/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13103178]

>like Buddhism is ancient empiricism, you just gotta psychically obliterate yourself to end rebirth lol *hits blunt*
>buddha destroyed the evil Hindu caste system, *enslaves Tibetian serfs*
>Buddhism is best because there's no belief in God, he said once like evaluate everything for yourself, oh but he's also a transcendental being who is eternal and came to earth to save us all *prays to tantric diety*
>where is the self, you can't point to it! no, the mind and personality are not yourself! because Buddha said so! also there is no Atma! It doesn't matter that I can't point to Nirvana though and that I could just be lobotomizing myself for no reason because Buddha is infallible
>Buddha at once got most of his ideas from the Hinduism but also refuted them haha, it's a SOOOO different from yucky Hinduism! gross!
>You don't exist! stop saying that you do stop it! stop it! stop it! you don't have a self! the consciousness reading this has no inherent existence!
>*spams thread with passages from the Pali Canon*
>all of you guys are just hopelessly suffering until you accept Buddhism
>Buddha was the greatest philosopher ever even though he didn't answer all these questions and came up with an unfalsifiable metaphysical scheme because like the best philosophers just care about elaborate self-help schemes

[Anonymous No.13103269]

Stupid post

[Anonymous No.13103275]

>>13103178
Mediocre post

[Anonymous No.13103502]

savage post

[Anonymous No.13103501]

Good post

[Anonymous No.13103518]

>buddha destroyed the evil Hindu caste system, *enslaves Tibetian serfs*


No, it was the British who did that. Tibet didn't have slavery during the British rule. The whole idea of Tibet was to create a better life where everyone could be equal before God. That could not stand.

>lots of British soldiers were forced to be sent to the 'Liaison Camps', which were actually prison camps, but were much smaller and were used for executions of local rebels. The government tried to ban or make more secret, so that you couldn't report on the prison camps in detail. But the media could not resist the temptation to report on the camps, to the point where a large quantity of books and journals were destroyed or destroyed so nobody could keep track of them. *

[Anonymous No.13103540]

>>13103178
>oh but he's also a transcendental being who is eternal and came to earth to save us all *prays to tantric diety*
>You don't exist! stop saying that you do stop it! stop it! stop it! you don't have a self!
>Buddha was the greatest philosopher ever even though he didn't answer all these questions and came up with an unfalsifiable metaphysical scheme
why you mixing up all the different sects mang

[Anonymous No.13103675]

>>13103178
>Buddhism is best because there's no belief in God, he said once like evaluate everything for yourself, oh but he's also a transcendental being who is eternal and came to earth to save us all *prays to tantric diety*
Mahayana is stupid

[Anonymous No.13103684]

True. The only valid belief system is the scientific positivism.

[Anonymous No.13104356]

>>13103269
>>13103275
>>13103501
>>13103502
This.

[Anonymous No.13104375]

>>13103269
>>13103275
>>13103518
>>13103540

>buttblasted Buddhacucks

[Anonymous No.13104400]

Buddhism is just theism without accountability

[Anonymous No.13105873]

>>13103178
kek

[Anonymous No.13105928]

>>13104400
"no"

[Anonymous No.13106245]

>>13104375
basado

[Anonymous No.13106250]

>>13103178
Excellent satire on western liberals who have a limited and erroneous understanding of Buddhism OP

[Anonymous No.13106652]

My mom told me that buddhism is the religion for self-obsessed selfish people. Is she right?

[Anonymous No.13106838]

>>13103684
>implying the only choice is between that and B*ddhism

[Anonymous No.13106847]

>>13106838
... but it's not...?

[Anonymous No.13106984]

>>13103178
Dumb frogposter

[Anonymous No.13107637]

>>13106652
Buddhism teaches that the self does not exist, so no. Turns out your american mother knows nothing about Buddhism, how surprising.

[Anonymous No.13107647]

>>13103178
We've been through this, Buddhism is not a fucking 'good vs evil' religion.

[Anonymous No.13107650]

>>13107637

The Buddhist term Anatman (Sanskrit), or Anatta (Pali) is an adjective in sutra used to refer to the nature of phenomena as being devoid of the Soul, that being the ontological and uncompounded subjective Self (atman) which is the “light (dipam), and only refuge” [DN 2.100]. Of the 662 occurrences of the term Anatta in the Nikayas, its usage is restricted to referring to 22 nouns (forms, feelings, perception, experiences, consciousness, the eye, eye-consciousness, desires, mentation, mental formations, ear, nose, tongue, body, lusts, things unreal, etc.), all phenomenal, as being Selfless (anatta). Contrary to countless many popular (=profane, or = consensus, from which the truth can ‘never be gathered’) books (as Buddhologist C.A.F. Davids has deemed them ‘miserable little books’) written outside the scope of Buddhist doctrine, there is no “Doctrine of anatta/anatman” mentioned anywhere in the sutras, rather anatta is used only to refer to impermanent things/phenomena as other than the Soul, to be anatta, or Self-less (an-atta).

Specifically in sutra, anatta is used to describe the temporal and unreal (metaphysically so) nature of any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal, and temporal things, from macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter as pertains the physical body, the cosmos at large, including any and all mental machinations which are of the nature of arising and passing. Anatta in sutra is synonymous and interchangeable with the terms dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanent); all three terms are often used in triplet in making a blanket statement as regards any and all phenomena. Such as: “All these aggregates are anicca, dukkha, and anatta.” It should be further noted that, in doctrine, that the only noun which is branded permanent (nicca), is obviously and logically so, the noun attan [Skt. Atman), such as passage (SN 1.169).

Anatta refers specifically and only to the absence of the permanent soul as pertains any or all of the psycho-physical (namo-rupa) attributes, or khandhas (skandhas, aggregates). Anatta/Anatman in the earliest existing Buddhist texts, the Nikayas, is an adjective, (A is anatta, B is anatta, C is anatta). The commonly (=profane, consensus, herd-views) held belief to wit that: “Anatta means no-soul, therefore Buddhism taught that there was no soul” is an irrational absurdity which cannot be found or doctrinally substantiated by means of the Nikayas, the suttas (Skt. Sutras), of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.13107651]

>>13107650
The Pali compound term and noun for “no soul” is natthatta (literally “there is not/nonattha+atta’Soul), not the term anatta, and is mentioned at Samyutta Nikaya 4.400, where Gotama was asked if there “was no- soul (natthatta)”, to which Gotama equated this position to be a Nihilistic heresy (ucchedavada). Common throughout Buddhist sutra (and Vedanta as well) is the denial of psycho-physical attributes of the mere empirical self to be the Soul, or confused with same. The Buddhist paradigm (and the most common repeating passage in sutta) as regards phenomena is “Na me so atta” (this/these are not my soul), this most common utterance of Gotama the Buddha in the Nikayas, where “na me so atta” = Anatta/Anatman. In sutta, to hold the view that there was “no-Soul” (natthatta) is = natthika (nihilist). Buddhism differs from the “nothing-morist” (Skt. Nastika, Pali natthika) in affirming a spiritual nature that is not in any wise, but immeasurable, inconnumerable, infinite, and inaccessible to observation; and of which, therefore, empirical science can neither affirm nor deny the reality thereof of him who has ‘Gone to That Brahman” (tathatta). It is to the Spirit (Skt. Atman, Pali attan) as distinguished from oneself (namo-rupa/ or khandhas, mere self as = anatta) i.e., whatever is phenomenal and formal (Skt. and Pali nama-rupa, and savinnana-kaya) “name and appearance”, and the “body with its consciousness”. [SN 2.17] ‘Nonbeing (asat, natthiti views of either sabbamnatthi ‘the all is ultimately not’ (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan ‘the all is merely composite’ [SN 2.77] both of this positions are existential antinomies, and heresies of annihilationism])’”. In contrast it has been incorrectly asserted that affirmation of the atman is = sassatavada (conventionally deemed ‘eternalism’).

[Anonymous No.13107656]

>>13107651
Logically so, according to the philosophical premise of Gotama, the initiate to Buddhism who is to be “shown the way to Immortality (amata)” [MN 2.265, SN 5.9], wherein liberation of the spirit/mind [[[Wikipedia:Greek|Greek]] = nous] (cittavimutta; Greek = epistrophe) is effectuated thru the expansion of wisdom and the meditative practices of sati and samadhi (assimilation, or synthesis, complete disobjectification with all objective [unreal] 'reality'), must first be educated away from his former ignorance-based (avijja) materialistic proclivities in that he (the common fool) “saw any of these forms, feelings, this body in whole or part, to be my Self/Atman, to be that which I am by nature”. Teaching the via negativa methodology of anatta in sutta pertains solely to things phenomenal, which were: “subject to perpetual change; therefore unfit to declare of such things ‘these are mine, these are what I am, that these are my Soul’” [MN 1.232]. The one scriptural passage where Gotama is asked by a layperson what the meaning of anatta is as follows: (Samyutta Nikaya 3.196] At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done.”

[Anonymous No.13107659]

>>13107650
>>13107651
Based

[Anonymous No.13107715]

>The great thing about buddhism is there's no such thing as sin, I can do whatever I want, I can drink, smoke and have as much sex as my heart desires, there's no moderation or middle path like in Aristotelianism. The west is trash.
>Buddha said to evaluate everything for yourself and be an agnostic in regards to God, there's just no equivalent in the west, greek scepticism and the idea of akatalepsia never existed. The east is so profound in comparison.

[Anonymous No.13107747]

>>13106250
>>13103540
>>13103675
why always there is people with the urge to explain that everything wrong about buddhism is because westerns misunderstood it, or from a little tiny wrong and dumb division of the authentic and pure buddhism.
why they need to justify it that bad?. you are religious, accept it. you dont know shit. you are following a religion with metaphysical assumptions in order to feel good about life and about yourself. is just that simple.

[Anonymous No.13107764]

>>13107747
>why they need to justify it that bad?
Because the westerners who gravitate towards it project their western attitudes onto it, it has to become all about 'logic' and 'reason' and not involving 'belief' because that might make them too much like the Christians that they strive so hard to differentiate themselves from. You don't see this as much from people into Hindu philosophy because they are at least candid about most of its ideas coming from texts considered to be revealed scriptures or divine emanations and don't have any presumptions about "no it's actually all just based on logic and empirical observations lmao"

[Anonymous No.13107796]

>>13107764
if there are so many divisions of buddhism is because they are not so candid.
the westerners change buddhism like every old village change it.
you dont have to justify the karmic wheel, or buddha god, or the nirvana as the ultimate truth of existence like a mistake of the westerners.
all is a fucking gigantic facade. you buddhism lovers should have more criticism about it.
i hope your argument is not that we should be more uncritical about the buddhist presumptions and just believe.

[Anonymous No.13107801]

>>13107796
>i hope your argument is not that we should be more uncritical about the buddhist presumptions and just believe.
No, I was just answering the question as to the motives of these people which that anon asked about

[Anonymous No.13107826]

>>13107801
these people think the westerners should be more uncritical and just believe like a native hinduist?
that is the reason behind "not true buddhism"?.

[Anonymous No.13107842]

>>13107826
>these people think the westerners should be more uncritical and just believe like a native hinduist?
The proper description for them is 'Hindus' not 'Hinduist', and I wasn't making any statement or judgement on how Buddhists of any sort should behave or conduct themselves, I was merely describing the commonplace phenomenon of westerners projecting their attitudes onto Buddhism

[Anonymous No.13107851]

>>13103178
you retards couldn't 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 read 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.13108075]

>>13107851
again. why dont you just accept this western version of buddhism like another sect into a sect. why idealize the good and old buddhism.
is the same shit again and again. trying to uncover some mystic guru lessons who make a religion into something profound.

>>13107842
>I was merely describing the commonplace phenomenon of westerners projecting their attitudes onto Buddhism
i would say you are projecting your thoughts about westerners too.

[Anonymous No.13108247]

>>13107637
>>13107650
>>13107651
>>13107656
it is true that anatta does not mean no self, it means not-self, which is why it is only ever mentioned in the PC in reference to something specific, to say "this is not-self" and it is why the Buddha never made any general metaphysical statement that "there is definitely NO SELF." But he also didn't say that there is a self, since self and no self, existence and non-existence...etc are flawed and fabricated conceptions that cannot be applied to Ultimate Reality.
>>13107747
>>13107764
>>13107796
>>13107826
>>13108075
The claim that "true Buddhism" is necessarily metaphysical began with Western Anglo Theosophists, because if it didn't make metaphysical claims it would be going against their precious perennial conception that all eastern religions are pointing to the same esoteric truths of the ultimate metaphysical godhead/True Self.
Early Buddhism as described in the earliest texts does not teach of a metaphysical True Self (nor does it deny it because that too would be a metaphysical assertion based on flawed and fabricated conceptions of duality). Theravada adopted pluralism and subsequently nihilism. Mahayana (with the exception of its earliest form in early Madhyamaka, which was even more faithful to the doctrine of the earliest texts than Theravada) adopted some degree of Monism and True Self teachings due to its close promiximity in development to Advaita Vedanta. This is why Theosophists will argue til their last breath that the metaphysical forms of Mahayana are "true Buddhism," because it backs up their beliefs in perennialism. It is really ironic that these perennialists argue that non-metaphysical Buddhism is just a Western/Anglo misinterpretation, when it is their own perennialist view of "true Buddhism" representing the same metaphysics of Hinduism, Islam, Neoplatonism...etc that originated with 19th and 20th century Anglos and theosophists like Blavatsky, and has no basis in pre-sectarian Buddhism/the earliest texts.

[Anonymous No.13108482]

>>13108247
all you say here is pure doctrine wars. wars inside a doctrine with several divisions and new doctrines as a result, at the same time, as always, every division is saying this is the "true teachings" of xxxx. i dont care about that, this could be and will be an endless process.
>going against their precious perennial conception that all eastern religions are pointing to the same esoteric truths of the ultimate metaphysical godhead/True Self.
here is where i want to go, the tiring assertion with tricky dialectical paths about real buddhists are not really doing metaphysics.

>existence and non-existence...etc are flawed and fabricated conceptions that cannot be applied to Ultimate Reality.
this Ultimate Reality is the metaphysics of buddhism and is the reason they are a religion. you start with a shit and then you are surprised when you are full of stain and stink everywhere. the buddhist start with all this dumb "ultimate reality", and please, dont deny anymore with argumentative bullshit about doctrines, all them are following an intrinsic metaphyisical religion. or if you want, beyond physical and mind. is all posturing.
some say you achieve the ultimate reality with this, and others say with that. that is not important, all agree they know the "ultimate reality" and all they agree that is the only thing important.
i dont care the how´s and who´s, im only trying to clarify his metaphisical assumptions.

[Anonymous No.13108532]

>>13107851
mahayana has been developed by lazy braindead people

[Anonymous No.13108813]

>>13108482
>all you say here is pure doctrine wars. wars inside a doctrine with several divisions and new doctrines as a result, at the same time, as always, every division is saying this is the "true teachings" of xxxx. i dont care about that, this could be and will be an endless process.
The argument isn't to say "x division is the true teachings of the Buddha" - it is that it is absurd to argue that perennial Western esoteric/mystical theosophical interpretations of Buddhism are "true Buddhism" and all else must be disregarded.
>this Ultimate Reality is the metaphysics of buddhism
Ultimate Reality in Buddhism is equivalent to the clear comprehension of the 3 characteristics (impermanence, not-self, dukkha) with regards to phenomena, the dropping of subject-object distinction, and the ending of the mental processes that fuel clinging to phenomena as having inherent existence/essence, clearly comprehending the emptiness/voidness of things. The three characteristics are already observable on a shallow macro level in life but we intuitively perceive things as if they were otherwise, which is the whole problem. Buddhist Ultimate Reality does not entail any kind of realization that the "True Self" is 'pure awareness,' it does not entail some kind of union with the eternal creative force that permeates reality, it does not entail transcendence to some kind of universal consciousness.
>and is the reason they are a religion.
The argument is not that Buddhism isn't a religion - it is one without a doubt. But it is not because of its 'metaphysics' that it is a religion, since in its earliest form it lacks metaphysics entirely. It is a religion because it teaches rebirth, has a cosmology of the realms of rebirth, has a system of monasticism dating back 2500 years, and generally involves practices that reveal things that are not fully clear to the untrained eye which means it requires some degree of faith that such mental practices will work to achieve the promised results. This is different than Buddhism being some sort of arbitrary cultural interpretation of the Eternal Tradition/Godhead.
Then again, perhaps your gripes are with the Western "Secular Buddhists," and to that I would agree, it is absurd to suggest that Buddhism is just a self-help philosophy that is compatible with mainstream scientist/materialist beliefs - it is not.

[Anonymous No.13109448]

>>13108813
>It is a religion because it teaches rebirth, has a cosmology of the realms of rebirth, has a system of monasticism dating back 2500 years, and generally involves practices that reveal things that are not fully clear to the untrained eye which means it requires some degree of faith
what the fuck are we talking about then?. you know perfectly the dumb metaphysics behind buddhism and still you try to save some tiny part of buddhism like pure knowledge or something?. imagine a christian say christianity is not about jesus or about sin or about god but only about love and compassion and therefore, christianity is not metaphysical. i dont understand you.

>it does not entail transcendence to some kind of universal consciousness.
dont be hypocrite. you know perfectly you calling "ultimate reality" because a reason.
and the fact that you or whoever happily say "ultimate reality" is the seed of the rest. and its not because a cold "dropping of subject-object distinction". i repeat, dont be hypocrite. the buddhist mystify all this and because of this mystification you have the buddhism as a religion.

>Then again, perhaps your gripes are with the Western "Secular Buddhists," and to that I would agree, it is absurd to suggest that Buddhism is just a self-help philosophy that is compatible with mainstream scientist/materialist beliefs - it is not.
my gripes are mostly about them, yes, but you have the same problem in a way. you are telling the core teachings of buddhism are safe of faith or metaphysics. and to me sound exactly like this people you clearly view as wrong. you pretend to think this dropping of subject-object distinction is some innocent thought without mysticism. but buddha and his followers never try this like some kind of strange and peculiar thought with no more importance that any other strange autorealization of the mind. they do not see this like some poetic introspective thought. and they are a religion exactly because of this. not only for the rebirth and karma shit.

pic related in a way.

[Anonymous No.13109721]

>>13109448
Early Buddhism contained teachings about karma, rebirth, mind powers (siddhis), devas (heavenly beings), hell realms, ghosts and more, but it did not teach metaphysics. You will not find a passage in the Pali Canon that makes a metaphysical statement. Metaphysics indeed became a later concern of Buddhists after the Buddha's death, with the Theravadin Abhidhamma, with the Mahayana ideas of "Buddha-Nature," with essentially idealist schools like Yogachara...etc, because they wanted to seek answers to what the Buddha refused to discuss: metaphysics.
The point is that it is not only possible to have Buddhism without metaphysics outside of white-washed Western 'Secular Buddhism,' but it even appears that non-metaphysical Buddhism is actually what is found in the Pali Canon.
>the buddhist mystify all this and because of this mystification you have the buddhism as a religion
>you pretend to think this dropping of subject-object distinction is some innocent thought without mysticism
Is it "mystical" in the colloquial sense? Yea, of course. Is it metaphysical? No. Is it esoteric? Also no, with the exception of later schools and sects like Vajrayana. I'm not denying that Buddhism has rituals and shit that most people would consider "supernatural," I am just arguing that metaphysics is not an essential core aspect of Buddhism. Later schools developed a variety of metaphysical systems, so it is clear that there is no single unifying "Buddhist metaphysics," and in the earliest texts, the Pali Canon, there are in fact no metaphysics to be found at all.

[Anonymous No.13109922]

>>13109721
>Early Buddhism contained teachings about karma, rebirth, mind powers (siddhis), devas (heavenly beings), hell realms, ghosts and more, but it did not teach metaphysics.
maybe we have a problem with the word "metaphysical". to me all this "mind powers, rebirth, devas", etcetc... are pure metaphysical statements. i have to begin with this. i dont know what you are trying to say with no metaphysical at all.

here is the cambridge dictionary defintion:
>the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the nature of existence, knowledge, and truth
maybe we have two different grasps about this, i dont know.
i put it in another way. what are the first teachings of buddha?. what he is trying to explain?. is something practical?, sensual?, beyond mind and space?. philosopical?. to me he is explaining the real reality if that makes sense. a total metaphysical assumption.
but anyway, what exactly is metaphysical to you?.

>Is it "mystical" in the colloquial sense?
i dont go beyond that.

>there is no single unifying "Buddhist metaphysics,"
im saying every religion is metaphysical at its core. not necessarily the same core. you have to found that metaphysical core if my words are not enough for you to see. or are you thinking the early buddhism was not a religion?.
and one last thing.
>I am just arguing that metaphysics is not an essential core aspect of Buddhism.
if budha was a crazy bum who make poetry you can say he is teaching something?.