/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21833217]

I’m interested in learning about Buddhism as it is practiced in east Asia. Whenever I look for info on Buddhism, it’s pretty strictly “here’s what Buddha himself taught” or “here’s how you can learn to meditate.” I’m not interested in that. Think of it as an anthropological interest. What should I read?

[Anonymous No.21833558]

bump

[Anonymous No.21833674]

>>21833217
- "Buddhism in Chinese Society" by Holmes Welch
- "The Religious Traditions of Asia: Religion, History, and Culture" edited by Joseph Kitagawa
- "Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400" by Tansen Sen
- "The Zen Monastic Experience: Buddhist Practice in Contemporary Korea" by Robert Buswell
- "Zen War Stories" by Brian Victoria

[Anonymous No.21833714]

>>21833217

[Anonymous No.21833767]

>>21833217
For me, it all started with learning about ancient Vedic religion, but you'll have to be patient with yourself if you just want to get to the east Asian part.

[Anonymous No.21834030]

>>21833217
>I’m interested in learning about Buddhism as it is practiced in east Asia.
Buddhism hasnt been practiced for thousandths of years, especially in east asia lol

[Anonymous No.21834159]

"Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face" is pretty fun.

[Anonymous No.21834197]

>>21833217
Buddhism "as practiced in East Asia" just involves your parents bring you to lame ass temples when the time of the year/occasion comes, you light your incense, clap your hands together and pray then go home and play vidya.

[Anonymous No.21835648]

>>21833217
Tibetan book of the Dead is a pretty thorough resource for Tibetan Buddhism. Maybe that's not far enough East for you. Could you be more specific where/when you want to get a sense of? Buddhism's very fractured and blended with local superstitions. Where in East Asia matters quite a lot.

[Anonymous No.21835865]

>>21833217
Reminder that the only real Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism. And the spiritual center of Theravada Buddhism is along the shores of the Mekong in Luang Prabang.

[Anonymous No.21835917]

What's the deal with Buddhist beggars in their tradition? Why not be self sufficient? From what I read it was apparently some kind of "symbiotic relationship" where lay Buddhists gave food to the monastics but idk just seems kind of dumb. I guess it's not any worse than Christian churches pocketing money from attendants.

[Anonymous No.21835920]

>>21835865
Modern Theravada was created by protestant missionaries in the late 19th century. Please read prothero and Crosby

[Anonymous No.21836088]

>>21835920
Is there an article length quick rundown on this?

[Anonymous No.21836100]

>>21836088
Probably but I don't know what it is. See protheros book for the basic thesis. I'm just tired of the naive circa 1890 idea that Theravada reflects some authentic antique tradition I see parroted around here when in fact Theravada is one of the most modern forms of Buddhism, and its apparent spartan aesthetic and just stick to the old texts (sola scriptura) thrust are a product of modern protestant syncretism. See Crosby for what south Asian "Theravada" was/is actually like

[Anonymous No.21836117]

>>21835648
>Tibetan book of the Dead is a pretty thorough resource for Tibetan Buddhism.
Not really

[Anonymous No.21836119]

>>21836100
So what is the most authentic/original flavour of Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.21836160]

>>21836119
Why does that matter?

[Anonymous No.21836178]

>>21836160
Think of it as an anthropological interest.

[Anonymous No.21836186]

>>21836119
That's a hard question to answer because the earliest strata of Buddhism remain basically entirely shrouded in mystery and everywhere Buddhism went it immediately syncretized with the local religious landscape, one of the keys to its proliferation. The earliest texts we have are gandhari texts from Afghanistan/Pakistan, but otherwise the earliest redactions of texts are almost always their Chinese translations, our earliest Nagarjuna, for example, being the kumarajiva translation, which predates both the Sanskrit and tibetan received versions. Chinese canon preserves highly antique texts like the sarvastivada vinaya. But while Chinese buddhisms preserve the most antique texts, the traditions were profoundly shaped by daoism and increasingly neoconfucianism after the song dynasty, so when it comes to a practice perspective Japanese tendai and shingon probably preserve more antique forms. The pali canon as we have it was redacted in the heart of the Gupta empire in the fifth to sixth century ce. Certain parts of it can be confidently dated earlier but on the whole it is a thoroughly medieval canon, and as I remarked above, South Asian Buddhism was hugely impacted by British colonialism, which is why Theravada is so comfortably protestant

[Anonymous No.21836191]

>>21836178
Tibetan Buddhism is the most authentic to late Indian Buddhism

[Anonymous No.21836193]

>>21834030
i kind of believe this because the religion literally requires you to become a monk or mendicant. it's completely absurd for working peasants to be able to practice

[Anonymous No.21836214]

>>21836186
>>21836191
Isn't vajrayana heavily influenced by kashmir shaivism/"hindu" tantra though?

[Anonymous No.21836221]

>>21834030
on the contrary, buddhism is probably the last tradition to maintain their chain of initiation

[Anonymous No.21836233]

>>21836214
the opposite,Kashmir shaivism and all the other school of hindu non-dualism where influenced by Vajrayana and advaya buddhism

[Anonymous No.21836240]

>>21836214
Read this

[Anonymous No.21836249]

>>21836119
That depends entirely on what you mean by "authentic" and "original". Theravada is, aesthetically, the most similar to how the Buddha and his original Sangha of Monks and Nuns lived. There is, of course, an aesthetic to metaphysics, ethics, etc. On the other hand, most of how the laity engage with Theravada is through worship of Bodhisattvas and by performing donations and labor for the monks, and that's pretty clearly not what the Buddha and his pals were up to. Also, orthodox Theravada is INCREDIBLY rigid (except in its mystical aspect, where it's bonkers) and based on recitation and recall of existing, codified, information, and while the earliest Sangha was all about memorization of texts, it still placed a huge emphasis on innovation, meditation, and summarization of texts.

The Mahayana, by contrast, is highly aesthetically divergent, but in terms of the actual content of the religion, it's not actually that divergent. The most striking aspect of the Mahayana is their summarization of the Buddha's words into "discrete sutras", such as the Heart Sutra, the Flower Garland Sutra, etc. This probably came about because of the sheer necessity of moving monks and texts through the areas that the Mahayana developed in (NW India, Afghanistan, and Central Asia), so the whole "monastic slime-mold" thing that Theravada does just could not have been done. The Mahayana also has lots of "dude just shows up and starts meditating" instances, unlike the Theravada. This isn't to say that the Mahayana lacks rigid and hierarchical monastic structures (see: Tibet), but rather that unlike the Theravada it seems to have more room for "haggard guy shows up, meditates, starts dropping wisdom bombs" within the orthodoxy. The Mahayana is also a lot more forgiving of people just going off into the woods and meditating for long periods of time, again, unlike the Theravada, where such "dropping out" is viewed as heinous. This Mahayana allowance for asceticism is, of course, far more in line with the Buddha and his original sangha.

If you're looking to import "which flavor of Memethodoxy is the must TRVE" from Christianity, don't bother, that's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.21836257]

>>21836249
I forgot to add: the Buddha summarizes other sutras within sutras in the Pali Canon, so the Mahayan "discrete sutras" aren't really an innovation or a divergence.

[Anonymous No.21836274]

>>21836214
Yes, it probably was. To say Japanese esoteric Buddhism is the most authentic buddhism would be incorrect, but to say it continues to adhere to the earliest identifiable strata (which are not particularly early due to the paucity of the historical record) of Buddhism would, I think, be ok. Also regarding the saivism-Buddhism relation, your post reflects the thinking of a few decades ago, but scholarly consensus, for what it's worth seems to be leaning in the other direction. Chinese/Japanese tantra have a different pedigree from Indic/Tibetan, where figures like Amoghavajra, who brought tantra to China in the high Tang (8th century), his tantra was largely from the Srivijaya kingdom (indonesia) rather than Kashmir.

[Anonymous No.21836315]

>>21836274
>Also regarding the saivism-Buddhism relation, your post reflects the thinking of a few decades ago, but scholarly consensus, for what it's worth seems to be leaning in the other direction.
Interesting. I was listening to a talk with Christopher Wallis who claimed Shaivism is where Tantra originated but he teaches a flavour of Nondual Shaiva Tantra for a living so he's not unbiased. Certainly sounded like he knew what he was talking about though to my noob ears.

[Anonymous No.21836319]

>>21833217
I hate tranime and that shit but houseki no kuni is unironically a good intro to buddhism.

[Anonymous No.21836333]

>>21836233
>>21836240
>>21836274
Could one of you knowledgable people tell me your take on where advaita fits into this whole mess btw? I've heard it both slandered as basically hindu plagiarism of buddhist teachings and acclaimed as original nondualism straight from the vedas.

[Anonymous No.21836336]

>>21836315
the mythology of hinduism as the ur-tradition for this or that is quite persistent, ever since Voltaire announced all things have come down to us from the banks of the ganges. When it comes to Tantra, the hindu-first arguments are quite weak and generally pertain to the presence of proto-tantric frameworks in early texts like the gita and upanishads. The earliest actual tantras are all Buddhist (hevajra, guhyasamaja), and the more we learn about the development of mahayana in central asia, the earlier apparently tantric Buddhism gets pushed back. It is appearing more and more that what we think of as tantra was really just the practical dimension of early mahayana, which had a huge impact on the development of medieval hinduism and the birth of the hindu tantric tradition

[Anonymous No.21836354]

>>21836333
what do you mean by advaita? The term has a very broad semantic range. It literally just means nondual, and so is an idea present, possibly as early as the vedas, but certainly in the upanishads. But it also became the name of a subsect of Vedanta in the wake of Shankara, which I assume is what you are referring to. If that is the case, Shankara was almost certainly influenced by Buddhism, but his nondual monism is extremely original in my view. Nothing in Buddhism compares until you get to a figure like, for example, Longchenpa, in 14th century tibet.

[Anonymous No.21836377]

>>21836354
Yeah I meant to say advaita vedanta, my bad. What makes Shankara such an original?

[Anonymous No.21836415]

>>21835917
I think there are somewhat self-sufficient Buddhist communes, but alms is generally done as appreciation for what the monks do for the people.

[Anonymous No.21836429]

>>21833217
east asia practises scientism and capitalism atm.

[Anonymous No.21836442]

>>21836377
shankara's work is the highest form of apophatic theology in sanskrit, which makes him unique and beautiful

[Anonymous No.21836443]

>>21836319
>houseki no kuni
What do femboy rock people have to do with Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.21836449]

>>21836443
they are female.

[Anonymous No.21836458]

which dharmic flavour is actually the best at causing the cessation of suffering?

[Anonymous No.21836481]

>>21836458
>flavour
Kys.
You don’t deserve a real answer. Try again in your next life.

[Anonymous No.21836489]

>>21836458
Vajrayana

[Anonymous No.21836518]

>>21835920
LOL never heard something so stupid

[Anonymous No.21836668]

>>21836481
Sect or school then seethoid

[Anonymous No.21837480]

>>21836449
?

[Anonymous No.21837482]

>>21837480
>>21836449
Forgot image

[Anonymous No.21837959]

>>21836458
Pls help

[Anonymous No.21838374]

I'm a Chan/Pure Land practitioner. I recently started looking at Tibetan Mahayana for help with visualization practices as seen in the Amitabhadhuryana Sutra. It's hard to find anything on Chinese Esoteric Buddhism in English, so this is basically me trying to learn visualization properly.

[Anonymous No.21838378]

>>21837959
Pure Land might be a good path for you. It's all about constructing a karmic affinity with Amitabha Buddha so you can go to the Western Pure Land at death (or in some cases, in this life) and train to be a Buddha or Bodhisattva. I can offer some resources for that school if you wish.

[Anonymous No.21838392]

>>21836315
There are carvings and drawings of vajras in regions west of Tibet that are at least 5000 years old, it's likely that tantra as we know it stems from a confluence of Buddhism, Shaivism, Zoroastrian elements, and proto-tantric steppe shamanism. If you take the Bön religion's claims of its own origin seriously, but with the necessary grain of salt, tantra and vajrayana have really old roots that predate the appendant theology. What reached Japan is likely an older formulation than what was reintroduced to Tibet. The practical mechanics are beyond ancient but the philosophy as we know it is much less so.

[Anonymous No.21838400]

>>21838392
That's an interesting point you make. Some in the Bon community claim that their teachings predate the Buddha by thousands of years, like some sort of hangover from a previous Buddha. And it seems like the pre Vedic religions all shared and used similar practices and theology while they were contesting and interacting with one another.

[Anonymous No.21838402]

>>21838378
It sounds very Christianish, doing worship and saying the right words so that the next existence might be better. I guess that does solve everything but only if you can muster unwavering faith in certain supernatural assumptions.

[Anonymous No.21838412]

>>21838392
I was reading about this book called Greek Buddha about Pyrrho’s early encounters with Buddhism on Alexander’s expeditions and it suggests that Buddha himself actually may have been from Scythian/steppe nomad tribes which would bring the steppe shamanism influence right to the beginning.

[Anonymous No.21838419]

>>21838402
Pure Land Buddhism, as a Dharma Gate, arose around the same time that other salvific religions arose in India, Central Asia, and the Middle East. It's likely that the various faiths had some influence upon one another. Pure Land differs from Christianity in certain ways though. For one, the Pure Land is not a heaven, but rather a purified training ground that can be used to become higher than a God, and eventually leave the Pure Land in a sense to deliver sentient beings, whereas Christians believe that their heaven is eternal and they aren't ever leaving it. There is also the fact that in the Western Pure Land sutras they describe the fact that petitioners in that land can travel to countless Buddha worlds to learn teachings and make offerings, all in the time it takes to eat a meal. Christians, again, do not believe they will go elsewhere to offer anything to other deities while in Heaven. It does require faith and practice to get to the Pure Land, but it's considered the easiest path available to both normal people and sages.

[Anonymous No.21838422]

>>21836274
>To say Japanese esoteric Buddhism is the most authentic buddhism would be incorrect, but to say it continues to adhere to the earliest identifiable strata (which are not particularly early due to the paucity of the historical record) of Buddhism would, I think, be ok
it is absolutely not ok lol. Asians have to admit what they do is just not buddhism. It's fine not to do buddhism.
Why is it so hard for people in mahayana to admit they don't follow the buddha?

[Anonymous No.21838428]

>>21838378
pure land is theatrical like all mahayana

>>21836458
>>21837959
the 8 fold ends suffering. and the goal of mahayana is not even to end suffering.

[Anonymous No.21838463]

>>21838428
Isn’t the goal of mayana more suffering-ending than theravada since arhats only go for their own cessation?

[Anonymous No.21838484]

>>21838374
>Chinese Esoteric Buddhism in English
There's plenty of English material on Tendai and Shingon. If you want the more "direct" material you may have to learn Chinese.
>>21838412
It's not at all certain that the historical Buddha is of Scythian descent and certainly not because of plausible etymology... Beckwith is interesting but tries to make too many claims at once. IIRC he even tries to argue for a Persian origin of brahmanism. What we can be certain of is that Buddha had one weird trick that brahmins hated. Even Christian misisonaries to colonial India were aware that brahmins seethed avout Buddha and had scornful remarks regarding the ruined Buddhist sites in the country. Buddhism did not originate with the priests but among "frontier" aristocracy who had not been fully captured by the brahminical religion. The best certainties we can arrive at are often negative ones. Were all of India's seminal philosophers actually Persians? Probably not

[Anonymous No.21838492]

>>21838428
>theatrical
I have no earthly idea what you mean by this. Mahayana is just as valid as Theravada. The earliest Buddhist scriptures we have date to 100-200 CE and include both Mahayana and Theravadan sutras, and both stem from oral traditions that go back centuries.

[Anonymous No.21838501]

>>21838484
>Tendai and Shingon.
Yes, but those are distinctly Japanese. Are you also referring to Tangmi and Tien'Tai? I have not found much materials on the Chinese schools. I have considered learning Chinese, but that's a long process and I'm not sure where to begin.

[Anonymous No.21838527]

>>21838412
>>21838484
yeah I quite enjoy Beckwith but he does make these massive historical arguments based usually on pretty scant historical-linguistic data. Like in Greek Buddha he also argues that Lao Dan mentioned in Zhuangzi, if you take the reconstructed Old Chinese pronunciation of that name you arrive at Gau Dan/ma=gautama, and so Zhuangzi is the first literary attestation of the Buddha. It's a fun tidbit, and I did actually check it out in Pulleyblank's dictionary of reconstructed Old Chinese and it fits, but it's just quite speculative. Our knowledge of the pronunciation of Old Chinese is highly conjectural. I'm reading his new book on the Scythians now and he does a similar thing where through a bit of historical linguistic judo he has the Chinese calling themselves "aryas" during the warring states period based on an old Chinese reconstruction of the characters 夏 and 華. I mean he won a MacArthur award, so good on him for posing bold scholarship, but his cases are often quite flimsy.

That being said, his scholarship is part of a general trend of people revisiting the antiquity of Indic religions. Indological scholars, for a variety of reasons, accepted traditional dates for a very long time. Beginning in the 70's you had a new generation of Indologists and Buddhologists bringing a more thoroughly marxist, "stones and bones" lens to bear, which gives us a very different story from the traditional telling. And so now we have all these new reconstructions of early Buddhism, from Beckwith's Scythian buddha to Bronkhorst's Buddha arising out of the Ajivika milieu of greater Magadha to the buddha being entirely a post-facto creation from the Ashokan or perhaps even as late as Gupta era.

[Anonymous No.21838541]

>>21838501
>those are distinctly Japanese
The root texts are Indo-Chinese literature, in the sense of Indian texts translated into and commented on in Chinese. Obviously there are divergences once they become inserted into a Japanese context, but certainly the material would be useful to consult for someone interested in ex-Tibet, i.e. east Asian Vajrayana

[Anonymous No.21838551]

>>21838527
It's a bit like figuring out who Moses or Jesus were. Someone needs to write a multivolume mnemohistorical analysis of Buddha a la Assmann. Maybe it already exists in some cave in central Asia.

[Anonymous No.21838556]

>>21838541
Ah, that makes sense. Very well, I shall look into this. BDK has some good translations of the texts you refer to. It's strange that, as a practitioner of Chinese Buddhism, most of my sacred texts are translated by a Japanese affiliated society. Though I suppose it makes sense, considering up until recently most scholarship on East Asian Buddhism came out from Japan during the post war era.

[Anonymous No.21838568]

Is there any scientific way to prove that an individual has achieved freedom of suffering? If that could be done with brain imaging we could figure out which lineages pump out the most awakened beings, if any.

[Anonymous No.21838573]

>>21838556
China has attempted purges of Buddhism repeatedly and that's not counting accidental losses over time. Japan is something of a Tibet or Nepal to medieval China the way Tibet and Nepal are to medieval India in terms of text preservation.

[Anonymous No.21838591]

>>21838573
Yes the fact that purges happened were true, but at the same time those purges were never as extensive or wholesale as they seem. Even after the Cultural Revolution many Buddhists simply came back out of the woodworks and set to reviving the faith. There's also the fact that many schools were simply assimilated into other lineages over time rather than completely wiped out. That's why you can still see Esoteric practices in the main schools of Chinese Buddhism. I've even heard that Mijao is currently undergoing a modest revival in Taiwan and the Mainland from Japanese ordained monks that return to China to spread the Dharma.

[Anonymous No.21838595]

>>21838551
that would be great and would cause untold seething among /lit/'s palicels

[Anonymous No.21838605]

>>21836233
>Kashmir shaivism and all the other school of hindu non-dualism where influenced by Vajrayana and advaya buddhism
It's the opposite, non-dualism in Hinduism greatly precedes non-dualism in Buddhism, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads talk about non-dualism, and the non-dual Vedanta schools like Advaita and non-dual Tantra schools in Hinduism long predate non-dualism becoming accepted in Vajrayana/Mahayana. The earliest Buddhist tantras are just copy-and-paste of Shaivite texts.

[Anonymous No.21838613]

>>21838591
>many schools were simply assimilated into other lineages over time rather than completely wiped out. That's why you can still see Esoteric practices in the main schools of Chinese Buddhism
Yes, Pure Land and Chan devoured everything. Even in Japan that could not be avoided. Very similar process. But Japan up until the Meiji had very autistic ordination and temple registration practices so the history is easier to study. It is not a matter of hazy myth who built which temples and what schools they were associated with and for how long.

[Anonymous No.21838622]

>>21838605
is there such a thing as "secular nondualism" that can be of use to a westoid?

[Anonymous No.21838634]

>>21838613
That makes sense. I often wonder what Esoteric practices look like in the Pure Land school. CTTB, FGS, and the other lineages I attend dharma talks at don't seem to often mention esoteric practices within the Pure Land school. Are they simply for monastics, or does one have to an advanced practitioner to utilize those methods?

[Anonymous No.21838635]

>>21838595
I do think Protestantism has had an enduring impact on Theravada and how it (or its representatives) presents itself to westerners, much in the same way that Zen and to some extent Vajrayana is read through quasi- or pseudo- Theosophic lens (people are not generally cognizant of Theosophy even though it facilitates the presentation of most forms of Buddhism in English including Theravada). Off the top of my head the only writer who does an explicit post-structuralist (or self-aware of structures) Buddhism is Faure, though there are certainly others. McMahan is similar regarding Buddhist Modernism. Davidson's Indian Esoteric Buddhism is also aware of issues in researching Indian religious history.

[Anonymous No.21838649]

>>21838622
There is a whole range of youtube channels, patreons, non-profit organizations, collectives, new-age groups, self-help teachers etc on the English-speaking internet that cater to that idea, so yes it is a thing. Personally though I think that such phenomena are most useful for midwits and that a true high-IQ patrician would rather derive the most benefit from either:

1) personally participating in some religious tradition that teaches this
2) skipping all the "secular non-dualism" fluff by intensively studying translations of the texts on your own so you become highly familiar with it and coming to your own independent understanding about how to integrate said teachings into your life without being spoonfed by some secular internet talking-head

[Anonymous No.21838675]

>>21838649
Which traditions come to mind for this purpose?

[Anonymous No.21838684]

>>21838634
Esotericism is a little weird because it combines two sorts of apparently divergent clientele and source, that of the noble/sovereign, who is literally hiring wizards and sorcerors to perform auspicious rituals or blackened hexes, and these marginal or liminal elements of society who purport to conduct or harness such suprahuman forces and tame demons and so forth. (Perhaps in a Bataillean or Dionysaical sense we can see the similarity more clearly). The monastic system predates the codification of the tantric rituals—it would be impossible to codify it in the absence of the monasteries, which have paper and patronage and also prestige. They can make it official, they can standardize the mandalas, they can sell the service more formally and baptize it properly. In Tibet this fused entirely together with the exoteric forms of Buddhism like two snakes coiled together. In east Asian Buddhism I would suggest it remains esoteric or as a minority position, absorbed into other schools as we noted.

[Anonymous No.21838758]

>>21838675
>Which traditions come to mind for this purpose?
For the first purpose (personally participating), if you want a truly authentic and traditional™ practice, then Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism are both ruled out because the former is typically open only to high-caste Indians (usually Brahmins) who become celibate monks and the latter died out and has no formal transmission of its lineage beyond new-age revivalists. The one exception is if you want to become one of the ash-covered wandering Naga ascetics, many of whom follow Advaita and they care less about caste (this would require basically moving to India and giving up everything to become a homeless monk)

That leaves Buddhism and other kinds of non-dual/monist Hinduism. With Buddhism you find non-dual teachings in different kinds of Tibetan Buddhism like the Nyingma and Karma Kagyu schools, and they have teachers of this present in the west. It's also present in some Ch'an schools but this varies, you may be more likely to encounter it in Korean Ch'an centers than Chinese ones. With Hinduism, as someone outside the caste system you can still formally join and participate in non-dual Agamic-based traditions like Sri Vidya or Veerashaivism. There is a Sri Vidya temple in rural New York. White people are much more common in Buddhist centers in the west but you can still find white converts in some Hindu centers too. Lastly, in southern India and in some international centers there is a monistic strain of the normally-dualist Shaiva Siddhanta which is also open to non-Indians.

If you are just talking about studying the literature on your own time then Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen are probably the two 'non-dual' traditions that have the largest amount of material which has been translated into English and which are easily available for purchase/study, followed by Kashmir Shaivism and other kinds of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.21838761]

>>21833217
You should probably read statistical analyses more than books.

[Anonymous No.21839060]

The Elders of the Black Sun

[Anonymous No.21839107]

>>21838684
My apologies for the late reply. Thank you for the insight. Are there any instructions in English on utilizing the Amitabhadhuryana Sutra? I've read Shandao's instructions, but they seem rather difficult to use. From my understanding, the visualizations on the Pure Land are done in reverse order because visualizing Amitabha and his attendants is easier than visualizing the Pure Land itself.

[Anonymous No.21839123]

>>21838463
Problem is Mahayana is fake and gay so it doesn’t actually end anybody’s suffering.

[Anonymous No.21839162]

>>21839123
You know that simply calling something names doesn't make your point of view true. Mahayana is the vehicle practiced by the majority of Buddhists in the world. There's no point in disparaging the Dharma because you don't agree with it's views.

[Anonymous No.21839565]

>>21838422
All Mahayana Buddhism follow the same basic teachings as Theravada Buddhists

[Anonymous No.21839597]

>>21838758
>With Buddhism you find non-dual teachings in different kinds of Tibetan Buddhism like the Nyingma and Karma Kagyu schools
Every school of Tibetan Buddhism is non-dualist

[Anonymous No.21839683]

>>21839162
Except Mahajudea is not Dharma and it is the one that disparages Dharma.

[Anonymous No.21839761]

>>21839162
I feel like the anon you're replying to is like two posts away from inviting you to his guenon discord

[Anonymous No.21839791]

>>21839107
I am not familiar with this one but if visualization from text is difficult there is no shortage of Buddhist art that would be perhaps easier to start with. The practice of visualization itself is quite antique and goes back to the nikayas, which have much less baroque visualizations than "glowing dude sitting on a thousand quadrillion jeweled lotus thrones each surrounded by eight thousand quadrillion other dudes and their demigods." So something like that might be a better place to start, the mindfulness sutTas and not the mindfulness sutRas. Visualizations are in all Buddhisms and not just Pure Land. And consider, you may have already been born in the "Western Paradise" where almost all teachings are available to you in English and you can be an autodidact with enough patience and/or networking

[Anonymous No.21840010]

r8 my stack

[Anonymous No.21840104]

https://dharma-documentaries.net/
This has a lot of Buddhist documentaries on it.

[Anonymous No.21841242]

bump

[Anonymous No.21841260]

>>21835865
>>21835920
Real Buddhism is Theravada sans the Abhidhamma, with Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka Sunyavada instead

[Anonymous No.21841279]

[Anonymous No.21841294]

>>21841279
I like pannobhasa but his desperation to be an alt right bad boy monk is a bit sad.
Also most of his takes are just ok boomer takes and he seems to get off to being a chud for the sake of it

Him on Abhidhamma:
>It's just made up bro
Him on the singular instance of Buddha being sexist:
>Liberal Buddhists are saying it's just made up lmao like how can you just ignore what you don't like

[Anonymous No.21841401]

>>21841260
Nagarjuna rejects the full enlightenment of the arahant, he doesn't follow the buddha's teaching

[Anonymous No.21841463]

>>21839791
>Visualizations are in all Buddhisms and not just Pure Land. And consider, you may have already been born in the "Western Paradise" where almost all teachings are available to you in English and you can be an autodidact with enough patience and/or networking
The nimitas are mostly in the visuddhimagga.

In buddhism the key to meditation is exactly the opposite of creating a nimitta, ie not getting attached to the details of whatever sensual form pops up. THe nimittas liek skeleton are fine, the nimittas of the jhanas, ie rapture and so on are okay at the beginning, but never the stuff thru the senses. The nimitta sutta is literally this
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_103.html

all the stuff about visualizing blue color yellow colors and stuff like this stem from the commentaries only. and they really don't lead to the samadhi the buddha talks about.

[Anonymous No.21842641]

>>21841401
Which text does that happen in?

[Anonymous No.21842815]

>>21836221
im genuinely curious where you get this from because im pretty sure it is well known that the buddha's sangha have long been dead with no direct linkage to actually-practised buddhism in like, 1000+ years

[Anonymous No.21842824]

>>21833217
Look up Gizzo

[Anonymous No.21843587]

>>21842815
Vajrayana is an unbroken initiatic tradition

[Anonymous No.21843787]

>>21839597
> Every school of Tibetan Buddhism is non-dualist
Non-dualism in the Gelug school just means that there is an absence of findable true existence, in other words it’s just basic anti-foundationalist relativism, which has little to do with non-dualism as typically understood.

[Anonymous No.21843816]

>>21843787
What is typically understood non-dualism?

[Anonymous No.21843942]

>>21843816
Typically it’s used to refer to the two contexts of an identity/non-duality between a spiritual or ineffable Absolute and one’s own self/being, and also the second notion of an ultimate reality or a conception of reality that is without multiplicity/duality; sometimes both contexts are used, as in Advaita Vedanta, or solely the former context is used, as in Vishishtadvaita. Saying that a prasangika position, which ostensibly entails having no position, is ‘non-duality’ makes little sense, since to deny or affirm duality is taking a stance; Gelugs don’t interpret Nagarjuna to mean this however and they instead believe he is taking a definite position viz. endeavoring to expose the emptiness of everything. However, even this position of Gelugs does not involve saying that multiplicity is inherently false or illusory, only that it’s relative like everything else, reality is still characterized and made up of multiplicity as much as anything else in this ‘non-duality’. Dualistic non-dualism. Now, of course there is no hard rule about what is and isn’t non-duality, but this looks like a case of appropriating the aesthetics of non-dualism (for understandable reasons) to make a basic point about relativism.

[Anonymous No.21844401]

>>21842815
>im pretty sure it is well known that the buddha's sangha have long been dead
well, you're wrong about that,you should check out your sources, the fact that buddhadharma changed and adpted doesn'0t mean that the iniciatic chain was broken,if that was the case then the iniciatic tradition wouldn't be possible since all tardictions changed and adapt to their times, not only that, a lot of monks still study and practice early buddhist doctrines,and monks in thailand and myanmar have lineages that go back to the buddha

[Anonymous No.21844411]

>>21843787
>Non-dualism in the Gelug school just means that there is an absence of findable true existence, in other words it’s just basic anti-foundationalist relativism, which has little to do with non-dualism as typically understood.
wrong, non-dualism started with madhyamaka buddhism, so the base of non-dualist philosophies are more aligned with mahayana buddhism than vedanta
also non-substantialist buddhism don't equal relativism, on the contrary the obectivity of their ontology comes from the pratikiasamutpada, the opposite of relativism

[Anonymous No.21844438]

>>21843942
>Typically
typically as in "the vedanta view", non-dualism goes beyond vedanta and was created and articulated by buddhist first, mainly the yogacara and MadHyamaka schools, then apropiated by advaita

[Anonymous No.21844464]

>>21838605
>the pre-Buddhist Upanishads talk about non-dualism,
not really, in the upanishad the word is used in a vague sense, buddhist created a context and philosophical system in which the word has a real functional meaning, since they actually analize the gnoseological implicationof a subject/object dichotomy and created a theory of the mind that goes beyond such dichotomy, you can't have real non-dualism in a metaphysical system with brahman and maya, all hindu non.dualist can do is to say that this evident "dualism" is just an illusion, without really explaining how that's the case and never adressing the myriads of contradiciton such a theory creates

[Anonymous No.21844955]

>>21838605
>the pre-Buddhist Upanishads
here comes guenonfag

[Anonymous No.21845060]

>>21839162
>Mahayana is the vehicle practiced by the majority of Buddhists in the world

Not sure about that. THeravada buddhism has far more practictioners. Mahayana Buddhism is pretty much limited to the monks and nuns and there aren't a lot of them. THe lay people show up once or twice a year to burn incense, that hardly counts as "practice"

[Anonymous No.21845405]

>>21845060
Theravada is way less popular than mahayana. It's theravada which is limits the higher life to monks and nuns. And the whole propaganda in mahayana is that it's universalism and lay people can be stay at home boddhisatvas.

[Anonymous No.21845894]

>>21843942
>Typically it’s used to refer to the two contexts of an identity/non-duality between a spiritual or ineffable Absolute and one’s own self/being
wrong, non-dualism is a type of philosophy that wants to overcome the subject object problem or the problem of the dualism of substances, like the Yogachara school ,Spinoza's pantheism or Scheling's philosophy of identity

[Anonymous No.21846642]

>>21835648
No its kinda of a western interpretation of Tibetan Buddhism from what I understand.

[Anonymous No.21846942]

>>21836249
>"monastic slime-mold" thing that Theravada doe
whats that
>Mahayana also has lots of "dude just shows up and starts meditating" instances, unlike the Theravada
>Mahayana is also a lot more forgiving of people just going off into the woods and meditating for long periods of time
damm and id have thought it was theravada that allows people to just remain in forests and meditate

[Anonymous No.21846954]

>>21836193
There's "lay buddhism" and "monastic buddhism", as with most religions.

[Anonymous No.21847069]

>>21844411
>wrong, non-dualism started with madhyamaka buddhism
Wrong, it’s clearly talked about in the Upanishads in unmistakable terms, not only is word advaita used including in pre-Buddhist texts (which predate Madhyamaka by like 1,000 years) but there are various dialogues and metaphors to talk about the non-duality of the Atman and Brahman.
>also non-substantialist buddhism don't equal relativism, on the contrary the obectivity of their ontology comes
how is it not relativistic?

>>21844464
>not really, in the upanishad the word is used in a vague sense
The word is clearly used multiple times in connection with passages that deny multiplicity and which affirm the identity of the Atman and Brahman.
>buddhist created a context and philosophical system in which the word has a real functional meaning
It also has a real functioning meaning in the Upanishads, which is evident from the passages, in any case Buddhists attaching a philosophical teaching to the word doesnt change the fact that the Upanishads were talking about it a millennium before Buddhists were.
>you can't have real non-dualism in a metaphysical system with brahman and maya, all hindu non.dualist can do is to say that this evident "dualism" is just an illusion, without really explaining how that's the case and never adressing the myriads of contradiciton such a theory creates
You just contradicted yourself, first you say they have no explanation, then you say their explanation has myriad contradictions. Both of these can’t be true at the same time, so you are clearly lying and pulling random claims out of your ass. You don’t know what you are talking about, maya is accepted as an idea by Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Kashmir Shaivism and Dvaita alike, they all understand it differently and explain its role in the world in different ways; I doubt that you understand or are familiar with any of these various explanations. There are certainly no contradictions in the version given by Advaita.

[Anonymous No.21847075]

>>21845894
>wrong, non-dualism is a type of philosophy that wants to overcome the subject object problem or the problem of the dualism of substances
That’s just one type of non-dualism, but there is no objective rule about what actual or real non-dualism is.

[Anonymous No.21848067]

Buddhism is a scam to rip off naive orientalists

[Anonymous No.21848075]

>>21833714
Truly, the Japanese are honorary Aryans.

[Anonymous No.21848083]

>>21848067

[Anonymous No.21848103]

>>21846942
>damm and id have thought it was theravada that allows people to just remain in forests and meditate
There's the Thai Forest Tradition, which is all about shirking the established monasteries and reviving the original mendicant spirit of Buddhism, but they're a very recent movement and still a minority.

[Anonymous No.21848120]

>>21838622
Isn't secular non-dualism just secularism? Why would someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural believe in a soul that's distinct from everything else?

[Anonymous No.21848299]

>>21846942
>whats that
Monks show up to King A, the King makes a monastery. The monks build up, reach peak-monk, and then monks leak out. They then go to King B 20 miles down the road, he makes them a monastery, and the cycle repeats. This is how Buddhism spread through SEA. But, when heading NW, Buddhism ran into huge gaps of space that you just could not (easily) fill with monks. The land could be traveled, but you couldn't have a monastery every 20 miles to accommodate the monks. Thus, the tradition became more portable.

>>21846942
>>21848103
>damm and id have thought it was theravada that allows people to just remain in forests and meditate
It's not that this DOESN'T happen, but just walking off into the woods is looked down upon (you need what amounts to "official leave"), and some guy showing up and expounding the dharma is NOT well accepted (because, again, he's outside of the hierarchy, which is bad).

>>21848120
Yeah, it's called "Transcendental Meditation". It's basically Advaita Vedanta, but without the Indian woo. Yes, it's absolutely a scam.

[Anonymous No.21848978]

>>21848299
I don't know if you'd know this, but how did Buddhism manage to outcompete Hinduism in Mainland Southeast Asia? Why didn't all the factors (new intellectual movements redefining Hindu orthodoxy, kings interested in portraying themselves as living gods, monks unable to connect with laypeople, pressure from Islam) that put Buddhism at a disadvantage in India apply there?

[Anonymous No.21849015]

>>21835920
>the religious tradition passed down orally for thousands of years by indians and asians in buddhist countries is fake
>go read these books by modern westerners which will teach you about real buddhism
This is what zenniggers actually believe.

[Anonymous No.21849054]

>>21848978
Buddhism was put at a disadvantage in India by virtue of the massive built up religious establishment that it found itself up against. In SEA, there was no such establishment, and the Hindus were on equal footing. Given that there can, was, and is, a huge overlap between Buddhism and Hinduism, it's not really fair to say that Buddhism "won" in SEA until relatively late. There were also huge Hindu polities in SEA until they get shrekt by Muslims, so you could make an argument that, in the absence of Islam, Buddhism might have been less predominant as it only really gained a foothold in the areas that were out of the way of the superior Hindu evangelism (although you could also say that the Hindus were just plucking the low-hanging fruit).

[Anonymous No.21849438]

>>21849015
That's just it, the popular Western perception of what "real" Theravada is (as well as Zen and Tibetan Buddhism) was invented by orientalists and self-interested Buddhists who downplayed the actual practices and beliefs of most Asian Buddhists in favor of a shorn down version that was designed to be as appealing to Westerners as possible.

[Anonymous No.21849454]

>>21834197
Pretty much like Christianity in the west then

[Anonymous No.21849523]

>>21834030
Zen Buddhism isn't even thousands of years old lol

[Anonymous No.21849729]

>>21847069
>how is it not relativistic?
because the existence of a thing is not relative at all, things in buddhism exist objectively, maybe you're confusing relative with relational

[Anonymous No.21849800]

>>21847069
>The word is clearly used multiple times in connection with passages that deny multiplicity and which affirm the identity of the Atman and Brahman.
not at all, the word is used as a vague adjective withot articulating further into it's meaning or forms of being

>You just contradicted yourself, first you say they have no explanation, then you say their explanation has myriad contradictions. Both of these can’t be true at the same time
i never said the "explanation" creates contradicitons, i said the unexplained dogma creates contradictions and logical problems
the most obvious one is why brahma would create an illusion, and how a true salvation can be achieved if brahma will keep casting this illusion, there's no guarantee of you not going back to the illusory realm, not only buddhist but other schools of vedanta pointed this problem, advaita has no answer for this, they just say that it's just "nature" which is teh universal excuse to avoid adressing a problem
this without mentioning the problem o fthe chain of causation, the problem of a second order ontology shankara cerates or the problem of two substances, no to mention shankara breaks the law of non contradictionand the excluded middle by posing something that's neither being nor non-being, that is A=-A

[Anonymous No.21850118]

>>21849800
>not at all, the word is used as a vague adjective withot articulating further into it's meaning or forms of being
This is demonstrably false, in the Brihadaranyaka there is a long discussion of the soul at sleep in section 4 chapter 3, and then it talks about the absence of perceivable duality in sleep near the end of this chapter when it says in verse 4.3.32: "It becomes (transparent) like water, one, the witness, and without a second (advaita)." and the verse describes this as bliss.

We know that this verse is talking about an absence of duality because in the verses that comes right before it the chapter talks about an absence of a second perceivable thing, ie in 4.3.30: "That it does not know (objects) in that state is because, although knowing then, it does not know; for the knower’s function of knowing can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it (in sleep) which it can know."

So, the word is clearly used already in pre-Buddhist texts to talk about an absence of duality, so the notion that Buddhists came up with this is laughable. And the same text talks about the idea of Atman and Brahman being the same as well, another kind of non-duality, ie in "That Atman is indeed Brahman" - (Br Up 4.4.5) and also in "explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct—the self that is within all." - (Br Up 3.5.1).

>i never said the "explanation" creates contradicitons, i said the unexplained dogma creates contradictions and logical problems
It creates neither, the explanation itself involves no logical contradictions and the so-called 'logical problems' are entirely contrived and they involve the petitio principii fallacy in what they presuppose in an attempt to make their point.

[Anonymous No.21850121]

>>21849800
>the most obvious one is why brahma would create an illusion
Brahman is taken to be an independent and self-sufficient reality that has a particular nature to do so and that's why.
>and how a true salvation can be achieved if brahma will keep casting this illusion, there's no guarantee of you not going back to the illusory realm,
The only thing that's affected by the illusion isn't actually you so the question is pointless once you actually understand Advaita Vedanta; but despite being pointless it's still easily answerable, namely, that the same power that projects the illusory samsara also liberates jivas by directing them towards liberation; these are two sides of the same coin. If you only take one of them and try to deny the other it's not even what Advaita is teaching in the first place and so it's a strawman argument to pretend as you did that Advaita only teaches the first part and not the second. It's only their ignorance and the related karma that keep the jiva transmigrating and when the supernaturally-revealed scripture (which is imbued with effectively a supernatural or divine power) instills the lesson that uproots this there is no further cause of the jiva's transmigration; the Atman (you) which had been providing illumination for that jiva was never bound or otherwise affected in the first place and it remains indifferently in eternal liberation without beginning or end.

> but other schools of vedanta pointed this problem, advaita has no answer for this, they just say that it's just "nature" which is teh universal excuse to avoid adressing a problem
False, saying that God or Brahman is a metaphysically independent and self-sufficient entity that has a particular nature is an answer to this question, that's not an excuse it's actually providing an answer by locating the answer as originating from/in a self-sufficient entity. If you are trying to assert a reason for this which is self-sufficient is "not a real answer", then that's just sophistic question-begging where you are trying to define any answer you don't like as automatically being not-acceptable for arbitrary non-reasons.

[Anonymous No.21850126]

>>21849800
>this without mentioning the problem o fthe chain of causation,
there is none
>the problem of a second order ontology shankara cerates
also no problem here
>or the problem of two substances,
this also isn't a problem, Shankara doesn't posit two substances
> no to mention shankara breaks the law of non contradiction and the excluded middle by posing something that's neither being nor non-being, that is A=-A
He is actually doing neither, Saying that a third option or category is different from the first and second options (i.e. A =/= B =/= C) isn't positing that a thing is equal to it's negation (A=-A), these have nothing to do with each other. It's not breaking the law of contradiction because it's not ascribing two mutually exclusive attributes to anything and it doesn't violate the law of the excluded middle because 'absolutely existent' and 'absolutely non-existent' are not exhaustive but they admit a third category of relatively real: this is actually admitted by Madhyamakins themselves since they say if things existed absolutely they would have svabhava, but this is denied of worldly objects which the Madhyamaka says exists but in a different way that is without svabhava, thus the Madhyamakins recognize a difference between absolute existence and relative or conditional existence, this is exactly what you are incorrectly claiming is illogical.

Advaita isn't violating the LNC or excluded middle because they are just saying "absolute existence (has svabhava) isn't absolute nothingness and nor is it conditional existence (without svabhava)

Buddhists also say the same thing when they say "sunyata (without svabhava) isn't nothingness and nor is it absolute existence (with svabhava).

[Anonymous No.21850400]

>>21850121
>>21850121
>False, saying that God or Brahman is a metaphysically independent and self-sufficient entity that has a particular nature is an answer to this question, that's not an excuse it's actually providing an answer by locating the answer as originating from/in a self-sufficient entity. If you are trying to assert a reason for this which is self-sufficient is "not a real answer", then that's just sophistic question-begging where you are trying to define any answer you don't like as automatically being not-acceptable for arbitrary non-reasons.
the sophistry is saying that ''its the nature of my made-up dogmatic brahman'' in the first place. That's basic logic lol.

[Anonymous No.21850543]

>>21833217
Read Tezuka's Buddha manga

[Anonymous No.21850566]

Serious question: what's the point of being a Buddhist over believing in another religious or philosophical system if, according to Buddhism, one will be reborn endlessly until one achives nirvana? Eventually some incarnation of you (inb4 you dont actually exist) will become a buddha/escape samsara/etc, as you have infinite time to achieve it, so why bother believing in it at all if another system, be it Christianity or base hedonism, holds more appeal?

[Anonymous No.21850604]

>>21850118
>again the idea is not elaborated but used as a vague term to describe monism
>It creates neither
yes it does
>>21850121
>Brahman is taken to be an independent and self-sufficient reality that has a particular nature to do so and that's why.
this creates a second order ontology that is metaphysically problematic
>The only thing that's affected by the illusion isn't actually you
if that's the case then the eschatological aspectof adaita would be useless
>that the same power that projects the illusory samsara also liberates jivas
exactly, so the same power that can liberate you can enslave you again
>which is imbued with effectively a supernatural or divine power)
if you can't prove that then is only dogma and you can'ty use it to defend you argument, which is bad for you since you can't have any other to prove that brahma won't cast the illusion again in you, your whole system depends on the supernatural powers that solve the contradiciton of some god liberating and enslaving you at the same time

>God or Brahman is a metaphysically independent and self-sufficient entity that has a particular nature is an answer to this question,
>that's just sophistic question-begging w
you're the one questionbeggign since you need to take for granted the existence of brahma to defend your point(this is the only way you can defend the existence of brahma is by saying that brahma exist)
>>21850126
>there is none
it is, Shankara use brahman as the basis for the chain of causation to critic the pratikiasamutpaa of buddhadharma, but if brahma is the uncaused cause, then he's not a link in the chain, since all links must be a cause for an effect, brahma is an uncaused cause, so he can't logically be part of the chain, since all links are metaphysically conected by they nature being them a cause of an effect, so this uncaused cause needs a "particular" link,an efect that is causes by an uncaused cause, the problem is that this particular link by virtue of being particular can't conect with the chaineither since he's alsonot a cause that also an effect, so a third particualr link is needed, and thena foruth and so on and so on, into an infinite rgeress, so the whole critic of the pratikiasamuptada crumbles
>also no problem here
this problem is similar, creating a "first"reality and a "second" reality Shankara can't explain how both can be conected without falling into the problem of the third man
>this also isn't a problem, Shankara doesn't posit two substances
if there's only one susbtance then brahma is also maya
>Saying that a third
this breaks the law of the excluded middle and pose nothingness as someting different from the negation of being, so if nothingness is not the negation of being, now be have being, non-being, nothingness and non nothingness, not to mention falsity and non falsity, each one a different thing, so brahma is no longer the negation of falsity, so he doesn't posses truth and non being and nothingess are two different things

[Anonymous No.21850627]

>>21850126
>it's not ascribing two mutually exclusive attributes to anything
again, if that's the case, then being don't poses non-falsity and non-being and nothingess are two different things, not to mention non-being is no longer falsity, so even by advaita standars falsity is no longer non-being
in the end the whole thing doesn't make any snese, is like saying something is not a dog neither a non-dog, pure sophistry and lazy ontology
>>21850126
>because 'absolutely existent' and 'absolutely non-existent' are not exhaustive
if that the case then you can pose a 4th form of ontology and a 5th and an inifnite amounth, thus creating another infinite regress
>this is actually admitted by Madhyamakins
lol no is not, the madhyamaka system of two thruts works because is a gnoseologiclal system not an ontological one, what they say is that we can conceptualize the world in two different ways, they never talk about the world being two different things at the same time, shanlara trid to use the madhyamaka system to create his vedanta ontology but end up creating a contradiciton

themoment you stop seeing nothingness as the negation of being your ontology stop making sense, since myriad of substances can be articulated, stoping at 3 is just Shankara trying to save face so no one can tell his system doesn't make any logical sense, is important to notice how shankara can't explain why 3, as everything else on his sytem you just have to take is as a unproven dogma and just go from there, the problem with that is that you can do the same with any religion that contradicts his views and you'll end up with the same result, shankara in the end just can't defend his metaphysics logically

[Anonymous No.21850630]

>>21850566
the answer is simple, why wait when you can do it now and escape samsara sooner?

[Anonymous No.21850680]

>>21850121
>saying that God or Brahman is a metaphysically independent and self-sufficient entity that has a particular nature is an answer to this question
is not because you can't prove the existence of that entity, is like saying that gravoty exist thanks to "the god of gravity"
>>21850126
>'absolutely existent' and 'absolutely non-existent' are not exhaustive but they admit a third category of relatively real:
if absolute real already exist, why there's also a relative real? by deffinition absolute real should be enough

[Anonymous No.21850913]

>the third buddha was 40 cubits tall and lived to be 40,000 years old
>the fourth buddha was a regular dude who died of dysentery at 80
>the fifth buddha will be 80 cubits tall and live to 80,000 and his teachings will last for 180,000 yeara
Who believes this shit?

[Anonymous No.21851029]

>>21850566
Because Buddhism is also very good at dealing with suffering in this life