Mahayana sutras

[Anonymous No.17219375]

What is the best reading order for the sutras of mahayana buddhism? I read introductory texts (Dhammapada, some Pali sutras) and I'm now looking to get into the philosophy and metaphysics of Mahayana but I don't know how to proceed, there are too many texts.

[Anonymous No.17219491]

>>17219375
>Diamond Sutra
>Heart Sutra
If you get the above two, you pretty much get Mahayana. Sunyata, or emptiness, is the core of Mahayana. In Mahayana, even dharma and the scriptures are said to be empty, merely pointers that describe something that is essentially ineffable.

>Avatamsaka Sutra
If you're interested in the metaphysics of of Mahayana, you can look into it but it's a huge text and you can probably get like an abridged version for effective ROI. Do pay attention to Indra's Net, because that's the worldview you get when everything is empty, interconnected, interdependent.

Aside from these it's really up to you. You can read Platform Sutra if you want to understand more about Chan Buddhism or Seon Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17219509]

>>17219491
Thanks anon. I have the Heart sutra so I'll start with that.
Are any of the more niche sutras worth reading to get some insight into particular aspects of Buddhism? Thinking of the Mahaparinirvana sutra for example, but I know there are others that are less talked about.

[Anonymous No.17219512]

>>17219375
best place to start is throwing all those texts in the trash and reading the Holy Koran inshallah

[Anonymous No.17219580]

>>17219491
>even dharma and the scriptures are said to be empty
Do the two truths tie in to the original idea conveyed by Shakyamuni that direct experience was the only thing that matters?
My understanding is that the absolute reality is the reality of experience, and that everything else (what is described, alluded to) is inferior

[Anonymous No.17219818]

>>17219509
The Tathagatagarbha sutra introduces some very interesting ideas. Also make sure to read the Ajitasena sutra since it's one of the few Mahayana texts that doesn't shit on Theravada and the ideal of arhatship, so it serves to avoid forming an opinion of Mahayana that's overly antagonistic towards Theravada.

[Anonymous No.17219830]

>>17219580
Yes. The Buddha is a man who desires silence saying "Shhhh".

[Anonymous No.17219845]

>>17219830
Ironic that Buddhism would then end up having the longest canon out of all religions.

[Anonymous No.17219863]

>>17219830
>go up to the tathagata, the arahant, the sublime, the perfectly awakened, to ask an important metaphysical question
>he tells you to shut the fuck up
Gautama was pretty based

[Anonymous No.17219874]

>>17219509
Something that comes to my mind right now is Milinda Panha, which is basically a Q&A between an Indo-Greek king and a Buddhist sage. They discuss things that often trigger "debates" on /lit/ e.g. reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.17219894]

>>17219874
>They discuss things that often trigger "debates" on /lit/ e.g. reincarnation.
I've never seen that text brought up during these shitflinging sessions though, does /lit/ just not know shit?
What does it say about reincarnation/rebirth?

[Anonymous No.17220172]

>>17219894
>What does it say about reincarnation/rebirth?
The king asks whether this mind and body will be reborn after death. The sage responds no. It's not your mind and body. The current mind and body determine the karma. In this karma a new mind and body arise.

The king then asks whether that means people are freed from karma after death. The sage responds no. You're not free as long as you're born. The king asks to explain further. The sage gives many stories to help him understand. One story goes roughly like this.

>You light a lantern in your house
>You trip and your house catches on fire
>The fire spreads to the village
>People are mad and ask him "why did you burn down the whole village?"
>The man responds "no no, that's not my fire. the fire in my lantern is different than the one that burned down the village"
>They argue and come to you, the king, to make the final call. What would you say?

>Well of course the guy was negligent and he caused the fire that burned down the village

Basically saying we're like fire.

[Anonymous No.17220225]

>>17220172
I remember reading about this parable. I understand the comparison in theory but I don't get what it implies on a phenomenological level.

[Anonymous No.17220273]

>>17220172
>>17220225
This is why buddha-nature needs to be assimilated to the paramatman. Otherwise the flow of karma becomes inconsequential due to none of its manifestations being linked together by anything else than the karma itself. There has to be something, or there is no point to nirvana

[Anonymous No.17220293]

about time >they start showing up with posts like >>17220273

[Anonymous No.17220319]

>>17220293
as it should be, the fight against nihilism knows no end

[Anonymous No.17220340]

buddha trannys, you will SUBMIT to the Big Abrahamic Cock

[Anonymous No.17220347]

>>17220319
Buddhism has nothing to do with nihilism you meme spouting fucking retard
>>17220293
I'm just saying that for nirvana to make sense as a concept (as the end of samsaric existence, the entry into the unconditioned), "something" has to be able to realize nirvana. If there is nothing to attain it, then why talk about it? Anatta is just a way to say that none of the stuff I think is "me" is actually "me" but it doesn't say that my existence is only the result of karmic fluctuations: only the aggregates through which the current samsaric existence is perceived are.

[Anonymous No.17220355]

...

[Anonymous No.17220363]

>>17220347
Buddhism is adjacent to nihilistic materialism

[Anonymous No.17220366]

>he finished shitting up the other thread
>now he's moved on to this one
Imagine being this obsessed, this mentally ill
Janny put down the hot pockets and do the job you're not paid to do

[Anonymous No.17220370]

>>17220366
>t-they're out to get me!!!
take your meds

[Anonymous No.17220372]

>>17220366
This is not reddit you dumbass, on 4chan you are not protected from seeing peoples opinions who disagree with you

[Anonymous No.17220384]

>noooooo u cant insult my materialistic meme cult jannys help me!!!!

[Anonymous No.17220392]

>>17220384
>buddhists
>being trump supporters
otherwise good wojack post

[Anonymous No.17220393]

>>17220347
If the arahant has internalized the reality of anatta, at this point isn't it more like a realization of the inherently impermanent nature of the aggregates?

[Anonymous No.17220408]

>>17220393
why is buddhism so heavy on redundant jargon? kind of culty desu

[Anonymous No.17220410]

>>17220392
there are nazi buddhists on /pol/ if you can believe it

[Anonymous No.17220418]

>>17220392
They are both materialistic. Lots of racists try to cope and say buddha was a blonde aryan

[Anonymous No.17220426]

*inhales*

[Anonymous No.17220445]

>>17220393
But for the arahant to attain nirvana implies something attains nirvana, that much is obvious. What is it that attains nirvana? If buddha-nature is the potential to become enlightened then it means anatta is an apophatic means to an end.

[Anonymous No.17220500]

>>17220347
>"something" has to be able to realize nirvana. If there is nothing to attain it, then why talk about it?
have you read and understood heart sutra?

[Anonymous No.17220503]

>>17220426
>reveals countless priceless artifacts and texts
Based. The power of Emptiness on display.

[Anonymous No.17220513]

The problem of "who becomes enlightened" is handled by Theravada by simply telling off the bikkhus until they achieve the higher jhanas/formless states for themselves and stop worrying about it, and by Mahayana through the two truths doctrine, or alternatively by positing two other absolutes (Dharmakaya and Shunyata) that are sometimes almost used interchangeably with the idea of atman (e.g. in dzogchen).
It's not that much of an issue.
>>17220503
>responding to bait, even ironically

[Anonymous No.17220520]

>>17220500
I think I understand emptiness yeah. What are you getting at?

[Anonymous No.17220528]

>>17220520
If you have read and understood heart sutra, why do you insist that nirvana is a place to get to?

If you have not read and understood heart sutra, perhaps that is the place to start.

[Anonymous No.17220529]

>>17220418
>trump supporters being materialists instead of being the more religious half of the country

[Anonymous No.17220546]

>>17220529
>responding to bait

[Anonymous No.17220556]

>>17220528
I get the idea that we're all already in nirvana and that nirvana itself is empty. But we do not realize we are enlightened, otherwise we would be Buddhas. That's the part I don't get.
And I don't believe nirvana is a place, I didn't mean to imply that.

[Anonymous No.17220577]

>>17220503
Stop fucking posting this! Every time I try and mock you stupid butthists for this, someone comes and posts this! Fucking stop it!

[Anonymous No.17220587]

>>17220556
>otherwise we would be Buddhas
We already are. We just haven't realized it yet.

When it rains, what does the raining?

[Anonymous No.17220595]

>>17220587
the clouds

[Anonymous No.17220600]

>>17220587
>We just haven't realized it
Yes that's my point. Something needs to be realized. Therefore something needs to realize.
>what does the raining
A cloud? Sorry anon but that analogy kinda sucks, unless there was a big brain implication there that I missed

[Anonymous No.17220709]

>>17220595
>>17220600
And if you reach out to grab a cloud, what happens?

[Anonymous No.17220725]

>>17220709
Nothing much, I guess.

[Anonymous No.17220730]

>>17220709
Your hand passes through it because clouds have a much lower density than hands

[Anonymous No.17220745]

When your hand grabs my dick, I coom the big coom

[Anonymous No.17220854]

>>17220556
if nirvana is something, something attains it. if nirvana is nothing, nothing attains it. if nirvana is neither something nor nothing, then what happens?

you insist that something has to be there to reach nirvana. this is true in some sense. in buddhism, we talk about the mind like it's something that exists, something that's capable of reaching nirvana. because without using these words and models, we simply can't communicate anything.

the final step is experiencing that there's something that's beyond the duality imposed by our words. that's what gautama buddha saw while meditating under the fig tree. i have not reached enlightenment myself so i am only telling you what i can.

[Anonymous No.17220873]

>>17220854
This post helped make things a bit clearer. Thanks

[Anonymous No.17220891]

>>17219375
Avatamsaka Sutra is like 1500 pages long. Why would you recommend this as an introductory text?

[Anonymous No.17221405]

>>17220392
>buddhists being trump supporters

Yes

[Anonymous No.17221579]

>>17219375>>17219491

>What is the best reading order for the sutras of mahayana buddhism?
the one given by your guru. Guruism is learned thru a guu, not in books.

[Anonymous No.17221597]

>>17220445
>What is it that attains nirvana?
what is it which lacks desire?

[Anonymous No.17221607]

>>17220600
>>Yes that's my point. Something needs to be realized. Therefore something needs to realize.yeah that's because NPCs want something to be there and so NPCs came up with retarded views like mahayana and ''sAmSaRa iS NrIvAnA BrO'' >>17220854

All this stems from the lack of understanding what being conditioned means.

Where does desire go after desires ceases?

[Anonymous No.17221746]

Why is buddhism so materialistic and lame?

[Anonymous No.17221939]

>>17221746
becauses its scriptures were not revealed but it was the product of one mans autism

[Anonymous No.17222943]

>>17221746
Because you haven't read anything about it

[Anonymous No.17222966]

>>17221579
>guruism
>in non-esoteric mahayana
Stop

[Anonymous No.17222971]

>>17219375
There is no reading order. You don't get it yet, eh?

[Anonymous No.17223445]

>>17222971
Get what?

[Anonymous No.17223597]

>>17221607
Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.17223659]

Is it true that if i chant the Mani mantra 100k times i'll acquire a wish-fulfilling chakra?

[Anonymous No.17223751]

>>17220225
It's basically saying the things you start in this life, your beliefs your values, your identity, your strengths, your weaknesses, the actions you take etc will in some way carry over to your next life and your next life will basically be made out of those things

Say you're an Englishman in one life and you really like India and Indian culture, there is a chance you will become Indian in the next life because of this or just have some kind of connection to India, your bad actions might come back to bite you in the ass in your next life too, so if you're a slave owner you might be a slave next time. So like the fire what you start in one life spreads to the next, who you are in this life determines who you are in the next.

Your consciousness will carry over, you will be the same "perceiver" but your current mind and body will die when you die.

[Anonymous No.17223762]

>>17223751
>Your consciousness will carry over, you will be the same "perceiver"
Consciousness is an aggregate too so I don't think this is true. Is it said somewhere in a sutra?

[Anonymous No.17223781]

>>17223762
You are Buddha

[Anonymous No.17223786]

>>17223781
What does that have to do with consciousness

[Anonymous No.17223809]

>>17223751
>Say you're an Englishman in one life and you really like India and Indian culture, there is a chance you will become Indian
does that mean i have a chance of being reborn as a cute korean twink?

[Anonymous No.17223814]

>>17223762
>Is it said somewhere in a sutra

Probably not but the terminology is from another time and I think we actually have better terminology these days, if Buddha was a live today I think he would have a much easier time explaining these concepts than he did back then. But basically the reason I think consciousness carries over is because what else can reasonably be considered "you" that isn't the body or the mind? It must be the conscious observer or else there is no connection between lives at all.

[Anonymous No.17223822]

>>17223786
if you understood that your perverse hang up over self and rebirth would cease.

[Anonymous No.17223900]

>>17223762
The only other thing I can think of that makes any sense is that any and all consciousness aggregates that form will always be "you", the same perceiver every time.

I think this is how it is. It's all you, it's only you.

[Anonymous No.17224040]

>>17223822
Why is it perverse? I think it's a legitimate question

[Anonymous No.17224355]

>>17223822
Why do Mahayanists have no critical thinking. Is it because they are their guru's braindead puppets?

[Anonymous No.17224367]

>>17224355
>>17222966

[Anonymous No.17224389]

>>17223751
>>17223762
>>17223900
Consciousness is not carried over. That's basic Buddhism.

As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this evil viewpoint has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord.

As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"[1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here and there to the ripening of good and evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that?

Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?[2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up (by the root) and produce much demerit for yourself.

That will lead to your long-term harm and suffering."

Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks?

Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, even warm in this Dhamma and Vinaya?"

"How could he be, lord?

No, lord."

When this was said, the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss for words.

[Anonymous No.17224395]

"Consciousness, monks, is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye and forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear and sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose and aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue and flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body and tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye and forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear and sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose and aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue and flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body and tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness.

Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect and ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17224415]

"Monks, do you see, 'This has come to be'?"[3]

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, do you see, 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, do you see, 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'Has this come to be?'

— does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'Does it come into play from that nutriment?'

— does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"From the doubt — 'From the cessation of that nutriment, is what has come to be subject to cessation?'

— does uncertainty arise?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, for one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'This has come to be,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

"For one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'It comes into play from that nutriment,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

"For one who sees with right discernment, as it has come to be, that 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation,' is that uncertainty abandoned?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, are you thus free from uncertainty here that 'This has come to be'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Are you thus free from uncertainty here that 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Are you thus free from uncertainty here that 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, is it well seen (by you) that 'This has come to be'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Is it well seen (by you) that 'It comes into play from that nutriment'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Is it well seen (by you) that 'From the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation'?"

"Yes, lord."

"Monks, if you were to adhere to this view — so pure, so bright — if you were to cherish it, treasure it, regard it as 'mine,' would you understand the Dhamma taught as analogous to a raft,[4] for crossing over, not for holding on to?"

"No, lord."

"If you were not to adhere to this view — so pure, so bright — if you were to not to cherish it, not to treasure it, not to regard it as 'mine,' would you understand the Dhamma taught as analogous to a raft, for crossing over, not for holding on to?"

"Yes, lord."

[Anonymous No.17224421]

>>17223659
it's true that you'll waste your time doing it

[Anonymous No.17224423]

>>17224389
>"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that?
Damn Siddartha was stone cold

[Anonymous No.17224687]

>>17224040
It's perverse because Buddhism is a part of their identity and when you question the fundamental basics about it that people develop a taboo about not questioning it's as though you are attacking their very identity

[Anonymous No.17224691]

>>17224687
You're very obviously biased too, I'm looking for an actual answer, not your personal posturing

[Anonymous No.17224788]

>>17224691
>I'm looking for an actual answer,
You have already been provided with it in this thread. Buddha only uses the word 'consciousness' with regard to things that are only objects of conciousness, i.e. the auditory and visual consciousness produced by specific sense-organs (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc) and the thinking faculty. Buddha doesn't use any word in the Pali Canon to denote the presiding sentience to which those things occur, or consciousness as such. He either didn't believe that it exists, he was an NPC and didn't have one, or is anatta supposed to point to it apophatically, take your pick. He certainly didn't teach openly of one consciousness that continues from life to life though, however ridiculous this may seem.

[Anonymous No.17224880]

>>17224788
>however ridiculous this may seem.
Why is that ridiculous?

[Anonymous No.17225114]

>>17224880
It is ridiculous because entities don't suffer the consequences of their own karma, but instead other newly arisen entities do. A murderer slaughters people, and a newly arisen consciousness in the next birth suffers the hellish effects of that karma, but the murderer's consciousness has been extinguished at the death of their body and didn't continue to experiences the consequences of its actions. It also makes the divisions of 'stream-entrant', 'twice-returner', 'once-returner' etc all meaningless since it's not actually the same consciousness who enters the stream and who only has two births left, but instead that consciousness is extinguished and the term only applies to the new entity of newly-arisen consciousness who is not the one who supposedly attained that distinction to begin with.

[Anonymous No.17225146]

>>17225114
So? The logical conclusion is that you aren't your consciousness, which is what the Buddha taught anyway. Not sure how this is ridiculous at all. Identifying with the aggregates, including consciousness, is one of the first things the Buddha says not to do.

[Anonymous No.17225313]

>>17224389
>>17224395
>>17224415
Okay so then how is the rebirth "you"?

[Anonymous No.17225320]

>>17225313
See >>17225146
Anatta is extreme apophatism to the point where even attempting to identify what 'you' are is missing the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.17225324]

>>17225320
I guess so, but I kinda don't buy it. Why not just kill yourself then? it achieves the same thing?

[Anonymous No.17225331]

>>17225324
I don't get your question. Why kill yourself?

[Anonymous No.17225350]

>>17225331
Because surely you would die anyway? why even care about your karma if it's not actually yours?

[Anonymous No.17225353]

>>17225350
But it is yours, did you read my posts?

[Anonymous No.17225362]

>>17225353
But you said consciousness doesn't pass through death?

[Anonymous No.17225364]

>>17225362
Why does consciousness have to be you?

[Anonymous No.17225374]

>>17225362
A human is far more than just consciousness. Most of your life is not the product of the ego. Have you ever had a thought that sprung not from the ego? Have you ever happened upon the answer to a problem out of nowhere? Hell, have you ever had someone smack your knee, and your leg shoots out to kick them?

[Anonymous No.17225390]

>>17225374
You don't even have to look for specific examples. The proof that you are not your consciousness is given to you every night.

[Anonymous No.17225397]

>>17225114
>>It is ridiculous because entities don't suffer the consequences of their own karma, but instead other newly arisen entities do.
no, karma happens in this life too

[Anonymous No.17225417]

>>17225364
Because things are constituted and defined by their essential nature, and as a conscious or sentient being, I am constituted and defined by my consciousness, or sentience. The very concepts of 'you', 'me', 'existence', 'freedom', 'liberation', 'Nirvana' and so on can only be grasped through consciousness.

[Anonymous No.17225424]

>>17225364
Well, it's not but since it's what allows for experience to happen it seems different than caring about shit that happens "in the dark" such as any rebirths. Since consciousness doesn't carry over then killing myself would free me all the same, no?

And what of the Tibetan Book of the Dead which seems to describe an afterlife and conscious experience after the death of the body? Is that discounted?

[Anonymous No.17225426]

>>17225417
The main idea in Buddhism is that the essential nature of all things is emptiness. So you're already operating with a different assumption.
Nirvana is not grasped by consciousness, by the way.

[Anonymous No.17225435]

>>17225417
Not him but your definitions of reality are not actual reality, and in fact those definitions are in themselves empty.

[Anonymous No.17225462]

>>17225424
I think the problem here is that you're taking consciousness as the standard for evaluating everything else, while Buddhist phenomenology implies that there are things beyond consciousness, which itself is only an aggregate.
The Bardo Thodol (putting aside the fact that it's only really taken seriously by Tibetan Buddhists) describes the process of rebirth or liberation. There are three intermediate states (or bardos) through which the pure mind, separated from the body, goes through. In each of those bardos, the realization that all you are perceiving is the "spontaneous play of your own mind" leads to immediate liberation by realizing the existence of the Dharmakaya, which itself is beyond consciousness. So consciousness is not seen as the be-all and end-all in Buddhism, and Mahayana especially takes the Dharmakaya, Shunyata and buddha-nature as some fundamental concepts that do not require the changing stream of consciousness.
You'll find that most religions don't posit the consciousness or ego identity as anything else than an illusion, anyway. Buddhism isn't really an exception or an anomaly, it's just particularly extreme in its apophatism.

[Anonymous No.17225509]

>>17223659
you can just invoke the name of amitabha buddha a few times and will be GUARANTEED a spot in the pure land

[Anonymous No.17225521]

>>17225462
This is actually really interesting since I've read NDE accounts where they say there's an afterlife but they don't "see" things, rather they just "know" things. They say it's impossible to really describe.

[Anonymous No.17225528]

>>17225521
Some aspects of NDE reports are disturbingly similar to some things reported in the Bardo Thodol. It's an interesting subject, but I think it's just a distraction.

[Anonymous No.17225535]

>>17225426
>The main idea in Buddhism is that the essential nature of all things is emptiness. So you're already operating with a different assumption.
I'm aware, that you are having to resort to circular reasoning (your position is wrong because it doesn't start by presuming this other Buddhist claim to be an axiomatic truth) shows the non-sensical and cult-like nature of Buddhism whereby people are indoctrinated into a menagerie of highly suspect forms of reasoning.
>Nirvana is not grasped by consciousness, by the way.
Not grasped as an object of thought, but things can only be experienced through the medium of consciousness/sentience. Outside of sentience there is no experiencer and no way for anything to be experienced. Do you know what also has no experiencer, no experience and no sentience? Complete nothingness, complete non-existence. And if there is no experiencer of Parinirvana (since the aggregates no longer are producing consciousness), no experience of Parinirvana, there is no way to distinguish it whatsoever from complete nothingness. If Parinirvana is not experienced at all by consciousness than you make it non-different from and indistinguishable from a nihilist annihilation into eternal nothingness.
>b-b-but buddha said that nirvana wasn't an a-annihilation...
Yes, I'm aware, but this is something that Buddhists have to accept on faith, but the idea itself is fundamentally illogical, there is an inherent contradiction to it which Buddhists just paper over and ignore (no-views man, just like turn off your discernment for contradiction man...), Buddha didn't actually explain why it wasn't an annihilation or how Parinirvana is experienced in any way instead of being a complete void.

[Anonymous No.17225559]

>>17225535
Not really. You're making a lot of assumptions and take things that go against your reasoning as "cult-like".
>things can only be experienced through the medium of consciousness/sentience
I'm talking to a wall here. This is why all discussion is irrelevant bullshit in the face of direct experience. The Buddhist position is that consciousness is not the ultimate reality.
The rest of your post if the usual stuff ("nirvana is nothingness", "buddhism is nihilism") and is absolutely false and directly contradicted by all Buddhist scripture.
You're looking to start shitflinging, I'm not interested. Have a good one

[Anonymous No.17225583]

>>17225535
>the idea itself is fundamentally illogical
Why wouldn't absolute transcendence also transcend logic?
Read the Dhammapada and the Heart sutra. I can see your talking points are rehashes of the most common questions asked on /lit/ by people who aren't acquainted with Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17225591]

>>17225535
>>Yes, I'm aware, but this is something that Buddhists have to accept on faith
no
>>17225535
>Buddha didn't actually explain why it wasn't an annihilation or how Parinirvana is experienced in any way instead of being a complete void.

he said it's annihilation of dukkha, but you prefer to seethe

>>17225535
>but the idea itself is fundamentally illogical, there is an inherent contradiction to it which Buddhists just paper over and ignore (no-views man, just like turn off your discernment for contradiction man...),
You speak of logic and knows nothing about it

[Anonymous No.17225712]

buddha guys cant fuck

[Anonymous No.17225753]

>>17225591
Nirvana is the annihilation of dukkha, parinirvana is just what happens to an enlightened being upon bodily death (which is never described as far as I know although I haven't read the nirvana sutra yet)

[Anonymous No.17225770]

>>17225753
Dukkha more like doo doo lol *BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP*

[Anonymous No.17225802]

When booba sat under a tree and meditated for hours and days did he shit and piss himself repeatedly or did he take the poo to the loo? Dios Mio, imagine the smell of rancid curry shits piled on top of each other and caked all over his loincloth.

[Anonymous No.17225868]

>>17225462
What is the difference between the highest level of selfhood and the highest level of reality?

[Anonymous No.17225912]

the idea that all religions lead to God is false because there is only one tradition that is not a religion in the same sense of others (i.e. men seeking God) but God seeking men. there is only one actual revelation that fulfilled all religions, that's when God incarnated 2000 years ago. in this sense christianity is not a religion, but an actual revelation. Buddha might have been a precursor of Christ, but if he doesn't lead to Christ he is a thief, an anti-christ, because Christ fulfilled all religions.

[Anonymous No.17225922]

>>17225912
Why do christcucks hijack every single thread about spirituality to proselytize? Go talk about your dead jew in a thread dedicated to him

[Anonymous No.17225925]

>>17225912
Based, we must remind the buddha babys every day that they are living in an Abrahamic world :)

[Anonymous No.17225928]

>>17225922
cope

[Anonymous No.17225932]

>>17225922
>NOOOOO MOMMY ITS NOT FAIR!!!!
Dude, be a man lmao. Complaining about the mean viril Abrahamics is just unmanly and weak

[Anonymous No.17225939]

>>17225922
cope lol!

[Anonymous No.17225952]

What did buddha say about booba?

[Anonymous No.17225953]

1 focus on navel < start here
2 meditate
3 cope

[Anonymous No.17226003]

This thread is claimed by the MONOTHEIST followers of THE GOD and his prophets inshallah

[Anonymous No.17226135]

>>17225868
They're the same. The point is to realize the union of the "self" with reality.

[Anonymous No.17226262]

>>17226135
Idk sounds a little too materialistic

[Anonymous No.17226301]

>>17224788
Do any of the discourses make a distinction between the mind and the consciousness aggregate? As the skandhas get more abstract it's difficult to pinpoint what exactly is being talked about.

[Anonymous No.17226305]

>>17226262
shut up SHUT UP
LEAVE US ALONE

[Anonymous No.17226330]

>>17226301
The distinction between the five aggregates, the six sense bases, how mental factors, form and consciousness differ isn't really the point
Looking at it from the perspective of the nidanas, arising in succession, makes things clearer
Just take the nidanas, understand them, and apply anatta to them. This is more effective than trying to understand what is and isn't an aggregate imo

[Anonymous No.17226404]

The more you complicate things, the farther you get from understanding
I found pic related to be a good explanation

[Anonymous No.17226499]

>>17219509
Vimalakirti sutra is my favorite of the Mahayana sutras. Lankavatara sutra is also cool, but sort of a mindfuck.

The Avatamsaka sutra is 1600 pages or something and it's incredibly florid. A bit too high carb for me. There is also the prajnaparamita sutra, which inspired the heart sutra and the diamond sutra, but there is only one translation, by Conze, and I think it's unreadable.

[Anonymous No.17226530]

>>17226499
Is there a resource somewhere that compiles all the mahayana sutras and their respective roles in mahayana philosophy? There's so many texts
I've just started red pine's heart sutra and I'm a bit taken aback by how it's mostly commentary with occasionally a few quotes sprinkled in

[Anonymous No.17226538]

>>17226499
>>17226530
Nigga why is the bar of entry for your cult so complicated and autistic lol

[Anonymous No.17226613]

>>17226538
it's so they can deflect any logical criticism with "you obviously haven't read the ching chong ding dong sutra or the mahajuratababoobadoobascooba canon *snort*"
Burying your beliefs and religion under mountains of repetition and thousands of pages of garbage is an age old trick to obscurate the dominant cult.

[Anonymous No.17226629]

>>17226530
Not him but that's normal, the Heart sutra is fairly short. Red Pine's translation/commentary is the best one too.

[Anonymous No.17226670]

>>17226629
What is the Shart Sutra?

[Anonymous No.17226697]

>>17226404
based

[Anonymous No.17226777]

>>17226530
I think the Mahayan sutras were compilations of different teaching of different schools within Mahayana. The prajnaparamita sutra is the big central one, and the heart sutra and diamond sutra are both based on the view expounded in the prajnaparamita. It was also a big influence on Chan/Zen.

The Avatamsaka sutra is probably a compilation of a couple of sutras and it was basically a syllabus for the Huayan school in China. The Lankavatara sutra is important within the Indian Yogachara school. The lotus sutra is important for the Tientai school. And the pure land sutras of course for the pure land schools.

The Vimalakirti is my favorite because it's fun and readable and it seems to take a general Mahayana view.

[Anonymous No.17226787]

>>17226777
Thanks anon. Is the nirvana sutra worth reading?

[Anonymous No.17226895]

>>17226787
I don't know the Nirvana sutra to be perfectly honest. It is a sutra that talks a lot about Buddha nature and tathagatagarbha, which sort of introduces a kind of self philosophy. As opposed to the anatta or non-self in Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17226919]

>>17226895
It's not considered fringe or "apocryphal" (if that term can even apply to Buddhism) in Mahayana though is it?
From what I understand about Buddha nature and tathagatagarbha, they sound like stand-ins for a sort of ultimate reality or "Brahman above Brahman" but they're pretty far removed from the conventional notion of a self. Maybe I'm wrong though

[Anonymous No.17226934]

>>17226777
>>17226895
Are you familiar with any vajrayana texts?

[Anonymous No.17227065]

>>17226934
A little bit...I have a book named Essential Mind Training which is pretty interesting, it collects a couple of texts on Tibetan lojong mind training. Lojong is pretty awesome, it is a training method based on short slogans.

[Anonymous No.17227098]

Oh and btw, for texts on Mahayana in general the Bodhisattvacaryāvatāra or Way of the Bodhisattva is a good read.

[Anonymous No.17227101]

>>17227065
I'll check it out. I've been getting into the weirder parts of buddhism, like dzogchen and tantra, and their meditation techniques.

[Anonymous No.17227114]

>>17227098
Do you have to make the bodhisattva vow when following mahayana precepts or do some mahayana followers still choose to just pursue enlightenment?

[Anonymous No.17227129]

>>17227114
not him but in mahayana you dont HAVE TO do anything. but making the bodhisattva vow is pretty central to its teachings so it'd be like buying cheese and cracker and only eating the cracker.

[Anonymous No.17227165]

>>17227129
I'm not sure how you go from the two truths and the absoluteness of sunyata to the bodhisattva vow? I don't get why arhats are seen as incomplete in mahayana since it's said that all buddhas (all of which are arhats) help humanity from their pure lands.

[Anonymous No.17227349]

>>17227165
This question feels very loaded. What makes you ask it?

[Anonymous No.17227374]

>>17227349
It's not loaded, sorry if I came off as disingenuous. I'm asking because the ideal of nirvana seems more in line with what the buddha taught and the eightfold path itself, while the bodhisattva vow strikes me as an unnecessary postponing of enlightenment. I understand not all laity wants to commit to the eightfold path to the level of pursuing nirvana, but for everyone to be able to go "it's okay, buddhahood will be attained in a few kalpas anyway" sounds a bit dangerous for obvious reasons. Although the line between arhats and buddhas has always been kind of blurred, why not strive to become a buddha as quickly as possible by actually pursuing nirvana, instead of making the vow and postponing buddhahood to eons?

[Anonymous No.17227432]

>>17227374
my understanding is practicing the bodhisattva vow is the same as practicing meditation or bowing in that it's the physical expression of the teachings you receive from buddha. the bodhisattva vow in particular is especially applicable to mahayana because unlike theravada where most practitioners actually leave their world behind, mahayana practitioners mostly practice where they are, in the world. it's not a matter of which is better or worse. i do not believe mahayana actually views arhats as "incomplete" either.

[Anonymous No.17227449]

>>17227432
That's a reasonable interpretation
But for someone who would actually be able to leave the world behind, as you say, would the bodhisattva vow still be necessary?

[Anonymous No.17227523]

>>17227449
>would the bodhisattva vow still be necessary
nothing is necessary my friend, except the desire to see the indescribable.

[Anonymous No.17227542]

>>17227523
True

[Anonymous No.17228683]

>>17220426
>>17220355
Based muslims revealing themselves to be the real Buddhists by demonstrating impermanence and emptiness.

[Anonymous No.17228727]

>>17220445
Nothing attains nirvana because the true nature of reality is always full buddhahood. Only the delusion of samsara stops, or rather samsara is realized to be what it has always been.