/buddhism/

[Anonymous No.15977188]

is theravada superior to mahayana?

is it even worth trying to learn about buddhism as a westerner, as most material available to us is corrupted by degenerate hippies and atheists?

[Anonymous No.15977254]

Buddhism is the Protestantism of Hinduism. Hinduism is the right way.

[Anonymous No.15977291]

>tfw you realize pure land is a syncretic fusion of all existing religions that turns real life into an anime where you use buddhist meditation and yoga to train yourself like a saiyan to fight demons and convince them to do yoga with you

[Anonymous No.15977403]

Has someone done deity yoga with Greco-Roman gods?

[/urantia/ No.15977472]

>>15977291
88. The Lord instructeth us that the way into Paradise is straight and easy. Therefore whoso receiveth not this Truth is, in verity, called a man that hath not eyes to see nor ears to hear.
89. The One true freedom is the Highest, and the Absolute is perfect freedom. And when we attain unto that freedom, for us shall desire and doubt vanish away.
90. When every man is beloved of us, even as the son of our own body, there is the Universal Mind made perfect in us. And this shall be in Paradise.
91. He who is in all things supreme, is Himself Nirvana, and Nirvana is that true light that abideth in the Land that is to come, but this world cannot know it.
92. Our Lord instructeth us that he who rejoiceth in his faith is, in so doing, in unity with the Highest. For true faith is the seed of light, and the seed of true light is in itself the potentiality of that which is Deity.
93. Whoso trusteth not in the Supreme Wisdom of the Enlightened One, clinging unto his own purblind knowledge, must suffer by fire for long Kalpas of ages.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bups/index.htm

[Anonymous No.15978015]

>>15977188
read MahaPrajnaParamita-Sastra by Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.15978073]

>>15977188
How many threads with the same question over and over?

[Anonymous No.15978299]

Won't comment on Theravada vs. Mahayana; both are valid paths, each suited to different capacities and goals.

It absolutely is worth trying to learn about, since it is not that difficult to find a wealth of material from a more traditional perspective. Even a lot of hippie converts will still write about the religion in an accurate and faithful way (cognitive dissonance probably at work, but hey, I cant say that for certain). There's lots and lots of material translated from Tibetan and Japanese, and a still sizable amount translated from Pali, Sinhalese, and Thai. The material is there - just look for reputable Buddhist institutions and check the lineage or academic credentials of the author.

However, always remember that books have limited value in Buddhism. Find a teacher, and learn to practice. Use books as a supplement.

[Anonymous No.15978342]

>>15977254
I can smell the fucking stench of the person who sat behind their screen eagerly and made this

[Anonymous No.15980214]

>>15978299
thoughts on thanisarro bhikku?

[Anonymous No.15980429]

>>15977254
Yes. But catholicism and othodoxy are the buddhism of hinduism, so...

Read upanichads and the bible and grow out of this man made nihilo hedonistic schism.

[Anonymous No.15980465]

>>15977254

[Anonymous No.15980491]

>>15980465
Go bow to your golden man god you despicable heratic.

[Anonymous No.15980555]

>>15978299
>Theravada vs. Mahayana
>lots of material translated from Tibetan and Japanese
Serious question from someone who's just started reading the early Nikayas: does Japanese (Zen?) Buddhism fall under Mahayana or Theravada? Or is it something different entirely?

[Anonymous No.15980594]

>>15980555
zen is derived from chinese buddhism, which is Mahayana

[Anonymous No.15980606]

>>15980491

[jesus No.15980932]

>>15977254
way to what exactly?

[Anonymous No.15981303]

>>15980555
>>15980594

Zen as a tradition began in China. While it became a tradition in itself the name just means meditative buddhism, from the Sanskrit "dhyāna" to the Chinese "Chan/禪" to the Japanese "Zen/禅"

Japanese Buddhism can't be conflated with Zen, when there are many other schools, and like in China, the Pure Land/Shin school being way more popular than Zen.

[Anonymous No.15981410]

>is it even worth trying to learn about buddhism as a westerner, as most material available to us is corrupted by degenerate hippies and atheists?

Attitude of people like OP has little connection to reality. The most value works painstakingly translated into English were done by scholars. Religious translations, i.e. those done by a certain monastery or by the disciple of a certain celebrity monk are among the most dumbed down and unreliable works out there.

Even though there is much still to be translated we already have a huge amount of works available to us, painstakingly translated into English by scholars, as well as every resource under the sun to help us learn the languages the originals were written in, in other words you have infinitely more at your fingertips than any buddhist monk in the past ever did. It's actually the "religious" translations, those done by a certain monastery or by the disciple of a certain celebrity monk that are the most dumbed down and unreliable works out there.

[Anonymous No.15981808]

>>15977188
>>is it even worth trying to learn about buddhism as a westerner, as most material available to us is corrupted by degenerate hippies and atheists?
indian philosophers corrupted more buddhism than the hippies

[Anonymous No.15981846]

>>15981410
A lot of those "scholars" were Victorian-era frauds, demagogues, and degenerates, and unfortunately, they've shaped subsequent perceptions of the Orient. Contemporary scholarship is better, but most people have already been influenced by the nonsense of earlier generations.

[Anonymous No.15981853]

>>15980429
>catholicism and othodoxy are the buddhism of hinduism
What does that even mean? O_o

[Anonymous No.15981874]

>>15981846
i generally read contemporary translations, can you name the names of the older generation frauds?

[Anonymous No.15982037]

>>15978073
are you a new summerfag? this is not really a buddhist thread, it's an opportunity for guenonfag to talk to himself and spam the retarded cult he's trying to make

[Anonymous No.15982667]

>>15980465
Based and Golden pilled

[Anonymous No.15982688]

>is The Little Vehicle superior to the Greater Vehicle
lmao no

[Anonymous No.15982869]

Theravada is closer to what the historical Buddha actually thought.

Mahayana is a later development originating around the Ideas of other Indian thinkers like Nagarjuna . Mahayana, unlike Theravada, is also very different depending on location, Japanese Chan and Vietnamese pure land are doctrinally very distinct for example.

I would recommend the book " In the Buddha's words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi as an intruduction.

[Anonymous No.15982908]

>>15980214
Not him, but he's great. Mega boomer, but that's what's fun about him. He wrote a lot, he wrote it for an American audience, and he also recorded a lot. Accesstoinsight, among others, have his audio records, including stuff like guided meditation, sutta commentary, and just general philosophy. He often did these in front of crowds at retreats and such, so every now and then he'll ask the audience for questions. Some of these are just dumb boomers booming, but some of them are really fucking good questions.

>>15982869
I don't think it's fair to say that Mahayana is entirely based around later thinkers like Nagarjuna. Rather, the Mahayana realize that because Buddhism is just a vehicle for Dharma, you can alter Buddhism as necessary to fit whatever locale, climate, populace, etc you're trying to convey Dharma to. Fundamentally, nothing Nagarjuna says causes disagreement with the Theravada, they just argue that Nagarjuna's project was unnecessary because 1) the Buddha already said literally all of this and 2) nobody actually believes that tables and chairs and chariots have Selfs, and nobody clings to them anyways, so Nagarjuna is just making a mountain out of a molehill to knock it down, when the Buddha already knocked down the actual mountain. He's not wrong, just doing more work than is needed. That's the Mahayana as a whole then, from the Theravada point of view: rephrasing what the Buddha said.

I think there's value in looking into both (What the Buddha Taught is also a good Theravada intro book), and I recommend starting with the Theravada because the Theravada understand that Westerners need simple introductions (it is, from the ground up, a new religion, after all), but one shouldn't discount the Mahayana out of some weird Protestant ideal that the Pali Canon is better or more pure. Many Mahayana Sutras are word for word (in another language, of course) identical to many Pali Canon passages, and many of the earliest Mahayana Sutras start getting written down at the same time the Pali Canon was.

[Anonymous No.15982913]

>>15982869
Mahayana actually started as early as the second buddhist council with the Mahasamghika school.

[Anonymous No.15982929]

>>15977188
Theravada = Orthodoxy
Mahayana = Protestantism

[Anonymous No.15982966]

>>15982929
more like Theravada = Catholicism
as in gay

[Anonymous No.15982979]

The best way to start is with the Osamu Tezuka manga, Buddha

[Anonymous No.15983003]

>>15977188
>theravada
bunch of bitch-ass niggers.

[Anonymous No.15983019]

>>15982929
Wrong. Theravada appeals to Westerners who approach Buddhism with Protestantism as their default concept of religion, with its emphasis on a personal reading of the original scripture and a rejection of what they identify as a posteriori additions (whether text, praxy, etc) to what is canonical. This essentially assumes the Pali Canon is 'the original word of God' preserved in amber and that Sri Lanka and Thailand have maintained it such that one can pick it up from there and become a true Buddhist (not like those other Buddhists in China or Tibet or Japan, who are wrong). Of course the Pali Canon was compiled hundreds of years after the Buddha died and under the influence of powerful temporal government, and Mahayana uses many of the same sources it does in its own assembly of texts and commentaries, and East Asia received its transmission of Buddhism from India just as Thailand and Sri Lanka, but these details are not relevant to the hyperprotestant convert whose concept of religion requires he be a Theravadin. The dialectic introduced by Nagarjuna to overcome substance, or the phenomenology of Yogacara are written off, enmeshed as they are in those Mahayana traditions which also follow buddhabhakti or the worship of saints (which are stinky Asian catholicisms, yikes!). In truth one should read as much of the extant traditions as they can and not import their judgments from the abortion of a religious context we call contemporary Western.

[Anonymous No.15983052]

I hope you guys are doing your part in translating the Tripiṭaka into English.

[Anonymous No.15983090]

>>15982869
The Buddha taught multiple paths and the different sects are the ripening of that fact as filtered through the problems of translation and interpretation. There is little reason to privilege Sri Lanka or Thailand over anywhere else on the purported seniority of their texts or traditions. Simply because something is older does not make it more accurate anyway. A good example is the Abhidharma additions to the Pali Canon. Since protestantized Westerners like to privilege Theravada as the "original Buddhism" they overlook that this corpus is not the Buddha's words and are ignorant that Mahayana was in part reaction against creating a system of atomistic definitions of truly existing building blocks of reality (e.g. Nagarjuna). This was done by citing other areas of the Pali Canon and through innovative arguments. Theravada has its own changes over time and the assumption that it is the pure and Mahayana is the altered does not hold water.

[Anonymous No.15983546]

>>15982966
yikes does the dharma really allow sodomy?>>15981874
>>15981874
schopenhauer and nietzsche are generally disliked especially schopenhauer are disliked by buddhists for corrupting western conceptions of buddhism

[Anonymous No.15983602]

>>15977188
santana dharma is all you need to concern yourself with
https://discord.gg/ZrbQjkH

[Anonymous No.15983610]

>>15982929
>Theravada = Orthodoxy
>Mahayana = Protestantism
this is just wrong. same as thinking that the Buddha was Jesus and Hinduism is Judaism
You are only equating the two because you can't look beyond your anglo protestant taxonomy.
>>15983019
>'the original word of God' preserved in amber and that Sri Lanka and Thailand have maintained it such that one can pick it up from there and become a true Buddhist (not like those other Buddhists in China or Tibet or Japan, who are wrong).
Every Buddhist sees the Pali cannon as the original teachings of the tathagata
and no they don't see the Mahayana as "wrong"
>Mahayana uses many of the same sources
Mahayana accepts everything Theravada does not just "many"
>The dialectic introduced by Nagarjuna to overcome substance, or the phenomenology of Yogacara are written off
Nagarjuna isn't needed for Enlightenment

[Anonymous No.15983649]

>>15983052
i was surprised to see lots of translations in other european languages. I think the elast number of tranlsations is in italian and french.

Germans really like the sutta. Spaniards too.

[Anonymous No.15983663]

>>15983090
>Theravada has its own changes over time and the assumption that it is the pure and Mahayana is the altered does not hold water.
Sadly it does, more than the converse, ie saying that mayaha is more pure.

[Anonymous No.15983771]

>>15983663
>Sadly it does, more than the converse
do you have anything to support this?
Also "changes" aren't an issue to Theravada its the acceptance of the Suttas is the point of contention

[Anonymous No.15983791]

Anons I have a question from a non Buddhist. Beyond /lit/ autism, what do the schools of Buddhism unironically think about each other? Are they respectful or critical, and if so how?

[Anonymous No.15983815]

Ligotti on Buddhism

>But here is the real catch: If you want to become enlightened you will never become enlightened, because in Buddhism wanting things is just the thing that keeps you from getting the thing you want. Less circuitously, if you want to end your suffering, you will never end your suffering. This is the “wanting paradox,” or “paradox of desire,” and Buddhists are at the ready with both rational and non-rational propositions as to why this paradox is not a paradox. How to understand these propositions is past understanding, because, per Buddhism, there is nothing to understand and no one to understand it. And as long as you think there is something to understand and someone to understand it, you are doomed. Trying for this understanding is the most trying thing of all. Yet trying not to try for it is just as trying. There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be.

[Anonymous No.15983835]

>>15983791
>Anons I have a question from a non Buddhist. Beyond /lit/ autism, what do the schools of Buddhism unironically think about each other? Are they respectful or critical, and if so how?
No one sees any schools are "wrong" in the way that other religious sects see each other as not receiving salvation.
However Mahayana sees Theravada as selfish because the goal of the Mahayana is the delay their own enlightenment to help all sentient beings reach nirvana then at that point they will exist samsara.
But neither see the other as "false" or bound for hell fire.

There is the New Kadampa sect that harasses the Dalai Lama and his followers coincidentally they receive funding from the Communist Party of China

[Anonymous No.15983866]

>>15983791
In Asia, inter-sectarian conflict is mostly just Asians hating each other for reasons entirely abstracted from religion, wherein the Chinese argue that because the Japanese are foul barbaric sea-bandits OF COURSE their Buddhism is shit, because the Japanese are inherently shit, and the Japanese argue that OF COURSE the Buddhism of a bunch of inbred jungle monkeys is shit in SEA, because they are inherently shit.

For the most part, Buddhist denominations all accept each other as Buddhists, they're all valid, it's just OUR sect is the best one :^). 99% of the time, historical Mahayana attitudes to the Hinaya (AKA Theravada) are totally divorced from what the Theravada actually believed and practiced, such that it's frankly more accurate to view Hinayana as "heretics and other sects" than "the Theravada".

The excepts to this are Vajrayana, wherein certain sects have practices and beliefs that other Buddhist denominations view as outright heretical, and Pure Land Buddhism, which most Buddhist denominations view as also being heretical. It should be noted that Pure Land PRACTICE and Pure Land as a DENOMINATION are two different things. Pure Land as a practice is totally orthodox. There were, however, historical movements ("as a denomination") that are totally heretical. For a Christian comparison, venerating Mary is totally legit, but animal sacrifice to her as she is a goddess is not.

Inter-denominational dialogue mostly took place between the monastic community, wherein monks would engage in "Dharma Combat" (basically trying to assess the beliefs and views of a different person through dialogue and wit). So, while this would involve monks being critical of each other, the Buddha also taught some autistically high number of forms of Dharma, and the Buddha also told his followers to Meet People Where They Are, so there is no one "correct" Buddhism, there's just the one that gets you to the end goal the most efficiently.

[Anonymous No.15983879]

>>15983815
>everything sucks so there's no point in ever actually trying to understand buddhism, or anything else
why do people meme this guy so much? he's just an edgy highschooler who never grew up.

[Anonymous No.15983960]

>>15983866
What about Vajrayana is considered heretical?

[Anonymous No.15984009]

>>15983960
Not Vajrayana as a whole. Vajrayana has an autistically large amount of internal diversity (see >>15983791; the idea that like half of all Buddhist sects and traditions are Vajrayana, located in some mountain valley in Tibet, is not inaccurate). Some of this internal diversity is over philosophical minutiae that's frankly not really all that relevant to actually practice. Some of it is really important stuff. A lot of it comes down to politics (The Dalai Lama is not the head monk of Tibet, he is the head monk of the dominant sect).

Vajrayana is sort of based around this idea of gathering treasures, literal and intellectual, to speed up the achieving of enlightenment. There's a lot of esotericism, a lot of ritual, it's very technical, it was inspired highly by tantra and yoga. It's very much about pushing boundaries. So, when I say that SOME Vajrayana sects have practices where they eat meat, drink alcohol, and have sex, understand that they have a system here to explain why, how it works, etc, and at least in theory these are viewed as tools in a ritual and not something to be indulged in freely.

But then, of course, eating meat, drinking alcohol, and having sex are all forbidden for monks, so you can also see why other schools and sects might say "No, that's wrong, you're misunderstanding things and using that to justify breaking the rules". Some of these other, critical sects, are other Vajrayana schools and sects as well. Again, Vajrayan is very diverse.

Oh, also, there was a period where Tibet tried to conquer the entirety of Asia through brutal warfare, and then spent a few centuries selling mercenary armies-for-hire, so everyone in Asia is kind of jittery about Tibet and Tibetans, even though they're just the sleepy mountain country now.

[Anonymous No.15984016]

>>15983879
brilliant refutation

[Anonymous No.15984039]

>>15984009
Fascinating. Thanks for the discussion anon

[Anonymous No.15984068]

Horseflies trying to eat my skin deserve to be squashed. No amount of Buddhist copes and moralfagging can change this fact.

[Anonymous No.15984105]

>>15984068
That is jain autism you're aguing against not buddhism

[Anonymous No.15984112]

>>15984105
Literally the first precept.

[Anonymous No.15984123]

>>15984112
"Let horseflies eat your skin" is not a precept, try again

[Anonymous No.15984124]

>>15984112
The first precept is to minimize killing, not thou shalt not kill. Killing is bad, you shouldn't do it, but not all killings are the same.

If you're a monk though, suck it up and deal with it.

[Anonymous No.15984139]

>>15984124
>If you're a monk though, suck it up and deal with it.
That isn't what monks do.
Monks don''t just let flies and bugs fester
Monks clean at great lengths to keep bugs away.

[Anonymous No.15984146]

>>15984139
I would consider that to fall under "dealing with it".

[Anonymous No.15984172]

>>15984123
cringe
>>15984124
>just try and minimize killing bro
That is not the precept. The texts are pretty fucking clear on killing and it is always a big no no. Be it warriors, self-defense, some form of Consequentialism, fishing in your local pond, or anything else.

You're welcome to try and provide a quote that proves me wrong though.

[Anonymous No.15984177]

>>15984172
>cringe
cope
seethe
dilate

[Anonymous No.15984193]

>>15984172
The beauty of the precepts is that they are impossible for ordinary human beings to fully observe. The precept against killing is an example of this. My body's immune system kills all lifeforms that it doesn't recognize. I step on and crush innumerable microorganisms. But the first precept asks us to minimize the amount of harm we do in the world. The precepts are trainings, not commandments.

[Anonymous No.15984218]

>>15984193
>My body's immune system kills all lifeforms that it doesn't recognize. I step on and crush innumerable microorganisms
Accidental killings do not go against the precept though so this is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.15984240]

>>15984218
>Accidental killings do not go against the precept though so this is not an argument
It is and now you're deflecting

[Anonymous No.15984253]

>>15984218
Is it really an accidental killing if you're aware of the consequences of an action and take it anyway? The death of an insect that happens to be under your foot while you're walking is not accidental, you're surely aware it's a possible consequence. It's no more an accident than it would be to keep a train at full speed through a road crossing with no signals or warning, conscious that this might result in someone getting hit.

[Anonymous No.15984277]

>>15984218
Well that's your interpretation. Many (most) disagree.

[Anonymous No.15984280]

>>15983815
David Tibet is the shit

[Anonymous No.15984281]

>>15984172
Sure, Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, I undertake the training-precept to abstain from killing breathing beings. Not "I will damn myself to hell for killing", not "I shall not kill", I shall abstain, I shall refrain from, I shall minimize. Which, really is besides the point, as Talmudic legalism is not how Buddhist texts are interpreted (even the idea of putting anything in words is, ultimately, just another raft for crossing rivers).

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. If you kill, you face the consequences. That's it, whatever those consequences may be. Those consequences are almost always bad, so don't fucking kill. For the vast majority of situations, killing should be the last thing you should do, yes. But, there are situations where killing is the lesser of two evils (The Jataka Tales actually deal with a former life of the Buddha's doing literally just that).

And yes, accidental killings do generate karma, it's just not the same as an intentional killing. The fact that your continued existence, at some level, requires killing, is part of samsara. Bad things happen, samsara sucks, that's why Buddhism is a thing at all.

[Anonymous No.15984308]

>>15983815
>How to understand these propositions is past understanding, because, per Buddhism, there is nothing to understand and no one to understand it.
I love how intellectuals keep viewing Mahayana as buddhism.

[Anonymous No.15984320]

>>15984308
That's not what the Mahayana believe. A lack of Selfs doesn't mean that there's "nothing" to understand (implying the world doesn't exist), nor does it mean that there's no one to understand it (implying that understanding the world is impossible, which Buddhist epistemology explicitly rejects). This is the exact same opinion the Theravada have on the matter.

[Anonymous No.15984334]

>>15984009
>So, when I say that SOME Vajrayana sects have practices where they eat meat, drink alcohol, and have sex
Name one. Quit bullshitting lmao. There are no Vajrayana sects that promote sex/meat eating/alcoholism.

[Anonymous No.15984364]

>>15983610
>no they don't see the Mahayana as "wrong"
I am refering to the protestantized palifags, who being foreign to the historical developments in Asia and having access to the texts of Theravada and Mahayana, instead automatically choose to engage in church shopping and pick the one they think is more original based on something they heard another protestantized westerner say. Not referring to actual Buddhists
>not just "many"
In the context of the whole sentence, Mahayana uses many 'Theravadin sources' but also has its own which Theravada does not use so it is not a one-to-one
>Nagarjuna isn't needed for Enlightenment
Maybe not for (You) for but for others I believe so

[Anonymous No.15984385]

>>15984320
No. Most of Mahayana buys into a self-hood, through convoluted means. I think most of them went the wrong direction on that. Gelug school of Tibetan (led by Dalai Lama) is the one school in Mahayana that goes against the grain and is inline with theravadans with respect to self.

[Anonymous No.15984420]

>>15984334
Well, for starters, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who was both Kagyu and Nyingma, was a proponent of traditional rituals and practices involving the usage of alcohol as a tool for mindfulness. Alcohol is also what killed Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. The Kagyua lineage in particular uses alcohol for ritual purposes, namely for the purposes of mindfulness in Ganachakra, large feasts held in veneration of deities and Bodhisattvas. These feasts also often involve meat.

Secondly, Karmamudra, the practice of sexual yoga, is pretty common, and the Gelug's practice of using physical and not just mental consorts for this is pretty well known (and also one of the most frequent criticisms levied against them).

So, that's three, the Gelug, the Kagyu, and the Nyingma.

[Anonymous No.15984431]

>>15984385
No they don't. That's literally the point of Nagarjuna's entire intellectual career, and all Mahayana schools either consider Nagarjuna to be a key influence or a literal founder. Zen doesn't, all of Vajrayana doesn't, Shingon doesn't, Chan doesn't even fucking Pure Land doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15984450]

>>15984364
>I am refering to the protestantized palifags, who being foreign to the historical developments in Asia and having access to the texts of Theravada and Mahayana, instead automatically choose to engage in church shopping and pick the one they think is more original based on something they heard another protestantized westerner say. Not referring to actual Buddhists
There are so few of these people they're irrelevant

>In the context of the whole sentence, Mahayana uses many 'Theravadin sources' but also has its own which Theravada does not use so it is not a one-to-one
Mahayana accepts all Theravada suttas

>Maybe not for (You) for but for others I believe so
This isn't a buddhist teaching

[Anonymous No.15984532]

>>15984334
This stuff comes up, in my opinion, based on a poor reading of specific texts regarding the bodhisattva ideal. Filled with coompassion and having vowed to liberate all sentient beings, a bodhisattva could technically murder, fornicate, consoom, etc. for liberative purposes of helping someone avoid a bad rebirth, or karmic retribution. That doesn't mean (You) get to be a murderer or keep a harem of Karens at your dude ranch.

[Anonymous No.15984572]

>>15984532
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at here >>15984420. Outside of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, who was flat out an alcoholic, the idea behind the practices is to use it as a skillful means. These people are doing the whole "drink tea to stay awake for a week while meditating" thing, but in reverse. The purpose of sexual yoga is similar, to generate the sexual desire and channel it into something else. Obviously, this works well if you have another human being there to help.

And, of course, you can take these practices too far, and critics say that every time it's done, it's taken too far.

[Anonymous No.15984615]

>>15984420
>Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche
His teachings in the west was after he disrobed as a monk and was teaching as a layman to lay followers. Thus he's not a representative of the teachings of sect. He disrobed and went on to teach his "mystic" ways.

[Anonymous No.15984673]

>>15984615
Do you have a source for this? I've never seen anything about him being disrobed. Not that it really matters, because the Kagyu, Nyingma, and Gelug schools practice sexual tantra, consume meat, and drink alcohol in certain contexts, which is the entire point of dispute in the first place.

[Anonymous No.15984723]

No, Mahayana is superior.
If you want some seroius book on Buddhism, read The Doctrine of Awakening, by Evola. I'veseen actual buddhist masters recommending it.

[Anonymous No.15984724]

>>15984431
>all of Vajrayana doesn't
Except for Jonang Buddhism

[Anonymous No.15984759]

>>15984673
http://iafor.org/archives/journals/iafor-journal-of-literature-and-librarianship/10.22492.ijl.2.1.08.pdf

He was disrobed in '69.

[Anonymous No.15984785]

>>15984431
Read up on Madhyamaka/Cittramatra/Yogacara disputes. Mahayana is a hotpot of those three mixed. While Tibetans focus mainly on Madhyamaka, Gelugs really push into the whole Madhyamaka "primarily" route. Rest of the Mahayana schools base teachings mainly with Yogacara/Cittamatra school in mind with Madhyamaka playing minor role.

[Anonymous No.15984803]

>>15984723
Evola notes somewhere in The Doctrine of Awakening that the potential for enlightenment is great in the modern world specifically because of the alienation of mass society and crowded cities, in which one can practice an asceticism simply by being there. He also focuses on Buddhism as an aristocratic praxis (his pet issue), and reading Pali texts supposedly helped him stave off suicidal thoughts. Overall the book may tell you more about Evola than Buddhism, but it isn't a bad introduction.

[Anonymous No.15984833]

>>15984759
Matches up with his marriage. Only disrobed Buddhist monks can marry(except in japan where they can marry/have sex as monks).

[Anonymous No.15984841]

>>15984724
The Jonang were wiped out centuries ago.

>>15984785
The Yogacara don't believe in Selfs, they just quibble about the precise nature of Emptiness and consciousness, but they don't do so because one believes in Selfs and the other doesn't.

[Anonymous No.15984871]

>>15984785
Cittamatra as a term is mainly used in Tibetan doxographies to call Yogacara the 'mind only' school. The more accurate characterization is vijnana-vada, referring to consciousness, not mind, as mind is only one of the asserted eight consciousnesses. Gelug rejects 'cittamatra' based on Chandrakirti's defense of a pure Madhyamaka which was taken up by the Lamas as well.

[Anonymous No.15984874]

>>15984841
>they just quibble about the precise nature of Emptiness and consciousness
And many see similarities to their "not atman"-atman, regardless of their dance around it.

[Anonymous No.15984895]

>>15984841
Yogacara works like the Cheng Weishi Lun or the Samdhinirmocana-sutra all claim however that the alaya consciousness may be misapprended as a self by stupid people so the Buddha did not elaborate on it in most of his teachings.

[Anonymous No.15984908]

>>15984874
>>15984895
We can see similarities wherever we want. The point is that they do not say that they believe in Selfs, and argue against Selfs. Even if, however, we accept that the Yogacara are ACTUALLY believing in Selfs, even if they think they aren't, anon's original point that most of the Mahayana buys into Selfs is wrong.

[Anonymous No.15984962]

>>15984908
If it looks/quacks/acts like a duck, then its a duck. Also crooked foundation leads to crooked buildings.

[Anonymous No.15985004]

>>15984962
>Also crooked foundation leads to crooked buildings.
Especially if they don't know if its crooked, and not corrected.

[Anonymous No.15985736]

>>15984385
Read the heart sutra and diamond sutra and tell me Mahayana believe in self

[Anonymous No.15985771]

>>15984841
>The Jonang were wiped out centuries ago.
False, they were only suppressed but the lineage continued and multiple Jonang monasteries and temples were discovered in the 20th century, it is still a living tradition.

>The Jonang re-established their religio-political center in Golok, Nakhi and Mongol areas of Kham and Amdo with the school's seat (Wylie: gdan sa) at Dzamtang Tsangwa (Tibetan: ཛམ་ཐང་གཙང་བ།) dzong[1] and have continued practicing uninterrupted to this day. An estimated 5000 monks and nuns of the Jonang tradition practice today in these areas and at the edges of historic Gelug influence. However, their teachings were limited to these regions until the Rimé movement of the 19th century encouraged the study of non-Gelug schools of thought and practice.[2][3]

[Anonymous No.15985821]

>>15985736
Read Nirvana Sutra.

[Anonymous No.15986646]

>>15977254
based

[Anonymous No.15986703]

>he hasn't learned to levitate through practice of vajrayana yet
ngmi