/lit/ - Literature

>>6803971
with the Greeks

>>6803971
wikipedia

>>>/archive/

Find an introductory text. Then get a companion text for whatever is considered the major canon of Buddhism. Then get a companion text for anything non canonical

>>6803971
Reading What the Buddah Taught right now, seems good as a primer but I want to mention it now to see what /lit/ thinks.

Zoom on the Zoroastrians

>>6804018
Reading it as well. A little dry for an introductory text tbh but very lucid and erudite for someone well-versed in Buddhist concepts. Still, not bad for a beginner

>>6804026
Does the logic on reincarnation make sense to you (philosophically not scientifically)? I feel it presumes that the dukkha is independent of the body therefore preserved after death, and that still doesn't explain how it transfers into a new body. l really don't know how they believed that stuff.

1. Anything besides Theravada and Zen are bullshit.
2. If you want the real deal, look up yuttadhammo on YouTube. It is a grim religion that requires intense dedication.

>>6804051
As I understand it, the forces and energies inside us that crave life, being, and propagation survive after the death of our individual "self" (understood as an aggregate of processes).

When we die, those energies are displaced into a new body. What I don't get is what makes those energies "ours" then, because the Buddha is explicit about the individual person reincarnating.

Best way I can put it is these forces are shaped by our karma - the natural effects of certain causes - and our karma latches onto these energies until they are reincarnated again. We die, but a kind of imprint of our life continues into a brand-new consciousness.

idk nigga this shit cray

>>6804051
Nothing is transferred to the body. You don't know how they believed that stuff because you're coming from an entirely different point of view.

You seem to confuse dukkha with physical pain or something of that kind. Dukkha is not "independent"(there are no independent things), but it is a concept that contains physical displeasure but is not limited to it either.

Read the Bardo Thodol once you know more about buddhism. There is an edition with a good intro by Dalai Lama and a good glossary as well.

My advice to you is to drop your defenses a bit and stop thinking in terms of "bullshit" or not. This won't get you anywhere. Not even talking about buddhism.

>>6804061
>Zen

The evangelical protestants of Buddhism.

>>6804079
It is yours as much as what you do is yours. Your karma is your doing. The dirty dishes that you leave here are going to be washed in one way or another and whoever is that is washing it is going to be you. No one else can wash it, I don't mean that they shouldn't, but that they can't, it is merely a passing of responsibility that doesn't really exist.

>>6804085
The book I read equates dukkha with longing, physical and existential, in addition to conventional suffering. Obviously this is a product of the body, so I am confused as to how they believe it survives after death.

>>6804102
Also the illusion of Self, to clarify.

>>6804102
The soul does not reincarnate, but the karma created throughout our life spreads to other living beings. Suffering begets suffering.

>>6804101
So our 'dirty dishes' survive even if we reincarnate as, say, the opposite gender with a completely different temperament? Can it not be said then our karma is our self?

I've been reading buddhism books for years now and I think it's one of the sanest and most effective systems every conceived but some of this stuff is a bit convoluted.

>>6804124
So why call it reincarnation?

>>6804102
Dukkha means bitterness, unsatisfactoriness, it is the notion that nothing is sufficient and satisfied. There is always a next step, always a longing, a need.

When you say "obviously" this is a product of the body, I don't see it as obvious at all. What I see is that you're fitting these terms into the categories that you've learned from a western life. I could argue, for example, that the body does not long anything, only the mind. But then I'd be splitting between the two and assigning their roles with one another, you see? The tradition that we come from is that the body is real, the mind is an abstraction and the soul is a religious concept for what goes beyond the two. To understand buddhism, forget about all of that. They have other ways to handle those things and you'll have to learn it with more patience than that.

>>6804132
Well, for Buddhists who believe in rebirth, karma is the spark of life that passes from being to being, as life is inherently tied to suffering and strife. This is somewhat consistent with the struggle of natural selection if you disregard the spooky aspects. I think westerners apply our pre-christian concepts of reincarnation and karma which creates language confusion in this instance - contact with Hindus may have also obfuscated discussion, as they do believe in an immortal soul. Some buddhists consider rebirth a hangover from hinduism. There are other more traditional buddhists who believe in literal hells called naraka where beings are punished for billions of years to between rebirths so the negative karma is balanced. There's no single position, just like there's no single version of christianity or capitalism or feminism.

>>6804124
>other living beings
You are right, but it is important to point out that to buddhism, there are no "other beings" in essence (because there is no essence to anything). The difference between one and other is precisely part of the suffering. I cannot desire anything if I don't see a difference.

>>6804132
Good question, why? Buddhism doesn't call it reincarnation. In English, it is prefferable to call it rebirth and even that is lacking.

>>6804129
Our karma is what you do, so it is yourself. There is no self set in stone, but it is process and this process only comes about with our doing. As said, we don't "reincarnate" as others, because to buddhism every shape of process is considered, even the ones you might not know about. That is, other people, animals, plants, rocks, demons, gods, characters in a story, relationships, states of mind, all of those are somewhat interchangeable. The way they see life and death is completely different, as much as you have many lives within yourself. The problem arises when you try to get ahead of your karma, that is to say, to pretend you didn't do what you did. To get good karma is to recognize what you do and allow it to be the way it is and use it for good action. If who you are depends on your surroundings and your parents and so on, then you'll also carry its traits. In the very same way, dependent arising in buddhism is about how each life and each moment in life comes together with its context. Because of that, one must be fully responsible for what they do and in some way forgive this context that put you ther( because it was you!).

>>6803971
>will to nothing

Absolutely disgusting

>>6804184
ok so karma is not so much an immutable self composed of the consequences of past actions but a process we carry with us. we don't carry a kernel of a soul as much as just carry the baggage of previous lives. makes a bit more sense

Buddhism has two major divisions: Mahayana and Theravada. These relate to the history of Buddhism and the languages their main texts are in.

After the Buddha taught his teachings, monks when far and wide. In the West, Alexander had just conquered a huge swathe of territory. He put Greek kings in charge of the areas he conquered, and settled them with ethnic Greeks. Several years after, in Bactria (The area northwest of India), there lived a king Menander I who ruled over Greeks. An ethnically Greek Buddhist taught him Buddhism, and he became a patron of it. Buddhism then got Hellenized. Big time. So much so that Hercules, Boreas, and some other goddess of motherhood are worshipped by all Mahayan Buddhists to this day (Albeit in Sinified, Japonified, and Indified forms). Mahayana would take the Greek concept of the Divine God King (IE, Odysseus) and apply it to the Buddha. Mahayana draws it's principle texts from Sanskrit. Mahayana is "Catholicism" so to speak.

Meanwhile, Buddhism also spread to the south, into Sri Lanka. From here it coalesced into Theravada, which spread into SEA. Theravada uses Pali. Theravada is much more austere than Mahayana. While Shakyamuni is an almost divine character in Mahayana, he's just a man in Theravada. A man who discovered salvation of course, but still just a man. Theravada is "Eastern Orthodoxy" of sorts.

Mahayana would split up several times. The first time, it entered into China. It founded Pure Land Buddhism. Pure Land Buddhism aims not to achieve enlightenment in this life, but instead to reincarnate into Amitabha Buddha's Pure Land, a paradise designed to help people achieve enlightenment more easily.

However, a Central Asian monk of Indo-European origin, Bodhidharma, would several years later journey to China and found Chan Buddhism. Chan Buddhism is known as "Zen" when referring to the Japanese branch. Zen focuses on Meditation and oral transmission. You can never be sure if what you're learning is the truth. How can you know what the Buddha said? Be skeptical.

Vajrayana would come about in Tibet/Mongolia. Vajrayana has a bloody history (The Gelug school, of which the Dali Lama is the leader, achieved prominence by assassinating the leaders of all the other Tibetan schools). It is the nigger voodoo "Sacrifice goats to Jesus to stop him from eating your soul" of Buddhism. That's not to say that from a Buddhist perspective it's WRONG about anything, but it is by far the whackiest of the major divisions.

Theravada didn't really split up a whole lot.

>>6803971
I highly doubt /lit/ knows what they're talking about when it comes to Buddhism. Read Sutras you find and pick the branch you like; I would start with the Lotus or Diamond Sutras, but I also recommend the platform Sutra as well.
Don't read the dalai-lama.

>>6804221
What a simplistic fucking view. Are you one of those white fags who protest against Dalai Lama in California?

>>6803971
What kind of Buddhism?

>>6804099
>starting to read the Pali canon
>"I can't even tell you how old the world is!"
>"It's so freaking old"
>"Think of how old it is, its a thousand million times older than that"
>Had to quit reading

>>6804221
Nice post.

>>6804242
>using whiteness as an epithet
>supporting uncritical acceptance of 14th edition DL

Look at this enlightened motherfucker.

>>6804225
Lit is actually full of Buddhists.

The thing is that they are Buddhists so they are not dicks like the Christians and thus don't speak about their religion unless spoken to.

>>6804099

>>6804308

>>6804297
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tenzin-dorjee/6-things-to-know-about-th_b_6104716.html

>>6804312
Zen kind of returns it to the philosophy its supposed to be, instead of Buddha worship.
That anon is making the case that it's too stripped down. Silly theists or silly trolls.

>>6804344
>Some protesters are retarded
>This makes every criticism of the man is invalid

I guess we'd better accept everything Israel does, because some anti-Israel activists think they're reptilian overlords.

>>6804344
He was also known for taking money from the CIA to fund guerrilla groups.

>>6804366
I never said every criticism is invalid. You're the one who made the assumption that my criticism towards certain criticism meant that.

>>6804402
Well you did answer by taking down a very specific group of critics that he presumably wasn't a part of.

>>6804402
>I never said every criticism is invalid.

No, you just generally dismissed them instead of critiquing any specific POVs.

OP here. Thanks for all the comments, sounds interesting.

>>6804346
I think I'll look into Zen, that looks like more the sort of thing I'm interested in.
>>6804221
That's really interesting and clarified it a lot, thanks.

>>6804225
Are there any zen sutras you would recommend? Is there a reason you didn't mention any?

>>6803971
nah

>>6804061
If any of you is interested in Yutthadammo, then I inform you that he also left some material on his weblog.
He also put into written form some of his video-lessons of YouTube that you can find here: http://www.sirimangalo.org/teachings..

I also encourage to visit http://buddhism.stackexchange.com, which I guess may be more helpful than browsing a board such as this.

>>6803971
i dont know what you really mean by mystical bullshit, but if you want to learn about religion and you attempt to ignore the "mystical bullshit", then you are a big ass fedora. Its like sayin that you would like to learn physics but you dont want to know anything about mechanics cuz its so fucking boring.

>>6804304
You kidding me? They aren't as bad as christposters yes, but they can be pretty damn annoying when it comes time to talk about what is and isn't "REAL" Buddhism vs Asian superstition or watered down tripe for naive westerners looking for something exotic to replace Christianity.

>>6804018
Loved it, very concise. Has myy favourite translation of the dhammapada

>>6803971
>specifically the philosophy aspects, less so the mystical bullshit
Whatever you do, stay the fuck away from the Tibetans and their hack leader.

>>6805529
>what is and isn't "REAL" Buddhism vs Asian superstition or watered down tripe for naive westerners looking for something exotic to replace Christianity.
those seem legit concerns

There is nothing wrong with Tibetan Buddhism, In many respects it is the the continuation of Indian Buddhism after the muslim conquest and sacking of Nalanda university as most of the scholars fled to Tibet or Sumartra and then later onwards to Tibet.Read Santideva's Boddhisattvas way of life and Atisa's Lamp on a path to enlightenment for an approach to ethics that is acknowledged and practice by the Tibetan Buddhists. Atisa is also an interesting Character as he introduces the Tibetan interpretation of reincarnation effectively politicising it, marking the second dissemination of Buddhism in the country. Other philosophies you want to check out are the commentary on Nagarjunas Mudhyamakakarika by Jay Garfield as it is the most comprehensive edition available to westerners with a philosophical background. Nagarjunas Madhyamaka philosophy is fundamental to the philosophy of all the sects of Tibetan Buddhism and an understanding of Mahayana Buddhism that is not Ch'an or Zen Buddhism.

>>6804221
Theravada didn't split up because it is the only surviving major school of Hinayana / the teachings of the Elders.

>>6803971
>Read the Tao.
>Seek the middle path.
>???
>Enlightenment

How do Buddhists regard Aquinas's Cosmological Argument, or Aquinas's Five Ways in general?

>>6806940
It's very hard to speak for Buddhism on this, each one can have a view on it, but I'll share my own take on why this is a non-issue to Buddhism.

In general, I like Aquina's argument, but you'd have to see that his background determined the terms and concepts from which he works from. From even before the argument starts, two things are pressuposed: the existence or non-existence of a God, and thus, a relationship between creatures and creator that does not have a parallel in India and also a linear way of thinking that is too very different from the way the hindus and buddhists see it.

While Aquinas argues for an unmoved mover, a "first", an initial causation and so on, the buddhists don't even see it in terms of a line that can be followed back to a cause. The cause of a thing cannot be tracked down, because everything had to be the way it is for it to happen, so everything is the cause, not in the singular. And what caused everything to be the way it is? Everything else, once again, and all of history, not just the imediate prior moment or the one closest to it. You don't throw a rock in the river, because the rock wouldn't be there if not for the entire history of the mountain next to it. Your arm swing is not the sole responsible for it, the mountain threw the rock in the river.

There is also a culture of seeing time in a circular motion. The wheel of Samsara is made of craving and suffering, suffering leads to craving, craving leads to suffering. The reasons to why it began spinning are not that important, because it is seen as something not tangible to us, just like a tire rolling down a cliff has no business to obey or defy or guess what happened in its peak, it has to worry with where it is going. However, to a lot of hinduist traditions, it is said that the universe comes from the desire of One to experience itself, Vishnu getting out of himself to identify himself and thus, creating a difference. I don't know how each buddhist branch see this.

The question "is there a God?" is not a question to buddhists. Specially because that is seen as trying to figure out who is responsible for it, while the work of the buddhist relies in identifying your responsibility, your doing. It is also because the universe itself is seen as without essence, impermanent, soft and so it doesn't matter what caused it, it will soon go away from your experience in your death. It's like trying to psychoanalyze your dream while you're dreaming it. At last, because there is no essential difference between one thing and the other, so while Aquinas argues that one thing leads to another, the buddhist can see the two of them doing it.

>>6803971
>>6804225
>>6804304
>>6804805
Why follow the inferior unorthodox Buddhist path which is only a rip off the Upanishads? Adi Shankara Acharya already demolished all your heretical views and asserted the absolute superiority of the Aryan Vedas and the Advaita Vedanta philosophical system.

>>6807307
As someone very interested in Buddhism, Christianity, and esotericism, lemme ask...

doesn't that imply that impermanence is permanent? as in, there is a Cause or Principle that dictates Samsara/the universe as being Beginningless? Because from where humans are standing, it could swing either way, right?

The esotericist sees reality and posits an Ultimate Reality that is its organizing Pattern. The Buddhist sees reality and sees no obvious, ultimate cause that could account for these fleeting things.

I, for one, lean toward the esotericists. I find the pantheistic God slightly easier to wrap my mind around than beginningless Samsara. Though, curiously, both roads lead to some eternal state of things.

I'm gonna go with the Buddha and the mystics on this one tbh, the Ultimate is unknowable to the human mind so let's not speculate.

>>6804008
I think most topics have been covered. I think its a good time to just shut down /lit/ and instead have it redirect us to the archives.

>>6807330
I just believe that we think, rationally or otherwise, through the language that we learn and compare it to the things that we know.

Suit yourself to understand the world the way that you want and can. The words are different, the traditions are different, everything is different. I could say that they point to the same thing, but that is meaningless as well.

What is a good book to learn the history of Buddhism; It's spread, the different denominations, etc.

>>6804292
>actually a reasonable and fair approximation of scientific cosmology, given that the earth is, in fact, 4.5 BILLION years old
>pretty much tantamount to the "We can't really apprehend very large numbers, but imagine ping-pong balls wrapping the Earth seventy times" cliche used by popular scientists
>compare to young earth creationists

There's actually quite a bit of spookily scientific stuff in the tripitika. The Big Bang is in there as well, I believe.

>>6807330
>ultimate is unknowable
The first sutta in the Mahjjima Nikaya is all about how the arahant has perfectly comprehended reality, and thus does not perceive themself inside, outside, or a part of anything, not even Nibbana, which they also have direct knowledge of. Saying there is some "ultimate" of which a Buddha does not have knowledge would be a very uncommon and heterodox argument.

>>6804061
>western buddhism.png

>>6810014
>le shitpost
They really are the only two good--i.e., actually Buddhist--schools.

>>6810045
Not him, but you seem very keen to show how little you know.

>>6808397
I don't think I've ever read something that alludes specifically to the big bang, but the teachings that samsara is without discoverable beginning seem to be in line with the big bang-big crunch theory. Everything has always existed, and if it has a beginning then we lack the means to be able to know what it is.

>>6810014
>theravada
>oldest active school
>"western buddhism"

It's like the complete opposite. I follow Theravada and I've been called "too conservative" for it.

>>6804099
Why isn't Zen just considered its own religion at this point?

Don't some Zen schools teach that if you don't know what to say, just say nonsense and that will suffice?

>>6810057
I've researched Buddhism extensively, and that was the conclusion I came away with. >>6804221 shares my opinions exactly, even though I'm not that guy.

If you want to defend your tulkus or your tantric sex practices, go ahead, but it's not what the Buddha taught.

>>6808397
>spookily scientific stuff

I know what you mean.

Reading through it you really get the feeling that the Buddha knew and understood what atoms are, and possibly string theory as well.

>>6810066
>theravada
>oldest
Actually current theravada isn't the oldest. The oldest recorded texts are from mahayana side. Theravada is old for sure, but so is Mahayana.

>>6810076
>>6810045
You are a dumb fuck if you think you know what Buddhism is from sparse readings. Half knowledge is worse than Zero knowledge. Atleast with zero knowledge people are more open minded about learning rather than thinking they know everything.

>>6810076
>I've researched Buddhism extensively
I hope some day you will recognize how silly you sound when you say things like this. I'm not "defending" tantra or anything else - I don't believe anything in a Mahayana sutra. My honest question is how did Zen and no other Mahayana pass your test of "actually Buddhism" in your very well-researched opinion?

>>6810085
>buttmad tibetan or vajrayana shill detected
Your "Buddhism" is heresy. Suck my cock.

>>6804221
>nigger voodoo "Sacrifice goats to Jesus to stop him from eating your soul" of Buddhism.

Literally cannot think of a more perfect explanation of Vajrayana Buddhism.

What's even the point of the "rainbow meditation" practices? How is that supposed to help you reach liberation? What does it matter who the current reincarnation (reincarnation which the Buddha rejected, btw) of Avalokiteshvara is when the Buddha is the wisest of teachers? Why follow a Bodhisattva instead of the Buddha?

>>6810085
>sanskrit sutras
>older than the Pali canon

Which Mahayana sutras are older than anything in the Pali canon?

>>6810087
Purification of mind and conduct leads to enlightenment. That's what the Buddha taught, and the Zen and Theravada schools teach it.

All the other "sects" depend on intermediaries or rituals and are wound up with political aims and worldly concerns. They're bullshit.

Here's the problem with Buddhism threads on /lit/. You have factually incorrect people like >>6810085 arguing against underinformed dingdongs like >>6810076. Throw in correct, but pointlessly argumentative anons like >>6810091 and the one wacky dude who thinks the Buddha knew about string theory, >>6810079 and you have a shitshow.

>>6810109
>guys guys guys the truth is in the middle
>EVERYBODY is wrong
>and i'm smug
>>>/reddit/

>>6810108
Ch'an/Zen is heavily ritualized. From ascending the hall to Dogen's zazen, ritual is and always has been a huge part of the tradition. I also think you might be interested to learn about the political role that the Zen institution played in WWII Japan.

>>6810109
Who are you quoting?

>>6810109
>mfw the last two posts were mine

I didn't mean to come off as argumentative, I was just asking if there was any inherent purpose to the Vajrayana meditative practices and rituals.

>>6810113
Ok.

>>6810109
Don't forget about starting off the thread with a Dalai Lama pic. He is the spokesman for ALL of Buddhism after all...

>>6810124
Fair enough. And depends on what you mean by inherent purpose. From an etic perspective, none, not anymore than praying the rosary. Of course Vajrayanists will tell you that tantra is effective.

>>6810132
Effective for what, though?

Even if it was possible to turn your body into a rainbow through meditation, what's the point?

>>6810128
I admit my ignorance. I came here to learn. Sorry if I offended anyone. Not really.

>>6810142
Half of Buddhism is said "mystical bullshit" you mentioned.

The teachings of the Buddha fall apart without the concepts of rebirth, kamma, and different realms of existence.

>>6810137
Most Tantra is thaumaturgy,
intended to bring about worldly goals like health and protection from evil. I honestly can't tell you about rainbow meditation, I've never heard of it myself.

>>6810154
This is true, and something many Western converts ignore or are unaware of. There is no point in virtue if your actions do not bear fruit.Your actions cannot be said to have consequence if you are not reborn. Seeking an escape from unsatisfactoriness/stress/suffering is pointless if all stops with death.

>>6810154
What makes you say the second part? The ethical stuff, the stuff about losing attachment to things to avoid suffering, the stuff about seeing the world as it really is. None of that seems to fall apart.

>>6810158
http://soonyata.home.xs4all.nl/sorubasamadhi.htm

Check it out. Pretty weird stuff.

>>6810166
The Buddha taught that life is inherently suffering and dissatisfaction. If rebirth were not true, the best and quickest way to escape life would be to commit suicide.

When you say "seeing the world as it really is", though, this is where the teachings themselves will say you're wrong. The Buddha taught that a worldview without the influence of kamma and rebirth is wrong view.

There's nothing wrong with following the philosophy of doing no harm and non-clinging for this life, but without putting in practice in the hopes of one day escaping samsara, you'll just be reborn to repeat it all over again until you reach liberation in a future life.

>>6810166
See
>>6810165
Also remember that "seeing the world as it really is" means the three knowledges - knowledge of past births, of the kammic destiny of beings, of the ending of mental effluents.

>>6810115
Every monastic tradition has those kinds of rituals. I was referring to the rituals that "substitute" for insight meditation. Praying to Amitaba to get to the Pure Land, Tulku lineages, Vajrayana blood and sex magic, prayer wheels, sand drawings, whatever.

Yes, Zen has koans and is "tainted" Buddhism (Theravada), but it's "tainted" with Taoism, absurdism, and work-as-meditation--which don't seem particularly objectionable to me, as all are such natural, harmonious, and practical additions.

To be clear, I think Mahayana is an error and Theravada is the real teaching, but I like a lot about Zen.

>>6810218
>I think Mahayana is an error and Theravada is the real teaching, but I like a lot about Zen.

>>6810219
>he thinks Mahayana is more genuine than Theravada

>>6810224
>I think Venison tastes like shit, but I fucking love Deer

>>6810230
>le "all paths lead up the same mountain" philosophy

>>6810218
>absurdism
Gong'an stories probably weren't meant to be absurd. The dialectic and vernacular context of most koans has been lost, which is why they seem nonsensical to a modern reader. The gong'an literature was a highly referential and playful genre, and the authors did their best to transcribe natural spoken language and vernacularisms in Classical Chinese, which is no mean feat.

>>6810224
I think he was pointing out that Zen is Mahayana, so the anon was saying something wacky

>>6810276
OOOOHH, okay.

Well, don't I look stupid.

>>6810188
>>6810199
So you're saying that all the buddhist sects, including zen, hold that the buddha taught reincarnation, and that reincarnation is a central thing? I'm just clarifying.

>>6810300
The Buddha rejected reincarnation. He taught rebirth, which is the teaching that there is no eternal self that continues after death, but rather it is basically consciousness that continues to be reborn.

I can't speak for Zen as I follow Theravada, but yes it is a central thing to my sect.

>>6803973
Go to bed, Misha

>>6810300
All schools teach rebirth. The only exception are some modern Western "secular Buddhists". Denying rebirth is beyond heterodox, arguably no longer Buddhist.

>>6810316
A easy way to explain this is basically the Ship of Theseus, Is it really you if you've replaced all the parts type bullshit.

>>6810340
That can be used as a good comparison of the impermanence of the body, but the Buddha actually taught of literal rebirth, going so far as to explain how long a lifetime in each realm of existence usually is.

>>6810316
As the Buddha tells Sāti, the view that "it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another" (Thanissaro's translation) is a pernicious one. So it is the least misleading to say that consciousness is reborn.

>>6810361
*at the least

>>6810354
No, I'm fully aware of that, I'm speaking in regards to the relationship between rebirths, in Tibetan Buddhism the answer "Yes, it doesn't matter if you replace all the components you're still you".

>>6810361
>>6810365
Is it ever explained what can be said to be reborn?

I just use consciousness because that seems like the easiest way to explain rebirth without souls.

>>6810366
What is "you" though?

Tibetan Buddhism seems to be diverging from the teachings of non-self if what you say is true.

>>6810370
To talk about a thing or substance that is reborn is to fall into eternalism and affirm an ātman of some kind.

>>6810372
Oh boy, you're gonna be in for a surprise if you ever get around to reading some Mahayana sutras.

>>6810390
Doesn't the Diamond Sutra outright say that the matrix of the Tathāgata is self?

>>6810399
My bad, I'm pretty sure that it's the Mahāparanirvana Sūtra since that's a Tathāgatagarbha sūtra.

Hey, my Dad had the Dalai Lama on his plane last week(my Dad is an american airlines pilot).

It was the Dalai Lama's 80th birthday and my Dad got to shake his hand after they landed.

Pretty neat.