/lit/ - Literature

File: 1.55 MB, 857x1204, Sm_Tsongkhapa-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 10:11:56 2022 No.20063761 [Reply] [Original]

I want to get into Buddhism, but as far as I know there are three main branches of it - Vajrayana, Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. Which branch's teachings come the closest to the original doctrine and what books should I start with? Thanks

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 10:18:11 2022 No.20063781
File: 2.71 MB, 3000x7000, 1612201217607.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Vajrayana is Mahayana. That leaves two Buddhisms. Theravada is essentially the only extant descendent of a pre-Mahayana school. That does not make it "the original doctrine," and to arrive at such would be a difficult question of history and philology, because no school believes its doctrines are inauthentic. I would suggest this question is not important for you to attempt to solve without first starting with the Jeets, and that if you understand the Jeets you will care less about this question than initially.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 10:52:26 2022 No.20063867 Try reading "What the Buddha Taught" which explains the core teachings as they appear in the Pali Canon, the oldest collection of sutras we have. It's written by a Theravadan monk, but everything it talks about is accepted by all branches of Buddhism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 10:54:37 2022 No.20063872 >>20063761 Bump. I really don't know anything about budhism but meditation really helps with my anxiety a lot it's the only thing I've tried that works it's either that or being kidnapped and beaten

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 11:14:10 2022 No.20063939

>>20063761
>Which branch's teachings come the closest to the original doctrine
theravada
>and what books should I start with?
start with dhamma talks, they're the most practical aspect of the doctrine
https://youtu.be/8tDfr3dsbLU

you should check out mahayana and vajrayana too, maybe those branches of the dharma are more in line with you and your way of doing things

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 11:49:58 2022 No.20064069 >>20063761 Zen

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 11:53:42 2022 No.20064077 You guys have any advice for love and compassion? I just feel no desire to have compassion for others i just pretend to care but really there is nothing inside

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 11:57:17 2022 No.20064085 >>20063761 Christ is king. Stop this Satanism

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 11:58:23 2022 No.20064092 File: 245 KB, 475x300, 1645566428261.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20064085 Cope and seethe

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 11:59:33 2022 No.20064095 >>20064085 Jesus preached for the jews, compared gentiles to dogs.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:01:07 2022 No.20064104

>>20064077
first contemplate dukkha, the fact that you see not having love or compassion as a problem tell us that in some way that is creating unwholesome feelings, try to see why's that
second, different traditions have different meanings and approaches to the concept of compassion
in the theravada tradition love in metta is not really an end on itself, metta is designed to alleviate feelings of aversion towards other people
in the mahayana tradition compassion is something that comes with knowledge of dukkha and anatta, is something that is cultivated with boddhicitta

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:08:19 2022 No.20064116 >>20063867 Thank you. Does it go into textual exploration of Pali to make its cases, or what book does? What book tells the history of Buddhism, with details on the provenance of its branches?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:10:14 2022 No.20064124 Chan, Japanese, and Vajrayana seem pretty off baseline. SEA Buddhism less so, but it also has so many strange additions.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:18:48 2022 No.20064154

>>20063761
>>20063761

As a beginner I wouldn't cling to an idea of a ''original doctrine''. The teachings were passed down orally for centuries before they were written down and Buddhism has been really good at branching out and adapting to the needs of different cultures, which is why you have these branches.
Instead, I recommend looking for the things that they share (the four noble truths, the three jewels, ...) and then go from there.

Thubthen Chodron's ''Buddhism for Beginners'' is like a FAQ for beginners.
Or check out https://tricycle.org/beginners/

Once you got a rough idea about the general structure either go with Rahula's ''What the Buddha Taught'' or the more western-minded ''Secular Buddhism'' by Stephen Batchelor.
Thich Nhat Hanh's lessons on Youtube are also recommended.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:34:41 2022 No.20064233 >>20064104 Thank you for your response let me think on how to talk back

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:36:50 2022 No.20064242 File: 43 KB, 338x450, ganga-kinare-a-riverside.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://pastebin.com/HLwj8VpE New religion board

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:40:37 2022 No.20064256 File: 538 KB, 750x941, 1582208143923.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20064077 Sounds like you are either being edgy or "depressed."

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:47:08 2022 No.20064283
File: 8 KB, 241x209, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20064104
>>>20064077 #
first contemplate dukkha,
Pain>others take actions against me for various reasons suffering>feelings generated at loss/defeat/death stress>a desire to live/survive
>the fact that you see not having love or compassion as a problem tell us that in some way that is creating unwholesome feelings, try to see why's that
I do not want to accept the real world i want others to be kind and loving and caring like i am but they cannot or will not be
>different traditions have different meanings and approaches to the concept of compassion
Exactly everyone is selfish for themselves and the extension of themselves their groups
>in the theravada tradition love in metta is not really an end on itself, metta is designed to alleviate feelings of aversion towards other people
How can i extend love when they are not in my group
>in the mahayana tradition compassion is something that comes with knowledge of dukkha and anatta, is something that is cultivated with boddhicitta
These men have chosen budhism to serve that is their devotion

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:48:33 2022 No.20064290
File: 2.07 MB, 1200x1200, 1646091556237.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20064085
>implying the AntiBuddha is good
A crown of thorns is the most blatantly evil usurping own possible. Then you would be recontextualizing all good crowns as evil.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:53:15 2022 No.20064315 >>20064085 King of the jews yeah lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:54:02 2022 No.20064320 https://pastebin.com/HLwj8VpE New religion board

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 12:55:34 2022 No.20064332

>>20064283
>everyone is selfish for themselves and the extension of themselves their groups
Sure, but that is considered delusional from the perspective of Buddhism because its soteriological concerns are not the advancement of material or tribal interests but the cessation of false clingings rooted in ignorance. So all those people you think are undeserving of compassion because of their selfish behaviors are actually doing the same thing you are doing right now. Yet you are interested in putting an end to it for yourself; why not for others as well?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 13:10:23 2022 No.20064397

>>20064283
>Pain>others take actions against me for various reasons suffering>feelings generated at loss/defeat/death stress>a desire to live/survive
contemplating dukkha means, searching why the idea that you feel no love for anyone else makes you suffer, you already have the preconcived notion that you "need" to feel love for someone else, why is that? why you feel like you need to have love and compassion for someone else? it's not an ethical question, it's a psychological one, what made you create the notion that you need to generate love and compassion for other people? if you find the answer, you'll find the standard of compassion you set for yourself and can redo it into something more in line with your current emotional state, because now the imperative of love and compassion you set for yourself and your expectation of such love and compassion are not aligned, that's why you're experiencing unwholesome state related to love and compassion
it's not easy work, but it pay off

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 13:33:07 2022 No.20064457 >>20063761 nagarjuna's madhyamaka

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 13:37:13 2022 No.20064471

>>20063761
>the original doctrine
Impossibru, here is why with a chronology of eastern teachings

Vedas:
The Jews of the East are called Brahmins and they are saying that to please blue gods, the Jews, I mean the Brahmins , have to kill horses and cut very special woods in order to burn it and dance around the fire while chanting ''''''''''magical & sacred'''''''''''' sentences called mantras. Brahmins live off the royal families and have a comfy life, spending their day doing rituals mandated by the king, because the local jew, i mean Brahmin told him that the gods were somehow not pleased with him...
At this point karma rebirth and meditation are not in the Vedas and do not matter. The only way to live the holy life is to be a born a Brahmins and do ritual by dancing around a fire and killing some animals once in a while.

Buddhism and so on
Then Buddhism, Jainism and some materialist gurus came along and said the Vedas and Brahmins are full of shit. Sainthood is not hereditary for instance. Buddhists introduce karma, aggregates are not self, and very precise meditation and their only goal is to ''end suffering''. They do not give a shit about politics. The Jews get super triggered and write the Upanishads as a counter attack.

Upanishads
From now on, in the Upanishads it's wrong to kill animals to please the gods and they say any past killing was ''''''''''''symbolic''''''''''''.
They say that sainthood is not hereditary and instead Brahmins should meditate once in a while. They do not say what meditation is since they don't even know themselves. They just heard the word from the buddhists and jains, so they just mention the word and cross their fingers their audience will move past that.
The Upanishads is a half-assed work.
Buddhism dies
Buddha died a long time ago already and buddhism with him. The Brahmins are still seething at the buddha and start to kill whatever remains of buddhism from the inside by making up new teaching like Mahayana inside the buddhist monasteries. There is barely any filter at the entrance to become a buddhist monk, so everybody charismatic could join and change the daily rules and the teachings.
The ''''buddhist'''''' bramins create new '''buddhist'''' sutras for the first time written in perfect sankrit [the language exclusive to the brahmins] in the exact same prose as the brahminical texts, but they say that those sutras are totally the Budhdas teaching '''dude just trust me lmao'''.
Now in buddhism there is a '''''primordial mind'''' which '''encompasses everything'''' and it's the ''''''''''''true self''''''''''''. Doing ''''''''rituals''''''''' makes good karma and anybody can be enlightened just by saying ''''''''''mantras''''''''''.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 13:38:14 2022 No.20064475

>>20064471

Some Brahmin tard called Patanjali decided also to write a manual on meditation. Since Brahmins made that shit up in a rush in the Upanishads , they can't pad their manual with custom teachings, so they copy word for word the buddhist manual. But this time they call it ''''''''''yoga'''''''''''''''and they use ''''''''''''''the breath'''''''''''' in order to ''''''''''''''reach Brahman'''''''''''''''.
In the middle ages, a Poo called Shankaracharya was still triggered by buddhism from 1000 years go so he tried to refute it by saying '' lol buddha did not use sanskrit so what he says is wrong lol''. To this day, the Poos still use this turd to ''''''''''''refute'''''''''' buddhism and sometimes jainism.

Buddhism has been dead for several centuries and what is left is various Brahminical-buddhist intellectuals struggling to differentiate Vajrayana, Mahayana and Hinduism, saying each one is better and different from the others. They make up lots of contrived mental gymnastics, but since they all reject the buddhist claim that ''things don't have any essence'', their teachings get more and more confusing and more and more the same. At this point in buddhism, buddha is literally the essence of the universe and to get enlightened you have to do some rituals on the order of the newly introduced concept of the local Vajrayana guru [the buddhist equivalent of a brahmin] while saying some mantras. Buddhist fucking love mantras at this point.

Nowadays, the situation is the same with:
- buddhism still dead
- hindus still seethe IRL and online at buddhism and jainism, even though there is like 0% buddhists and only 1% jains in India right now lol
-hinduism-mahayana-vajrayana still desperate to say they are different yet still saying the exact same things
- now lay people try to do meditation, but they either do the non-buddhist meditation like all the zen ''do nothing'' crap, all the mahayana worship crap, or do the the meditation from buddhist commentaries also written centuries after the death of the buddha.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 13:41:30 2022 No.20064489

>>20063761
You might like this 3-part article anon
>Tibetan Buddhism unveiled
>In the first part of this investigation we discussed the division of Buddhism into the 'Northern' and 'Southern' Schools and the introduction of Mahayana Buddhism into Tibet. In the second part we told you about the rise of Lamaism and the consequences of this unhappy fusion which resulted in the many misconceptions and falsehoods which abound in modern Tibetan Buddhism. In this final part we shall examine these distortions of the Buddha's teachings and the potential dangers they pose.
http://www.occult-mysteries.org/tibetan-buddhism-unveiled03.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 14:42:38 2022 No.20064752 >>20064332 Thank you for your effort. How would one put an end to it for themselves? Just following budhism i presume?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 14:46:12 2022 No.20064770

>>20064397
>contemplating dukkha means, searching why the idea that you feel no love for anyone else makes you suffer, you already have the preconcived notion that you "need" to feel love for someone else, why is that?
Because budhism preaches compassion for others so if i have none and don't really mind not having it other than wishing things were easier

>why you feel like you need to have love and compassion for someone else? it's not an ethical question, it's a psychological one, what made you create the notion that you need to generate love and compassion for other people? if you find the answer, you'll find the standard of compassion you set for yourself and can redo it into something more in line with your current emotional state, because now the imperative of love and compassion you set for yourself and your expectation of such love and compassion are not aligned, that's why you're experiencing unwholesome state related to love and compassion
it's not easy work, but it pay of
I don't care about anyone in fact i quite enjoy watching others fail flounder and suffer i get pleasure or just don't care that good or bad is happening to them i simply seek compassion because that is what budhism preaches

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 14:49:14 2022 No.20064789 It comes down to personal interpretation of which Asian dude was right, thus leading to philosophical incoherence and relativism. Buddhism (and "Hinduism") are thus self-refuting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:11:05 2022 No.20064905 >>20064789 What??

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:12:24 2022 No.20064913 >>20064290 >if you believe X, you must not believe not-X! Not very Buddhist of you

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:13:37 2022 No.20064915 >>20064752 Well that's where the debate begins and why there have been dozens of schools of Buddhism and national variations. Hence starting with the Jeets >>20063781

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:15:11 2022 No.20064925

>>20064770
>budhism preaches compassion for others
that's only mahayana tho, and it has a specific context, your compassion arise as a natural thing when you develop a true sense of how impermanence and interdependence act in the world, you can't force it, if you do, all you end up doing is living an inauthentic life

>I don't care about anyone in fact i quite enjoy watching others fail flounder and suffer i get pleasure or just don't care that good or bad is happening to them
sadism and apathy are the signs of a alienated mind, but the fact that in some way or another you want to change that is a good sign, just don't focus on compassion now, meditate and read the sutras (or any philosophical work really) to develop the critical thinking that will let you re evaluate your current worldview

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:21:59 2022 No.20064967

>>20064752
>Just following budhism i presume?
you can't just follow buddhism, buddhism is a set of practices, you need to practice and analize the feedback your practice generates, to see what works for you, how your mind and personality changes and develops thru the path
if you don't have a tradition, you should choose one, and search for a group of practicioners from that tradition

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:26:53 2022 No.20064992

>>20063761
>Which branch's teachings come the closest to the original doctrine and what books should I start with? Thanks

http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:29:55 2022 No.20065006 >>20063761 Just read the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, Dhammapeda, and then maybe the Maylabamaglayana

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:50:24 2022 No.20065109 >>20064925 Solid advice thanks >>20064915 Right haha what about you which do you like and why?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:54:12 2022 No.20065123 >>20065006 the gitas and the upanishads will we a waste of time

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 15:56:17 2022 No.20065133 >>20065123 Nah

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:04:56 2022 No.20065194

>>20064905
To decide which branch of Buddhist tradition is the true branch, and even whether the common Buddhist precepts are true over and against the mutually contradictory common precepts of the major strains of traditional Hinduism, necessitates that the arbitrator of which truth is likely to be true is yourself (eg. what "resonates" with you). But if another person makes the same analysis of the same data and teaching-set, they might come to a mutually contradictory conclusion, like that Kashmir Shaivism, or traditional Vaishnaivism, contains the true set of precepts and axioms. Thus, the doctrines themselves are self-refuting, because they rest their argument in favour of probability of truth on nothing besides personal "resonance" or an appeal to various authorities with equal claims to precedence. This leads to relativism and philosophical incoherence, just like with non-Vedic Paganism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:08:05 2022 No.20065211 >>20065006 It's not good to recommend stuff without a translation. A lot of translations for those text are just downright awful and sometimes it's good to read multiple ones.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:18:58 2022 No.20065258 >>20065211 Fine. Mascaro. And I completely made up the last name and no one called me out so idk how much trust is put in this thread..

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:21:38 2022 No.20065274 >>20063761 >Which branch's teachings come the closest to the original doctrine None of them. The first texts were written 400 years after Buddha died. They're all distorted beyond belief.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:24:27 2022 No.20065285 File: 68 KB, 490x327, 29278461-2B80-4ED4-9304-749264A159E8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20064085 > Christ is king. Stop this Satanism

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:42:04 2022 No.20065363 >>20065194 Since you've recused yourself from determining what is true, who has decided for you that Indian philosophy is self-refuting, and do you have any insight into how that decision was made?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:49:25 2022 No.20065409

>>20065363
I have not recused myself from determining what is most likely to be true, I have only pointed out the obvious - namely that the Indo-Aryan schools of mystical philosophy have had a coherent epistemology when they relied on a blind appeal to authority (Vedic Brahmanism and the laughably weak claims of scriptural inspiration preceding the Brahmanical sacrificial institution), and that after that authority was rejected, it became yet another baseless basket of philosophies with no truth-value besides one's personal "resonance" of which guy to believe was right. I do not disqualify myself as being able to determine what is true - I recognize that without a solid supporting argument (which does not exist), the Brahmanic and Sramanic traditions give no reason to believe that they are true, besides appeals to authority, and that authority's subjective interpretation of their mystical experiences.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 16:54:18 2022 No.20065439

>>20065409
How is a blind appeal to authority better than a weighted or guided relativism? The former cannot even admit that language is arbitrary, which is self-evident to anyone who has ever struggled to communicate a profound idea to someone else. The latter at least realizes this, even if it persists in some dogmatic claims.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:17:33 2022 No.20065559

>>20065439
I am not saying that the blind appeal to authority is better - I am saying that the only time when belief in the Indo-Aryan philosophical schools could actually be defended as rational was when the basis for "why do we believe this" was "because the Vedas are inspired scripture". It just so happened that their basis was incorrect, but at least their reasoning was sound (if the Vedas are inspired, then the Brahmanical religion is true). Once the Sramanic traditions rejected the authority of the Brahamanical system, and thus devolved into an unending multiplicity of contradictory creedal variations, their philosophical grounding became completely incoherent (as I said, the aforementioned "proofs" being appeals to authorities, and those authorities' subjective interpretations of their mystical experiences), just like the Protestant movement. Your point about the supposed arbitrary nature of language is neither here nor there, as it does not address the fundamental critique - that the fundamental reasoning for choosing one particular Indo-Aryan creedal tradition is inherently baseless and irrational (eg. subjective intuition, which, as an epistemological guidance mechanism, due to its fatal flaw of leading to mutually contradictory conclusions depending on the one intuiting, makes no sense to be used as evidence for the truth of anything intuited).

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:28:15 2022 No.20065612

>>20064915
You're telling me Buddha didn't pass down his teachings properly so there's a debate and humanity is forever doomed because of one simple mistake? I'm speechless. What good is even picking up any branch if the existence of branches is a thing at all? How can there be more than one way to achieve the end? What is to say I don't just create my own way since there exists more than one way? This is somewhat frustrating to believe and follow when there can be such debate. It muddies the waters of what is and what isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:32:14 2022 No.20065639 >>20065612 It means that, due to fundamental errors in the history of Buddhism, the Scythian is not the one who can set us free. Seek another.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:36:51 2022 No.20065658

>>20065612
>What is to say I don't just create my own way since there exists more than one way?
I am of the opinion that one could bootstrap Buddhism with a single sutra, and this has happened multiple times. You have to approach dharma not as revelation but as an expression of the whole through a fragment

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:38:48 2022 No.20065672

>>20065559
>Your point about the supposed arbitrary nature of language is neither here nor there, as it does not address the fundamental critique
No, it is extremely important—it means all systemization is ultimately babble that may or may not aid the student in the achievement of a mystical or non-discursive state. This is not something the Vedic or Protestant religions have, as they are bibliomaniacal

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:40:57 2022 No.20065684
File: 118 KB, 564x743, buddha2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20065612
>You're telling me Buddha didn't pass down his teachings properly
What? Why on Earth would you think this? The Buddha took great precautions to ensure that his teachings were properly passed down.

>is forever doomed because of one simple mistake
Not at all. Ignoring the above, the Buddha was very clear that he was not the first Buddha, and will not be the last (the next one is named Maitreya). Anyone, even you or I, could sit down and, with sufficient time, recreate Buddhism as the Buddha taught it. Dharma is property of the universe, it isn't something that Siddhartha made or whatever.

>What good is even picking up any branch if the existence of branches is a thing at all?
Ah, there's your problem: you're viewing this like an Abrahamic religion where a clique of Rabbis got together, wrote down some stuff, and that stuff, the text, is more real than reality (a hyperreality, as it were). Because the text is more real than reality, you've destroyed objectivity, which is the entire point (denial of reality is the goal of Abrahamic religion after all), thereby necessitating a state wherein any multiplicity denotes incorrectness. That's not the case here. Dharma is a property of the universe, and everyone observes the same Dharma. But when we try to put it into language, we can only state some partiality of the truth. A word, by its very nature, is finite and discrete. "Dog" is not "Not-Dog". But Dharma, by being a property of the universe, must be infinite and continuous. Multiple doctrines can REFER to the same thing while not BEING the same things. In short, there's only one way to achieve the end, it just gets described in different languages.

Which school is the best? Whichever gets you across the river. They all agree on the basics anyways, and quite frankly if you can't even sit on your ass and focus on your breath without your thoughts wandering for ten minutes then abstract metaphysical concerns are so far beyond you that it's comical.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:42:52 2022 No.20065691

>>20064913
Indeed! I have to tear down one temple before building the other one. Do you know why Buddhism vanished from India and was scattered across East Asia? Pussy ass monks never fought the Muslims who burnt their libraries. Those nerds have the best homework but the worst DMG K/D ratio STR stats. Not worth the INT boost or XP imo

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:43:05 2022 No.20065692

>>20065658
This is literally what happened with the Lotus Sutra and, I would argue, the Diamond Sutra. It's also really common the Theravada tradition for each dynasty of some kingdom to legitimize itself by patronizing a new, more "down to Earth" school of Buddhism. The latest one in Thailand was the Thai Forest Tradition. There's a tendency for Buddhist schools to get increasingly scholastic as time goes by, having started out as very utilitarian "meditation cliques" if you will.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:43:34 2022 No.20065694 >>20065133 if you wan a learn about buddhism they're a waste of time, it's like trying to understand the basis of christianity reading the Séfer Ietzirá, can be usefull if you wanna understand the historical basis for buddhism, but thats about it

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:44:55 2022 No.20065700

>>20065672
>it means all systemization is ultimately babble that may or may not aid the student in the achievement of a mystical or non-discursive state
You cannot show, without resorting to untrustworthy and baseless intuition, that the achievement of a mystical state aids in salvation, nor that it is an end which should be sought out - it may be that attempting to elicit a mystical state is indeed contrary to salvation. To prove that this aim is desirable, you have to resort to, again, what you presuppose - that the fundamental tenets shared across most types of Indo-Aryan religions are trustworthy. And, again, you have not addressed the fundamental critique that was presented.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:45:05 2022 No.20065701 >>20064913 Youre going to get coal for Christmas for blaspheming Chinese Santa Claus

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:47:16 2022 No.20065712

>>20065559
>>20065409
>had a coherent epistemology when they relied on a blind appeal to authority
this is a contradiciton in terms, if you have a fallacy as your main fundament there's no epistemology possible in your system, you're not doing epistemology, you're doing theology

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:47:30 2022 No.20065713

>>20065684
>Dharma is a property of the universe [...]
>Which school is the best? Whichever gets you across the river.
Care to prove these things, or do you only believe them because a translation of the supposed words of an Indian rhetorician said it was true?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:47:39 2022 No.20065714 >>20065692 Those are both good examples. In China, Bodhidharma was said to carry the Lankavatara around with him as well. Doxography is useful but practice is superior.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:48:43 2022 No.20065719 >>20065409 guenonfag once again trying to justify his dogmatism to buddhist in 4chan, such is his samsaric fate

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:48:48 2022 No.20065720 >>20065700 >it may be that attempting to elicit a mystical state is indeed contrary to salvation Only christians believe this afaik

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:49:43 2022 No.20065728 >>20065712 Which is why, according to your very own words, "Buddhism" and other Sramanic traditions are completely irrational to believe to be true - there is no solid rationale supporting that they are true besides fallacious appeals.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:49:54 2022 No.20065731

>>20065713
>Care to prove these things
Sure, let's start with a really simple one: cause and effect is a property of the universe. All effects have a cause. Therefore, by controlling which causes occur, you can control which effects you get. Simple, right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:52:34 2022 No.20065747 >>20065731 Prove to me that there is a "river" you can get across. Challenge: without appealing to an Indian.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:52:37 2022 No.20065749 >>20064471 Nice. Going to drop your shit and rebuild it with Schopenhauer then. My arya senses are tingling. Hold my iron man meteor idols.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:53:46 2022 No.20065760 >>20065720 Christians do not believe that. The point, however, is that that it could be true is just as likely as that the opposite is true. The fundamental problem remains unaddressed - where are you grounding your presuppositions?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:54:10 2022 No.20065763 >>20065747 Did you reply to the wrong post? I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:55:11 2022 No.20065764 >>20065760 >where are you grounding your presuppositions? have you tried meditating?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:56:06 2022 No.20065771
File: 2.85 MB, 200x234, 1626684496644.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20065763
>Which school is the best? Whichever gets you across the river.
>Prove to me that there is a "river" you can get across.
>I'm not sure what this has to do with anything in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:57:46 2022 No.20065781 >>20065764 Yes. Have you tried explaining, without presupposing that your personal intuition is correct, that the goal of attainment of a mystical state is conducive to salvation?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:57:56 2022 No.20065782

>>20065728
not at all, buddhism is a phenomenological system, you can, and should prove the truths for yourself, you actually have to find dukkha and anatta, that's the practice,not like advaita where your practice is to keep repeating yourself that you're the atman and everything is brahma like a moron
buddhism don't need to explain the origins of the cosmos because it knows they're beyond any possible mental articulation, and epxlaination, so it lets the practicioner the tools to cultivate insight so he can epxerience thoise ineffable truths themselves, not like advaita that develop one of the most contradictory and counter intutive metaphyscical systems of all time, where everything exist and not exist at the same time, causation is not explained while at the same time another world outside causation exist just to because, and the ultimate god is just a tautology, god is just existence itself, like we need to know that existence exist
i man you yourself just admited the whole advaita system relies in a fallacy, how much crappy can a philosophical system get?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 17:59:40 2022 No.20065789 >>20065747 read Fichte, he's the one who better articulated the logical coherence of a ontological problematic state in humankind, he called it "the absolute other", that's the best description of "the river" you'll ever read

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:00:51 2022 No.20065792 >>20065781 See >>20065684

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:01:48 2022 No.20065796

>>20065782
>you can, and should prove the truths for yourself,
How do you know what the "truths" are that you have to "prove" for yourself?
>buddhism don't need to explain the origins of the cosmos because it knows they're beyond any possible mental articulation, and epxlaination,
How does "Buddhism" know that?
>i man you yourself just admited the whole advaita system relies in a fallacy, how much crappy can a philosophical system get?
I argue that it is similarly ridiculous to trust Shankara as it is to trust Siddhartha. Nobody has yet presented a reason why any of their teachings should be taken seriously. It seems that almost the entire basis for these discussions online is fetishism of the oriental and foreign.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:01:52 2022 No.20065797 >>20065792 No! You're not allowed to ground your suppositions in the works of Indians!

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:03:22 2022 No.20065806

>>20065797
Then why fucking bother with this line of questioning if you're just going to turn around and argue that we have to use the histories of Random Desert Tribe #62? You didn't even address the point about why you're even trying to find the infinite in a book which, by definition, has an ending and as such is not infinite.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:03:29 2022 No.20065807

>>20065760
>>20065781
Very good, you are correct that soteriological claims cannot be demonstrated and must be taken on faith. We must discard all religion, from those that are the most empirical and relative to those that are pure "because I said so, you unworthy swine" tier. I sure hope you agree and don't have some secret system you've squirreled away for the winter of exoteric materialism. That would be extremely dishonest

Sid Meier's White Supremacy Si(...) Mon Mar 14 18:04:03 2022 No.20065809
File: 157 KB, 960x960, 1646241215039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20065612
I think it will all be solved when White people fix it. Ah where have you been all these years? Did I leave you in the dust with all those nonwhites? Then everyone else will see the OG standard generator pick up old glory and BOOM American Industrial Revolution tier global leap times 10 but this time with some Indiana Jones Great Prophet.
'ate ignorance
Luv knowledge
Simple as
Om bruv
Om

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:04:22 2022 No.20065814 >>20065789 That post does not address the question of whether "the goal of attainment of a mystical state is conducive to salvation". It simply asserts things based on the supposed authority of Siddhartha's supposed teachings.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:04:36 2022 No.20065815 >>20065796 Excuse me anon, but you're not allowed to ground your presuppositions and intuition in the work of an Indian. Didn't think of that one, did you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:05:46 2022 No.20065821 >>20065792 That post does not address the question of whether "the goal of attainment of a mystical state is conducive to salvation". It simply asserts things based on the supposed authority of Siddhartha's supposed teachings, which are presupposed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:06:05 2022 No.20065822 >>20065815 The ontological grounding of presuppositions in the commentaries of Adi Shankara is different and you know it you stupid Butthist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:06:31 2022 No.20065826 >>20065796 >fetishism of the oriental and foreign Your foreskin will never grow back

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:07:16 2022 No.20065834 >>20065821 Did you respond to the wrong person? I don't see what this has to do with my post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:07:33 2022 No.20065835 >>20065822 >ontological grounding >the vedas said so and the vedas are true because the vedas said so

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:09:11 2022 No.20065846

>>20065807
>you are correct that soteriological claims cannot be demonstrated and must be taken on faith.
You are performing eisegesis on my posts - I never made that claim.
>We must discard all religion, from those that are the most empirical and relative to those that are pure "because I said so, you unworthy swine" tier.
Not all religions base their claim to truth on a baseless appeal to authority.
>I sure hope you agree
Why would I agree with a misinterpretation of my posts intended to generate a strawman argument?

Regardless, I am not here to argue for my philosophical system, only to show that those who put their trusts in the baseless words of random Indian guys hold a philosophically incoherent position that suspends the process of rationality - usually because of fetishism of the oriental and foreign.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:10:10 2022 No.20065852 >>20065846 >philosophically incoherent position that suspends the process of rationality Those are some big assumptions buddy. What random Greek guy gave you those?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:10:24 2022 No.20065853

>>20065796
>How do you know what the "truths" are that you have to "prove" for yourself?
by the positive change sin your mental composiiton, is not a logical of rational truth, it's aphenomenological one, that take into account subjectivity and the articulations of the concepts

>How does "Buddhism" know that?
by knowing the limits of human cognition, which isn't all that hard to be honest, the human mind have very particular ways of articulating itself, you can articulate pretty concise limits on human understanding, buddha wasn't the only one who did it

>Nobody has yet presented a reason why any of their teachings should be taken seriously.
that has more to do with the fact that most thread on lit/ already take for granted people intersetd in buddhism already accepted some of the fundament, if you want to start a thread on why some system should be taken seriously, you should do it, maybe you would find some good answers

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:11:28 2022 No.20065860
File: 11 KB, 128x103, 1636390395838.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20065834
"Have you tried explaining, without presupposing that your personal intuition is correct, that the goal of attainment of a mystical state is conducive to salvation?"
>See >>20065684
"That post does not address the question of whether "the goal of attainment of a mystical state is conducive to salvation""
>Did you respond to the wrong person? I don't see what this has to do with my post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:11:50 2022 No.20065863 >>20065860 Shankara lost.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:13:43 2022 No.20065871

>>20065852
I am asserting the obvious - there is no good evidence to believe in any of the Sramanic religions. I am open to being shown otherwise. So far, I have encountered much sophistry and baseless presuppostions, but no evidence. Weird, right?

>>20065863
It is retarded to believe in the words of both Siddhartha and Shankara, so yes, I agree.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:17:59 2022 No.20065907

>>20065871
By your standard no religion is believable. I am not sure what criteria are left to put forth. Perhaps you have extreme faith in "rationality" or in the immutability of language such that if you babble a ritualized formula it makes you eternally correct. I don't really know, but if that's your angle it's incredibly delusional. Human reasoning faculties are highly variable and language often spreads as much misunderstanding as understanding. A description adds nothing to the whole but merely impoverishes it to your sensibilities.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:18:17 2022 No.20065910

>>20065853
>by the positive change sin your mental composiiton, is not a logical of rational truth, it's aphenomenological one,
That certain practices might lead to better subjective reports of conscious experience is all well and good - the problem lies in the soteriological claims of Siddhartha, which are themselves rooted in the (unsupported) presuppositions of pre-Sramanic Vedic thought. If your Buddhism is no different than any new-age self-help program on mindfulness, it is divorced from what Siddhartha (allegedly) taught.
>by knowing the limits of human cognition, which isn't all that hard to be honest
Can you prove that the human mind is unable to know the origins of the cosmos? Or is that presupposed?
>already take for granted people intersetd in buddhism already accepted some of the fundament
And that is exactly the question - in this thread of aspiring arahants, why does it seem that nobody is actually able to present a coherent case for why "Buddhism" is true?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:22:08 2022 No.20065925

>>20065789
Even granting that there might be an ontological problematic state of humankind, it does not logically follow that the teachings of a man named Siddhartha can lead you to have a positive experience in the potential afterlife. The objective fact of Buddhist reliance on pre-Buddhist Vedic and Sramanic traditions which are themselves unsupported is the silver bullet which destroys Buddhism - because if the fundamental presuppositions are unsupported and irrational (like reincarnation), why should a tradition which inherits those axioms and presupposes them to be true, be taken seriously? I don't have a problem per se with people using "Buddhist techniques" as self-help coping mechanisms - but it is needlessly incoherent to add in the soteriological claims presupposed by Siddhartha.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:24:59 2022 No.20065945

>>20065907
>By your standard no religion is believable.
Just because baseless assertions are unreliable evidence for a religion, it does not follow that all religions are based upon baseless assertions.
>I am not sure what criteria are left to put forth.
Hence the necessity of the study of epistemology before accepting anybody's presuppositions - specifically historical epistemology, and ideally a basic understanding of Bayesian thought and probability theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:25:51 2022 No.20065953 File: 789 KB, 1200x1860, buddha vs christ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Stay away from Buddhism. It's an extremely ego-centric creed.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:25:56 2022 No.20065955

>>20065925
>it's not true because it's a religion
Ok, so one of us would need to argue that it's not religion, which would be self-defeating. Obviously there is nothing that would convince someone so rational as you that there are limits to what can be expressed dialectically.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:27:13 2022 No.20065961

>>20065955
>it's not true because it's a religion
Is that really all you got out of my post? A single-sentence strawman argument? If you really want to expose your beliefs to critical analysis, you should attempt to be charitable, and actually show you understood the argument before responding to it. Reread the post and try to grasp my actual argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:27:20 2022 No.20065963 File: 160 KB, 181x191, 1635536983081.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20065953 >anatman >egocentric the absolute illiteracy of christers

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:28:23 2022 No.20065971 >>20065961 Don't be coy. You are quietly implying there is such a rational religion free of dogmatic axioms. Please present it if I am misrepresenting you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:28:54 2022 No.20065979 >>20064085 I like to believe that Christ and Buddha would rejoice seeing each other's presence, given how similar their paths are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:29:19 2022 No.20065982 File: 52 KB, 292x450, norbu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20063761 Read this. Dzogchen is the highest, most complete Buddhist tradition and Norbu its greatest contemporary expositor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:30:07 2022 No.20065988 >>20065809 Bhig dhick is bhack is town: the anime

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:30:58 2022 No.20065991

>>20065971
I'm not being coy. You are reading into my posts things which are not there. I am not here to argue for my philosophical system, only to show that the Brahmanical and Sramanic traditions are flat-out ridiculous to believe in, unless you suspend your rationality. I am open to being proven wrong, but no arguments have been put forth. Can you actually address the point I put forward, or is this exercise in striving for truth pointless?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:33:43 2022 No.20066007

>>20065963
>doesn't understand what anatman means
>fell for pop-buddhism
The oldest teachings of Siddhartha do profess belief in the eternality of the self, and that the goal of life is to liberate that self from suffering to ensure eternal blessedness and freedom from samsara. Don't speak on what you don't understand.
See >>20064992

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:34:19 2022 No.20066017

>>20065409
>blind appeal to authority
>a coherent epistemology

pick one my boi, you can't have both

>>20065559
>philosophical schools could actually be defended as rational was when the basis for "why do we believe this" was "because the Vedas are inspired scripture
you can't claim that something has a rational structure when your fundament is an argument from authority, rationalism as a philosophical school started when philosophers tried to escape the theological argument of the medieval scholastics, by deffinition rationalism is the different form of escape a magister dixit or argumentum ad verecundiam(appeal to autority), rely on pure logical articulation and evade dogmas

>but at least their reasoning was sound
how so? you have to actually prove that's teh case, you can't take for granted that the magister dixit created a bette rrational system , without actually explain how that works, that's just a petitio principii fallacy, you want to establish part of your argument as an axiom
>their philosophical grounding became completely incoherent
not at all, first you're making the fallac yof taking for granted that a magister dixit creates a good philosophicla ground, second you're ignoring the core mechanics of philosophy and huma nknowledge, that is to create well grounded notions with well rounded systems of logic, in the case of the buddha, he did an empirical shift, he noticed what things "in the world" can be articulated as basis for a empirical philosophical system of liberation, thus the notion of dukkha/the problematic element in existence, anatta/the ontological apsect of existence and nibanna/the articulative aspect of existence, that is, what's the problem, in which context the problem exist and which is the range of motion/what can or should i do,
no need for gods or first principles at all

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:36:16 2022 No.20066028 >>20066007 >the goal of life is to liberate that self from suffering to ensure eternal blessedness If this is what you believe Buddhism is, how is that egocentric compared to christlarping?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:38:30 2022 No.20066047 >>20065991 You keep assuming you have possession of "rationality" or "truth" but I am yet to see this from you, only that "systems with axioms cannot be rational." You are starting to sound a little self-refuting.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:41:30 2022 No.20066069

>>20066017
>pick one my boi, you can't have both
You misunderstood my post. I am positing that the fundamental argument was sound (IF the Vedas are inspired scripture, THEN the Brahmanical system is true) - and that no such argument exists for the Sramanic and post-Vedic traditions, EXCEPT for a similarly epistemologically incoherent appeal to the authority of the Buddhist texts (or, rather, the councils which compiled those texts).
>you can't claim that something has a rational structure when your fundament is an argument from authority,
Exactly my point. Please try to understand what I am saying.
>how so?
Because the argument could be phrased as follows:
1. The Vedas are divinely inspired scripture.
2. The Brahmanical system fulfills the Vedic prescriptions.
3. Therefore, the Brahmanical system is [valid/good/true/divine/etc.]
I am not saying the propositions are true, only that the argument is sound.
>what's the problem, in which context the problem exist and which is the range of motion/what can or should i do,
And that is exactly the issue - the "materialistic" aspect of Buddhism is all well and good (do these practices to reduce suffering in this life), but the soteriological aspects of Buddhism rest upon pre-Buddhist presuppositions which are baseless and unsupported.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:42:32 2022 No.20066077 >>20066007 >The oldest teachings of Siddhartha do profess belief in the eternality of the self No they don't lmfao.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:46:07 2022 No.20066097

>>20066028
Because Christianity is fundamentally based upon imitation of a founder who sought to free the world from bondage to sin, whereas Buddhism is fundamentally based upon imitation of a founder who sought to free himself from suffering, and then had to be convinced to do anything for anybody else. This reflects itself in the religious practices of both, where the average Christian is far more active in (at least trying) to save others, while the average Buddhist, if he believes at all, is first and foremost worried about releasing himself from suffering - and only after that will he consider attempting to release others. That is only one basic explanation, I could argue at length for this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:46:59 2022 No.20066107 >>20066097 You have never read anything on Christianity or Buddhism and it shows.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:47:04 2022 No.20066108

>>20065910
>the problem lies in the soteriological claims of Siddhartha
not really, since the two notions in play here are, dukkha and anatta, the composiitons of the mind and the activity of those compositions, it's not something outisde phenomena that i should articulate logically, it's something empirically present that gives me constant feedback, and i can control it and interact with it to an extent, why should i develop a pure rational approach when i can actually experience it empirically? that's like tryingto discover the composition of water without doing any experiemtn, just thinking about it and creating dumb axioms that lead me nowhere
thus i can see that frustratiuon arise when i "crave" or "reject" reality, by seeing how craving generate states of neurosis in me, i don' t need to articulate a bizarre metaphysical system to do that, again this is a phenomenology, not medieval theology, i can see that anatta exist by finding the multiple levels of interdependence on different objects on the phenomenological world, i can see nibanna by contemplating how the different moment of neurosis dukkha are interdependnet and not a thing on itself or a thing that isan essencial part of me, but a phenomena that i can change like any other phenomena, how dukkha is resolved all the time when the mind ccreates wholesome states

>And that is exactly the question
no, that's not the question, the question was:
. "Which branch's teachings come the closest to the original doctrine and what books should I start with? "
if you want your question answered, start your own thread and pray to buddha, brahma or vishnu, that someone is willing to answer it with good intent

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:48:09 2022 No.20066123

Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin
Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers
Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations by Paul Williams
The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment by Roshi P. Kapleau
Last one isn't as good as the previous 3

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:48:31 2022 No.20066125

>>20066077
It's not me who argues for that position, but Buddhists (who claim that they are True Buddhists, and who actually back their beliefs up with quotations from the oldest body of Buddhist scripture).
See http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.

>>20066107
You don't know how wrong you are, but continue to believe in baseless presuppositions based on your flawed intuition - that's par for the course for those who champion the oriental flavour of the month.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:50:18 2022 No.20066141

>>20066069
>I am not saying the propositions are true, only that the argument is sound.
it's incredible easy to make a sound argument, i can say: you like to suck dick-peple who like to suck dicks are fags- you're a fag
the fact that you're a fag is as solid argument
you see how easy is to make a solid" argument? a five year old kid can do an argument like that

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:51:41 2022 No.20066155 >>20066097 >I could argue at length for this. You'd be wrong, but usually those sorts of people have the most to say. What's the first rule God gives in Exodus, "obey me only," right? Talk about egocentrism

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:52:15 2022 No.20066159

>>20066108
>it's not something outisde phenomena that i should articulate logically, it's something empirically present that gives me constant feedback, and i can control it and interact with it to an extent, why should i develop a pure rational approach when i can actually experience it empirically?
You are missing my entire point. I am not contesting that Siddhartha's teachings might help to reduce suffering in this life, nor that you can know this to be the case based upon phenomenological experience, I am contesting the attachment of the inherited pre-Buddhist presuppositions to this claim (eg. reincarnation). My point is that because Siddartha was reliant on these Vedic and Sramanic traditions which antedate him, and that he presupposes their truth without actually supporting that with evidence, it is irrational to attach the "worldly" aspects of Buddhism to its unsupported soteriological claims.
>no, that's not the question, the question was:
If you have been paying attention, the discussion has shifted to many other topics revolving around Buddhism in the course of this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:53:13 2022 No.20066168 >>20066125 >flavor of the month When did you adopt christian fundamentalism, was it before or after you gave up on an internet-led political revolution in your favor?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:55:46 2022 No.20066188

>>20066141
That's exactly my point. I don't know how you aren't getting this. The problem is that there is no such argument for Buddhism (or any other Sramanic or Vedic religion) which is both sound, and is constructed of true premises.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

>>20066155
>You'd be wrong
Didn't respond to the argument (as expected).
>>20066168
>When did you adopt christian fundamentalism,
I haven't advocated for Christianity in the post you're responding to. Respond my argument, or go waste somebody else's time - I don't want to play as an avatar for you to express your resentment towards your grandpappy's religion, I am trying to engage in conversation with adults.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 18:58:50 2022 No.20066212

>>20066047
>"systems with axioms cannot be rational.
That is not my argument. If you are unable to respond to my actual points, that's fine. If you are unable to articulate exactly why it is rational to believe in Siddartha's soteriological claims, that's fine too. But at least acknowledge those facts, if they are the case.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:09:32 2022 No.20066268

>>20066188
>>20066212
why are you singling out Indian religions as irrational and refusing to explaim further? On whose, errrr, authority are you accepting a self-evident basis for "rationality" such that these religions' appeals to authority are dogshit while your appeals aren't? Do show us this rationality if you can. Once I know what you mean, perhaps I can provide you with further arguments in defense of Indian religions. In the highly likely event you are being duplicitious, it would be a fine example of how poor the arguments of the provincialist school of western post-post-modernist tardlarpery are.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:13:35 2022 No.20066288

>>20066097
>Christian is far more active in (at least trying) to save others

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

oh yes, christianity love to help humanity so much

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:18:17 2022 No.20066319

>>20066125
Right, well, let's see...
>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).
So, the first paragraph of the link that you posted says that you are wrong.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:18:20 2022 No.20066320

>>20066268
>why are you singling out Indian religions as irrational
Because this is a thread about Buddhism.
>and refusing to explaim further?
I am happy to explain further, if you would bring up a particular point you're confused about.
>On whose, errrr, authority are you accepting a self-evident basis for "rationality"
We can use your understanding - do you think it is rational (or logical) to believe in the soteriological claims of Siddhartha? If so, why? If not, do you reject the idea that some set of logical principles are able to be applied to synthesize true statements about reality? Siddhartha certainly didn't reject that idea.

>>20066288
I don't understand - are you rejecting the claim that the average Christian is far more active in (at least trying) to save others, than the average Buddhist? If so, why? I'm happy to substantiate that claim with evidence, but somehow I doubt that you actually believe the converse.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:20:09 2022 No.20066335

>>20066319
You don't understand the difference between saying something is "not atman", and saying there is "no atman". I agree with Siddhartha that the grass is not my atman. Continue reading - the Buddhist author quotes many verses from the Nikayas which prove that you don't know what you're talking about. It's a common mistake, though, so don't worry.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:22:32 2022 No.20066347

>>20066335
Are you getting confused on the whole "Emptiness is an adjective not a noun" thing? Here's a good link that goes over that:
http://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/Anatta,_Anatman,_No-Self,_Soulessness_and_other_Nihilistic_bullshit_your_local_retarded_''buddhist''_will_tell_you_about.
The tl;dr is that "anatman" is a descriptor of how things exist. To say that something is "Empty" means that it exists in a certain manner. So, for example, when we say that the soul is "Anatman" or "Empty", this means that it exists, it just exists in a certain manner.

A good text to go over this would be Red Pine's Heart Sutra. It's quick. But then, it's still longer than the link that you didn't read. The Diamond Sutra also goes over this btw.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:24:49 2022 No.20066361

>>20066347
You might have quoted the wrong post, because I am using that very article to prove that the earliest Buddhist doctrine does not express the belief that there is "no atman", but rather, the exact opposite (that Siddhartha taught there was an eternal soul - see >>20066007).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:25:36 2022 No.20066368 >>20066361 See >>20066347

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:26:35 2022 No.20066372 >>20066368 I responded to that post - why are you linking it again?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:26:40 2022 No.20066374 >>20066361 quit now while your behind dude lmfao

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:28:02 2022 No.20066382 >>20066372 Because you didn't. The article that you linked explains why you are wrong. If the soul is characterized anatman, then by definition it is not a discrete unchanging noncomposite entity, as you claim that it is.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:30:00 2022 No.20066396

>>20064116
You don't need to learn any language other than whats written in the book. Aka English.

The book doesn't deal with history and branches. It deals with core teachings central to all Buddhist schools. The core of Buddhist teachings is essential to understand ANY Buddhist school, from a western perspective.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:30:17 2022 No.20066398

>>20066374
>quit now while your behind dude lmfao
You don't understand what the argument even surrounds. You seem to have fallen for a modern pop-Buddhism which denies the self, which the Buddha did not. Here's a quote from that article - which is a great read:
"Due to sectarian (and secular) propagation of commentary over that of doctrine, and more still a nominalized, or neutered mistranslation of the original Pali texts, a general acceptance of the concept of “A Doctrine of Anatta” exists as a status quo, however there exists no substantiation for same in sutta for Buddhism’s denial of the atman, or in using the term anatta in anything but a positive sense in denying Self-Nature, the Soul, to any one of a conglomeration of corporeal and empirical phenomena which were by their very transitory nature, “impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and Selfless (anatta)”. The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul, such as Samyutta Nikaya 1.169. Buddhism’s ‘na me so atta’ is no more a denial of the Atman than is Socrates’ ‘to…soma….ouk estin ho anthropos’ (the body is not the Man [Aniochus 365]) is a denial of the Man. Young men asked Gotama as to the whereabouts of a woman they were seeking to which he replied “What young men do you think, were it not better for you to seek the Atman (atmanam gavis) than a woman?” [Vin 1.23]. In fact the term “Anatmavada” is a concept utterly foreign to Buddhist sutta, existing in only non-doctrinal Theravada, in some Mahayana, and Madhyamika commentaries. As the truism holds, a “lie repeated often enough over time becomes the truth”."

>>20066382
You are reading into the text what you think it says. The thesis of the article is quite clear: that contrary to the Therevadan claim that Buddhism teaches a doctrine of "no atman", the earliest Buddhist texts clearly do teach the existence of an atman (which claim is substantiated with several quotes from the Nikayas). What exactly are you arguing against, here?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:31:33 2022 No.20066408 >>20066398 so literally what he said in >>20066347 lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:33:47 2022 No.20066422 >>20066398 That's exactly what I said. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:36:45 2022 No.20066437

>>20066398
>ACTYHUALLY Buddhism is wrong because there is an eternal unchanging soul that's the real you that's piloting your body and your ego gets to live forever
>but actually it's something other than that
>GOTCHA
This is why you got bullied in high school, anon.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:42:00 2022 No.20066478

>>20066398
Dude I think you're confused about this shit. Buddha did not teach about eternal souls. It would be completely antithetical to everything Buddhism stands for. You're either confused by sources or you're coming from Hindu/perennial bullshits.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:43:48 2022 No.20066486 >>20066408 >>20066422 >>20066437 My claim was that Buddhism teaches the existence of an eternal soul, and that the idea of "no soul doctrine" being taught in the oldest Buddhist texts is false. If you agree with that, why are we arguing?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:45:03 2022 No.20066496
File: 22 KB, 351x499, 41s++RHFsGL._SX349_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20063761
There are many ways to Buddhism. My way i want to share to you was through Master Sheng Yen, who was one of the Four Heavenly Kings of Taiwanese Buddhism, reviving Dharma in Taiwan.

He explains in several books how Buddhism in China became chinese, Buddhism in Japan, Japanese and so forth. Buddhism had to take the form of the country to integrate in there life. There might be many branches of Buddhism, he says, yet each branch contains the whole of Dharma, the whole of Buddhism. They are different forms and paths but lead to the understanding of the whole Dharma itself. He explains too the differences on schools and he himself was a linage holder in both remaining Chinese branches of Buddhism and if im not mistaken even in a Japanese branch since he studied for a while in Japan.

His works are always practice focused, despite being a scholar. Some works are a bit more scholarly others easy for laymen and newbies to Buddhism and some works purely practical. The book pic related is a good introduction. Other works i recommend are "There is no Suffering", a commentary to the Heart Sutra. Or "Getting the Buddha Mind". Tbh there are too many great works too mentions. Also a good recommendation is YouTube. There are more than 1000 videos with english subtitle of a TV show he had. He explains in 8-10 mins Buddhist concepts and principles. Just type in Master Sheng Yen and maybe a keyword like "Mantra" "Mahayana" "Karma". The TV show is for laymen but very informative and rich in material.
He was not just just a teacher of Dharma but a true embodiment of it. My way to Buddhism was through him i hope you will find yours. Amituofo

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:45:26 2022 No.20066498

>>20066478
>Buddha did not teach about eternal souls
"For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads.

And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:52:59 2022 No.20066536 >>20064471 >>20064475 an informative and fun read!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:54:19 2022 No.20066541 File: 28 KB, 499x481, de15df26e9bf61c4f5672a08dc60a50b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >ctrl f "christ" >19 results

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:56:36 2022 No.20066548

>>20066320
There are limits to what logic and language can produce, and this is especially true from the perspective of Buddhist soteriology, and especially for the non-dualistic schools which hold that true reality is empty of statements. Strictly speaking, this would not be rational, because there is nothing beyond rationality for the rationalist, and yet this beyond rationality is exactly what the Buddhist says is truly real.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 19:57:43 2022 No.20066551 File: 60 KB, 838x983, 1297199206149.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20064475 Excellent niggerwalk comic script history. Like these but appropo to topic

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:00:25 2022 No.20066560

>>20066496
>There might be many branches of Buddhism, he says, yet each branch contains the whole of Dharma, the whole of Buddhism.
which is factually false and just another mahayanist desperate attempt to pass their creative earhtly teaching as higher mundane

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:03:38 2022 No.20066571
File: 72 KB, 800x450, 1646427923187.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20065979
Buddha would grill Jesus in an epic debate like he did every brahmin. Jesus would have no Old Testament to resort to misquoting because Buddha would have never encountered it. It would be like a Scooby Doo monster unmasking when suddenly Jesus is revealed to be a hunch back hand rubbing good for nothing con.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:04:43 2022 No.20066574 >>20066571 Buddha would tell Jesus his father is Pantera

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:05:01 2022 No.20066576 >>20066560 Let be

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:05:04 2022 No.20066577 >>20066498 the soul is a useless concept in buddhism, since there is zero need for this in order to end suffering anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:07:40 2022 No.20066584 >>20066498 >>20066486 Buddhism is simpler than all this stuff:the soul is a useless concept in buddhism, since there is zero need for this in order to end suffering anyway.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:14:45 2022 No.20066634

>>20066560
Don't get mad at the unfortunate northern Buddhists, they can't help it. They didn't have the luxury of having Sri Lankan autists preserve 1000s of sutras for centuries. Some of these Zen masters had to figure out what the Buddha taught based on like 2 or 3 sutras. Nichiren had to base his sect entirely on the Lotus Sutra, which is like 90% descriptions of flowers and laser beams.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:18:31 2022 No.20066648 >>20063761 >Which branch's teachings come the closest to the original doctrine Why would any westerner care about this?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:19:07 2022 No.20066652

>>20066398
>The only noun in sutra which is referred to as “permanent (nicca)” is the Soul,
No, the noun is typically nibanna , ie the ending of the taints.

here is nicca is used in the sutras
Saṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on the Aggregates

22.97. The Fingernail

At Savatthi. Sitting to one side, that bhikkhu said to the Blessed One: “Is there, venerable sir, any form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself? Is there any feeling … any perception … any volitional formations … any consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself?”

“Bhikkhu, there is no form … no feeling … no perception … no volitional formations … no consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself.”

Then the Blessed One took up a little bit of soil in his fingernail and said to that bhikkhu: “Bhikkhu, there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much form that was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not even this much form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned.

“There is not even this much feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was this much consciousness … But because there is not even this much consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned.

“What do you think, bhikkhu, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”… …—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’”

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.97/en/bodhi

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:20:16 2022 No.20066656

>>20066486
>teaches the existence of an eternal soul
No, your claim was
>The oldest teachings of Siddhartha do profess belief in the eternality of the self, and that the goal of life is to liberate that self from suffering to ensure eternal blessedness and freedom from samsara
This is incorrect. The link you provided demonstrates why. It's just patently not the case. The Buddha didn't teach this. "eternality of the self", "liberate that self", "liberate... from suffering", these things do not even make sense within a Buddhist context. They're pure meaningless gibberish. One can make the argument that the soul, being Empty, is thus continuous and non-discrete and we can talk about it existing "eternally" in a Ship-Of-Theseus process wherein small parts are removed and replaced ad infinitum such that while after a certain point it is no longer recognizable by pure summation of parts at any given point far enough back in the past there is none the less a continuity that is never broken such that it can never be said to have "died" or ceased existing. That is absolutely acceptable, and indeed there are schools of Buddhist thought (particularly in China where this plus monism is really the gist of Huayan Buddhism) that explicitly say this.

But that's not what you're arguing. You tried to do the "akthuyuyuyually buddha was a time traveler who stole everything from shankara who wrote the upanishads" bit, and then you got proven wrong, and now you're backpedaling, and people are laughing at you for being a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:22:17 2022 No.20066670 >>20064471 thats why you should read the BHAGAVAD GITA, not the vedas.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:22:55 2022 No.20066673

>>20066498
Seems like someone trying to cope with Buddhism and their idea of soul.

Skandha is the deconstruction of what is referred to as a self/soul. Anatta is the denial of any such soul. Anicca is the denial of any eternal phenomena. Dependent origination is the denial of any such first causes. Any so on.

Early Buddhism rejects all arguments about a soul, eternal one, first one, independent existence of anything, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:24:22 2022 No.20066681 >>20066673 Can eternal phenomena be invented and replicated forever?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:24:28 2022 No.20066682 >>20066634 Don't forget the giant tongues licking the aether

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:25:24 2022 No.20066689

So once all the aggregates are seen as impermanent, suffering and o son,
there is no way any kind of existence happens
like the usual sutra says. There is zero soul involved in this.

Linked Discourses 18
Chapter One

1. The Eye, Etc.

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.

Then Venerable Rāhula went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”

“What do you think, Rāhula? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

“Is the ear permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“Is the nose permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“Is the tongue permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“Is the body permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.” …

“Is the mind permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?”

“Suffering, sir.”

“But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?”

“No, sir.”

“Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’”

(The ten discourses of this series should be treated in the same way.)

https://suttacentral.net/sn18.1/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

People who are obsessed with the soul can read
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/suttas-against-no-self-and-no-soul/8460

Brother_Joe is bikkhu who claims there is soul in buddhism

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:32:40 2022 No.20066734 >>20066689 >Brother_Joe is bikkhu who claims there is soul in buddhism Irrelevant. Some random joe can believe anything he wants. Whether in aliens anal probing, god, supernatural ghosts, etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:34:38 2022 No.20066741 File: 384 KB, 480x368, 17f29724911f553a740723b5293b1147.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20066560 What a based poster.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:35:12 2022 No.20066745

>>20066682
I didn't know about that part.
>The Buddha put out his wide and long tongue which reached upward to the Brahma world. He emitted innumerable and immeasurable colored rays of light from all his pores and universally illuminated the worlds of the ten directions.
>All the buddhas sitting on the lion seats under the jeweled trees also put out their wide and long tongues and emitted immeasurable rays of light in the same way. Śākyamuni Buddha and the other buddhas under the jeweled trees manifested transcendent powers while fully hundreds of thousands of years passed.
>After this they drew back their tongues, coughed, and snapped their fingers together in unison
I get that it's probably a metaphor for speech or teaching or something, but that is very weird.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:35:34 2022 No.20066749

>>20066656
>You tried to do the "akthuyuyuyually buddha was a time traveler who stole everything from shankara who wrote the upanishads" bit
?
I don't believe in any of these Indian guys, strawman somebody else. Article that was posted is by a Buddhist, take it up with him.

"For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat se ipsum, [Mark VIII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads.

And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves."

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:39:36 2022 No.20066773 File: 30 KB, 500x400, cceaef4822b668a7788c82936c1dac54.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20066749 >theravadan nihilists >mahayana post tribulation pure land calvinists Whoa dudes

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:42:47 2022 No.20066793

>>20066745
there might be like five pages of doctrinal content in the Lotus Sutra, and it's known for its parables as well, but that still leaves like half the text being self-promoting reminders on how important the Lotus sutra is im between psychadelic episodes. I can't recommend it as a starting point for a western reader.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:42:56 2022 No.20066795

>>20066749
You're quoting a German buddhist guy who has been dead for 100+ years. He was an early pioneer of western Buddhism but certainly not a be all end all for theravada, let alone Buddhism as whole. At best, he's following the middle way between a Christian convert and a Buddhist "nihilist"

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 20:46:20 2022 No.20066811 File: 81 KB, 630x630, 304284_2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20066773 >zen sedevecantist theurgical quasiecclesiastical cathechism (with Chinese characteristics)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 21:03:53 2022 No.20066889 >>20066795 While I appreciate the history, it doesn't seem to me that this addresses any of his arguments at all.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 21:29:44 2022 No.20066998

>>20066889
His arguments fall apart easily. The idea that Buddha "really" was talking about an immortal soul doesn't hold up in any critical analysis. First he's a devout christian convert, thus his baggage. It only needs to play a minor role, not a significant one. I wont mention any other personal/cultural problems. So the next problem is the Buddhist thoughts themselves. Buddhism has plenty of different but cohesive narrative. Anatta isn't a singular doctrine, its supported by Annica and Dukkha. Its supported by dependence origination and sunyata (mahayana). We even have a famous Buddhist monk (nagasena) debating with the Indo-Greek kings where by showing that Buddhist monks were arguing against the idea of having a soul at all. The only accepted answer was the monk's name only carries a fictional utilitarian purpose without which, there is nothing behind the name. Furthermore, the argument that "Buddha was talking about an immortal soul" stems from misunderstanding of the the anatta. Even if anatta is meant to be "not-soul" as a placeholder for something else, it does not mean the placeholder is an eternal soul. Its not "not-soul" as a placeholder, its "absence of soul." Because the question of an eternal soul is logically rejected with annica/dependent origination/etc. Its rejected with the teaching of nirvana and rebirth. Furthermore, its not just eternal soul thats rejected, its eternal anything thats rejected. Soul, god, heaven, hell, life, death, universe, etc. Buddhism only ever talks about conditional phenomenas and ways to unravel the conditional phenomenas through the virtue of wisdom. Its never affirmed any non-conditional phenomenas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 21:32:41 2022 No.20067008 >>20064077 Tonglen practice, 30 minutes a day. Give it a month or two. I believe in you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 21:59:51 2022 No.20067118

Mahayana contains all of the Theravada teachings, it simply uses the Tibetan/Chinese translations of the Theravada Sutras+Mahayana Sutras (the Kangyur and Tengyur). The Pali Canon leaves out the Mahayana Sutras, which contain authentic teachings from the Buddha, in addition to exposition and elaboration from many great sages. In that regard, Mahayana is "truer" to what the Buddha taught because it is more encompassing of his work, but thats not really an accurate view - the Buddha taught over 84000 methods to attain liberation, so there is a method for every type of person, none greater than the other in practice. Some people most strongly relate to Theravada, others to Mahayana. Mahayana contains Zen, Vajrayana, Dzogchen, Chan, Shingon, and a few others. Theravada has its own branches but they're narrower. The essence of Theravada is found in the Tripitaka, specifically the Dhammapada. The essence of Mahayana in the Heart and Lotus Sutras, with the Tripitaka as a foundation. The schools of Mahayana have their own exemplary works - Vajrayana is initiatory Mahayana, translating as "the lightning vehicle," and it is most often what people actually mean by Tibetan Buddhism. Patrul Rinpoche's "Words of my Perfect Teacher" is the best overview of Vajrayana available; given its occult nature and the requirement that you have a Guru, there's not really a single Sutra to point to.

There are unique pitfalls I've observed, as well. Buddhism tends to attract narcissists, overall. Theravada doesn't really have restrictions against talking poorly about Mahayana, and it seems to attract people who have a lot of arrogance, so its full of people with big heads and myopia. Mahayana attracts people who are overly passive and a bit cowardly, but its verboten to speak ill of other schools validity, so long as they are of an authentic lineage. Vajrayana tends to attract new age phonies and charlatans, and Dzogchen attracts a lot of egotistical schizos. I know those are harsh words, I don't think less of anyone for their obscurations, but I can't deny what I observe either. Avoid teachers and Sanghas that don't smile, that charge exorbitant sums, or who have questionable reputations.

All you really need is Sunyata and Bodhichitta. Everything in Buddhism is there to help you cultivate those things in the best way, which is highly individual, so there's a lot of variety and a lot to study. Buddhism is great because, while it takes faith at first, 99% of what you study and practice will be upheld experientially.

I practice Vajrayana, btw. Its been the cause of a massive positive change in how I treat others, my life, my relationships, and my happiness...even if ngondro is a bit of a chore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:01:15 2022 No.20067125 >>20064092 Be kind, fag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:05:16 2022 No.20067140 >>20064489 Mostly rubbish. The same core problems exist in all branches of Buddhism, they just present differently. Had Thai Forest been the trendy big deal Nalanda was in the 70s/80s, that article would simply be about Theravada.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:05:33 2022 No.20067141 >>20063761 None of them are closest to the original doctrine because there is no doctrine. There is nothing to believe and nothing to understand. Only to experience. And all branches are sufficient at pointing towards the experience.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:05:58 2022 No.20067144

>>20067118
>buddhism tends to attract narcissists
Can relate.
>and it seems to attract people who have a lot of arrogance, so its full of people with big heads and myopia
What does arrogance have to do big heads and myopia?
I didn't choose one of those yet, since I'm just starting, but now I wonder if I will be prone to Theravada, I have a massive head, lol.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:08:47 2022 No.20067153
File: 38 KB, 343x600, 1622448169079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20066889
>>20066998
Anatman or nairatmya is inseparable from the doctrine of all dharmas or elements of experience as being momentary—hence they are identityless. This is in the nikayas and is picked up with greater emphasis by Mahayanists, who are going to attack the reification of these dharmas by the Sarvastivadins, just as if they were as soluble skandhas/aggregates, and the exegetical method they use (sunyata) later evolves into its own formal school. So across both the earlier Buddhist schools and into the Mahayana, anatman remains the defining characteristic of Buddhism, and that which serves to consistently distinguish it from its many sectarian and non-Buddhist dialectical partners in India over the centuries. Meanwhile "soul" is largely a translation quirk of western Christians going back to the 19th century. To say "there is no enduring identity in conditioned experience of momentary phenomena" has nothing to do with whether a God breathed life into you or not. You could perhaps comb the texts to see if there was a opinion on this or not, but would seem evident that such a notion cannot be construed as the "original" teaching prior to sectarian development.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:12:16 2022 No.20067173 >>20067118 >I practice Vajrayana, btw. Its been the cause of a massive positive change in how I treat others, my life, my relationships, and my happiness...even if ngondro is a bit of a chore. Where do I start with Vajrayana?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:16:30 2022 No.20067193

>>20067144
>What does arrogance have to do big heads and myopia?
Figuratively. Big heads=think highly of themselves cause muh Buddhism. Myopia=short sighted, unwilling to see the big picture.

>I didn't choose one of those yet, since I'm just starting, but now I wonder if I will be prone to Theravada, I have a massive head, lol.

Lol. It won't hurt to try a little bit of everything, no worries. You're self awareness is a boon. I'm just happy you're interested in the Dharma. It means you're merit (good karma, ish) has grown sufficiently to recognize its value.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:35:50 2022 No.20067272

>>20067173
First, read Words of My Perfect Teacher. Then, start with a school and teacher you vibe with. Garchen.net, fpmt.org, tergar.org, sakya.org, are all good. Garchen Rinpoche (drikung kagyu), Khenpo Tenzin (drikung kagyu), Mingyur Rinpoche (karma kagyu and nyingma), Zopa Rinpoche (gelug), Avikriti Vajra Rinpoche (sakya) and the Dalai Lama (gelug) all have youtube channels and websites. First, you must take refuge vows. Garchen Rinpoche is amazing and he offers them remotely, as with almost all of his teachings. All for free too. Beginning practices are lam rim, ngondro cycles, vipassana and shamatha meditation, and generation stage practice transmissions. You will need to find at least one teacher - simply take refuge, do the stuff that doesn't require transmission, find a teacher, and (persistently sometimes) ask to learn under him/her. Its fine to have multiple teachers. Its traditional in Tibet to pay your teachers with donations if you can afford it, but make sure they have an authentic lineage (everyone I mentioned does) so you dont get duped by weirdos. If you have a tibetan buddhist center near you that is legit, just bug them (with sincerity).

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 22:48:47 2022 No.20067312 >>20067140 Its better then this thread.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:07:45 2022 No.20067373

>>20067173
You start with the Jeets. Vajrayana is all Mahayana, so you ought to be somewhat familiar with at least a few key texts of the Madhyamaka and Yogacara schools, otherwise none of the Tibetan commentaries and practices will have any foundation

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:16:19 2022 No.20067409 >>20063761 Buddhism leads to transgender supremacy

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:21:24 2022 No.20067433

>>20066998
>The idea that Buddha "really" was talking about an immortal soul doesn't hold up in any critical analysis
It's not his idea, though, - that Siddhartha taught the existence of the soul is the opinion of many scholars. It is the Buddha's own (alleged) words - as he quotes them - [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”. It obviously presupposes that there is an Atman, but that external things (and some "internal" things, like self-consciousness) labelled "anatta" are not "it". The real question is the nature of that Atman - and that Siddhartha's presupposition of there being an atman does not refer to the traditional Upanishadic atman must be demonstrated - the case that he is referring to exactly that atman is argued by, for example, Kamaleswar Bhattacharya in his work "The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism".

"atta hi attano natho ko hi natho paro siya |
attana hi sudantena natham labhati dullabham ||

The atman is the refuge of the self. What other refuge can there be?
When the atman is properly subdued, a refuge, difficult to find, is obtained." (Dhammapada, 160)

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:23:58 2022 No.20067445

>>20067118
>Mahayana contains all of the Theravada teachings
This. There is not an opposition as some try to make out. All Mahayana authors I’ve been come across affirm Theravada. They only claim that it does not tell the whole story (not that it is wrong in any way). Theravada teachings are fundamental and lead to arhatship which is a very advanced attainment in Buddhism.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:26:11 2022 No.20067452

>>20067433
>When the atman is properly subdued
Doesn't this line refute your entire revisionist project? Why would you need to vanquish the atman, as if it were any other delusion, if it were meant to be understood and affirmed as the brahminical atman?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:29:57 2022 No.20067466

>>20067445
You can read plenty of Mahayana sutras and commentaries that explicate the superiority of the bodhisattva over the arhat. That said, Mahayana and Theravada do not coexist as major denominations in any Asian country, so those sorts of passages probably became pointless to emphasize over time, and especially outside of historical India. That separation makes it all the easier in present times to be ecumenical

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:32:41 2022 No.20067479

>>20067452
>Doesn't this line refute your entire revisionist project?
First of all, this is not "my project" - I think that all of these Indian guru-schools are all steeped in varying degrees of falsehood. I am only showing that the idea of Buddhist doctrinal unanimity on the rejection of the atman as it is conceived of in the Upanishads cannot be presupposed, as it is an open question. For me, this is all within the context of the absurdity of believing in any of Siddhartha's doctrines beyond the reduction of suffering in this life (eg. his claims regarding the afterlife, reincarnation), due to the philosophical incoherence of trusting his words on such matters over any other "sage".

However, if I were to be engaging in that perspective (as devil's advocate), I would say that the verse obviously points to the reality of different connotations of the word "atman" within Buddhist thought - and that that verse simply says that the "self" (ie. the false self, the identification of the self with the aggregates), must be subdued in order to find refuge (ie. nibbana) for one's true self.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:35:35 2022 No.20067498 >>20067466 What you said doesn’t contradict what I said so I don’t see your point.

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:58:39 2022 No.20067570

>>20067498
No traditional Mahayana sources affirm the "hinayana;" they all say it is inferior and that one of the worst things you can do is backslide into it from the Mahayana, which indicates an intensely competitive environment existed at one point for this to be so consistent. Are the authors you are thinking of all contemporary?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:01:14 2022 No.20067578

>>20067479
>the reality of different connotations of the word "atman" within Buddhist thought
As I am almost certain you know, there was not one non-Buddhist connotation of the atman either. The Tattvasangraha of Shantaraksita goes through several Hindu conceptions of the atman and argues against all of them, around a thousand years later than the historical Buddha.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:15:50 2022 No.20067620 >>20067570 Saying it is inferior does not equate to negating it. While the arhat is inferior to the bodhisattva it is nevertheless a stage in the path of enlightenment not away from it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:18:04 2022 No.20067624 >>20067570 Think of it in Venn diagrams. The Hinayana is contained in the Mahayana but the latter contains more.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:35:33 2022 No.20067667

>>20067620
>>20067624
Look, there's texts that say if you take bodhisattva vows and then switch to the sravakayana you go to hell, simple as. Maybe this is sailing right over you. I agree the most charitable interpretation of "Theravada" is one of it being superceded, but Indian Mahayana literature is extremely clear that the "Hinayana" is an inferior path (for inferior people) as taught skillfully by the Buddha for those who were unready for Buddhism+.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:16:14 2022 No.20067794

>>20067667
Correct. My understanding is that the critical/negative tone being presented here (and by most westerners) is an issue with translation and context - yes, Theravada practicioners have a different capacity for certain practices, but they can attain Buddhahood through their individually suitable practice. They aren't better or worse, they simply possess a differently shaped capacity. To be frank, I would not be a very good Theravada practicioner, I need what Mahayana provides in order to make the Theravada foundation meaningful. For skilled Theravada practicioners, Mahayana doctrines are a pleasant distraction, wholly unnecessary.

84,000 methods, you know?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:22:09 2022 No.20067810 >>20067620 You've got it, dharma friend.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:57:56 2022 No.20067901 >>20067578 Yes, and as I already stated, this is yet more evidence of the inherently flawed nature of "Buddhist" doctrine, which fatal flaw it shares with the other Sramanic or Vedic religions.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 02:05:43 2022 No.20067914

>>20067794 >>20067620
>>20067810

Mahayanists say that arhats can't attain buddhahood without mahayana. And Mahayanists say all the time that arhats are lesser than bodhisattvas .
Even the solitary buddhas are lesser than the bodhisattvas according to them lol.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 02:11:51 2022 No.20067935

>>20067479
>I am only showing that the idea of Buddhist doctrinal unanimity on the rejection of the atman as it is conceived of in the Upanishads cannot be presupposed
The buddha clearly rejects the 3 Vedas, but the Upanishads came alter so he couldn't talk much about them.
According to hindus, the 3 Vedas and the Upanishads are totally coherent and just talk of the same thing, so since the buddha reject the Vedas, it would also reject the Upanishads .

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 02:20:55 2022 No.20067950

>>20067118
>The Pali Canon leaves out the Mahayana Sutras
false, the pali people dont give a shit about mahayana sutras in the first place. and anyway the mayahana sutras are even more late than the pali ones, so even if the pali people valued them, they could not have included them.
>>20067118
>in addition to exposition and elaboration from many great sages.
they are not sage one bit, since they reject the initial teaching
>>20067118
>In that regard, Mahayana is "truer" to what the Buddha taught because it is more encompassing of his work
that's false>>20067118
>the Buddha taught over 84000 methods to attain liberation,
he did not
>>20067118
>>All you really need is Sunyata and Bodhichitta.
not buddhism in the first place>>20067118
>>I practice Vajrayana, btw. Its been the cause of a massive positive change in how I treat others, my life, my relationships, and my happiness...even if ngondro is a bit of a chore.
like you, lay people love hinduism and benefit a lot from it, but the next step is buddhism and they hate it

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 03:42:00 2022 No.20068144 >>20066498 >There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’ anatta literally means no soul

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 03:49:01 2022 No.20068158

>>20066188
>The problem is that there is no such argument for Buddhism
not constructing your argument in baisc frorms of logic that even a 5 year old can make isn't a problem at all, buddhism use a phenomenologicla approach, which is much more advanced than a mere logical syllogism

>>20066188
>and is constructed of true premises
vedanta is not ocnstructed on true premises, you can't prove that the vedas are a inspired scripture, so the whole logical chain is already useless
this is actually an important point, since it is what pretty much motivated so many peopl eto breka free from the vedic tradition

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 03:58:56 2022 No.20068174 File: 180 KB, 600x655, 16e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 南無阿彌陀佛

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 05:52:43 2022 No.20068361 >>20067125 Based my man

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 06:06:19 2022 No.20068403 >>20068174 >says it >still has delusion and defilement

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 06:15:19 2022 No.20068432 >>20068403 We're only human.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 06:39:41 2022 No.20068511 >>20065863 Thats why India is Hindu today and why the Buddhists never composed any written reply to him huh?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 08:16:40 2022 No.20068710

>>20066998
> We even have a famous Buddhist monk (nagasena) debating with the Indo-Greek kings where by showing that Buddhist monks were arguing against the idea of having a soul at all.
Thats not buddhas words, it comes from a text hundreds of years after Buddha and there is no assurance of it being an accurate reflection of his real teachings

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 08:43:57 2022 No.20068797

>>20068158
> buddhism use a phenomenologicla approach, which is much more advanced than a mere logical syllogism
Buddhists interpret the datum obtained from a phenomenological examination of experience according to an unproven apriori dogma that Buddhists have to follow, the doctrines themselves do not naturally follow from epistemology and nor are they proved by it.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 08:54:54 2022 No.20068846

>>20068797
there is no dogma in buddhism. In buddhism , there is a conclusion told by the buddha after he experience full enlightenment, and he teaches this stuff.
>>20068797
>epistemology and nor are they proved by it.
epistemology and proofs are concepts made up by rationalists (theistic or not) and are useless for any non-rationalist, ie for any empiricist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 08:55:06 2022 No.20068849 >>20066689 > So once all the aggregates are seen as impermanent, suffering and o son, seen by what, and how?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 08:55:54 2022 No.20068851 >>20068797 What is truth?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 08:57:23 2022 No.20068857 >>20068797 >examination of experience according to an unproven apriori dogma Such is life!

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 09:27:43 2022 No.20068952

>>20068846
> and are useless for any non-rationalist, ie for any empiricist.
Buddhist doctrines (dogmas) dont follow from empiricism either, they dont follow from anything but “because my magic bald guy who is placeholder for scripture said so”
>there is no dogma in Buddhism
anatta, anicca and dukkha are all dogmas, so is the claim that you can be liberated from rebirth by following Buddhist teachings, karma and rebirth itself are dogmas as well, and so are the various buddhist hellish realms, hungry ghosts, that the buddha has superpowers, that earthquakes are caused by buddhas etc etc, all dogmas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 09:51:16 2022 No.20069020 >>20068851 My dick inside your bussy, that’s truth

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 09:53:59 2022 No.20069027 >>20068952 Don’t go so hard on the zoomer, he doesn’t know what dogma is, he thinks dogma is something Christianity teaches and since Buddhism is le ebin Eastern Reddit religion therefore it has no dogmas.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 09:56:47 2022 No.20069037 File: 40 KB, 594x516, A4C38CC4-6B0E-4331-B40D-6BBAD1B8B18B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >le ebin Buddhism is not le dogma le Buddhism is le science can I get an upboat fellow NPCs??

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 09:57:56 2022 No.20069039 >>20068952 I'll take magic bald guy's "all things are contingent" over seething priest guy's "all things were made by my imaginary dad and he will beat you up if you don't listen to me."

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:13:23 2022 No.20069101 >>20069039 > I'll take magic bald guy's "all things are contingent" contingent on what?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:14:53 2022 No.20069109 >>20069101 Other things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:15:36 2022 No.20069113 File: 38 KB, 474x649, Evola.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20064085 >>20065953 >God: Anatta >The Father: Adi-Buddha >The Son (Logos): Dharma >The Holy Spirit: Buddhadhātu Same story, different names anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:20:28 2022 No.20069133 >>20069109 >other things like what? can you be specific?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:29:02 2022 No.20069171 >>20069133 Phenomena are observed to arise and dissipate in dependence upon other such phenomena

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:42:53 2022 No.20069228 >>20068952 >>anatta, anicca and dukkha are all dogmas, false again the buddha just claim "' I reach X by doing ABC and if you do ABC too, you will reach X too" Learn logic if you want to use logic vocabulary instead of passing for fucking baboon

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:44:05 2022 No.20069237

>>20069171
>Phenomena are observed to arise and dissipate in dependence upon other such phenomena
First you said, "all-things" but now you say "phenomena". Parinirvana and/or Nirvana cannot be arisen or it wouldn't unconditioned like Buddha says.

If phenomena are only dependent on other contingent things and not on any foundation, then they wouldn't have any being or even relative appearance to begin with, because when you try to anchor contingency on further contingency, it's like trying to build a multi-storied house that is floating in the air, not touching the ground; the amount of times that you can anchor or connect the floating house to other parts of that house already in the air can be multiplied indefinitely, and it never suffices to hold up the house off the ground.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:47:53 2022 No.20069249

>>20069228
>again the buddha just claim "' I reach X by doing ABC and if you do ABC too, you will reach X too"
It's just a dogmatic claim, Buddha doesn't prove that he has reached X but we just have to trust (place faith in) him and he doesn't prove that ABC was the means he allegedly did so; moreover it cannot be proved that anyone will reach X who does ABC as well.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:48:50 2022 No.20069255 can someone speedrun me into 8uddhism. i need that satori real quick >>20069237 im not part of this convo and this is just the first post ive read, 8ut arent you presupposing the principle of sufficient reason

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:50:56 2022 No.20069268

>>20069237
Whatever, it's obvious that phenomena come from other phenomena. Having asked for further qualification as to what things meant, it was provided. Any ontological claims you care to make in contradiction to appearances being grounded in other appearances are entirely fanciful and have nothing to do with them. You are gunning for a first cause I am sure, and you will never be able to demonstrate the tether holding your floating house to this cause. You may think you don't have to, but if that is the case, why bother disputing with those who do not acknowledge it? Do prove that what is not there is in fact so, or do not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 10:55:27 2022 No.20069283 >>20069255 Satori is from Zen. DT Suzuki is a decent introduction for a western reader

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:00:20 2022 No.20069307

>>20069255
>8ut arent you presupposing the principle of sufficient reason
Buddhist logic tends to implicitly admit the PSR insofar as it says that nothing exists that is not dependent on other things, in other words everything has something else that is grounding itself instead of being self-grounding; but it turns out that Buddhists don't follow this consistently because Parinirvana/Nirvana is widely admitted to be non-arisen and unconditioned (the 1st exception), while at the same time the whole cycle of pratityasamutpada is not admitted as being grounded in anything aside from itself or parts of itself (the 2nd exception). So, everything is dependent on other things, except for the absolute that is the spiritual goal and except for samsara, which somehow magically exists independently despite being comprised of things that depend on each other. So, you can see that people who believed that things can have independent existence must not have found Buddhist arguments very compelling when the Buddhist themselves admit so many exceptions to their own general axioms when it becomes necessary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:02:59 2022 No.20069322 File: 28 KB, 904x282, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>20063781 I'm confused by this section. The Dhammapada is different from the Pali Canon no?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:20:14 2022 No.20069385

>>20069322
the Dhammapadda is from the nikayas, so it is part of the Pali Canon and considered to be a good introductory text to both Theravada and pre-sectarian Buddhism. It is not in the Long or Middle Discourses however, which are two of the five nikayas. Personally I would question the utility of reading all five cover to cover for a layperson as all the major ideas could be taken from the Dhammapadda and the two listed. The Gandhara lit could be swapped for the Visuddhimagga, but in any case the former also represents early Buddhist lit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:33:19 2022 No.20069447 >>20063761 Read some real philosophies. Don't be a faggot.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:36:00 2022 No.20069459

>>20069307
The framing is bit wrong, but you've got the initial bits somewhat right. Buddhist believe that all phenomenas we know/understand/feel/etc are conditioned and are dependent upon one another. There cannot be an outside influence to this dependency because an external link would require a perfect eternal thing outside the conditioned world we live. Perfect eternal unconditioned state cannot exert any influence to a conditioned thing because any interaction would bring about a series of inconsistencies to the perfect state.

Parinirvana/Nirvana itself is the end of rebirth and the end of continuation of the conditioned chain of phenomena that causes the arising of new selves tied. Only some esoteric/obscure buddhists who cling to the idea of a grounds of being believe Nirvana is a heaven of sorts, an external thing outside of reality. Those people (practitioners) are in the minority of the buddhist world and aren't mainstream.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:37:33 2022 No.20069463 >>20067914 For every claim such as yours, there's a lama or sage or text that says otherwise.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:43:19 2022 No.20069478 >>20067950 And this is, unfortunately, the bad attitude i warned people about. Keep practicing, you'll get there!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:51:15 2022 No.20069497 >>20069447 >Read some real philosophies Like?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:56:55 2022 No.20069514

>>20069113
Godhead: dharmakaya (truth body, transcendent, devoid of all qualities, ultimate reality)
Father: sambhogakaya (enjoyment body, celestial body of the Buddha in the Buddha field)
Son: nirmanakaya (emanation body, the Incarnation, Buddha in the flesh)
Holy Spirit: whatever is left that can fit the bill.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 11:58:38 2022 No.20069518 >>20069459 >Perfect eternal unconditioned state cannot exert any influence to a conditioned thing because any interaction would bring about a series of inconsistencies to the perfect state. Why? Influence and interaction aren't the same thing

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:00:23 2022 No.20069522 >>20069518 Any change in behavior goes counter to being an eternal unconditioned state. Eternal unconditioned perfect state requires the subject to not have any motion, any change, any behavior, any interaction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:00:23 2022 No.20069523 >>20069514 There is no need to map Buddhism to Christianity

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:02:35 2022 No.20069528

>>20069522
>>20069518
Basically eternal unconditioned perfect state is same as the most nihilistic interpretation of the reality where by nothing exist. Both eternalism and nihilism are rejected by buddhist on the grounds that they're logically, empirically, and phenomenologically flawed concepts about the nature of reality

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:02:45 2022 No.20069530

>>20064077
The only method I would recommend for someone seeking to love is for them to provide services to others without the -expectation- of recompense. People always seem to think you need to help someone without the desire for a reward, but in my experience this is completely unnecessary. God bless you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:04:35 2022 No.20069539 >>20069523 I know, but it’s fun.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:06:25 2022 No.20069547 >>20064077 Metta meditation. https://thebuddhistcentre.com/text/loving-kindness-meditation

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:06:52 2022 No.20069550
File: 50 KB, 565x543, 176F47F6-2A48-4A89-BB71-49D85A0AE958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>20069237
>it's like trying to build a multi-storied house that is floating in the air
You're a dancer
But you're dancing on air
Just a matter of time till you fall

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:07:09 2022 No.20069554

>>20069522
>Any change in behavior goes counter to being an eternal unconditioned state.
indeed
>Eternal unconditioned perfect state requires the subject to not have any motion, any change, any behavior, any interaction.
An eternal unconditioned perfect "A" exerting influence upon B doesn't require that A:

1) change - if this influence by A is changelessly what is always going on then no change is needed
2) have a behavior - as in something different from what A's nature is, if it simply remains its nature then no separate 'behavior' is required
3) interaction - if the influence exerted by A upon B is one-way and induces no change in A then no interaction is required

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:09:13 2022 No.20069559

>>20069528
>Basically eternal unconditioned perfect state is same as the most nihilistic interpretation of the reality where by nothing exist
Buddha said "oh monks, there is an Unconditioned", i.e. Parinirvana is unconditioned, perfect, endless etc, are you calling him a nihilist?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:20:58 2022 No.20069600

>>20069559
Thats the description of nirvana in reference to the conditioned phenomenas. Conditioned become unconditioned. Not a affirmation of an unconditioned state outside the scope of the unconditioning of the conditioned. Buddha isn't a nihilist, he's also not an eternalist. The answer lies in the middle way. A conditioned reality is the only reality.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:22:32 2022 No.20069605

>>20069600
>Thats the description of nirvana in reference to the conditioned mind*
Nirvana is a personal thing, so its a reference to the conditioned mind being unconditioned. But the general aspect would also apply to all conditioned phenomenas later on with likes of Sunyata/Dependence origination of Nagarjuana.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:26:29 2022 No.20069620

>>20069554
>1) change - if this influence by A is changelessly what is always going on then no change is needed
If its static, then it must always be static. Hence, it can never change and the A and B must always be static but B is changing and thus cannot sustain this static state, hence its illogical

>3) interaction - if the influence exerted by A upon B is one-way and induces no change in A then no interaction is required
Same as above really.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:36:17 2022 No.20069663

>>20069600
>Thats the description of nirvana in reference to the conditioned phenomenas. Conditioned become unconditioned.
How can the conditioned become that which by nature it isn't?
>Not a affirmation of an unconditioned state outside the scope of the unconditioning of the conditioned.
How can the conditioned be or become unconditioned? That's like fire being cold or becoming cold while remaining a fire, both of which are contradictory.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:37:17 2022 No.20069669 >>20069605 >so its a reference to the conditioned mind being unconditioned How can the same thing be both conditioned and unconditioned at the same time? That's not very consistent.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:38:32 2022 No.20069679 >>20069663 >>20069669 Conditioned phenomenas must always have an option for becoming unconditioned. Thats the nature of conditional phenomenas as they are not static and eternal. They arise and they cease.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:40:51 2022 No.20069688 Buddhism is just Satanism but with better aesthetics

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:41:46 2022 No.20069697 >>20069669 >conditioned and unconditioned at the same time Not at the same time.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:42:41 2022 No.20069702

>>20069620
>If its static, then it must always be static.
yes
>Hence, it can never change
yes
>and the A and B must always be static but B is changing and thus cannot sustain this static state, hence its illogical
No, only A has to be static since only A is being affirmed as unconditioned and unchanging, it is the conditioned nature of B that allows it to change, while A remains unchanging and unconditioned; that A is affirmed as static does not require that B also be affirmed as static.
>>3) interaction - if the influence exerted by A upon B is one-way and induces no change in A then no interaction is required
>Same as above really.
All you did above was confusingly assert that B has to be static, without offering a justification why, and despite this contradicting the starting premise that B is contingent and changing.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:48:17 2022 No.20069725

>>20069679
>Conditioned phenomenas must always have an option for becoming unconditioned.
The conditioned can never 'become' unconditioned or it's not the Unconditioned to begin with because it would be conditioned by the fact of having to change into that state or status to begin with. The Unconditioned is by default free from all change and becoming which themselves constitute types of conditionings. It's impossible for the mind to change from conditioned into unconditioned because this change would become a condition and would condition the resulting state.
>>20069697
Saying they occur at two different times is also inconsistent, because the ""unconditioned"" state would end up becoming something conditioned by virtue of having a beginning and by virtue of being produced from something.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:57:07 2022 No.20069767

>>20069522
>>20069459
>“The necessity for all these Hosts of Creators will be apprehended perhaps when it is understood that the One Lord of All is Infinite and Unconditioned. This One Lord, State of Consciousness, or Principle—call it what you will—cannot create, for It can have no direct relation to the finite and conditioned.

>“If all the wonders we behold in Nature, from the great Suns and Planets to the tender blade of grass or a speck of dust, had been created by the Absolute Perfection and were the direct work of even the First Energy that proceeded from It, then all these things would have been perfect, eternal and unconditioned like their Author. The many imperfect works found in Nature testify that they are the products of finite and conditioned Beings, no matter how high they rank amongst the Dhyân Chohans, Gods, or Archangels. These imperfect works are the unfinished creations and the products of evolution, under the guidance of the finite Lords.
http://thegoldenstar.org/vision11-page3.html

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:59:17 2022 No.20069778 File: 71 KB, 700x605, 4538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Niggerjuna

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 13:03:07 2022 No.20069799

>>20069767
>“If all the wonders we behold in Nature, from the great Suns and Planets to the tender blade of grass or a speck of dust, had been created by the Absolute Perfection and were the direct work of even the First Energy that proceeded from It, then all these things would have been perfect, eternal and unconditioned like their Author.
Why? Such an assumption presumes that the Author would be predisposed to author something exactly like itself instead of being predisposed to author something different from itself, but we have no foundation to assume this a priori.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 13:10:36 2022 No.20069823

>>20069725
>The conditioned can never 'become' unconditioned
The natural process of conditioned requires a backdrop of unconditioning. If a baby you is to change into an adult you, it must uncondition the baby you. The natural process of baby->adult isn't nirvana, so the conditioned adult is put in place. With respects to Nirvana, its not an unconditioning of everything, its an unconditioning of the conditioned mind that longs at things ultimately causing unnecessary suffering.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 13:17:44 2022 No.20069858

>>20069702
If A and B are interacting, it must be two way relation. If there's a shadow cast over A by B, then A is changed. If B is changed by A, it must B then something must come from A for B to change, if something does come, A must be changing as well. If A isn't changing, and something must be coming from A, then B must have always changed with regards to A henceforce no discernable difference can be shown since nothing was changed for B since it has no reference prior to A. If something did not come from A because A isn't changing, then B didn't change from A, B changed by itself/with interactions to other non-As hence no interaction with A.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 13:25:36 2022 No.20069895

>>20069823
>The natural process of conditioned requires a backdrop of unconditioning.
By backdrop do you mean the unconditioned existing on its own without changing? If so that's what I agree is correct. However if by backdrop you mean "that which changes into or emerges from the conditioned" then this simply isn't logical, the unconditioned by default can never become conditioned or emerge from a state of being conditioned, because this entry/exit from conditioning is something that would make it conditioned, it's not coherent to say otherwise, to assert that it is coherent involves playing semantic games and holding to the meaning of "unconditioned" when it suits you but then abandoning the meaning of "unconditioned" a moment later in the same post when it doesn't suit you. The truly unconditioned isn't "only conditioned in the past, or for a certain time" because this itself a condition. The unconditioned is free from conditioning at all times. The only logically consistent way to speak about attaining the Unconditioned is if the attainer were actually wholly identical with the Unconditioned the whole time and the 'attainment' is figurative and there is no real 'becoming' or 'entry' of the attainer into anything.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 13:43:47 2022 No.20070006

>>20069895
>By backdrop do you mean the unconditioned existing on its own without changing
No. The unconditioning is with reference to the conditioning, not a "thing" by itself. When milked is poured in a cereal, the bowl of cereal is both being unconditioned of the cereal and being conditioned to cereal+milk. Its not only logical, its how things are in real world.

>The only logically consistent way to speak about attaining the Unconditioned is if the attainer were actually wholly identical with the Unconditioned the whole time and the 'attainment' is figurative and there is no real 'becoming' or 'entry' of the attainer into anything.
Nirvana = Samsara. Samsara = Nirvana. Form = Emptiness. Emptiness = Form.

You're on the right track but not completely. The idea is conditioned by nature arise and cease. This is an observable fact. Whether its the fire being snuffed out when it runs out of fuel or a person dying from old age/disease/etc. What is born, what is conditioned, dies eventually as is the nature of conditioned. That includes Gods, demons, ghosts, humans, animals, fire, lightning, etc. Death is an unconditioning of physical bodies. Para Nirvana is the final unconditioning of both the physical body and the mental conditioning which gives rise to false views about permanance of phenomenas, souls, grasping for a sense of permanance, etc.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 13:54:55 2022 No.20070043

>>20069858
>If A and B are interacting, it must be two way relation.
Yes, because an interaction is by definition a two-way relationship whereby both parties are changed or impacted, however not all influence is necessarily an interaction or 2-way. The unilateral influence of A upon B is by definition not an interaction or two-sided.
>If there's a shadow cast over A by B, then A is changed.
How so? If the "shadow" is the unilateral influence of A upon B, then the scenario of A changelessly influencing B or A changelessly casting a shadow over B does not in fact change A in any manner, because it's what A is always doing. Both before and after or at any time there is no difference.
>If B is changed by A, it must B then something must come from A for B to change, if something does come, A must be changing as well.
What does "come" from A to B is simply the influence that it is the nature of A to provide, there is no change involved in something always adhering to what its own nature is, anymore than a banana is changed by adhering to the nature of being a banana (its not changed). If it is simply the nature of A to changelessly provide an influence upon B then there is no logical necessity that A has to be changing. When we have common examples contradicting the axiom that "things only produce or influence things that are similar in nature" like luminous fire producing non-luminous smoke then there is no reason to assume that the unchanging couldn't influence the changing.
>If A isn't changing, and something must be coming from A, then B must have always changed with regards to A
B would always have received the influence of A if B always existed, if B has a beginning and/or end, then it is only influenced by A for as long as B is present alongside A.
>henceforce no discernable difference can be shown since nothing was changed for B since it has no reference prior to A.
Nobody said to begin with that the influence of A upon B has to take the form of a change that takes place in time, there is no necessity that the influence has to take this form. If the influence of A upon B is responsible for a certain condition that perpetually characterizes B, such that if A were removed then this condition would no longer characterize B, then that scenario still constitutes an influence of A upon B, even if B has always existed as characterized by this condition through A's presence.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:13:19 2022 No.20070118

>>20070006
>>By backdrop do you mean the unconditioned existing on its own without changing
>No. The unconditioning is with reference to the conditioning, not a "thing" by itself. When milked is poured in a cereal, the bowl of cereal is both being unconditioned of the cereal and being conditioned to cereal+milk. Its not only logical, its how things are in real world.
If you are using "unconditioning" purely in the sense of "removal of conditions" then your unconditioned becomes a non-affirming negation of everything, which isn't practically different from the materialist conception of ceasing to exist.

>>The only logically consistent way to speak about attaining the Unconditioned is if the attainer were actually wholly identical with the Unconditioned the whole time and the 'attainment' is figurative and there is no real 'becoming' or 'entry' of the attainer into anything.
>Nirvana = Samsara. Samsara = Nirvana.
This can't be taken literally since both have different natures, i.e. suffering and ignorance vs. freedom from both. At which point you can say "they are the same thing, but on one hand viewed ignorantly and on the other hand without viewing it ignorantly", to which the response is "is that ignorant viewing itself a part of Nirvana-Samara or something different."

If it's
1) The same - you face the same logical contradiction as before
2) Different - where does that different thing come from and how and what is its relation to Samsara-Nirvana?

>You're on the right track but not completely. The idea is conditioned by nature arise and cease. This is an observable fact.
I've already pointed out why the contrary conception of attaining the Unconditioned is logically inconsistent—it involves holding to contradictory definitions of the Unconditioned that allow it to be conditioned by things like having a beginning. Instead of responding to this point you just asserted that I wasn't on the right track and then presented a description of your worldview without any arguments to explain why anyone should accept that over any other perspective. If your recourse is to reject the idea of the Unconditioned as a spiritual state or absolute altogether and assert that Buddhism only asserts that there is an Unconditioned insofar as this has a negative sense and that it is an all-encompassed negation that negates everything including anyone who might attain, reap or experience the unconditioned then it's just an annihilation that hardy different from materialism.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:17:55 2022 No.20070127

>>20070118
Im still not getting it. Why you object to conditioned things having a begining and ending? Not only is this an observable fact, its also a requirement for conditioned. The state of conditioned cannot be static, for that would defeat the purpose of being condtioned. Not only is it a logical necessity, its also an observable fact.

Denial makes no sense here.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:38:09 2022 No.20070223

>>20070127
>Im still not getting it. Why you object to conditioned things having a begining and ending? Not only is this an observable fact, its also a requirement for conditioned.
I'm not objecting to the proposition that conditioned things have a beginning and/or end. I'm objecting to speaking about conditioned things as though they can become their opposite (the Unconditioned) without ceasing to exist. Before a conditioned thing exist has begun to exist and after it has ceased to exist, it doesn't exist latently as a conditioned thing in a state of unconditionedness (which is a contradiction), it instead simply doesn't exist full stop or it either exists as a different conditioned thing before being transformed into another conditioned thing.

Buddhists want to employ the rhetoric of attainting the Unconditioned, based on Buddha speaking about doing so, but when you point out the logical contradictions involved in the Unconditioned having a beginning or being produced, then they say that they mean unconditioning as in the removal of all conditions, but since no unconditioned thing is generally admitted by Buddhists as existing in us or elsewhere this amounts to saying that everything about us ceases to exist, i.e. a complete annihilation, in which case you should just openly talking about ceasing to exist instead of veiling it in platitudes about "the Unconditioned"

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:39:23 2022 No.20070226 >buddhoid larpers getting butchered by logicanon

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:44:05 2022 No.20070251 okay i dont want to read anything, what do i do to end suffering? like what do i actually do? >>20070226 im still out of that convo, 8ut just glancing over it i think 8oth might 8e presupposing the principle of sufficient reason

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:44:52 2022 No.20070253

>>20068158
>vedanta is not ocnstructed on true premises, you can't prove that the vedas are a inspired scripture, so the whole logical chain is already useless
Which is exactly why I am arguing not just for the logical incoherence of believing in Siddhartha's teachings, but in Shankaras, as well as any other Sramanic or Brahmanical traditions. The worldview is constructed on special pleading for letting pre-Buddhist Vedic principles slip by, and forgoing the laws of logic which the same Buddhist would apply to any other system's contrary axioms (eg. X can be assumed without being proven). For people who are allegedly all about transcending false dualities, it seems that you keep trying to put me in a box (you believe in Vedanta, you are a Christian, etc. etc) to avoid reflecting on the actual fundamental problems with your system. However, if this interaction is like any of the previous ones in this thread, you will likely refuse to address the fundamental critique.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:51:30 2022 No.20070274

>>20070223
>I'm objecting to speaking about conditioned things as though they can become their opposite (the Unconditioned) without ceasing to exist
Yes, thats what unconditioned means. So I think what you've done is created a strawman about Buddhists thinking there's an afterlife after Nirvana. Nirvana means blowing out the fire. Its not moving the fire to another place. Its blowing out. Parinirvana is the final blowing out with the death of the body.

Aside from the strawman, I don't see an argument there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:52:14 2022 No.20070278 >>20063761 Shouldn’t you read the main book/doctrine they come from first before reading about the branches? It feels like what your doing is like thinking about what Hadith you want to read before even reading the Quran

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:54:31 2022 No.20070287 >>20070278 >Shouldn’t you read the main book/doctrine they come from first before reading about the branches? Buddhism has a main book?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 14:57:50 2022 No.20070294 >>20070278 No. You can dive into any of the branches, they all cover the basics.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:00:51 2022 No.20070305

>>20070251
First of all, you're on an anonymous website, there is no need to try to seek attention by quirkily replacing some letters with numbers. If you want to be recognized as a unique and individual poster, go to any other forum, where you can become super popular and make a name for yourself based upon your quirkiness. You're on an anonymous website.

The principle of sufficient reason, like any other logical principle, is presupposed by everybody engaging in debate and metaphysical exploration, including Siddhartha (eg. he attempted to find the cause of suffering, he presented the absurdity of conclusions like "grass is burning" being commutable to the atman as "they are burning me" as evidence for external entities being not-atman). Because both presuppose it, the only question is one of meta-logic; can somebody actually consistently appeal to the rules of logic (upon which debate is grounded) if they discard the fundamental preconditions for being able to account for those phenomenon? It seems clear that only those who ground their worldview in theism can actually account for immaterial, abstract, invariant concepts or laws, as such things would be pre-existent within the mind of God - whereas the atheist/skeptic/Buddhist (unless they are the flavour of Buddhist who slots in the traditional god of some other religion) follow a religion -- and yes, all three are obviously religions -- which rests upon fundamentally unsound epistemology. The type of Buddhism that slots in some amalgamation of deified Buddha or Tibetan Bon god as personal pseudo-parabrahman could probably be debunked by the various classical Buddhists as an obvious departure from Siddhartha's original teachings, and so doesn't even need to be addressed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:02:25 2022 No.20070310 >>20070278 >>20070287 Vajrayana is so late doxographically speaking that it is the equivalent of reading Luther without having read the Bible

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:05:21 2022 No.20070324 >>20063761 Only focus on the Suttas. Theravada is the only legitimate Buddhist Tradition. I'm writing this as an Orthodox Christian.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:08:36 2022 No.20070334 >>20070324 Only focus on the Tanakh. Haredi is the only legitimate Abrahamic Tradition. I'm writing this as a Vajrayana Buddhist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:10:44 2022 No.20070339 Judaism = Theravada Christianity = Mahayana Islam = Vajrayana

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:43:03 2022 No.20070443 >>20070339 More like Umbanda/syncretistic negro Christianity = Vajrayana

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:46:13 2022 No.20070452 >>20070443 Sounds like a personal issue

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 19:22:09 2022 No.20071353 File: 241 KB, 1000x1327, 962_33-manifestations-of-Avalokitesvara-31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Any Pure Land Buddhists on? I'm also trying to learn Esoteric Buddhism through Garchen Rinpoche.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]