core, one must, among other things, still go into a private quite retreat.

The Buddha is addressing a wandering group of philosophers in the sutta, not contemplatives. They don't believe that one should reject human contact, they believe you should constantly be around the crowd and constantly debating and sharpening your wit. They believe in certain forms of self-torture, which go back to the Buddha's statements about finding a middle ground and not tightening the instrument so much that the string breaks.


Anyway past this, this particular sutta is considered of the many that is likely a much later creation, as are all suttas mentioning Sandhana.

>>5572460
UP