/Buddhism/ - Buddhism General

[Anonymous No.13089000]

Discussion of the Middle Way

http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
https://suttacentral.net/
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/

>Since sight and hearing, etc., and
>Feeling, etc., exist,
>He who has and uses them
>Must exist prior to those, some say.

>If there were no existent thing,
>How could seeing, etc., arise?
>It follows from this that prior to this,
>there is an existent thing.

>How is an entity existing prior to
>Seeing, hearing, etc., and
>The felt, etc.,
>Itself known?

>If it can abide
>Without the seen, etc.,
>Then, without a doubt,
>They can abide without it
- Nagarjuna, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

>To say “it is” is to grasp for permanence.
>To say “it is not” is to adopt the view of nihilism.
>Therefore a wise person
>Does not say “exists” or “does not exist.”

>”Whatever exists through its essence
>Cannot be nonexistent” is eternalism.
>”It existed before but doesn’t now”
>Entails the error of nihilism.
- Nagarjuna, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

>Whatever comes into being dependent on another
>Is not identical to that thing.
>Nor is it different from it.
>Therefore it is neither nonexistent in time nor permanent.
- Nagarjuna, Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

>Nāmarūpa-samudayā cittassa samudayo.
>Nāmarūpa-nirodhā cittassa atthagamo.
>From the origination of name-and-form is the origination of the mind.
>From the cessation of name-and-form is the cessation of the mind.
- SN 47.42

[Anonymous No.13089004]

>>13089000
>To one who does not pay wise attention in these ways,
>one of six (wrong) views arises:
>'There is for me a self'-
>the view arises to him as though it were true,
>as though it were real.
>Or, 'There is not for me a self. - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or, 'Simply by self am I aware of self.' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or, 'Simply by self am I aware of not-self.' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or, 'Simply by not-self am I aware of self' - the view arises to him as though it were true, as though it were real.
>Or a wrong view occurs to him thus:
>'Whatever is this self for me that speaks,
>that experiences and knows, that experiences now here,
>now there,
>the fruition of deeds
>that are lovely and that are depraved,
>it is this self for me that is permanent,
>stable,
>eternal,
>not subject to change,
>that will stand firm like unto the eternal.'
- MN 2

[Anonymous No.13089007]

>>13089000
>14. 'Then you say, Vāseṭṭha that none of the Brahmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahmā face-to-face. And that even the Rishis of old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brahmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down-even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmā is[12]. So that the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: "What we know not, what we have not seen, 'to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: 'This Is the straight path, this is the direct way which makes for salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmā!
>'Now' what think you, Vāseṭṭha? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk?
>In sooth, Gotama, that being, so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!'
- DN 13.14

>He who knows his former lives,
>Who sees heaven and states of woe,
>Who reaches the end of birth,
>A sage and master of direct knowledge—

>By these three ways of knowing one becomes
>A brahmin having the threefold knowledge [past lives, realms of rebirth, end of birth].
>That is what I call the threefold knowledge [as opposed to the Three Vedas],
>Not another’s babbling and reciting.
- Iti 99

[Anonymous No.13089009]

headspace is better than any of this stuff. where my fellow proud plebians at

[Anonymous No.13089019]

>>13089000
>"Monks, there are these six view-positions (ditthitthana). Which six? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes about form: ...... "He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self.[8] After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.'
- MN 22


>He recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>He rejoices in Nibbāna.

>What is the reason for this?

>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
- MN 1

>Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable’?”
>...
>"When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After passing away I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, and imperishable.’
- SN 23.4

[Anonymous No.13089062]

what about xenobuddhism?

[Anonymous No.13089072]

>>13089062
Aka tranny-buddhism? Just kill yourself

[Anonymous No.13089073]

>>13089062
it seems a bit niche for a chart like the one in the OP
feel free to post any resources, images, quotations...etc, if you have any you'd like to share

[Anonymous No.13089088]

>>13089019
>>He recognises Nibbāna[30] as Nibbāna;
>>having recognised Nibbāna as Nibbāna,
>>he thinks of Nibbāna,[31]
>>he thinks (of the self) in (regard to) Nibbāna,
>>he thinks (of self as) Nibbāna,
>>he thinks, 'Nibbāna is mine.'
>>He rejoices in Nibbāna.
>>What is the reason for this?
>>I say that it is not thoroughly understood by him.
>- MN 1
Here's a great selection from the first sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya
the Buddha directly states that Nibbāna is not-self, therefore it too is void, empty of essence

[Anonymous No.13089141]

>>13089000
"Where there is no passion for the nutriment of consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.

"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord."

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."
>SN 12.64

[Anonymous No.13089162]

>>13089000
you retards coudent tell what buddhism is if it came out your ass, the buddhism all you twats refer to comes from the Hīnayāna which is the shitty retarded version of the original doctrines compared with the Mahāyāna which stays way truer to the doctrines. You all are fascinated with a buddhism that is most likely the farthest and least familiar with any eastern doctrines aka not buddhism but some shit Westerners love to praise. As a student studying Traditionalism but more so the orientals i can't help but cringe everytime I see you discuss "Buddhism" its more so some-shit the Westerners took in and adapted to their imagination. You guys some chart and become a Eastern monk and maybe even understand Buddhism itself? gtfo, read guenon's first book so you can get rid of your western prejudices

[Anonymous No.13089171]

>>13089162
you puthujjana coudent tell what buddhism is if it came out the void, the buddhism all you beings trapped in a thicket of views refer to comes from Blavatskyian Theosophy which is the shitty Anglo interpretation of the Mahāyāna compared with the earliest form of Madhyamaka which stays way truer to the doctrines. You all are fascinated with a buddhism that is most likely the farthest and least familiar with any Dhammic doctrines aka not buddhism but some shit New Age Westerners love to praise. As a student studying the Madhyamaka but more so early Buddhism i can't help but cringe everytime I see you discuss "Buddhism" its more so some-shit the Westerners took in and adapted to their imagination. You guys some Neoplatonist perennialism and become a esoteric mystic and maybe even understand Buddhism itself? gtfo, read Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā so you can get rid of your inclination towards fabricated dualistic extremes of Absolutism and Sarvāstivādin/Hīnayānin nihilism

[Anonymous No.13089187]

>every Western Buddhist I know is 2nm of amygdala size away from DFW-tier pathological narcissism cruel joke

[Anonymous No.13089197]

>>13089000
I guess the Buddha didn't agree with perennialism:
>Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's words, asked him a further question: "Dear sir, do all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?"

>"No, deva-king, not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal."

>"Why, dear sir, don't all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?"

>"The world is made up of many properties, various properties. Because of the many & various properties in the world, then whichever property living beings get fixated on, they become entrenched & latch onto it, saying, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' This is why not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal."
- DN 21

[Anonymous No.13089313]

so is there any pro-war literature in buddhism like the gita and homer are for dharma and the old gods respectively?

[Anonymous No.13089328]

>>13089313
diary of this guy