Where to start with Buddhism

[Anonymous No.22136950]

I want to start reading about Buddhism, but mostly about the philosophy of letting go of material things or that desire innately causes pain and suffering.

If there are some philosophers or Buddhist teachings that focus more on this and not on the religious part I would like it that way.

[Anonymous No.22136956]

Dhammapada

[Anonymous No.22136963]

The Buddha was an original leftist. Unhappy about the caste system, but douted with the intellectual means of defending his viewpoints, this is the key, and having picked up the intellectual teachings of Hinduism, particularly those that argued for there being nothing else necessary for the achievement of Nirvana that leading a virtuous life, he dressed himself in a simple garb and went from village to village to discuss with the Brahmins for hours on no end. India banished the Buddhists from the country and they made many successful etablishments in other parts of Asia. Brahminism continued it's glory for milleniums to come.

[Anonymous No.22136965]

>>22136950
https://www.dhammatalks.org/

[Anonymous No.22136969]

>>22136950
Siddartha and the Dhammapada. You can find them combined in one book

[Anonymous No.22136995]

>>22136963
I want to neck every American for inserting their shitty chiral 'politics' into everything
>X is left because
go eat a dick

[Anonymous No.22137038]

>>22128706

[Anonymous No.22137040]

>>22136995
Muh Americans
Also I didn't necessarily mean this in a negative way unless you aknowledge social classes are indispensable.
You are just clueless.

[Anonymous No.22137045]

>>22136963
>The Buddha was an original leftist.
you are mentally ill, you can only think in buzzwords and memes

[Anonymous No.22137051]

What the Buddha Taught and Red Pine's Heart Sutra translation. Both were written for a person in your position.

[Anonymous No.22137069]

Jump straight into the Pali Canon.

[Anonymous No.22137071]

>>22136963
truth. he was a rich trust fund kid who when he hit 30 and his parents finally demand he grow up and do something productive, ran away to live in a tent outside portland.

[Anonymous No.22137097]

[Anonymous No.22137105]

>>22137045
No I unironically think the leftist exists as an archetype in the human hivemind.

[Anonymous No.22137190]

>>22136995
>American
Marx is a German Jew
China is communist
Buddhist sastras are Chinese
You are buck broken

[Anonymous No.22137318]

>>22136950
>t mostly about the philosophy of letting go of material things or that desire innately causes pain and suffering.
abhidhamma
studying abhidhamma analysis will make you see every phenomena as they truly are, unsatisfactory, impermanent and not-self

https:// www.theravada.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Abhidhamma-in-Daily-Life.pdf
https:// www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp439s_Karunadasa_Theravada-Abhidharma.pdf
http://www.. buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf
https://www.. accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

>oh no , this wasn't taught by the Buddha
This is a trustworthy method traditionally taught for centuries to this day in places like Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Scholars don't care about tradition, they're only interested in their philological and historical studies.

[Anonymous No.22137365]

Most people who aren't interested in the religious part are almost exclusively interested in the meditation/ethical aspect of Buddhism
Anyway I'd suggest you read the Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin so you can get a really good idea of what it is you're getting into

[Anonymous No.22137373]

>>22136950
>the self doesn't exist
>but you can stop your self from suffering and end escape samsara through nirvana
>but nirvana and samsara are exactly the same thing
You can start by asking how the fuck this makes any sense and then leaving to find Jesus.

[Anonymous No.22137393]

>>22137373
Meanwhile, Jesus:
>walked on water
>multiplied fish
>got the party popping by turning water into wine
>rose from the fucking dead

Makes a lot of sense

[Anonymous No.22138193]

>>22136950
What the Buddha taught by walpola rahula is good to understand the doctrines
In the Buddha's words is a good intro to the Pali canon

Many recommend the Dhammapada but the Udana shows more of the SOVL of Buddhism imo.

The atthakavagga is one of the best texts too

For meditation yuttadhammo's how to meditate book/vids
>>22137097
>The mind illuminated
ngmi
Mindfulness in plain English by bhante gunaratna is a better baby's first meditation
>>22137318
The Buddha warns against abhidhamma in the atthakavagga

[Anonymous No.22138197]

>>22137373
It's not the self undergoing suffering. It's suffering arising because of the delusion that there is a self.

>Nirvana and Samsara are the same
This is one of the most controversial statements in Buddhism and most Buddhists disagree

[Anonymous No.22138218]

>>22136950
>that focus more on this and not on the religious part
that's a bit like saying "I want to read the Summa, but not things that focus on the religious part." is it possible? yeah. is it worthwhile? no. for example, the entire reason you meditate is to (putting it into english translations here) sharpen your concentration, and once your concentration is sharp enough, you focus directly on a doctrine, such as no-self, emptiness, or dependent-origination, until you experience direct insight into the doctrine. the experience of direct insight is called stream-entry. after you achieve stream-entry, you lose the three fetters; ego (you experience the truth of no-self), ritual (you experience the truth of meditation), and skepticism (you experience the elimination of doubt; ie, you know that the buddha was right because you have seen directly into the nature of reality).

if you want buddhism without the religious bits, again, you can do it, but you're missing 90 percent of it. like reading aquinas for his legal philosophy and just plugging your ears whenever he talks about reason given by god.

or, simply put, it's a retarded way of doing it

[Anonymous No.22138227]

>>22138193
>>22136950
Nagarjuna's letter to a friend is also an excellent tl;Dr for a layperson but it goes too much into hell descriptions for my liking

[Anonymous No.22138229]

>>22138218
Disagree.
The atthakavagga literally says that ritual and religious observance isn't what leads to peace

And buddhadasa bhante famously taught that Buddha didn't teach reincarnation

[Anonymous No.22138239]

>>22138218
>>22138229
To clarify I mean to say it depends on what you mean by the religious part.

Rituals, chants, devas, heaven realms, rebirth - all seem a bit surplus to requirement.

I wouldn't consider nonself, emptiness or conditioned genesis to be 'religious'

[Anonymous No.22138240]

>>22138229
not what I'm saying. I'm not advising OP to go to temple and make offerings or whatever. what I am saying is that OP can't separate the religious aspects from what he wants out of buddhist study if he actually wants to get anything out of buddhist study.
>buddha didn't teach reincarnation
never said anything about rebirth; regardless, you're advancing controversial claims throughout this thread as if they're the truth. thanissaro bhikkhu argues that buddha didn't only teach rebirth, he argued for its existence. much of the Ariyapariyesana Sutta is about buddha realizing rebirth. the Kutuhalasala Sutta mentions it explicitly, I believe.

regardless, rebirth is central to buddhism; denying rebirth is a bit like denying the resurrection of jesus for a christian. the entire reason you meditate or gather good karma is to escape the cycle of rebirth. buddha said this multiple times.

[Anonymous No.22138248]

>>22136950
anyway; OP, if you want to read about the philosophy of letting go of material things or that desire innately causes pain and suffering, read some blogposts on Tricycle. you'll get what you're looking for. if you actually want to read buddhist texts, "In The Buddha's Words" is a good place to start. if you want a general overview of buddhist philosophy -- philosophy in the sense of ethics, metaphysics, not in the sense of worldview -- picrel is good. if you want those without the religious part, sorry.

[Anonymous No.22138253]

>>22138229
>And buddhadasa bhante famously taught that Buddha didn't teach reincarnation
Yeah, it's called rebirth, not reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.22138304]

>>22138253
Yeah he says the focus of Buddhism is not rebirth and therefore the fixation on it is wrong, especially since rebirth planning is directly contravening anatta

The Buddha was not teaching rebirth.

"So we can wrap this up by saying that if you understand anattā correctly and completely, then you’ll discover for yourself that there is no rebirth and no reincarnation. And that’s the end of the story."

[Anonymous No.22138430]

>>22138193
>The mind illuminated
It's good. Much better than Mindfulness in plain English in many ways.

[Anonymous No.22138431]

>>22138304
He taught that rebirth is true for those who don't attain the Deathless, correct.

[Anonymous No.22138434]

>>22138304
Also
>what is Pure Land Buddhism
Let me guess, it's not "real Buddhism" because it doesn't align with what Westerners think about Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.22138517]

>>22136950
if you want buddhism the religion start with
>Dhammapada
>Buddhist scriptures Donald Lopez
>The Oxford Handbook of Meditation
>The three pure land sutras
>Three Zen Sutras
if you want buddhism as a philosophy (oxymoron, kinds of like saying you want atheistic christianity) instead you should just look into stoicism since the practical advice is mostly the same but much more accessible

[Anonymous No.22138562]

I was gonna get into Buddhism but I just frankly can't give a damn about the buddha himself. I'm more interested in the thoughts and philosophy that developed out of the zeitgeist.

[Anonymous No.22138606]

>>22138517
>>>The three pure land sutras
>>Three Zen Sutras
>if you want buddhism as a philosophy (oxymoron, kinds of like saying you want atheistic christianity)
those sutras are exactly buddhism philosophy, ie masturbatory content that westerners love to gargle with. >>22138562

[Anonymous No.22138622]

>>22136969
>Siddartha
Why a Western fanfiction instead of Ashvaghosha's Buddhacharita?

[Anonymous No.22138692]

>>22138430
Culadasa is a coomer
Bhante G is a monk

[Anonymous No.22138700]

>>22138431
As Buddhadasa says, there cannot be a rebirth if there is no atma. The point of Buddhism is not therefore about lining up good rebirths or even avoiding rebirth.
>>22138434
>Pure land
Lmao. This is almost as far as you can possibly get from canonical Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.22138749]

>>22138606
I could have a biased sample but every westerner I've met that follows zen can't recite the four noble truths and they're not reading sutras as for pure land most westerners deny the metaphysical aspects of buddhism yet alone rebirth into a physical realm separate from this one - zen has mostly been corrupted which is why recommending sutras for it is important anything else explaining zen is a subversion of it and pure land remains mostly untouched - maybe I should have phrased it better but when I said buddhism as philosophy I mean the people who believe you can separate (coherently) the religious aspects of buddhism from the philosophical. Without karma, rebirth, heaven and hell realms the eightfold noble path falls apart since those things are the justification and foundation of the fnt and the eightfold noble path

[Anonymous No.22138824]

the only thing I don't understand about buddhism is from whence did "pure" consciousness arise?
if it arose independently, then it posses inherent existence
if it arose dependently, then how can it be pure while depending on something else?
and what does it depend on? it can't be the mind since nirvana supposes a pure consciousness free from a mind with no thoughts or emotions

[Anonymous No.22138844]

>>22138824
it depends on the school, to the theravadins there's no such thing as "pure consciousness" you're always conciouss of something, you have eye consciousness, taste-consciousness etc
to the madhyamaka school the purity of consciousness is thanks to it's emptiness
>if it arose dependently, then how can it be pure while depending on something else?
in madhyamakla is not dependent but inter-dependent, that is, it's empty so it depends on somethign that's also empty and also depends on cosciousness to exist, it's pure because it reflects the purity of the object of consciousness
>and what does it depend on? it can't be the mind since nirvana supposes a pure consciousness free from a mind with no thoughts or emotions
in the tehravada school you're also free from consciousness

[Anonymous No.22138869]

>>22138844
thanks.
The madyhamaka answer sounds like the typical middle-way denial
but if theravada is also 'free' from consciousness? what's left?
nothing? is that not nihilism?
or is it just another concept of conciousness similar to madyamaka?

[Anonymous No.22138896]

>>22138869
>what's left?
this already presupuse a particular form of metaphysics and spiritual praxis,where the practicioner wants to get rid of "things" to achieve a theoretical natural state, that's not really a buddhist notion, in buddhism you don't want to go back to a pure self, but to transform yourself in something new, if there's "something left" you then you still didn't achieve nirvana, thinking that you gain somethign or you get rid of something creates the illusion of a self, a better metaphor would be a caterpillar turning into a butterfly

[Anonymous No.22138910]

>>22138896
you're correct.
but when I say what's left, I mean what, if anything, experiences.
if there's nothing to experience or be experienced than how is it different from nihility?

[Anonymous No.22138929]

>>22138910
nirvana is something beyond experience, which isn't the same as the mere negation of experience, that would be nihilism

[Anonymous No.22138939]

well now I'm right back where I started.
thanks...
where is this concept of beyond consciousness discussed further in theravada?

[Anonymous No.22138964]

>>22138929

>>22138939

[Anonymous No.22138968]

>>22138939
that seems weird. beyond consciousness means beyond whatever is conditioned, ie samsara, so it's nibanna
nibanna sutta is this one
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_34.html
It's a sutta with Sariputta and this means it's closer to abidhamma thinking with their Nirodha-Samapatti crap

[Anonymous No.22138973]

>>22136950
>>22136950
>>22138939
you want the suttas, especially the SN ones fro the redpill
https://americanmonk.org/free-pts-sutta-ebooks/
you can read all this in 1 month if you are neet, otherwise jsut do this :
take 1h to read that and you'll be up to date and know more than 99% of the alleged buddhists :

>start
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
>middle
https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
>finish
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html


speed learning about buddhism with videos
-the redpill which is the ajahn brahm teaching for monks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtnuVoJXWhM&list=PLQ_Y6m62B_MVZVGIzfjqrpoUmszVMcxWV
-then work slowly with the soft pill which is the retreat for lay people, so watch the other ones here (watch the QA too)
https://www.youtube.com/c/AjahnBrahmRetreats2011-15BSWAMedia/playlists

[Anonymous No.22138983]

>>22138869
>middle-way denial
on the contrary, by articulating consciousness as non-dual both subject and object have a ontological weight to them, which is somethign you can't say of most indian schools of tought, to which one of the two is always an illusion, part of maya

[Anonymous No.22139090]

>>22138692
>Culadasa is a coomer
Still his work is probably the most complete meditation guide. Also you can practice non-self and causality by thinking more about whether techniques described in the book work instead of trying to figure out whether he actively fucked whores or just received blowjobs.
>Bhante G is a monk
This does not work in favor of his work. Even most crude meditation techniques do their job in monastic setting.

[Anonymous No.22139127]

>>22138517
>if you want buddhism as a philosophy (oxymoron, kinds of like saying you want atheistic christianity) instead you should just look into stoicism since the practical advice is mostly the same but much more accessible
Stoic "practice" is very lacking compared to Buddhist, and there's no actual meaningful theory into the nature of being/mind/whatever you prefer to call it.

[Anonymous No.22139147]

>>22138700
>there cannot be a rebirth if there is no atma.
There can rebirth just as surely as there can be birth. No substantial self is required.
>Lmao. This is almost as far as you can possibly get from canonical Buddhism.
There is no canonical Buddhism. You've just made that up to prove your point. Many practitioners of Zen in Japan also subscribed to Pure Land doctrines.

[Anonymous No.22139161]

>>22136950
https://www.dhammatalks.org/ebook_index.html#BuddhasTeachings

[Anonymous No.22139184]

Can any scholars explain to me what is it that makes the attainment of Nirvana so "permanent"? What is it in the context of a person that makes this attainment stick, instead of being forgettable the same way most things are forgotten upon death?
I googled it and all I got was
>Nirvana is actually nothing, so theres nothing to attain its always there

[Anonymous No.22139457]

>>22139184
because nirvana is like growing up, you can't go back to being a child once you're an adult

[Anonymous No.22139550]

>>22139184
If I'm understanding Theravada properly: the four stages of awakening represent a gradual overcoming of the ten fetters, with each stage (stream-enterer, once-returner, anagami, arahant) being a permanent achievement on the basis that when you get a real insight into how craving operates, you can't unsee it. This leads to an understanding of dependent origination. I'm not sure it's useful to call it "nothing" so much as to see it in terms of the lack of a separate self. Nirvana is meant to be something attained as an anagami so there's still something there to be reborn at that point, even if in a non-human realm.

>What is it in the context of a person that makes this attainment stick, instead of being forgettable the same way most things are forgotten upon death?
Craving is the cause of rebirth itself and the karma which condition its quality. The theory of exactly how this works varied with different schools of Buddhism but I think the rough idea is that certain karmic "seeds" (bija) are carried over between lives whether we consciously remember them or not. In the suttas, recollection of past lives in general is also meant to be a of jhana practice.

[Anonymous No.22139557]

>>22139550
>to be a of jhana practice
I accidentally the whole jhana

[Anonymous No.22139618]

>>22136963
Kek, top tier bait.
If you are serious though, if anything Christ is a prophet more "leftist" (though obviously inserting left v.s right politics into an ancient context where this dichotomy didn't even exist is beyond retarded) in so far as he's far more revolutionary and emphasizes the plight of the poor.
By contrast Buddhism's emphasis on contentment and detachment would seem to lend itself to a political attitude either of indifference or inaction stressing not revolution but the harmony between classes. This can be seen for instance in "The Duties of the Theravada Layman", in which each corner of society is to be given its due respect by the layman.

[Anonymous No.22139625]

>>22136963
>The Buddha was an original leftist
based
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_socialism

[Anonymous No.22139640]

>>22139090
The proof is in the pudding. If your meditation technique just leaves you as a precept breaker, it clearly isn't very good.
>>22139147
Rebirth requires a thing to undergo a change. There are no things.
>No canonical Buddhism
It's called tipitaka sweaty.

[Anonymous No.22139655]

>>22139457
literally can in buddhism through rebirth

[Anonymous No.22139767]

>>22139550
>karmic "seeds" (bija) are carried over between lives whether we consciously remember them or not. In the suttas, recollection of past lives in general is also meant to be a of jhana practice.
So the karmic seeds themselves display/have permanence?

[Anonymous No.22140334]

>>22139767
With the anata doctrine, nothing could be considered really permanent in the sense of being fixed. There isn't a central soul which we're trying to uncover but a sort of ongoing flux of consciousness which persists through multiple lifetimes with our actions steering the direction it's going in. The thing about being an arhat is that you stop generating new karma so the process then does stop with death.

A few people, including Guenon and some of the other Traditionalists have debated whether the Buddha originally taught anatta like this, but I think that would be considered a fringe view by most Buddhists.

[Anonymous No.22140573]

>>22140334
So would it be accurate to say the seeds have a "learning nature", they're not fixed but they can learn and not forget? Is this explicitly specified anywhere within Buddhist cannon or given a name? It seems to be something that should be a more prominent component of the teachings IMO. Sorry, just trying to make sure I understand it 100%.

[Anonymous No.22140589]

>>22139127
>there's no actual meaningful theory into the nature of being/mind/whatever you prefer to call it.
these are religious aspects of buddhism not philosophical

[Anonymous No.22140621]

>>22140573
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C4%ABja#Buddhist_theory_of_karmic_seeds
Not him: It's not that the seed learns, it's that the seed stops getting planted. The seed is planted (you stab your brother to death), it comes to fruition later (you are reborn as a toad). The seeds are just a means of delayed causality.

To answer your initial question: what you're really asking is "can backsliding occur". Some Buddhist sects say no, it cannot, others say that it can. But, to be clear: an arahat is someone ON THEIR LAST LIFE. When they die, they will nirvana. Orthodox Theravada holds UPON DYING and nirvanaing they will not return. Orthodox Theravada also holds that an arahat (someone on their last life) cannot regress; once they get enlightened (in this life), there's no going back. Orthodox Theravada also holds that a Sotapanna (basically a state of commitment and success in dharma practice) cannot regress; they will become an arahant within seven lives.

In Mahayana, it's different. Some Mahayana sects hold that an enlightened being can regress. Many hold that even Bodhisattvas can regress. Even nirvana can give birth to new samsaric beings! The only being that cannot regress is a Buddha. Thus, a Mahayana Buddhist takes the Bodhisattva vow: they will not nirvana out until they and all beings become Buddhas. I've never seen anything to indicate that there's a "special kind" of nirvana for Buddhas, but I have seen Mahayana writings that more or less suggest that there's an eternal fluxing, a waxing and waning, of nirvana and samara, and that samsara never totally ends, but it does slowly peter away, and that we can make this the last petering away for good.

[Anonymous No.22140705]

>>22139655
Not really, since there's no self that experience childhood twice, with rebirth you're creating the causes and conditions for a new kid to arise, but you're not that kid

[Anonymous No.22140709]

>>22139767
No the karmic seeds are destroyed but give rise to new jarmic seeds, you can say the process itself is permanent until you reach nibanna

[Anonymous No.22140711]

Without reading a single post of this thread, am I right in assuming anons recommending multiple books and thousands of pages of text?

[Anonymous No.22140859]

>>22140711
The Heart Sutra fits in a 4chan post and the commentaries by Mahayana masters are 170 pages long. What the Buddha taught is 254 pages.

[Anonymous No.22140883]

>>22140859
I know. I just always find autists to recommend stuff like the complete Mahabratta, or however the fuck it’s spelled. Ya know, like 10,090 pages

[Anonymous No.22140936]

>>22140883
JUST READ THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA BRO
JUST READ THE PALI CANON BRO
JUST READ THE TALMUD BRO
JUST READ THE COLLECTED WORKS OF AL'TABARI BRO

[Anonymous No.22140938]

>>22140936
Kek

[Anonymous No.22140941]

[Anonymous No.22140983]

>>22139640
Nothing exists inherently but they appear to exist conventionally. There is no persistent self that links you as a child to you as an adult, but conventionally you appear to be a continuous being who ages. Rebirth is the same.

[Anonymous No.22141282]

>>22136950
Don’t! Read Jung instead. Jung’s ideas of the unconscious/shadow are compatible with eastern teachings such as nonduality and even some Buddhist teachings. With Jung though he doesn’t tell you cease all desiring which could turn you into a bum, could spiral into this denial too about everything. Read Jung!

[Anonymous No.22141547]

>>22140983
I don't deny there is lots of birth. But rebirth requires persistent things undergoing renewal which is against anatta and anicca

The point is simply that the 'religious' concept in Buddhism of rebirth as a motivation for practice is refuted by Buddhism's own philosophy

[Anonymous No.22141618]

>>22140941
>The Dalai Lama
Are these actually any good? The guy and tibetan buddhism in general does not have a great reputation.

[Anonymous No.22141795]

>>22141618
No tibetans add nothing of value to buddhism. The dalai Lama in particular said he is not enlightened anyway.

[Anonymous No.22141864]

>>22140711
nah a few suttas are only needed

[Anonymous No.22142202]

>>22140705
What about keeping memories of previous lives through reincarnation like Dalai Lamas do?

[Anonymous No.22142377]

>>22136950
koans about zen buddhism (since it is minimalist and focuses on the aspect of the truth being elusive and tries to get you to go with the flow and to stop trying to catch the red dot on the wall
as for other stuff on buddhism / letting go of material stuff you could just find a good translation on the life of buddha, it is basically learning through a story which teaches you that a guy who had everything decided to throw it all away to find a peace of mind from disease, aging and death which came through enlightenment
if you're willing to veer away from buddhism to achieve the same goal you could aim for ataraxia which is pretty much untroubled state of mind that seems like it was influenced with eastern thought or just happened to arrive at a similar end goal
for how to do that i would recommend stoicism and pyrrhonism (branch of skepticism that focuses on how nothing can be really be said to be true for sure, proto-descartian stuff)
if you're worried about things like ideologies, systems, prestige etc weighting your mind just read max stirner - ego and its own to put the material into its proper perspective and to realize how all the pyramid climbing and shine is pretty much just subjugating you into a rigged game to be complacent with status quo

tdlr; life of buddha in any translation you see fit, most of them are the same shit with different word connotations not much is lost in translation his life wasn't all that interesting and i would assume the core idea of being okay with mortality comes up from all of them

[Anonymous No.22142403]

>>22142202
remembering previous lives is not required to be enlightened, it's completely disconnected to understanding how rebirths work.

[Anonymous No.22142407]

in the end most knowledge that doesn't help you shed knowledge and impressions is counter productive

[Anonymous No.22142425]

>>22142202
they're not "your" memories, just a residual composite like the karmic formations

[Anonymous No.22142480]

since this is a buddhist thread and a couple people here have some cool perspectives (and /his/ turned out to be trash for this kind of thing and in general)

i'm a diagnosed schizophrenic who, after a couple years of research, thinks he might have had a serious spiritual experience. i don't believe i'm talking to god or angels or anything like that, but closest approximation to what i went through is stream entry of sorts. it's nearly impossible to lexicalize what happened to my brain, but it was a strange sense of nothinglessness. everything was as it should be, as it would always be, and everything had to happen the way it happened for everything to line up like this. it became so clear to me how ridiculous it ever was to wish that one moment had gone differently but not consider all the moments after (and before, because the before would need to change the then-present).

at absolute peak psychosis (lasting a couple of hours) i felt a an absolute inversion of self, i've not read much of this anywhere in schizophrenics or in buddhist experiences but i felt a total reversal of all my belief structures, a complete annihilation of the axioms i clung to, it was a weird devil's advocate ad infinitum that realigned everything for me. and when i returned to myself i felt wholly more soft and considerate of both sides of an issue, much more neutral and middle-minded. some truths became clear to me that went on to keep me from later killing myself, and though it's been three years since my diagnosis the memory is still crystal clear. there was of course overwhelming euphoria too but that was fleeting, the understanding was permanent.

my research leads me to believe i'm something approximating an anagami. is that an absurd position to take? if so, i'm happy to reassess. i know i'm a literal schizo too, that's not up for debate, but i don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous No.22142483]

>>22142480
maybe you dipped your toes in the ocean but decided to stay

[Anonymous No.22142492]

>>22136950
>Where to start with Buddhism
Nowhere

[Anonymous No.22142497]

>>22142480
in buddhism, it's pretty clear if you are at stream winner level or beyond. You either know the dhamma or not, ie the 5 precepts, the 4 truths, the 8 fold path. Then you may or may not be good at meditation.

[Anonymous No.22142505]

>>22142497
>you need dhamma to be enlightened
you don't need the dhamma if you're enlightened the "right way" of living comes naturally to you, there is no merit or non-merit, no profane and no divine, all things are just you and you are all things playing with yourself like a little kid pretending there is another, when you grow up you'll stop being in this dingy little sandbox and just return to the ocean

[Anonymous No.22142531]

>>22142505
At stream entry you know the dhamma, that's the definition really. And there is merit and demerit in buddhism.
The first thing to learn in buddhism is that's easy to get tricked by the mind, especially anything related to meditation and the deep mundane desire that ''everything is connected'' that people have during NDEs, LSD parties, prayers for religious normalfags eager to tack their gods onto whatever they experience...

[Anonymous No.22142539]

>>22142531
well there's this vedic religion branch that believes that you are the godhead / only thing in existence and that enlightenment is realizing this, buddhism is the same shit (spawned from the same root) except it believes that to do so you just murk your ego and voila blank slate fits the blank canvas, zen buddhism is more of a go with the flow until you get it while trying to clear the tacks on the canvas until you realize there is just the canvas
doesn't really matter how you get there, it's all you in the end for everything is "buddha", any word you use to describe it is just bullshit that's why zen buddhism got closest by learning to get rid of as many things as possible to see it clearer
in the end it doesn't matter there is no one to become enlightened and if you wanted "out" of the experience you would be out, either you stayed because you felt pity for the reflection of the monkey drowning and were stupid enough to jump in to save your own reflection or because you learned to enjoy swimming

[Anonymous No.22142607]

atheist dabbing at spirituality

>Professor Gingerich was raised a Mennonite and was a student at Goshen College, a Mennonite institution in Indiana, studying chemistry but thinking of astronomy, when, he later recalled, a professor there gave him pivotal advice: "If you feel a calling to pursue astronomy, you should go for it. We can't let the atheists take over any field." He took the counsel, and throughout his career he often wrote or spoke about his belief that religion and science need not be at odds. He explored that theme in the books "God's Universe" (2006) and "God's Planet" (2014). He was not a biblical literalist; he had no use for those who ignored science and proclaimed the Bible's creation story historical fact. Yet, as he put it in "God's Universe," he was "personally persuaded that a superintelligent Creator exists beyond and within the cosmos." [...] Professor Gingerich, who was senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, wrote countless articles over his career in addition to his books. In one for Science and Technology News in 2005, he talked about the divide between theories of atheistic evolution and theistic evolution. "Frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other," he wrote. "Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being."

[Anonymous No.22142640]

>>22142607

more like professor gilgamesh

[Anonymous No.22142671]

>>22136950
There is a 4chan Buddhism discord that I can link if you want me to, you'll be able to message an actual Buddhist monk who runs the server and ask him all these questions yourself if you want.

[Anonymous No.22142693]

>>22142671
Sounds sus, I wouldnt believe someone who is a discord user AND a 4chan user, let alone a Buddhist.

[Anonymous No.22142698]

>>22142693
He was on /adv/ a bit ago answering people's questions, he's legit and a nice guy, the offer's there if you want it.

[dago !NSA.1dx9Yo No.22142699]

start with the jeets

[dago !NSA.1dx9Yo No.22142701]

even Kukai says to start with the jeets before diving into Shingon

[Anonymous No.22142704]

start with zen buddhism, it's minimalist approach to it and if after that you still feel like religion explore your options further

[Anonymous No.22142993]

>>22142539
>(spawned from the same root)
this is wrong, the roots of buddhism are the sramana tradition, contemporary but different from the vedic tradition, Buddha himself was bron in the sakya kingdom, a kingdom of warlords with no kingdoms and a cult that worship a sun god

[Anonymous No.22142996]

>>22142993
>with no kingdoms
excuse me, i mean no Brahmins

[Anonymous No.22143005]

>>22142993
>>22142996
elaborate

[Anonymous No.22143042]

>>22142480
my only real concern is that this notion that you're an aragami or a sotapana can feed your psychosis, so i would not think about this too much, the buddhis way is to follow the wholesome feelings and learn to accept the unwholesome feelings without develop averison for them or craving for feeling that supress this unwholesome ones(those are not the same as the wholesome feelings tho) and if you in the way develop some state of consciousness give you a deep insight into your condition that's great, but i wouldn't dewll on that too much and just keep practicing awareness and leting go of craving and aversion in a natural and wholesome/skilfull way

[Anonymous No.22143054]

>>22138622
As an intro for someone who know nothing about it and doesn’t want to start with scripture? Yes

[Anonymous No.22143057]

yes the categories of anagmi and Sakadagami are not super important. The real ones are arahant, sotapanna and puthujjana.

What matters is that you notice how greed and aversion decreases for sensuality, for identity-view

[Anonymous No.22143083]

>>22142993
the fuck are you talking about, the whole damn shebang with reincarnation, samsara, maya and escaping the great illusion through moksha all spawn from vedas
that's like saying abrahamic religions didn't rip off zoroastrianism shamelessly and ripped into 2 branches from which christianity became a slave religion offshoot of the jewish one via jesus
learn your history without bias

[Anonymous No.22143084]

>>22143005
Buddha bornin a cutlural context outside of the vedic tradition, the religion of his clan was cenetered around sun worshiping and as a mystic he was trained by sramana teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Rāmaputta, Buddha was a reformist within the śramaṇa movement, rather than a reactionary against Vedic Brahminism

[Anonymous No.22143086]

>>22143084
where can I read more about this?

[Anonymous No.22143097]

>>22143084
the buddha denounced his root, tried tripping out in via starvation with the forest hipsters who taught starving yourself was the key to liberation, revised it into the middle path and slapped a brand new sticker to it with buddhism
the forest hippies were vedic people who strived for moksha from death and rebirth which came from the vedas originally
doesn't matter what his fathers religion or kingdom was the dude denounced that shit and even the forest hippies shit but he ripped them off, only thing original about buddhism is the middle path but it all roots from the idea of reincarnation and liberation just with different methods
he didn't worship any fucking sun god nor does buddhism have anything to do with deities

[Anonymous No.22143103]

>>22143083
>reincarnation,maya and escaping the great illusion
buddha never talked about reincarnation, maya or escaping the great illusion, buddhist rebirth and samsara are a whole different concepts, you're not escaping a false state to go to a theoretical "suorce of existence" buddhism don't believe in sources of existence, it goes against the doctrine of anicca, buddhism is about breaking away the vicious circle of your mind to transform yoursel into something different, not going to the "source of existence" but going beyond existence itself

[Anonymous No.22143118]

>>22143103
get the fuck out of here, buddhism is about enlightenment, ego death and through that escaping "suffering"
hinduism pretty much kept the gods around but ripped of reincarnation and moksha / enlightenment
buddhism is same kind of bag but with minimalist approach and less focus on the deities and sacrifices and more focus on gaining a experience that liberates you from suffering
what the fuck do you think enlightenment means? it's just you realizing you're pretty much everything, for some that means returning to the ocean for some it means wiping yourself out to realize you were it all along
same shit all rooting from vedas, doesn't matter if the sea goes to the droplet or the droplet goes to the shit it's all the same and there was only water all along
sorry your religion wasn't original or special, that's what happens when you have the same root religion your offshoots plagiarized with interpretations
just like good and evil duality came from zoroastrianism and became popular in the west in the india region and asia the religions mostly ripped off of vedas
only original'ish stuff is taoism or confuscianism and that's asia, you can't find a single fucking alive religion in india region that didn't rip off from vedas

[Anonymous No.22143126]

>>22142480
also follow the 5 precepts
you didnt say if you were a neet or a wageslave. Being a neet matters if you want to go deep into buddhism. Wageslaving a buddhism don't go well together.

[Anonymous No.22143139]

>>22136963
>the buda was a leftist!
>t. retard who still believes left team v right team is a real thing

[Anonymous No.22143171]

>>22143118
>doesn't matter if the sea goes to the droplet or the droplet goes to the shit it's all the same and there was only water all along
not really, in buddhism going back to the "source of reality" or brahman doesn't make any sense, since if this god is the source from which the illusion emanates, then you're damned to go back to the illusion again sooner or later, since is in the source nature to emanate the illusion, so you're still trapped in samsara(going from good to bad, from brahman to maya), there's no radical transformation that free you from that cycle, nirvana is going beyond existence, beyond the source of samsara, outside of the cause of arising

[Anonymous No.22143173]

>>22143097
>but it all roots from the idea of reincarnation and liberation just with different methods
The nature of the Indian subcontinents religion was always way more flexible than the dogmatic religions of the west though. Its not an exploit, its a feature.

[Anonymous No.22143201]

>>22143171
>beyond the source of samsara
>outside the cause of arising
water is water, liberation from the illusion is liberation from the illusion

[Anonymous No.22143220]

>>22143201
but the water also creates the illusion, so if the water put you in the illusion going back into the water will lead you to the illusion again

[Anonymous No.22143230]

>>22143220
sokath, his eyes opened
if you are a dreaming blob, what good does waking up do?
if you are aiming to escape the blob, where would you go if blob is the creator of all and outside it is only stillness and void?

if you are the machine that creates the matrix, where would you escape outside it?

[Anonymous No.22143260]

>>22142698
damn, I didn't think this thread would grow this big, sure u can send it

[Anonymous No.22143269]

>>22143230
that's why nirvana is the ultimate mystery and exist beyond conceptualisation
in a buddhist framework wanting to go back to "the source of existence" is still a form of desire and craving to an order that free you from the fear of impermanence, but in buddhism the only way to resolve suffering is by accepting the intrinsic impermanence of the world, trying to give nirvana an identity/godhead, tracsendental existence etc) is a sign that your mind still craves for a self that save you from the chaos of reality
i'm not saying that the vedanta system is wrong, but that is essentially different from the buddhist system, their agendas go to different places

[Anonymous No.22143307]

>>22143269
both seek to give you a identity / lack thereof outside the ego self or the thing you think yourself as to remedy fear of mortality, you can achieve ataraxia even without vedas or buddhism
classic vedas and merging with the ultimate = you are no longer the ego so your fear is remedied
buddhism and nirvana = you are no longer the ego so your fear is remedied
ataraxia = you no longer worry about the ego so your fear is remedied
all religions end goal is to put the practicioners mind at ease about the fact that one day their body will die
if convincing yourself that you are conscience itself makes you at peace to achieve it it is called moksha
if killing your ego identity before death makes you at peace to achieve it it is called nirvana
if accepting that your body is impermanent makes you at peace to achieve it it is called ataraxia

[Anonymous No.22143376]

>>22143307
the problem with that is that you're generalizing to much in order to make those schools look similar, and you end up with a really diluted and shallow version of buddhism
in buddhism mergin with the ultimate serves no pourpose since you're only going back to the start of the problem again, if the ultimate emanates the illusion/contingent, then you're gonna end up on the illusion again, there's no change
>if killing your ego
you're not killing your ego, that's rooted in aversion one of the 3 poisons that enslave you to samsara, there's nothing to kill to beging with, there's no ego, never was, you just stop acting like there was an ego thats all, in a way you just stop actualisign the iea of an ego in your actions, but you don't do that volitionally (since that would born from an idea rooted in the notion of an ego "I" must free "myself" from the ego) you just develop awareness on your action and gradually become aware of how a lot of the most unskilfull apsects of your acts are rooted on the idea of an special self, there's no destruction or special deliberate act to end or stop any idea, just awareness and the natural act of leting go that arise from skifull acts of awareness
in such a context ideas like "the self" or "the ultimate/god" just doesn't make any sense

[Anonymous No.22143387]

>>22143376
you should try psychedelics and reassess your point of view on nirvana

[Anonymous No.22143427]

>>22143387
Psychedelics "enhance" your cognition but they dont say anything on their own and will feed into your biases if you're not careful. Either way, actual theory and practice is what leads to Nirvana, psychedelics as a tool can help or harm depending on how you use them and desu based off your conclusion Id say for you it was harm.

[Anonymous No.22143443]

>>22143427
oh fleeting consciousness, so fixated are you with yourself that you would cast yourself upon the cold and still void only to see yourself grand
ah but alas you are no longer, yet the void still remains, more toys to dance the stage, more joys and sorrows to touch the hearts, more spectacles for the yes, as you cheer your reflection casted on the canvas for more you realize
there was never there in the first place

[Anonymous No.22143446]

chase for a way out of the theater, cast yourself on everything, move towards and beyond, always motion
ah the fool wakes to the curtain call, such grand bananas did it chase, such spectacles did it witness, yet there was never anything there in the first place

[Anonymous No.22143457]

opinions on the words shared?

[Anonymous No.22143475]

did i "free" you of your "desire" to "go beyond the source of all experience in samsara"?
do you realize it now?

[Anonymous No.22143478]

>>22143376
>killing your ego bad
>knowing you have no ego to begin with good
>putting it in a drake meme

[Anonymous No.22143494]

>>22143475
are you responding to some anon or post in particular?

[Anonymous No.22143502]

>>22143494
does it matter who it is addressed to?

[Anonymous No.22143509]

Thoughts on Tara's Triple Excellence?

[Anonymous No.22143520]

>>22137097
stupid question:
If I read the middle and long discourses is it as if I have already read the rest and I can save myself from read words of the Buddha, the book of sayings and the book of gradual sayings?

[Anonymous No.22143576]

>>22143475
>desire" to "go beyond the source of all experience in samsara"?
buddhism isn't about desiring to go beyond the source all experience in samsara, that's just the metaphysical end of the path, buddhism is about freeing yourself from craving, aversion and ignorance to overcome dukkha, going beyond the source of all experience is just the inevitable conclusion of that path, if you wanna really be free of suffering you have to generate a radical change and go beyond the source of samsara, that desire isn't bad or contradictory since is not rooted in craving(tanha) but in willpower(chanda) is a skilfull form of desire

[Anonymous No.22143588]

>>22143576
you have fun with that

[Anonymous No.22143620]

>>22143576
>if i rebrand craving as willpower then it is not craving isnt it?
this inconsistency is just for acolytes. making lawyer tricks only expose the fragility and stupidness of all the work. nobody would pass that shit if they think about it without a desperate longing for peace that they see in this teachings. analytically this is untenable.

[Anonymous No.22143623]

>>22143620
maybe we would have more enlightened monks if more of them would learn to accept being a bit of a rascal as part of being human, makes it easier to move forward when you stop lying to yourself about it
desire to be free from desire is a desire like you said after all

[Anonymous No.22143635]

>>22143623
>if more of them would learn to accept being a bit of a rascal as part of being human,
They are though, the Buddhists are the biggest rascals. Listen to any of the Delay Lamas interviews

[Anonymous No.22143645]

>>22143635
not like that, i mean as in they're delaying their "enlightenment" because they want to be guru's instead of enlightened

[Anonymous No.22143656]

>>22143620
>this inconsistency is just for acolytes
not at all, the distintion between craving and intentionality is one of the fundaments of buddhahdamma
Effort/energy (viriya), Chanda, along with 2 others, citta (mind) and vīmaṃsā (investigation) are the 4 bases of spiritual success/power. Part of the 37 factors of enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.22143665]

>>22143623
yes, thats it. but if you say the main issue with life you censure yourself to promote desire based on your premise. definitively, you should be a rascal in this term, but that quit all seriousness and solemnity that inherently every religion has, and nobody in his sane mind would drop lightly that kind of power and feeling of power too. thats the main problem.
also, accepting the rascal part of nature would make peace the all notion of buddhims so they would be not so different from anti depressants and all kind of psychological softeners of the harsh and suffering of life. so they rettain that impression of final real end of something. really everything is as sad and stupid as always.
essentially i agree with you.

[Anonymous No.22143674]

>>22143656
have you considered that success and power won't bring you peace from suffering?
>>22143665
i mean the first noble truth is "life is suffering", if life stops being that through some form of acceptance in your own part then life stops being suffering, borrowing a bit from stoics one could accept that life is suffering (as well) and just accept that one day our bodies go to dirt without feeling the need to rush it or escape it

[Anonymous No.22143694]

>>22143674
i basically agree with you. but i doubt buddhism, religion as it is, would end in "stop suffering", the fact that they make the difference between types of cravings, types of desires, tell you everything of what the main goal really is and how is not stop suffering, like you said, with some king of stoicism you can reasonably half take it, never the full part of it, but more or less you go time at a time. but they go more to the real reality behind everything, that is what really make their dick hard so to speak. not suffering is just the beginning of the ride. i agree with you only trying to say that the nature of religions are all pervasive and inherently totalitarian in their view of reality as part of some chain or another.

[Anonymous No.22143699]

>>22143674
>have you considered that success and power won't bring you peace from suffering?
depends, success in the path of liberation by deffinition will bring peace from suffering, and power is a really vague term, tehre's places in which power could be helpful, develop mastery of the noble eightfold path is a form of inner power and is neccesary to achieve liberation

[Anonymous No.22143700]

>>22143656
>the distintion between craving and intentionality is one of the fundaments of buddhahdamma
that is what i mean with acolytes.

[Anonymous No.22143709]

>>22143694
it's almost like all systems of belief are inherently subjugating i agree
>>22143699
and then you will be the best monkey after you've reached liberation, better than those awful hedonists that chase after joy in the form of carnal yucky material pleasures, much more dignified and complex and better with pure goal such as liberation from desire, it would be so pleasurable to be free from desire and you could look down your nose at people stuck on desires or pity them for having those, you could be a powerful guru with complete self control and teach the foolish and misguided about it and be revered as a master, of course with humbleness and grace
lofty golden banana that would be

[Anonymous No.22143734]

Schopenhauers entire thing is asceticism, I’d start with the world as will and representation and then read Buddhist shit once you understand the philosophy behind it

[Anonymous No.22143811]

>>22143709

anon i just said that liberation is a form of success and power is useful if it's in a context of inner skills, what's with the long poem?

[Anonymous No.22143843]

>>22143811
i'm trying to tell you that you're still seeking for ego gratification and chasing after success of the golden banana

[Anonymous No.22143919]

>>22143843
yeah sure, i'm not an arahat or a bodhisattva, even a sottapana still has craving

[Anonymous No.22143958]

>>22143919
those labels become meaningless titles when you stop chasing them

[Anonymous No.22143972]

ask yourself why are you chasing after the golden banana
ask who are you doing it for
what do you want to really achieve
and what is the point of any of it

[Anonymous No.22143977]

hell even us talking about it is a contradiction, the desire to liberate others in bodhisattva is a desire, you're delaying your own enlightenment to help others, you still desire to help others, you still pity others, you still think it makes a difference to save them and you still think there are others

[Anonymous No.22143982]

>>22143958
yeah every term becomes meaningless if you chose to stop caring about them, the problem is when you don't realise that the notion that getting rid of concepts will grant you some mystic reward is on itself a concept, and a pretty shallow one at that

[Anonymous No.22143989]

if the goal is liberation of all beings why aren't guru's just forcibly liberating everyone from the cycle of death and rebirth with shaktipat?
why are you not just forcibly ascending the entire planet of all forms of life and returning them to source of all or killing all things that can reincarnate so they can all return to void?

[Anonymous No.22143993]

>>22143977
>the desire to liberate others in bodhisattva is a desire
as explained above, there's nothing wrong with desire

[Anonymous No.22143999]

you're still playing a stupid game of masters and students, people stuck and people liberating people stuck, you're chasing the golden banana
>>22143993
>there's nothing wrong with desire
except that it keeps you here mr heretic

[Anonymous No.22144004]

>>22143656
you have to understand that this completely demolished to shreds the notion that desire is a problem. you have to say, clearly as water, desire is good as long as it serves to liberation purposes and i need desire, i fucking need it. because the whole "desire is needed to go out of desire" is so completely full of shit and so ingenuous that you have to make contrived shit to half sustained it and only full acolytes would swallow with some vague hope of final paradise as every other sect. this is 1984 tier "war is peace" shit that only systems with power can make believe to anyone. just think about it for gods sake.
in the end buddhits make their own heaven and their own ascending to heaven.

[Anonymous No.22144007]

>asking chantards for advice about Buddhism

[Anonymous No.22144010]

>>22143989
>why aren't guru's just forcibly liberating everyone
in buddhism liberation is somethign only you can achieve for yourself, no one can grant you nibanna, not even a god

[Anonymous No.22144018]

>>22143999
>except that it keeps you here mr heretic
no, craving keeps you here

[Anonymous No.22144031]

>>22144010
>no one can liberate yourself but yourself
but you are all mister buddha, so why won't you just liberate yourself?
>>22144018
>the desire for liberation is the beginning of the path, the cessation for liberation is the end of it
stop
chasing
after
the
golden
banana
call it what you will you're still chasing it

[Anonymous No.22144059]

the whole point is that you see that life is a bit shit and you're kind of afraid to die
you go around and you find a religion that promises to fix that shit
your desire turns into desire for liberation and the goal of achieving that
it is the golden banana, better than the average banana
your ego grasps for that chase because it is better and shinier
your path has begun and you seek to erode desires and "non-pure" things that hinder you on your path
eventually you let go of the desire to chase for the golden banana
and woah you're enlightened, whether you had the experience of unity with all or not it doesn't matter you can just drop a ton of acid and have that anyway
what matters is that you stopped chasing, you're still, you're all and nothing changed
the real choice is do you reject or embrace this world and you as its source or do you go to the void inbetween
the choice doesn't matter because the "you" wasn't real anyway as a entity that is going to die or in need of liberation
you are just seeing a reflection of a monkey drowning in the river and you jumped in to save it and are swimming
get back to the shore and realize the monkey wasn't in the river before you jumped in
it's all just a stupid dream to keep you from boredom and even if a part of you enters the void unless all of it learns to grow still you will never be rid of it
so either ascend all or stop chasing after the banana

[Anonymous No.22144072]

>>22144004
>you have to understand that this completely demolished to shreds the notion that desire is a problem
that notion never existed
>desire is good as long as it serves to liberation purposes
this is in every school of buddhism, vajrayana is a whole sect that work exclusively aproach of turning desires into knowledge
>i need desire
you don't need desire, you are desire, it's always there, is what you do with desire what determine the type of karma youcreate
>"desire is needed to go out of desire
i need willpower to get rid of craving is a better form to sayit, and as you can see, is no longer contradictory and makes perfect sense
>in the end buddhits make their own heaven and their own ascending to heaven.
if that were the case then they would explain and describe nibanna, which is the big problem here, is the people who describe and sell gods and trascental realities the real acolytes that create their own heavens

[Anonymous No.22144106]

>>22144031
>so why won't you just liberate yourself?
that's the idea, you can do it too, everyone can
>>22144059
anon you think i don't know that? you think buddhism don't address the problems of the refication of the spiritual path in TONS of suttas? you're preaching to the choir here
>your path has begun and you seek to erode desires and "non-pure" things that hinder you on your path
no, as said here:>>22143376 that's unskilfull

[Anonymous No.22144119]

you work on your chase for your golden banana, ill just work to liberate all beings as mine through a shaktipat to the dick via 3rd impact esque super cool golden banana

[Anonymous No.22144173]

>>22144072
you are basically doing all the time the same trick of differentiation between craving and desire, that is in any way enough differentiation in a crucial matter like this, the fact that you can see this whole differentiation between craving and desiring like so important and so really distinctive is the whole point of your blindness.
i dont want to ad hominem you but really try to understand that this difference is just a buddhist trick to make desire passable to their accolytes so they dont have this totally inconsequential problem.
in other words, needing craving to go out of craving is the same inconsequential and naive problem that needing desire to go out of desire.
willpower is not a blank state. when you use willpower to get rid of craving you are craving, in the end you are just playing with words.
like the other anon say, you should just go full rascal and admit you are just trying to not suffer and make tricks all along, dont try to impose some sacred all logical and consequential point. because there is none.

[Anonymous No.22144199]

>>22144173
bingo

[Anonymous No.22144416]

>>22136950
don't start. the stoics are better than buddha larp

[Anonymous No.22144467]

>>22144173
>craving and willpower are the same thing
Buddhism makes a distinction between "craving" (tanha) and "intent" (chanda). Tanha is, ultimately, memeing yourself into thinking that you can make something last forever, and this is what causes karma. Chanda is equivalent to Western understandings of willpower (mental phenomena that drive a person to act) and has no inherent karmic value.

The fact that you're conflating the two is tripping you up.

[Anonymous No.22144487]

>>22144173
>. when you use willpower to get rid of craving you are craving,
is the conditions that make the difference, craving arise form adviya, when you desire something impermanent, or better put:when you desire things to be permanent
the condition of chanda is different, arise from prajna(knowledge) when you have a moment of realisation(Jñāna) of your condition as a slave of dukkha, chanda in this sense is an expression of freedom, what mahayana calla the buddha nature( tathāgatagarbha)is the realisation that you can be free insetad of a slave of samsara, so as you can see, buddhism sees the mere rejection of desire as something unskilfull, since that's something that arise from aversion, one of the 3 venoms that ensalve you to samsara, but creates a set of practices designed around awareness(sati) of our mental compositions to live a more skilfull lifes and gradually let our karmic formations finish their cycles without forming new ones, with the end of this karma craving also end their needed cycle and let knowledge arise in it's place, with enough insight into your human condition you can become an arahat or a bodhisattva if you chose to belive in the mahayana faith

[Anonymous No.22144542]

>>22144467
>>22144487
you actually believe that by willing yourself to you can become free from craving, karma and rebirth?
i thought that by meditating on stillness you naturally just erode desires and by living a boring life you become boring enough that stillness and death become desired states until the bondage of samsara slips off by its own when you stop struggling to free yourself and just become still

[Anonymous No.22144548]

>>22144542
>i thought that by meditating on stillness you naturally just erode desires
you need willpower to do that

[Anonymous No.22144559]

>>22144542
>you actually believe that by willing yourself to you can become free from craving, karma and rebirth?
No, don't be silly, you need to do large amounts of meditation and study for that. But yes, willpower is the start.

>i thought that by meditating on stillness you naturally just erode desires and by living a boring life you become boring enough that stillness and death become desired states until the bondage of samsara slips off by its own when you stop struggling to free yourself and just become still
Why would you think that? This isn't Jainism.

[Anonymous No.22144571]

>>22144548
do you really, i thought you just needed a desire to die a true death until you didn't want it anymore
that would have been much easier in a shithole of the past for a person without a cast nor a land they're tied to or obligations
literally being a beggar on the streets but knowing of reincarnation and having a desire to die a true death would have been enough motivation for the desire to bloom
what great temptations would there have been for a person who was born into poverty that would require will power to overcome?
>>22144559
i thought zen buddhism was about staring at a wall and living a life so boring in silent meditation and stillness that you would naturally just want to truly and completely die

[Anonymous No.22144576]

>>22144542
>and death become desired states
if you desire death then you're still in a state of craving

[Anonymous No.22144604]

>>22144576
correct, that is what leads you to meditate in stillness and silence, your life is so damn boring until stillness stops boring you and you become content with that, then you just keep doing that in hopes of something happening with your meditating that liberates you, you do that your entire life and at some point you don't need to do it anymore, the desire for it dies out and you realize you were going to die all along anyway as your body and you just shrug because nothing changed you just got over your fear of death and understand impermanence enough to not need religion anymore, you have attained ataraxia / enlightenment / moksha / nirvana / whatever you call it
you will die, you won't be reincarnated, objective complete, desires extinguished, fear of death overcome and to the outside you seem like you know something they don't, you beat around the bush to guide them to it too because if you say it outloud they'll reject the message
or you figure why bother let the students chase after the golden banana and become a hermit, doesn't matter at all, consciousness will continue after you're gone, your impermanent ego will perish, your body will rot and you will be liberated from cycle of death and rebirth

[Anonymous No.22144616]

>>22144571
buddha once said to his monks,"the bliss of meditation is the purest form of joy but,is better to enjoy the bliss of the life of a householder than suffering a a monk"
that is the end goal of buddhismis achieve true bliss that can only arise from the freedom of letting go of craving and aversion
most people translate dukkha as "suffering", but in reality dukkha is the negation of sukkha(bliss) so when buddha say that the goal is freedom for suffering,in context he's actually saying the goal is to be free from the things that don't let us enjoy life and experience bliss
that's why all practices of mortification are prohibited, and that's why buddhism is called the middle path, between hedonism and mortification

[Anonymous No.22144623]

>>22144604
>that is what leads you to meditate
not really, most monks don't meditate, that's a western thing, the majority of monks spend their time reading and interpreting suttas

[Anonymous No.22144631]

>>22144604
>consciousness will continue after you're gone
https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/vinna%E1%B9%87a-is-not-nibbana-really-it-just-isn%E2%80%99t/

no

[Anonymous No.22144638]

>>22144616
>the goal of buddhism is to experience bliss
absolutely fucking disgusting, the goal is to escape cycle of death and rebirth and that is done by overcoming fear of death and impermanence, you don't escape into some golden land pseudo heaven you die a true death that you were going to die anyway
>>22144623
>most monks don't silence their minds by being still, they fill their heads with useless knowledge
sad
>>22144631
something something dream

[Anonymous No.22144678]

>>22144638
>by overcoming fear of death and impermanence
and that let bliss arise
>, you don't escape into some golden land pseudo heaven
i never said that XD i said you experience bliss

[Anonymous No.22144697]

>>22142480
>>22143126

thanks, this is good feedback, and much spiritual guidance of i've read (though it was more on the hindu side of things) echoes your sentiment. don't dwell too much on spiritual experiences, as they're fleeting and not necessary for spiritual growth. it's funny, in the moment in question i felt my truly evil self manifest, i was myself willing to do anything to protect the power i felt that i knew was slowly dwindling. the problem was that i conflated the euphoria, which was fleeting, with the understanding, which was permanent, so as the euphoria fled my body i worried i would lose everything. i was grasping incarnate.

like i said, i'm schizo, so neet. my dad was a crazy maniacal stoic who made me sleep on the floor in a closet, not as punishment but as my actual room. i grew up with very little and learned to get by without much, though i'm woefully incompetent at taking care of myself so thankfully the government helps out.

i'm not totally wasting my life though, i'm writing a book that i'm trying to finish by year's end. don't let my seemingly trash prose give you pause, i'm too scared to use my best shit on here because what if i don't get any yous

>>22142531

it wasn't so much that everything was connected, that was the first layer of understanding. much more important i felt than connectivity was the importance of ebb and flow. everything is contained in and defined by its opposite. an all black yin yang is a black circle, and and all white yin yang is a white one.

the connectivity in all things equates to what we see a whole, but its first and foremost a system of checks and balances, in a virtually fractal sense to my understanding. one in and one out moiety egregore, seemingly vying for control but existing in some form of harmony. extending outward, that a and b form a whole that is itself contingent upon all the nonrealities that aren't. x only exists because you chose, intentionally or otherwise, to create a reality in which an outcome that produced x occurred. it would make sense to assume that this binary extends outward forever, would it not? that totality of both ises itself being one half of a larger gestalt, then beyond and beyond.

[Anonymous No.22144875]

>>22138517
>pic
Yeah upload it for someone else to be spammed by instead

[Anonymous No.22144893]

>>22144678
https://youtu.be/P6zaCV4niKk

[Anonymous No.22144910]

Alice in wonderland or the dictionary

[Anonymous No.22144921]

is life worth living and if so for how long?

[Anonymous No.22144995]

>>22144487
>buddhism sees the mere rejection of desire as something unskilfull,
no, they say what desire is good and what desire is bad and they call the correct desire good, and the incorrect desire bad. in fact. they change the term and say its not desire but something that comes from "freedom and knowledge" once your desire is in concordance with buddhism objectives. with this manipulative mindset you can, (and there is a defender to every desire) argue and pass as not desire-craving whatever you want to pass. in this case the main point of their religion need the desire so they do this trick of calling it wisdom or knowledge.
the problem here is that desire is a real problem that buddhists saw but let aside once it become too problematic, apart from buddhist views, desire is a real fucking problem because it makes you view everything from your desire lens, and this problem dont end because your desire is good for whatever manufactured goal you put in yourself, this problem is not over in buddhism since they admit they are not against desire but against desires that dont make buddhist goals strive and win and you end up thanks to that completely enlightned in heaven above. so they are making from scratch a new kind of ego and a new kind of vision of themselves from that desire alone so that desire can live and make a world to their image (as desire always do).
its simple as that.
anyway, you are so stiff in buddhist terminology i doubt you understand half of what i say, or even if you understand it you see it as a chess problem to move buddhist terminology chess pieces.

[Anonymous No.22145047]

>>22144571
>i thought zen buddhism was about staring at a wall and living a life so boring in silent meditation and stillness that you would naturally just want to truly and completely die
No it isn't. Why would you think this? Why wouldn't you look into something before having an opinion on it?

[Anonymous No.22145074]

>>22145047
>lives as a hermit staring at a wall
>when asks to teach says he doesn't want pupils
>dude has to cut off his own arm to even share his cave with him and stare at a wall with him
>when asks what is it he can teach the dude just says "nothing"
take a wild guess what lead to that conclusion, you should probably read the roots of zen buddhism instead of lapping up the watered down western go with the flow version or the diluted japanese version of it

[Anonymous No.22145168]

>>22145074
So which is it? Are Zen monks all super giga-ascetics, or are they not?

[Anonymous No.22145228]

>>22143977
Bodhisattvas don't delay their enlightenment. The goal of the bodhisattva path is achieving Buddhahood as quickly as possible to most effectively benefit all sentient beings

[Anonymous No.22145261]

>>22144995
Your insistence that the the Buddhist view that desire for liberation is good while worldy desire is bad is hypocritical is like saying the view that a mass shooter is bad while someone who shoots that shooter to save lives is good is hypocritical because they both used guns

[Anonymous No.22145301]

>>22145261
my point is that you say you use the gun only to shoot the shooter but actually you dont know who the shooter is so you invent. that was my point. but is a bad analogy, just like yours.
also, they are the hypocritical, dont twist it, they have to say as buddhist basics that desire and craving are neutral if they think it depends in how and why you use it.

[Anonymous No.22146073]

>>22145301
Desire is neutral craving is rooted on your fear of impermanence

[Anonymous No.22146151]

Chuddism

[Anonymous No.22146179]

>>22136950
>"Buddhism today is known for everything that the Buddha never taught." -- Coomerswarthy

George Grimm. Doctrine of the Buddha.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70145


Thanks to sectarian and unjustified renderings of "anatta" in the Pali Canon as "lol lma no soul noun" [when it's hardly ever used as such outside of literally less than a handful of cases], a neophyte could be forgiven for having the wrong impression in translation of what the core teachings are and what their exposition ought to look like. It is retroductive, apophatic, and should not be confused with spurious Western Orientalist readings of it being some combination of atheist, materialist, skeptic ect.

>>22136963
Took on the Pharisees of his time and place thinking empty ritual observance sufficed for anything, like a proper kshatriya ought to. It's less rabble rousing than you put it.

[Anonymous No.22146198]

>>22144921
in buddhism it is not since there is no life devoid of suffering.

[Anonymous No.22146207]

>>22145261
Buddhism regularly says desiring for nirvana is missing the point. Buddha says in the second noble truth that craving for existence or nonexistence is craving all the same

[Anonymous No.22146281]

>>22146073
that is a complete random and interested definition. i dont hope anything different at this point in the conversation.
but just clarification for clarifications sake.
oxford dictionary
>desire: a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
>craving: a powerful desire for something.


>

[Anonymous No.22146520]

>>22146281
That not the buddhist definition of craving or desire, that's just a shallow nition of both terms that doesn't take into account context of psychological framing, you're trying to hard to force your personal idwas of desire to create this aryificial "gotcha" moment, but in doing so you end up fighting against your phantom of what you think buddhism is without actually engaging with a y buddhist concept or theory

[Anonymous No.22146580]

>>22137190
>China is communist

[Anonymous No.22146762]

>>22146207
Nirvana is neither existence nor non-existence

[Anonymous No.22146774]

>>22146762
Exactly so it's beyond desiring after

[Anonymous No.22146779]

>>22136950
If you have a golden aura, you will likely live the buddhist/taoist way even if you haven't read anything about it.
If you're looking for the way, then read pretty much anything that catches your eye randomly and you'll see where it gets you.

[Anonymous No.22146798]

>>22144875
lol reminds me of trip reports you'll see where someone has ego death then becomes more egotistical afterwards

[Anonymous No.22146839]

>>22146281
you're trying to refute a buddhist doctrine using the deffinition of "english" words(not even the etymology) that's completly useless on this context
these are the concepts at stake here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanda_(Buddhism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ta%E1%B9%87h%C4%81

[Anonymous No.22146848]

>>22146281
>>22146779
also using your own childish argument you can see chanda and tanha aren't the same since:

volition
noun
the faculty or power of using one's will.

as you can see the deffiition is different from craving,my point remains

[Anonymous No.22146865]

>>22136950
don't

[Anonymous No.22146884]

>not wanting desires is a desire
right, you are supposed to get over that and become a coomalayan master who combines being horny with being an ascetic in order to realize buddhahood

[Anonymous No.22146887]

>>22146884
You can reach a higher state of consciousness or whatever it's called with a female though.
I did it myself and my awareness got expanded. Coompashion and Coodling go a long way in this practice.

[Anonymous No.22147162]

Look up based American Buddhist monk "Pannobhasa aka John David Reynolds" if you want to learn authentic, uncucked Buddhism that rejects wokeness. He is on Yootube and has several books on Amazon.

[Anonymous No.22147283]

>>22136950
Hi, OP. I'm here to save your thread and be your light in the darkness.
Read this book. This is what you're looking for. You can safely disregard all other information about Buddhism you might have read posted here. Just read this book.

[Anonymous No.22147453]

>>22147283
I already reached this:
>>22138193

[Anonymous No.22147530]

>>22147162
Pannobhasa is literal proof that being a chud won't make you enlightened.

If you're worried about cuckoldry and wokeness you're definitely not on the path lmao.

That said his takes on thale atthakavagga
and abhidhamma are very based

[Anonymous No.22147694]

>>22147530
>>That said his takes on thale atthakavagga
>and abhidhamma are very based
qrd?

[Anonymous No.22147701]

^ Blaming Pannobhasa for having chad genetics means you're def not on the path.

[Anonymous No.22147718]

>>22137393
yeah he's pretty cool

[Anonymous No.22147816]

Is the Shangpa Kagyu lineage legit?

[Anonymous No.22147982]

>>22146520
>>22146839
>>22146848
look at what i say here. >>22144995
>you are so stiff in buddhist terminology i doubt you understand half of what i say, or even if you understand it you see it as a chess problem to move buddhist terminology chess pieces.
i dont see any buddhist more than a believer in an idea. not a non-believer in a non-idea. i dont engage in buddhist terms as you dont engage in why i dont engage in buddhist terms. but its ok. everyone is free to choose the system of thought they want to believe.
i think the craving this is bad but when you crave for not crave its so good that once you get it everything you or the notion of you dissapear so you are not craving anymore is just the religion and assuming other worlds part of buddhism. there is no a proposition of a pure psychological turn off. and the times is a pure proposition of turning off is just a pathetic attempt at not suffering and making of not suffering the entire motive of your existence.

[Anonymous No.22148335]

>>22147816
>Is the Shangpa Kagyu lineage legit?
No. Not single tibetan religion i legit in the eyes of buddhism..
Judaism, Hinduism, Mahayana, Vajrayana are religions and they are based on devotion.
Gurus dont care about truth or spirituality, what they care about is purity of their alleged lineage and nothing preserving their caste to keep the scam going.

[Anonymous No.22148339]

>>22147816
>Is the Shangpa Kagyu lineage legit?
No. Not a single tibetan religion i legit in the eyes of buddhism..
Judaism, Hinduism, Mahayana, Vajrayana are religions and they are based on devotion.
Gurus dont care about truth or spirituality, what they care about is purity of their alleged lineage and nothing else, preserving their caste to keep the scam going.

[Anonymous No.22148599]

>>22138844
did anyone ever refuted the madhyamaka?

[Anonymous No.22148618]

>>22148599
>>22148599
no, everyone who tried did an awful job, like Robinson mixing chapters of the MMK or confusing quality with extension on his analisis of Nagarjuna's take on the laksana of akasa

[Anonymous No.22148934]

>>22148599
Madhyamaka

[Anonymous No.22150717]

I'm a buddhist because i have a small penis like the buddha.

[Anonymous No.22150853]

Hello frens, just finished walking the 88 temple pilgrimage and visiting Kobo Daishi at Koya-san. I started it as a secular experience just to see rural Japan and get in some (a lot lol, like 1400km) hiking miles in. I really got into the vibe along the way and started praying at the temples, seemed appropriate and i feel like a lot of other pilgrims had this happen to them. What do I have to read to understand more about Buddhist philosophy and their view of the universe?

[Anonymous No.22150860]

>>22150853
This is great
You don't have to read anything at all. If you come onto something randomly, then you can give it a glance if you're interested. Otherwise your experience and life is the king there.

[Anonymous No.22150925]

>>22150853
you can start with the Dhammapada or use this list here>>22137097
but you have to understand two important thing, one buddhism is rooted in a specific context that no translation can 100% adapt, some suttas could seem really depresing and life denying, for example when buddha said that everything in life has suffering, that could look incredible pessimistic but in the context of what "suffering"(dukkh) is what he's really saying is that in every aspect of life there's a sign that your mind doens't have the best grasp on the objects of reality, suffering in a buddhist context is the discomfort we experience because we don't posses a skilfull way to understand reality but at the same time is the sign that we indeed posses the capacity to develop such skill, so when buddha said that life is suffering he really meant life is a constant call to arms for the perfection of our mind, this problem of contextualization of the tradition can only be solved imo by not only reading suttas but also listening to dharma talks by monks(you can find them all over youtube, i recommend bikkhu yuttadhammo)
second, there's a lot of different schools of buddhism and each one has some pretty important differences, a theravada sect will have different views of what the dharma is than a mahayana sect, you should spend some time in wikipedia getting to know the different sects and find which one is more compatible with your worldview, the 3 most portant sect are theravada, mahayana and vajrayana

[Anonymous No.22151095]

>>22150853
you start by not taking japanese buddhism seriously. And prayers are not part of buddhism.
You want prayers you stick to mahayana, judaism, hinduism.
You want buddhism you do this >>22138973

[Anonymous No.22151508]

I'm making some progress performing the visualizations from the Amitabhadhuryana Sutra. They are very difficult, and I can't even get close to doing them perfectly, but I make an effort to keep a small Sukhavati in my mind's eye when awake.

[Anonymous No.22151553]

>>22151095
Mahayana is Buddhism though. Some of the earliest works of Buddhist literature we have are Mahayana, such as the Lotus and Pure Land Sutras, which date to 100BCE along with the Pali texts dated around the same time. I think you might also be mistaking Buddhavacanna as literally "Spoken by the Buddha" rather than the generally accepted idea that it means "Spoken in truth regarding the Dharma". We need to remember that Early Buddhism was a blend of Mahayana, Vajrayana, and schools concerning the Pali suttas. In fact, early Buddhist schools such as Nalanda housed monks that were from all different branches of Buddhism, and respectfully debated and lived alongside one another. Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, all had Mahayana AND Pali Canon practitioners working alongside one another. You even still have some forms of Vajrayana Therevada extant in SouthEast Asia.

[Anonymous No.22151572]

>>22137097
Are there any full paperback editions of the suttras?

[Anonymous No.22151725]

>>22150853

[Anonymous No.22151777]

>>22136956
this

[Anonymous No.22151779]

>>22136963
The original leftists were based

[Anonymous No.22151871]

>>22148599
> did anyone ever refuted the madhyamaka?
Yes, the Buddhist scholar Richard Robinson conclusively refuted the main Madhyamaka philosopher Nagarjuna’s arguments by showing how they rely logical fallacies and common sophists tricks in his classic article “ Did Nāgārjuna Really Refute All Philosophical Views?”.

To read the full article just copy and paste the doi link from this article onto the sci-hub website:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1397681

Buddhists seethe about this but nobody has ever refuted Robinson’s article or shown how he didnt actually refute Nagarjuna. The Buddhist posters here on typically try to explain it away with vague excuses without substantiating them or quoting any mistake in the article itself.

[Anonymous No.22151923]

>>22151871
The people Nagarjuna was arguing with were full of shit anyway

[Anonymous No.22152992]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22152993]

>>22151871
>The nature of the Madhyamika trick is now quite clear. It consists of (a)
reading into the opponent's views a few terms which one defines for him in a
self-contradictory way, and (b) insisting on a small set of axioms which are
at variance with common sense and not accepted in their entirety by any
known philosophy. It needs no insistence to emphasize that the application of
such a critique does not demonstrate the inadequacy of reason and experience
to provide intelligible answers to the usual philosophical questions.
This critique of Nagarjuna's critique does demonstrate, however, that critical
self-examination is fruitful for philosophy. A similar examination of the
axioms and definitions of the other classical darsanas would reveal that each
depends on a set of arbitrary axioms and hence does not arrive at any nonexperiential propositions which all reasonable men must accept. More cogent
than Nagarjuna's criticism of constructive philosophy is that which T.R.V.
Murti makes under Nagarjuna's banner: "By its defective procedure dogmatic
metaphysics wrongly understands the transcendent in terms of the empirical
modes; it illegitimately extends, to the unconditioned, the categories of thought
that are true within phenomena alone."2
I may add that dogmatic metaphysics, like the Madhyamika critique, usually
fails to do justice to the categories of thought we commonly employ in thinking
about the phenomenal realm. This observable fact furnishes some justification
for the Savage in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, who extracted from
Hamlet's passing remark the definition: "A philosopher is someone who thinks
of fewer things than there are in heaven and earth."

[Anonymous No.22153052]

>>22139640
it's not his technique he's just restating asanga's works

[Anonymous No.22153068]

>>22152993
無

[Anonymous No.22153112]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22153728]

>>22151871

Not at all, Robinson made all kidn of gross mistakes on his analisis, for example confusing chapter 8 of the madhyamaka where Nagarjuna study the object and Agent dichotomy with chapter 5 analisis of the Dhatus, in that same "critic" of the wrong chapter Robinson affirms that the main aspect of Nagarjuna's critic of akasa is it's extention, this is another huge mistake, the laksana of akasa is it's lack of a particular quality, this what Nagarjuna doesn't need to prove that akasa is extendeble and indivisible but that the laksana of akasa is self contardictory, which it is, since the laksana of akasa is being free of any laksana, when your essential quality is not having a quality, then you're creating a contradiction in terms, nowhere on that chapter Nagarjuna uses the idea of extention or indivisibility, so Robinson is not only mixing the chapter of the MMK but reading the book absolutely wrong, i duuno why

[Anonymous No.22154601]

reminder to always retain seman


Never seen Entourage, but this guy came up in my youtube feed talking about how great semen retention is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFI6UToojMY

[Anonymous No.22155027]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22155842]

Semi-related, does anyone know of a complete translation of all 108 Upanishads? Has there ever been a English translation of the whole Muktika cannon?

[Anonymous No.22156582]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22156610]

start with your hearth, internet is killing your brain. its all fallse gods. go to the nature

[Anonymous No.22156774]

>>22156610
>Abandon cleverness, discard profit and the people will benefit a hundred-fold

[Anonymous No.22156960]

>>22156774
what arew u wating for? it will never be closer. we are here now

[Anonymous No.22157328]

You're supposed to immediately discard Buddhism when you realise it makes zero sense without rebirth and that 99% of modern Buddhists practice Buddhism as if rebirth doesn't exist (because it clearly doesn't)

Basically all eastern religion is poisoned by broken concepts like polytheism or rebirth that don't hold up to any kind of theological scrutiny. Taoism might be the only exception

[Anonymous No.22157348]

>>22151725
>Zen

Listen carefully: Dogen stole the Zen teachings without receiving mind seal from a Chan patriarch. he made up his Satori event and there is zero verification of it by Rinzai masters in China. Totally made up from a made up lineage.

All Japanese Zen is illegitimate and fake. It has nothing to do with chan. Dogen is a fucking christfag Shintoist who dressed up Zen for Shoguns and the Emperor. It has nothing to do with Chan. Do not get into the meditation cultist Soto zen and do not use Rinzai shit from japan. They literally write down pre-made answers to Koans and have a system of attainment set up which is 100% in contradiction to what the Tang masters (who all legitimacy in all zen lineages, comes from)

Dogen is famous for faking his mind seal session and making up an entire lineage of poorly attested masters in Southern china who themselves did not have legitimate ancestry going back to Lin-Chi, the great founder of the Rinzai sect. You should never read Dogen unless you are interested in shinto-buddha jesus syncretism with christianity, because that’s what the Shobogenzo reads like. All of those other people are religious figures and have nothing to do with Chan. Alan Watts was a naive, sensitive man who was one of the first people to come into contact with the Tang masters who wasn’t a Nip faggot.

The Nips took Chan and first turned it into a meditation-Buddhajesus cult with Dogen as the Pope basically and then the Shoguns took it and transformed it into a Bushido-Military psychopath cult with pre-written answers to the Koans and a strict military-religious hierarchy. The masters of China did not do this and had nothing to do with this kind of thinking or behavior. Do not insert your own shit into another tradition unless you don’t give a shit about it.

[Anonymous No.22157494]

>>22156960
Believe me fren, I’m trying

[Anonymous No.22157784]

Reading Nagarjuna is really underwhelming, even with supposedly "scholarly" commentary. There is very little in the way of substantial argument, it is just Nagarjuna stating what he thinks is correct. Not sure why anyone seriously cites this person.

[Anonymous No.22157788]

>>22157784
Because of his huge influence on Gaudapada and Shankara, who basically just copied his ideas and replaced sunyata with brahman.

[Anonymous No.22157820]

>>22157784
>it is just Nagarjuna stating what he thinks is correct.
it's all intellectuals really. This is why practice and even better meditation ridicule all those ''thinkers''.

[Anonymous No.22157821]

>>22136950
First you have to accept the preposterous notion that you don't exist. Despite the fact that you have awareness so you know you do exist in some form.

[Anonymous No.22157826]

>>22157821
Consciousness is conditioned. This cannot be rebuked.

[Anonymous No.22157849]

>>22157328
> theological scrutiny
jej

[Anonymous No.22157875]

>>22157849
>Theological scrutiny
You'll find it in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions up until mid-20th century. For instance, Seraphim Rose eviscerates Buddhism in "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future". I'm not Orthodox, either.

It's funny because I remember being a teenager thinking that muh based Eastern religions had all the answers. Back when I also thought shrooms were a useful tool for self development. Nah. If Eastern religions had answers they would build a better civilisation. It's actually really simple - shaky religious foundations, shitty culture, trash civilisation. Read Lao Tzu and Chuang-tzu, then immediately skip to the Greeks. You can also read the Chan texts (Red Pine has done a lot of great translations) if you are still interested.

You will instinctively recoil at being told muh precious Eastern religions actually have little to offer you but I'm saving you a lot of wasted time and effort. Remember, like I said earlier, as soon as you remove rebirth Buddhism makes ZERO sense. Unless you actually believe in cycle of rebirth (you don't), you are literally a retarded LARPer if you call yourself a Buddhist. You are better reading early Taoist texts if anything.

[Anonymous No.22157899]

>>22157826
>This cannot be rebuked.
It can be rebuked easily since is no way to prove or establish that.

[Anonymous No.22157938]

>>22155842
not in one physical book but there is a pdf of them all here:

https://gita-society.com/wp-content/uploads/PDF/108upanishads.pdf

[Anonymous No.22158049]

>>22157826
Consciousness is neither conditioned nor unconditioned. It exists beyond all duality.

[Anonymous No.22158050]

>>22157784
>it is just Nagarjuna stating what he thinks is correct.
the "axiomatic" style of the text has less to do with Nagarjuna and more to do with the text being a Karika, a type of poetic text designed to be easily memorized, all the Karikas are like that
>>22151871
>Richard Robinson conclusively refuted the main Madhyamaka philosopher Nagarjuna’s arguments
not even close, first Robinson paper against Nagarjuna wasn't aimed at proving Nagarjuna's main arguments wrong, those arguments being, the two truths, the 3 times and emptiness as the trascendental aspect of reality, Robinson didn't even adress those topics properly, what Robinson ask is if Nagarjuna really adressed all the views, so Robinson's paper isn't really usefull to refute Nagarjuna's main argument
second, Robinson make all kind of mistakes, i can show a few:
> Nagarjuna's attempt to demolish the concept of akasa (MK chap. 8)
here's already a huge msitake, the analisis of space is not in chapter 8 but in chapter 5
>selects the relation of akasa to its laksana as the vulnerable point. But as we will see later, his denial of the entity-attribute relation presupposes his denial of extension
another mistake, Nagarjuna's never talk about the laksana of akasa being extention, but "being free of qualities" that is, space is the quality that let other things have a quality, for example when the empty space of a cup is filled with juice, we can say that the quality of juiceness is filling the empty space, thus the quality of space is not havign a quality or transformig itself in another quality, thus the quality of akasa is a contradiction in terms, in order for me to think about what space is i must contradict any aspect of what an identity an identity(essence/quality/laksana), the argument of Nagarjuna about why akasa is an interdependent thing has nothing to do qith extention but is a critic of akasa using the same logic abidharmakas use to define akasa
>and is not admissible until after he has disproved the commonly accepted thesis that akasa is extended and indivisible
thu this is unfiting to refute Nagarjuna's argument since it was never part of his argument to begging with, not to mention the argument that space is indivisible was already refuted by other buddhist thinker and even western philosophers like Kant or even the quantum models of space/time in which space is interdependent with matter, so even by in his own terms the madhyamaka was proven right since space is no longer considered by anyone like something independent and indivisible
critics to Robinson wor where made from multiple authors, from C.W. Huntington and David Kalupahana (disciple of Wittgenstein the most important philosopher in the analitical tradition) that show how Robinsonrely to much in a obtuse analitical model of logic, to Garfield and Westerhoff that show how Robinson ignored the rmore complex form of logical aritculation more in tune with Nagarjuna like paraconsistent logic or metalogic

[Anonymous No.22158057]

>>22157820
>it's all intellectuals really
No, because many intellectuals actually try to give rationale for why they say what they've said. Nagarjuna just states that his subject matter, whatever it is (consciousness, dharmas, things), is free of four conditions, without even explaining exactly what he means by those conditions, and then giving some really vague and unclear rationale for why that has to be the case. Completely empty of any kind of deductive argument. Which leads the reader to think that he is just supposed to accept what Nagarjuna is saying based on faith.

[Anonymous No.22158083]

>>22157899
of course you can establish that, it's self evident and empirically proven in every moment of experience, you're always consciouss of something, conditioned by something, establish that consciousness is unconditioned on the other hand is actually impossible to establish, since there's no instant of experience of pure consciousness without an object
>>22158049
this is a very shallow notion of non-duality, if non-duality is somehting"beyond" then you're creating a new form of duality, the dual and non-dual, so you create an inifnite rgeress, in which every new duality is then superated by a new non-duality that in place creates a new duality

[Anonymous No.22158092]

>>22158057
>without even explaining exactly what he means by those conditions,
because you're not supouse to do that in a karika, you memorize the axioms and then a specialized teacher initiated in the oral tradition gives you the explanation, you'll never find the true arguments of the madhyamaka in the karika, you need a commentary like buddhapalita's or someone initated in the oral tradition for that

[Anonymous No.22158098]

>>22158050
here's the ful ltext from Robinson for a better comparison


>Axiom 1 disagrees with the consensus of all schools, including the sunyavada of the sutras, that akasa is ubiquitous and indivisible. Thus there is at least one entity that is not composite, has extension, and is permanent. Nagarjuna's attempt to demolish the concept of akasa (MK chap. 8) selects the relation of akasa to its laksana as the vulnerable point. But as we will see later, his denial of the entity-attribute relation presupposes his denial of extension and is not admissible until after he has disproved the commonly accepted thesis that akasa is extended and indivisible. If it is admitted that there is one extended, permanent and noncomposite entity, then it is not absurd to hold that there are others. And if extension is admitted, then duration must be admitted, too, since the arguments against duration involve the same operations of segmentation as those against extension.

[Anonymous No.22158110]

>>22158050
>the "axiomatic" style of the text has less to do with Nagarjuna and more to do with the text being a Karika
If Nagarjuna can't defend his assertions then I have no reason to take them seriously.
>here's already a huge msitake
A small typographical error is not a huge mistake. This reeks of grasping for straws.
>Nagarjuna's never talk about the laksana of akasa being extention, but "being free of qualities"
No philosophers have ever argued that akasa is free from all qualities. They state that akasa is free from all qualities besides extension. There is no contradiction because akasa still has at least one kind of property, but in all other respects it is open to receive form, so Nagarjuna is arguing against nothing anyone has ever posited.
>not to mention the argument that space is indivisible was already refuted
Even Shankara refuted the idea that space is indivisible.
>so even by in his own terms the madhyamaka was proven right since space is no longer considered by anyone like something independent and indivisible
Madhyamaka is not correct because it has a correct view about a minor point such as the divisibility of space.
>more complex form of logical aritculation more in tune with Nagarjuna like paraconsistent logic or metalogic
Nagarjuna does not have a complex logical form. He is just confused.

>Robinson relied to much in a obtuse analitical model of logic
>show how Robinson ignored the rmore complex
So which is it? Should he be obtuse or complex? What is the difference? You're not making a coherent argument here.

>>22158083
>this is a very shallow notion of non-duality, if non-duality is somehting"beyond"
No, because there is nothing beyond. It is neither conditioned nor unconditioned. That does not imply a duality, only verbally because you can't see past words. Non-duality exists within the duality itself, without thereby being limited to the duality. So it doesn't exist beyond, nor does it exist within.
> it's self evident and empirically proven in every moment of experience, you're always consciouss of something,
So because I've always been conscious of the sense of sight, that means in every moment of experience I will always be able to see, even if I completely remove my eyes and retina? Wow, Buddhist logic is inscrutable. I'm genuinely impressed.

[Anonymous No.22158148]

yall dont know about my thunderbolt way

[Anonymous No.22158153]

Karl H popper, Encyclopedia of Indian philosophy vol 7,8,9

[Anonymous No.22158166]

>>22158110
>If Nagarjuna can't defend his assertions
he doesn't need to do that since the MMK is a karika and you don't defend your arguments in a karikam, you just show them
>There is no contradiction because akasa still has at least one kind of property
the property is contradictory since it's quality is possesing no qualities, it's the only way extention or space can manifest, by letting something else be the quality instead, so the quality is indeed contradictory, the quality of no quality A=-A

>So it doesn't exist beyond, nor does it exist within.
and you're calling me incoherent?
>, even if I completely remove my eyes and retina?
if you don't see anymore that just proves that your consciousness of sight was conditioned by your eyes, if you still considere the darkness that now you see a form of sight then is conditioned by yourbrain, in any case sight is still conditoned and consciousness of sight is also still conditioned

[Anonymous No.22158186]

>>22158110
>Even Shankara refuted the idea that space is indivisible.
but according to Robinson all schools agree that akasa is indivisible
>>22158092
>the consensus of all schools, including the sunyavada of the sutras, that akasa is ubiquitous and indivisible.

[Anonymous No.22158195]

>>22158110
Even if you lost all your senses you could still think. Thought is considered as a sixth sense in Buddhism, and your conscious awareness would still be conditioned by thought.

[Anonymous No.22158205]

>>22158110
>No philosophers have ever argued that akasa is free from all qualities
the abidarmakas did, the chapter is a response to them

[Anonymous No.22158232]

>>22158110
>No, because there is nothing beyond
your own theory of something "beyond"duality already presupouse something beyond
>It is neither conditioned nor unconditioned.
that's like syaing something is not a dog, but also not a non-dog, a contradiction in terms
>That does not imply a duality
dual and non-dual is indeed a duality, that's the whole point, this non-duality ends up creating a new duality, and you can't actually articulate how to solve this contradiciton, just say that it's "beyond words" using your own words
>If X can't defend his assertions then I have no reason to take them seriously.
>>22158110
>Non-duality exists within the duality itself
if it exist within the duality itself, then that makes consciousness(the non-dual thing) and the object of consciusness(one of the dual ojects) the same thing, making the whole concept of consciusness completly useless, it's like saying that "i'm consciouss of the chair" is the same as "i'm the chair" there's a difference between being and being consciouss of somethign, in your system this disticntion lose its meaning and thus consciousness lose all meaning too
>So it doesn't exist beyond
you're contradicting yourself
>>22158049
>It exists beyond all duality.

so consciousness is a different thing according to how useful that is to defend your argument, that's funny that's exactly what Robinson say Nagarjuna does in the MMK, once again advaita and madhyamaka seem to be united

[Anonymous No.22158249]

>>22136963
Shut the fuck up pseud, no one cares about your shitty surface level analysis. You really thought you did something.

[Anonymous No.22158451]

how come few years ago /lit/ believed that monkhood was the OG path and everyone else was more or less an npc but now /lit/ thinks householder is more relevant

[Anonymous No.22158452]

>>22158451
You're projecting.

[Anonymous No.22159018]

>>22158110
>No philosophers have ever argued that akasa is free from all qualities
that's not Nagarjuna's saying, his point is that a quality can't have the property of being "without qualities"
>They state that akasa is free from all qualities besides extension
that just proves Nagarjuna's point, since if it's only quality is that, then that's a laksana, the quality that gives identity and being ot a hting, it's essence, BUT since all other things also have extension then akasa has no essence,since it has essentialy no quality that separate the nature(laksana) of space form anything else(what the laksana is supouse to do),so akasa can only be conceived as interdependent, which makes sense, since everything has an extension thanks to possesing the property of space, and space can be identify only by the relational aspect of different things and even the abstract idea of spcae is conceived by the abstarction of particular moments of spatial awareness, there's no space without things in said space and there's no things that can exist without a particular space, space and the things occupying the space are ultimately the same, both empty of an essence that could separate each other

[Anonymous No.22159086]

>>22157875
>For instance, Seraphim Rose eviscerates Buddhism in "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future".
No he doesn’t He just dismisses everything he doesnt like as demons. Muh theological scrutiny

[Anonymous No.22159106]

>>22157875
>>You'll find it in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions up until mid-20th century. For instance, Seraphim Rose eviscerates Buddhism in "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future". I'm not Orthodox, either.
Zero chance of a jew worshiper understanding buddhism or even a modicum of meditation

>>22157875
>Nah. If Eastern religions had answers they would build a better civilisation. It's actually really simple - shaky religious foundations, shitty culture, trash civilisation
Only turbofags care about society. And women of course.

[Anonymous No.22159167]

>>22153728
All the objections you have made about Robinson’s paper have been about the point about about akasha, but there are like 6 or 7 other fallacies that he points out in Nagarjuna that are unrelated that you have not even addressed.

>>22158083
>experience, you're always consciouss of something,
That just means that something is appearing as an object in experience, but in order to prove that this appearing of something as an object is subsequently conditioning consciousness itself you would have to step outside of consciousness and examine it as an object, which is impossible and also foolish.

>>22158110
Where do you find Shankara to be disagreeing with the premise that space or akasha is indivisible? I was under the impression that he just disagrees with it being truly eternal and unconditioned since he says as part of samsara it cyclically arises when the universe is manifested and that it is contingent on Brahman

[Anonymous No.22159229]

>>22159018
>that just proves Nagarjuna's point, since if it's only quality is that, then that's a laksana, the quality that gives identity and being ot a hting, it's essence, BUT since all other things also have extension then akasa has no essence,since it has essentialy no quality that separate the nature(laksana) of space form anything else(what the laksana is supouse to do),so akasa can only be conceived as interdependent
I believe that Akasha is sometimes conceived of as being the conveying medium of sound, which is something different from the mere fact of extension, so I’m not sure if it’s entirely correct to say that it’s “sole” property is extension. But, even if we take it at face value that it’s sole property is extension, it is still fallacious to argue that just because A has the sole property of (Y) that it somehow becomes interdependent if B also shares that property of (Y) while simultaneously sharing other properties. Why is this fallacious? Because no amount of listing properties or lack of properties in B actually demonstrates that A is dependent on B or anything else in any way.

[Anonymous No.22159906]

>>22157938
Thanks fren, I appreciate that

[Anonymous No.22159974]

>>22157875
Cringe

[Anonymous No.22160401]

>>22157875
Based

[Anonymous No.22160714]

>>22157875
>If Eastern religions had answers they would build a better civilisation
Ivan, your society is the oriental despotism par excellence—a petroleum powered junta blessed by clergymen who sanction whatever the warlord tells them to. Besides the most materially advanced civilization's religion is Globalhomo, not post-Soviet Orthodox Christlarping, so by that logic you ought to dilate.

[Anonymous No.22161698]

>>22160714
I'm not Orthodox. That's why I can repeat, honestly and wholeheartedly, with full malice, my key message to you again: if you claim that you're a Buddhist but do not actually believe in materially existing cycle of rebirth, kill yourself. You are merely an manchild weeb larper and should be mocked and laughed at.

If you believe in rebirth, you need to immediately change how you live your life by abstaining from lolicon porn or you will reincarnate into a crab to be eaten alive by the slit eyes you worship.

[Anonymous No.22161710]

>>22159106
Once again, kill yourself. If you don't believe in rebirth (you don't, you are another western buddhist larper, even 99% of chink and nip Buddhists no longer believe in core tenets), you can easily escape the suffering of the material world by killing yourself. You won't be reborn on a lower stage. Just do it

[Anonymous No.22161737]

>>22161710
>>22161698
Just a heads up but what you're doing is an unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit in both Catholicism and all forms of Orthodoxy and is explicitly condemned as such by Orthodox thinkers such as Fr. Seraphim Rose.

[Anonymous No.22161778]

Yeah, there's someone who comes on every Buddhism thread here and aggressively repeats over and over "if you don't believe in X, then you can't be a Buddhist and Buddhism is not going to work for you". X is usually "the cycle of death and rebirth".
Just ignore him. He's literally just some guy on the Internet. Lots of Western Buddhists don't believe in the supernatural aspects of Asian Buddhism and they benefit a lot from the teachings anyway.

[Anonymous No.22161850]

It's fine to have an interest in Buddhism while being skeptical of rebirth. There are many western monks who now believe in rebirth, but who admit they didn't believe initially. It's very common coming from a western background.
Buddhism isn't like Christianity or Islam where you have to buy into the whole scam at the beginning with no evidence.
We know that the Buddha was quite happy to talk with and teach both people who agreed with him and those who didn't. His only complaint was when people misrepresented him and said stuff like "The Buddha teaches there is no rebirth" or "The Buddha teaches that there is an eternal soul"

[Anonymous No.22161889]

>>22161698
I did not get that far into you post, I stopped when it was obvious you were writing from a conversion tactic perspective. e.g.
>whichever Civ has the highest score has the best religion
>when I was dumb and naive I thought what you think but now I am smart and think something else
There is also zero reason to defend 20th century apologists for Christianity if you are not yourself sympathetic to their cause, so make up your mind. Why else would you wander into a thread about Buddhist literature and start preaching about some russiaboo from San Francisco, the darling to the tradlarpers who "isn't like the other" new agers?
>>22161778
>>22161850
Buddhism as a form of secular therapeutic psychology without any religious component is totally ahistorical but has been around long enough at this point that it might as well be considered its own sect. It is something of a unique feature of Western Buddhism (even the rationalizing "Buddhist Modernism" of some Asian countries developed in reaction to missionary activity by Protestants is more religious) to be aggressively secular, probably because its main "converts" are atheists. In Asia this was never the case, the people converted to Buddhism in India or China or Tibet or Japan had gods and demons and spirits and whatever else that they believed in prior to the transmission of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.22161900]

>>22136950
The pajeets

[Anonymous No.22161982]

Bump

[Anonymous No.22162812]

>>22159229
Different schools have different approachs, but metaphysically akasa must be that thing that let other things exist, the problem is how then this entity can exist without destroying the logical principle of existence, space itself, if the principle is still active the space needs some kind of hyper space and that lead to an infinite regress, if akasa is self sufficient, then you're establishing a quality of self sufficiency that then you can just give to every existent object turning the whole concept of akasa useless

[Anonymous No.22162838]

>>22136950
Monkey Magic (Dub) UK 1980s.

[Anonymous No.22162847]

>>22137097
Lol, the flowchart is called "faithful to the Early Buddhist texts" yet makes a distinction between samatha and vipassana meditation, a theravada concept. What retard made this?

[Anonymous No.22162937]

>>22162812
>Different schools have different approachs, but metaphysically akasa must be that thing that let other things exist,
No, it’s not, that is factually incorrect, it’s just one stage in the generation of phenomena in Vedanta for example where Brahman is the principal of existence.

>the problem is how then this entity can exist without destroying the logical principle of existence, space itself,
Space is not the logical principle of existence in Vedanta, that is also factually incorrect, since neither space nor akasha are the principle of existence the points you raised against it are totally irrelevant

[Anonymous No.22163391]

>>22136950
Probably a lot of fun things in this thread.

I recommend you go to accesstoinight.org

1. Just play here and read whatever sounds interesting for free.

2. Next you look up which ones are most read on google. You'll probably want to read SN 56.11, SN 1.8 kp 9, MN 10, idk maybe anapanasati sutta, etc

3. You can keep doing this but after a few months see if there is a topic in Buddhism that catches your personal interest. Possibly lay or monastic ethics, maybe Sangha dynamics, maybe meditation, karma, emptiness, progress, desire, hindrances, suffering, w/e.

4. Once you have a topic or two read any suttas on it, then read non-monastic books on the topic, then read how later schools of Buddhism handled it as these ideas were developed in other cultures in creative ways.

5. You probably baby now know more than 99.99% of even Buddhists on the topic you picked.

Print pic related and memorize it then look into each part with suttas.

[Anonymous No.22163519]

Does anyone know the Best dictionary/glossary on buddhism?

If you read stuff you quickly run into the pali and sanskrit and its fun to know what the words are

[Anonymous No.22163547]

https://4chanlit.fandom.com/wiki/Charts#Religion

Just google it nigga

[Anonymous No.22163728]

>>22136956
fpbp

[Anonymous No.22164332]

>>22163519
>>22163519
the most famous one would be this i think
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/
but there are many others
https://www.dhamma.ru/sadhu/93-dictionaries

[Anonymous No.22164647]

>>22157821
The illusion is not that you exist, the illusion is that you exist independently.

[Anonymous No.22164768]

>>22162812
pretty sure akasha is black matter

[Anonymous No.22164901]

>>22162847
>yet makes a distinction between samatha and vipassana meditation
there isn't?

[Anonymous No.22166202]

>>22159167
>would have to step outside of consciousness and examine it as an object
no i don't, the notion of a thing on itself beyond experience isn't neccesary and idealim already proven that(in fat many people see buddhism as a form of idealism and the pratikasamutada pretty much articulates buddhism as a idealist philosophy), i only need to see that my personal consciousness is affected by the objects presented to me, i can only be consciouss of an object(and thus condiitoned to it) not of "pure consciousness" which is the abstract thing you're trying to sell as unconditioned, the nature of that object is irrelevant on this analisis, since the object "for my consciousness" already has a conditioning effect on me
and even if we blindy follow your argument, even then taht don't show that consciousness is unconditioned butthat we don't know the true nature of the thing on itself

[Anonymous No.22166363]

>>22166202
>no i don't, the notion of a thing on itself beyond experience isn't neccesary and idealim already proven that(in fat many people see buddhism as a form of idealism and the pratikasamutada pretty much articulates buddhism as a idealist philosophy),
This part is a non-sequitur compared to the point you are responding to, and idealism is also unproven, so even if we take your non-sequitur at face value it lacks any force as an argument

>i only need to see that my personal consciousness is affected by the objects presented to me
If you are seeing something then it's an object being observed and not consciousness itself, so it doesn't demonstrate anything about the consciousness through which seeing occurs, just like observing a banana tells you nothing about apples

>i can only be consciouss of an object(and thus condiitoned to it)
This has already been refuted, you are simply proceeding on the blind assumption that if something is appearing as an object then consciousness is conditioned, but you have not actually shown why or how consciousness is conditioned by anything in such a circumstance. You aren't thinking critically about the things you are writing and it shows.

>the nature of that object is irrelevant on this analisis, since the object "for my consciousness" already has a conditioning effect on me
You have not provided any example of any epistemic or logical means that would actually show that consciousness is conditioned but you are retreating back to the blind assumption I just called out.

>and even if we blindy follow your argument, even then taht don't show that consciousness is unconditioned butthat we don't know the true nature of the thing on itself
The Vedantist position remains intact either way since they have no need to prove to skeptics that consciousness is unconditioned, they just completely BTFO every argument that argues that consciousness is conditioned and they accept the teachings about the real nature of consciousness based on revealed scriptures and it's subsequently up to the individual to intuit this pristine inner awareness on their own in spiritual experience; similarly in Tibetan Buddhism they typically don't rely on logical proofs to establish that there is an innermost awareness (rig pa) that underlies and is distinct from mind (sems) but it's for the individual to intuit on their own in gnosis or meditation or with the help of a guru.

[Anonymous No.22166615]

>>22166363
>so it doesn't demonstrate anything about the consciousness through which seeing occurs
it demostrates the conditional aspect of consciousness
>but you have not actually shown why or how consciousness is conditioned by anything in such a circumstance.
yes i did, the fact that you can only be consciouss of that object is by deffintion a conditioned act, you're condiitoned by the need of an object to let consciousness manifest, consciousness is conditioned by the nature of becoming, since you can be consciouss of anything beyond what is presented to you and is condiitoned by its own nature, since you need an object of consciousness into which consciousness can proyect and reflex
>The Vedantist position
the vedantist position refutes itself since in order to create its argument against the inifnite and to establish the ontological existence of the self, they need to already posit a subject object dichotomy in order to put the two limits of the "refuted regression" already proving that conciousness has a dual nature

[Anonymous No.22166828]

>>22158049
the act of Knowing is non-dual, this is already pretty well established in the yogacara tradition, the "knower" tho, that's conditioned by the object of knowledge, the knower and the know are both part of a conditioned and dual act, the act of knowing itself is non-dual

From its factor of luminous self effulgence, it is called "self-arisen pristine wisdom." And due to its not changing in any aspect, it is called "fundamental mind." In other texts it is called "fundamental cognition" and "natural mind of clear light."
From the viewpoint of its immutability, it is called "mind-vajra" since it does not undergo any change. The mind-vajra pervades wherever space is present, and thus this basal mind of clear light is called "that endowed with the space-vajra pervading space."

~ Khetsun Sangpo

If you look into awareness, there is no object to hold onto, neither any mind that clings. It is unstained by the concept of subject and object. That direct experience is the natural dharmakaya state.

~ Zurchung Sherab Trakpa (1014-1074)

[Anonymous No.22167083]

>>22159229
you're missing one key point, when we're talking about laksana we're not talking about "one quality" or "the only quality" but of the essential quality, the quality that gives identity to a thing, if you share that quality with something else, then those two things are the same thing, if a chair share it's essence of "being a chair" with another thing, you can be sure that other thing is also a chair, what other thing besides a chair has the property of "being a chair"? in that sense what Nagarjuna is saying is that if something share it's laksana with everything esle in the world, then that thing is not really a thing but a category, in this case the category of space, so in buddhist terminology thatthing is empty of essence, since a category only exist thanks to all the things that posses that ctaegory and all the thing with that category only exist thanks to said category, you can say the same thing about consciousness btw

[Anonymous No.22167359]

>>22166363
>so even if we take your non-sequitur at face value it lacks any force as an argument
we can say the exact same thing about your post here>>22158049
you have no argument, until now you didn nothing but use dogmatic axioms without providing any arguments backing them up
>>22159167
>you have not even addressed.
it was already provenon this thread how Robinson misunderstood Nagarjuna's epsitemic method and how sloopy Robinson is with his critics, further proof of Robinson's flaws is not needed
>>22158110
>Madhyamaka is not correct because it has a correct view about a minor point such as the divisibility of space.
so Madhyamka is not correct even when is correct, i love how Guenonfags went from thinking Robinson's refuted Nagarjuna, to recognize he made tons of mistake and cocnede that Nagarjuna actually is right and as always back track to
>>22166363
>The Vedantist position remains intact either way since they have no need to prove to skeptics that consciousness is unconditioned
Vedanta s right because we don't need to prove our point
from trying to refute your enemy, to backtraking into metaphysical dogmatism, all thread with Guenonfags end up the same way