/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11663588]

Any books on the corruption and dark affairs of Tibetan Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.11663799]

Bumping for interest.

Could people be so kind as to suggest books criticising Buddhism and Buddhist practice in general? I've been interested in Buddhism and Meditation for a while now but it feels weird not having a second side to an argument, it's a bit too much positivity. Nietzsche changed my opinion a bit.

[Anonymous No.11663833]

>>11663799
>it's a bit too much positivity.
Most of what westerners conceive of as "Buddhism" is just the feel good cant of 1960s/70s California grifters. Buddhism is a religion which revolves around the concept that pain and suffering is the foundation of the world. That existence is a punishment. Hardly what some boomer bitch gluing crystals to her SUV dashboard thinks it is. It is practiced in remote monasteries so rigorous and punishing that people routinely lose their minds. Meditation is not humming under a lotus tree it is a brutal, self denying process. I actually can't recommend anything specifically but Zizek has a bunch of stuff on it, critical and not. I think if you want to understand Buddhism throw away literally everything you've ever heard about it because its wrong. We have got Buddhism so wrong in the west.

[Anonymous No.11663842]

>>11663833
Zizek has written books on Buddhism? The only books I have read are directly related to the practice of meditation i.e. 'the mind illuminated', 'mindfulness in plain english', etc.

[Anonymous No.11663845]

>>11663833
This guy has no idea what buddhism is about

[Anonymous No.11663865]

>>11663845
Perhaps, I'm just here looking for books criticising Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11663868]

>>11663842
Zizek talked a lot about it, just search on Youtube for a general idea. Although what he was criticizing for the most part was Western buddhism, although not exclusively.

>>11663845
Good contribution as always, crypticfag.

[Anonymous No.11663881]

>>11663799
>>11663833
Neither Nietzsche or dumb westerners praising a regurgitated self-help version understand Buddhism, or the breadth of Buddhism (there is a lot of literature and denominations). Nietzsche in particular had no idea what he was on about, though no one did at that time (even right up to 1970s), so it's hardly his fault.

[Anonymous No.11663885]

Not Tibetan, but Zen at War is a great read.

[Anonymous No.11663887]

>>11663881
With one exception

[Anonymous No.11663904]

>>11663588
Might need some PRC English publication on the backwardness about Tibetan Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11663917]

Barnett, Robert, 19: What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform? (Questions 12, 13, and 92, 2001) in: Blondeau, Anne-Marie and Buffetrille, Katia (eds). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions (2008) University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-24464-1 (cloth); ISBN 978-0-520-24928-8 (paper).

Referred by
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

[Anonymous No.11663927]

>>11663588
You can criticise it the same as you can criticise any religion: dogmatic, overly hierarchical, promotion of status quo, distracting from economic/cultural/political interests that actually affect you, sedative (doesn't apply to all denominations but compared to most religions it is very good at domestication which is a concern in regards to your society/culture's development), and commonly has religious institutions with their hands deep in politics and society in general (that is to say, the religion often merely acts as an item to project power and dictation upon people). The last one is the most pertinent in Japan, where for centuries Buddhist institutions have held great political power, and still very much do. It's similar to Christian churches. Of course, all of these depend on your preferences but they are counter to the standard liberal doctrine, so likely counter to your beliefs. Also, there could be the argument that Buddhism, in its base form, fails as a religion. Hence why you have Buddhisms with aspects of animism/Taoism/polytheism and many more religions mixed in. There's not any Buddhism that is Buddhism as the Buddha intended, because it doesn't adequately fill that religious niche. Of course, this means all Buddhisms do actually succeed, but the basic doctrine that is core to them is arguably not particularly relevant except to scholar-monks and philosophically-inclined westerners (plenty of westerners for whom it is irrelevant).

[Anonymous No.11663931]

>>11663887
No, he's possibly the worst, the most subversive.

[Anonymous No.11663933]

>>11663799
Jamie Hubbard and Paul L. Swanson, ed. "Critical Philosophy versus Topical Philosophy". Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press: 56–80. ISBN 0-8248-1949-7.

Referred by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_Buddhism

[Anonymous No.11663944]

This is a short article regarding pic related
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4111

[Anonymous No.11663959]

The Dali Lama charges followers the equivalent of $85 a month to get discounts on Tibetan Buddhist merchandise. For $210 you get the chance to go to one of his talks. The cost of a private dinner? A mere $100,000. Oh no wait that's Richard Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.11663960]

>>11663799
You can probably look for criticism on Buddhism of Sri Lanka and Myanmar, because now there are English writing about that

[Anonymous No.11663975]

>>11663959
Kek, Dawkins is a faggot

[Anonymous No.11663982]

>>11663885
Yeah I heard about it. It's about how Japanese monks worked with military nationalism before WWII
But never read it.

[Anonymous No.11663986]

Long long ago, Chinese Confucians and Taoists wrote something against Buddhism. But they are neither translated into English nor relevant to today's purpose

[Anonymous No.11663988]

>>11663799
meditation is not the fucking trademark practice of Buddhism; mystical practices such as meditation, breathing techniques and contemplation are shared by most if not all traditions

[Anonymous No.11663994]

>>11663588
interesting thread. bump

[Anonymous No.11664043]

>>11663885
>Zen at War
cheers, will check it out

[Anonymous No.11664051]

dalai lama is a black sun nazi

[Anonymous No.11664059]

>>11663988

[Anonymous No.11664098]

>>11663799
For authors of such criticism you don't look for Christian missionary. You look for Asian people who think Buddhism is corrupted. Probably a reform minded Buddhist

[Anonymous No.11664174]

Here you go, OP.

http://www.strippingthegurus.com

[Anonymous No.11664321]

>>11663833
You're confusing Buddhism with the kind of life-denying asceticism that Buddha tried and rejected. Buddhist thought says that suffering is inevitable unless you're enlightened, meaning that you can learn not to suffer. There's no punishment either, the Buddhist idea of karma has no religious or divine connotations (unlike the Hindu version) and is just the circle of cause and effect of desire creating attachment creating desire etc., which leads to suffering. There's nothing brutal or punishing about Buddhist practice, it's meditation and contemplating yourself and the sutras.
>Hardly what some boomer bitch gluing crystals to her SUV dashboard thinks it is
This is one hell of a strawman.

[Anonymous No.11664338]

http://www.unz.com/print/LabourMonthly-1950feb-00086
This short article talks about how Tibet was under the feudal yoke of the buddhist clergy before China annexed it.

[Anonymous No.11664369]

>>11663588
no

[Anonymous No.11664809]

>>11663842
>'the mind illuminated', 'mindfulness in plain english'
What you have been looking into is not Buddhism, but rather a heavily bastardized version of Hinduism. Buddhism rejects life. It rejects meaning. It sees no value in doing anything. Nirvana is the complete absence of human emotions.

[Anonymous No.11665016]

>>11664809
hahaha no

[Anonymous No.11665035]

>>11664809
That's completely untrue. It sees value in feelings and emotions, in reducing the amount of pain that arises as a result of desire and attachment. It sees value in contemplating the nature of suffering and guiding others to help reduce their suffering. It doesn't preach suicide, it doesn't preach starvation, it doesn't preah the deadening of emotions. You don't even have to read any sutras to know this much, it's all plainly there in the basic legend of Buddha's life.

[Anonymous No.11665042]

>>11663799
What the Buddha taught by Walpola Rahula
Perhaps that Zen book of Allan Watts
I assume you just want a quick rundown though
Wiki has a huge chart on buddhism too

[Anonymous No.11665146]

>>11664809
>Nirvana is the complete absence of human emotions.
Are you trolling? Or do you really know so little about what you're talking about?

[Anonymous No.11665207]

>>11665042
Yeah, but I'm interested in reading books critiquing the philosophy also.

[Anonymous No.11665238]

>>11665207
Adi Shankara BTFO 8th-century Indian Buddhism in his works, but his criticisms don't really apply to Mahayana Buddhism which is ironically actually very similar to Vedanta and the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.11665253]

>>11665207
but only rationalists create philosophies

[Anonymous No.11665261]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/i-was-a-tantric-sex-slave-1069859.html%3famp

[Anonymous No.11665267]

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-dark-side-of-tibetan-buddhism/comment-page-2/

[Anonymous No.11665278]

>>11663931
Oh you are a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11665284]

Shadow of the Dalai Lama


http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Introduction.htm

[Anonymous No.11665291]

>>11665278
>tradkiddies calling ppl brainlets for not falling for their cult
Pure pottery

[Anonymous No.11665301]

>>11665291
>Doesn't provide any detailed criticisms that address the ideas on their own merits or demerits and instead relies on ad-hominems

like clockwork

[Anonymous No.11665323]

>>11665301
No ad hominems. It is literally a cult according to most modern scholars and as it is known only mental stunted or mental children fall for cults and in general it was mere description of your behavior. Plus didn't you start with the ad hominems? Calling people brainlets and all. Et tu quoque. Though that's a fallacy too. And then there's the fallacy fallacy. But there is no point in debating traditionalists as according to Guenon and others they rely entirely on faith in metanoetics and do not believe in dialectic or argument so it is pointless to even converse. Nevertheless it is fun to call out traditionalists for being pseuds and hopefully prevents smarter children from falling for the cult.

[Anonymous No.11665414]

>>11665323
>It is literally a cult according to most modern scholars

Wrong, it's really only Sedgewick who says that and even he attaches all sorts of qualifications to it and notes it was really only Schuon and those around him which is true. Guenon's Traditionalism had nothing to do with cults at all but rather stressed joining authentic and orthodox traditions and Guenon criticized Schuon for the wacky stuff he did. I don't deny Schuon was a nut-job but Traditionalism as written about by Guenon, Coomaraswamy, Pallis etc has nothing to do with that.

>Plus didn't you start with the ad hominems?
That was another poster, not me.

>But there is no point in debating traditionalists as according to Guenon and others they rely entirely on faith in metanoetics and do not believe in dialectic or argument so it is pointless to even converse.
That is an inaccurate characterization but even the true ideas you were hinting at themselves refer to higher states of spiritual realization, the exact nature of which is inherently incommunicable except indirectly, hence it's fruitless to debate it extensively. Nevertheless the ideas of Guenon and other traditionalists often deal with other subjects too and so there is no reason why you can't debate the broader ideas of the school generally.

[Anonymous No.11665556]

>>11663799
Zizek has a brief bit on zen in Puppet and the Dwarf, but I found a lot of problems with his portrayal of Buddhism. His main criticism is that Buddhism is amoral, and because there is a core of emptiness atrocities do not matter in the long run, therefore disciplined practices can be applied in whatever ideological context (genocide, for instance). I would argue that this is only true in Zen, whereas most other sects of Buddhism do have complex codes of ethics while simultaneously embracing an ontology of emptiness.
Zen can be highly militaristic in that the student devotes his entirety to the master. If the master orders to draw a blade and kill a man, the good zen monk would not hesitate an iota to run through the man.
Again as a counter to this, there are zen monasteries with unthinking-ethics, in that whatever peasant asks for x they will receive it unquestionably. Dogen's shobogenzo has stories of this occuring.

[Anonymous No.11665602]

>>11663799
>Nietzsche
Nietzsche was really arguing against Schopenhauer more than anything, who even the most strict Buddhist would have to dismiss as a bit of a miserable cunt.

[Anonymous No.11665617]

>>11665238
lol no he didn't, the nigga's only criticisms were on complete misinterpretations of core buddhist terms. He just outted himself out as a brainlet, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.11665630]

>>11665042
>Alan Watts
The fucking state of /lit/

[Anonymous No.11665650]

>>11663845
>>11664321
>>11664809

What is Buddhism? In 2 sentences plz

[Anonymous No.11665651]

>>11665253
Neechee?

[Anonymous No.11665670]

>>11665650
The removal of the concept of self from awareness to remove the ontological source of pain I think? Buddhism is neither ascetic or mystic, it's strictly rooted in logical positivism.

[Anonymous No.11665678]

>>11665650
Buddhism is various interpretations of Buddha's teachings about the nature of suffering and how to learn to control it. This is done via meditation and contemplation of your emotions, thoughts, and the words of Buddhist teachers, and is possible for anyone even if he isn't a monk or have taken any oaths.

[Anonymous No.11665686]

>>11665630
There's nothing wrong with Alan Watts, lad.

[Anonymous No.11665693]

>>11665686

[Anonymous No.11665705]

>>11665686
>There's nothing wrong with the fallacy of composition, lad
/lit/ 2018

[Anonymous No.11665711]

>>11663959
Kek atheists duped again

[Anonymous No.11665720]

>>11665670
>>11665678
>pseudest monks

[Anonymous No.11665739]

Isn't a part of bhuddism rejecting desire/pleasure so that you also avoid pain and envy?

[Anonymous No.11665748]

>>11665720
Not Zen enough, huh? Let me try again:
>Throwing sausages down a hill is a Buddhist passion. Heyo!
Read a sutra instead of some disingenious meme Japs.

[Anonymous No.11665751]

>>11665720
Not a Buddhist and have little interest in eastern phil. Just something I picked up.

[Anonymous No.11665771]

>>11665748

[Anonymous No.11665774]

>>11665670
>neither ascetic nor mystic
I think even most Buddhists would disagree with that (middle path acknowledges the necessity of some asceticism and mysticism albeit a western term seems to apply to most religious practices of self-knowing)
>logical positivism
That's a disngenuous comparison
>>11665678
Most cultural Buddhists would consider taking refuge in the triple gem to be the first step in any engagement with the religion but perhaps western Buddhists are right to discard such.

[Anonymous No.11665794]

>>11665774
>middle path acknowledges the necessity of some asceticism and mysticism albeit a western term seems to apply to most religious practices of self-knowing

I was talking in comparison with the Brahmans and crazy ancient Indian stuff, but as I said >>11665751 I have little real knowledge of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11665804]

>>11663588
>t. Zhang

[Anonymous No.11665820]

>>11663588
Google Dorje Shugden and the Kadampa Tradition.

[Anonymous No.11665850]

>>11665670
>>11665774
But it's sort of true
>The opinion has been expressed (in the P.T.S. Dictionary) that nibbāna is not transcendental. If by 'transcendental' is meant 'mystical', either in the sense of having to do with a (supposed) Divine Ground or simply of being by nature a mystery, then nibbāna (or 'extinction') is not transcendental: indeed, it is anti-transcendental; for mystification is the state, not of the arahat (who has realized nibbāna), but of the puthujjana (who has not).[a] For the arahat, all sense of personality or selfhood has subsided, and with it has gone all possibility of numinous experience; and a fortiori the mystical intuition of a trans-personal Spirit or Absolute Self—of a Purpose or an Essence or a Oneness or what have you—can no longer arise. Cf. Preface (m). Nor, for one who sees, is the nature of nibbāna a mystery at all. When a fire becomes extinguished (nibbuta) we do not suppose that it enters a mysterious 'transcendental state': neither are we to suppose such a thing of the person that attains nibbāna.
>ut if 'transcendental' means 'outside the range of investigation of the disinterested scholar or scientist', then nibbāna is transcendental (but so are other things). And if 'transcendental' means 'outside the range of understanding of the puthujjana'—though the dictionary hardly intends this[b]—, then again it is transcendental. Only this last meaning corresponds to lokuttara. (i) Existence or being (bhava) transcends reason (takka, which is the range of the scholar or scientist), and (ii) extinction (nibbāna) transcends existence (which is the range of the puthujjana)
~Nanavira Thera

[Anonymous No.11665948]

>>11665617
His criticisms are actually pretty good, although most of them pertain to how 8th century Indian Buddhism (and the several preceding centuries) largely misunderstood Buddha's original teachings and were presenting a very corrupted form of them. As a general rule of thumb Buddhists who think Shankara or Hinduism is brainlet-tier tend to know very little about them. As just one example Shankara points out that dependent origination and the doctrine of momentariness are mutually incompatible with one another and cannot both be true without producing inexcusable contradictions, this is true and most of the evidence indicates that Buddha never actually taught the doctrine of momentariness but that it was the invention of later schools who read way too much into Buddha describing phenomena as generally being transient. Most of his other criticisms pertain to how it's illogical and nonsensical that an (illusionary) world can exist without something like Brahman or how dependent origination could arise despite everything being devoid of inherently reality. These criticisms are also valid and these reflect a distortion of Buddha's teachings that were interpreted as his, namely that Buddha never denied an impersonal unchanging Atma but just denied the permanence and continuance of the same aspects of the being (such as ego, mind, memory, etc) which Vedanta also agrees are transient and unreal, this was later misinterpreted as Buddha denying Atma which he never did. Buddha largely just taught a stripped-down and somewhat simplified version of Upanishad metaphysics which was partially misinterpreted as teaching that there is no immutable and unchanging reality to anything whatsoever (one can find a rough outline of Buddhism in the pre-Buddhist Chandogya and Brihadaranyka Upanishads, which clearly influenced Buddha directly or indirectly). Once you account for the fact that most of the things that Shankara criticizes about Buddhism in his writings are themselves just distortions of Buddha's teachings produced by various Buddhist sects, there are very few of his criticisms which still apply were you to apply them to what Buddha actually taught.

Buddha didn't elaborate in detail about Atma and other metaphysical subjects because he thought it could be an obstacle to progress, due to the Pali it was recorded in not reflecting the nuances of the Sanskrit Buddha used there was stuff lost in translation such as this subject. While Theravada is still useful as a method of self-control and overcoming emotions/stress etc it actually largely bases itself in these distortions. Ironically enough it's actually the Tibetan and Chinese Mahayana Buddhism that westerners love to claim is a superstitious distortion of their imagined 'scientific' and 'psychological' Buddhism which in their Mahayana sutras come up with all sorts of metaphysical concepts which bring them way closer to an understanding of what Buddha actuality taught, and by extension the Upanishads.

[Anonymous No.11666033]

>>11665948
>Shankara points out that dependent origination and the doctrine of momentariness are mutually incompatible with one another
No, he doesn't. His entire argument hinges on his own misinterpretation of what both of those terms mean, with an added blunder of a complete idiot's view of what memory is.
All of his criticisms are retarded if you have ever read even a single buddhist sutra.

[Anonymous No.11666094]

>>11666033
explain how he got it wrong and why they are not actually incompatible then

also this study examines in detail how there is no proof Buddha taught the doctrine of momentariness

https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-buddhist-doctrine-of-momentariness_vonrospatt.pdf

[Anonymous No.11666107]

>>11666033
(Good) criticisms do not mean (correct)

[Anonymous No.11666110]

Tbh only once I became Christian did I truely understand Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11666113]

>>11666107
try refuting any of them kiddo

[Anonymous No.11666136]

>>11666113
Pardon? I'm having trouble undersranding your perspective on what I just wrote.

[Anonymous No.11666165]

>>11666094
He says the momentariness is incorrect because memory exists; memory itself is a reproduction in the present moment. Rather than it objectively existing still, the moment it described has passed away into the next moment, so that memory is a reproduction of what the last moment was though to be.
He says that dependent origination and momentariness further contradict each-other because one thing cannot lead to another from a point of non-existence. This is a foolish understanding of momentariness; in momentariness, every timeless moment gives rise to the next, rather than a linear progression of independent snapshots that he implies it entails.

[Anonymous No.11666353]

>>11665948
>These criticisms are also valid and these reflect a distortion of Buddha's teachings that were interpreted as his, namely that Buddha never denied an impersonal unchanging Atma
Wrong.
>The idea of nibbāna as the ultimate goal of human endeavour will no doubt strike the common man, innocently enjoying the pleasures of his senses, as a singularly discouraging notion if he is told that it is no more than 'cessation of being'. Without actually going so far (overtly, at least) as to hope for Bradley's Absolute ('It would be experience entire, containing all elements in harmony. Thought would be present as a higher intuition; will would be there where the ideal had become reality; and beauty and pleasure and feeling would live on in this total fulfilment. Every flame of passion, chaste or carnal, would still burn in the Absolute unquenched and unabridged, a note absorbed in the harmony of its higher bliss.' [Op. cit. (A.&R.), Ch. XV]),—without perhaps going quite so far as this, even a thoughtful man may like to expect something a little more positive than 'mere extinction' as the summum bonum. We shrink before the idea that our existence, with its anguishes and its extasies, is wholly gratuitous, and we are repelled by the suggestion that we should be better off without it; and it is only natural that the puthujjana should look for a formula to save something from (as he imagines) the shipwreck.
>In the Udāna (viii,3 <Ud.80>) nibbāna is spoken of by the Buddha in these terms: Atthi bhikkhave ajātam abhūtam akatam asankhatam, no ce tam bhikkhave abhavissa ajātam abhūtam akatam asankhatam na yidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa sankhatassa nissaranam paññāyetha. ('There is, monks, a non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined; for if, monks, there were not that non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined, an escape here from the born, become, made, determined, would not be manifest.') 'Such a positive assertion of the existence of the Unconditioned' it is sometimes urged 'must surely imply that nibbāna is not simply annihilation.' Nibbāna, certainly, is not 'simply annihilation'—or rather, it is not annihilation at all: extinction, cessation of being, is by no means the same thing as the (supposed) annihilation of an eternal 'self' or soul. (See Majjhima xi,2, above.)
~Nanavira Thera
Also transition from anāgāmī to arhat is about getting rid of attachment to subtle self, to some base of being itself.
And I'd rather believe enlightened buddhist teacher than hinduist scholar about buddhism.

[Anonymous No.11666469]

>>11665739
Non attachment to desire, not rejection. Avoid the agitation of attachment.

[Anonymous No.11667256]

>>11666165
Yes, but both one and the next moment cannot both exist at the same time, even by going under your definition there has to be a moment when the 'eternal present' transitions from one to the next, even if it happens so fast as to be indiscernible there is still a dividing line from one to the other,. The Buddhists theorists themselves who developed such a theory (such as Dharmakirti et al) clearly state how as soon as something originates it passes out of existence only to be replaced by another at the moment it vanishes. To say that this is an unbroken flow is sophistry, both moments cannot exist at the same time and hence there has to be a dividing line inbetween one and the next.

All of Shankara's arguments still apply. There is no reason at all why there should be order in what springs out of non-existence because there can be no conditioning of any sort within non-existence (as non-existence is uniform) which can ensure a palm tree replaces the previous palm tree. If there were any sort of ordering influence that remains between moments and ensures that it works in an orderly way that would not be non-existence. Dependent origination cannot exist at the same time because in order for one link in the chain to affect the next it would have to be non-momentary or else it would disappear before it could affect the next step. The concept of something springing out of the void of non-existence (which is clearly stated by Buddhist thinkers and isn't Shankara's misrepresentation) is itself completely illogical and violates dependent origination. There can be no cause and affect within non-existence and so it implies some force or mechanism outside of non-existence (i.e. within existence) causes the thing to spring out of non-existence but the only thing which could cause this must necessarily be non-momentary itself, which goes against momentariness etc. The ironic thing here is that since Buddha never actually taught momentariness Shankara is indirectly defending Buddha's teachings from heterodoxy.

[Anonymous No.11667299]

>>11666353
Did you even read the passage that you cited?

>a non-born, non-become, non-made, non-determined

The Upanishads state the exact same thing about Nirguna Brahman (which is Atma)

>'Such a positive assertion of the existence of the Unconditioned' it is sometimes urged 'must surely imply that nibbāna is not simply annihilation.' Nibbāna, certainly, is not 'simply annihilation'—or rather, it is not annihilation at all: extinction, cessation of being, is by no means the same thing as the (supposed) annihilation of an eternal 'self' or soul.

Nowhere here does he at all demonstrate or even bring up the idea that Buddha denied Atma. He just states here that Buddha asserting the existence of the Unconditioned is not the same thing as the supposed annihilation of an eternal soul or self, which is correct.

[Anonymous No.11667397]

>>11665650
The path to Awakening.

[Anonymous No.11667415]

>>11663588
I forget the name of the book, but some former monk details the massive problem with child molestation in Tibet. The monks are celibate, and routinely fuck little boys between the thighs and other shit. Sorry if this was mentioned before I haven't read the thread

[Anonymous No.11667431]

>>11665414
here’s an easy one: most buddhist texts were not translated until China and India started doing business with the West in the global marketplace. Guenon is fucking retarded and believes in the existence of a Self and a ground for reality on the basis of revealed noesis, this is incompatible with every single non-heterodox sect of buddhism
>>11665556
Zizek doesn’t understand Zen, Dogen was a pedophile fraud puppet of the Japanese government
>>11665748
Zen is Chinese and the Japanese didn’t understand it. That’s not what a Koan looks like THIS IS A KOAN

Does a dog have buddha nature? “Mu”

nigger
>>11667256
you’re a fucking retarded sophist jesus christ. There was no buddha you insipid shit skin and every single buddhist text denies the existence of the Self

[Anonymous No.11667476]

Alright, time to break some misconceptions.

>Buddhism is about "suffering" and "the end of suffering."

The first problem with this is that "suffering" is such an awful fucking word for it. I truly don't know what whichever smoothbrained academic was thinking when they used this word. "Suffering" in English has deeply negative connotations, and usually refers to strong physical / emotional pain. Using this language, it's possible to say that even the Buddha "suffered", since he experienced joint pains in his old age. The actual Buddhist word "dukkha" is way more subtle and all-encompassing. It means something like a "a misplaced wheel", implying that no matter how well-built and pleasing our lives may seem, there will always be that nagging "offness", the wobble in our wheels, that causes us to feel doubt and insecurity.

The second problem is that the Buddha didn't even say this was the only thing he taught. He did indeed say "I teach dukkha and the cessation of dukkha", but never implied this was his only message. He taught a bunch of other unrelated things, like how much money a householder should save, or how a king should administer a kingdom. These may perhaps help someone to end dukkha in the future, but they themselves have little to do with it.

So what did the Buddha teach? It's in his name, "the Buddha", or "the Awakened One" He taught *Awakening.* By following his ethical, cultivative and metaphysical ideas, one is able to gain insight into their mind and shed the false ideas keeping them in a state of sleep and confusion. An offset of this is that indeed that one tends to suffer less (emotionally, intellectually, even physically) and is able to understand where misery arises, but that's not the principle goal. Once you realise these things, the whole Buddhist worldview makes far more sense, and the absolute shipload of misconceptions us smarmy westerners have heaped on top of it.

[Anonymous No.11667482]

>>11667476
and you can look through**

[Anonymous No.11667489]

What Buddhism? Hinduism is probably the only religion with a wider set of beliefs and practices.

You got sects like Jodo Shinshu which is basically Buddhist Lutheranism *salvation by faith alone in Amida Buddha", the weird esoteric practices of vajrayana Budddhism, to Evangelical Fundamentalist lay interpretations of the Lotus Sutra like Soka Gakkai, to anti-monastic house Buddhism like Hoa Hao, to just aboiut everything in between.

Now if you're talking about the philosophical Buddhism of Siddartha Gautama, well only white people care about that shit, and they mostly invented it from selective parts of the massive Buddhist canon.

[Anonymous No.11667490]

>>11667431
>Guenon is fucking retarded and believes in the existence of a Self and a ground for reality on the basis of revealed noesis, this is incompatible with every single non-heterodox sect of buddhism

No it's not you pseud, every description of Nirvana Buddha gave in the authentic discourses also applies to Nirguna Brahman, Buddha quite obviously took most of his ideas from the Upanishads which predated him, either directly or indirectly from hearing various teachers discuss the ideas contained in them. Buddha never denied Atma but everything he denied describing the contingent aspects of being, the non-Atma, the Hindu figures he argues against never stated non-dualism but always argued for the continuation of the personality (non-Atma) which Buddha rightfully denied. Noesis is the wrong world since it implies activity and Brahman is unchanging and without activity but even going on the meaning you suggest many of the most important Chinese and Tibetan Mahayana texts have all sorts of ideas they expound which involve the same thing.

>Zizek doesn’t understand Zen
true

>Dogen was a pedophile fraud puppet of the Japanese government
source on him being a pedo fraud puppet?

>>>11667256
>you’re a fucking retarded sophist jesus christ. There was no buddha you insipid shit skin and every single buddhist text denies the existence of the Self

See the top part of this post, you have no idea what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.11668176]

>>11663959
10/10

[Anonymous No.11668455]

>>11665948
Very good post to read. Will check out this shankera...if I work hard ...

[Anonymous No.11668913]

>>11665284
cheers

[Anonymous No.11669123]

>>11667490
>every description of Nirvana Buddha gave in the authentic discourses also applies to Nirguna Brahman
Buddha never asserted existence of atman though and "every thing in and pof itself is not-self" (sabbe dhamma anatta) directly BTFOs it.

[Anonymous No.11669406]

>>11669123
>Buddha never asserted existence of atman though

Yes but in his Simsapa Sutta he directly states that there were things that he knew but didn't teach because it would confuse plebs and could present an obstacle to them attaining enlightenment. Hence, the fact that he never explicitly stated something does not at all mean that thing is in conflict with his teachings, and this is agreed upon by most Buddhists themselves, hence why all sorts of major Buddhists sects innovate and come up with doctrines and concepts in their texts that there is little to no basis for in his recorded discourses. When you throw out all the modern authors repeating inaccurate memes in attempting to explain Buddhism to a western audience and just read the actual discourses of Buddha, he never describes and then denies the existence of the Hindu Atma, all of his denials of self all occur in contexts where the thing being denied is described in words that would mean it's not Atma.

Atma is eternal, unchanging, actionless, motionless, desireless, unattached, formless, unconditioned, spotless, all-pervading pure awareness that is at rest established in itself, nothing that ever Buddha denies fits this description but always refers to the conditioned and contingent aspects of being. The simultaneous existence of Atma with the unreality of all other aspects of being is a paradox on the surface that can be confusing to people not used to thinking about this kind of stuff, so it's only natural that Atma would be in the 'leaves' in the forest and not the ones in his hand that he taught.

>"every thing in and of itself is not-self" (sabbe dhamma anatta) directly BTFOs it.

Wrong again kiddo. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta is variously translated as 'all phenomena are without self', 'all conditioned phenomena are without self/meaning'. There is disagreement among Buddhists about exactly what the extent of this is, most agree that it does not pertain to Nirvana, while there is debate over what else this applies to and to how far it extends. In the Majjhima Nikaya it's specifically stated the the Buddha transcends all phenomena and is not in all phenomena (26 & 49). This does not BTFO the view that Buddha never denied Atma because Atma is not phenomena, it is beyond phenomena in a similar way to how Buddhists regard how Nirvana is beyond it. Atma is regarded as the only thing which is real and is not a phenomenon or all phenomena, as it transcends both the manifest and the unmanifest. All phenomena can only be considered as existing conditionally or as illusions within it; superimposed by ignorance onto Atma as water is superimposed onto a desert by a mirage or the mental image of a snake is superimposed onto a rope. Everything that Buddha denies as having meaning/reality all use descriptions which don't describe Atma. Go try and find an actual passage from the authentic discourses where Buddha denies anything with a description that fits Atma, you won't be able too.