What do you think?

[Anonymous No.5717774]

What are your thoughts on the Three Marks of Existence? I find them completely valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence

[Anonymous No.5717794]

>>5717774
I am more apt to subscribe to the Buddhist thoughts on consciousness, as for all of Western philosophies achievement, its one failure (perhaps inherent in its greatness) is a consistent inability to properly define consciousness.

But I admit that this understanding of Buddhism is Alan Watts-tier.

But the more I think about it, the more I encounter a problem of properly finding a wall that could define the edge of consciousness. Where is it located? That question seems to have only one non-arbitrary answer: the experience of consciousness is that of the entire universe. And the illusion of the self only arises because there is a hierarchy of filtered information (that is the body, the senses, the dimensions of the body, etc. act to successively subtract information from the universe) so that the conscious experience is really only defined by a lack of certain knowledge, and the condensation of the truth into workable chunks.

[Anonymous No.5717860]

I contemplated the three lakkhanas and accidentally attained nirvana.

[Anonymous No.5717889]

>>5717860
Whoops!

[Anonymous No.5717896]

Nice little evening bump.

[Anonymous No.5717912]

>>5717860
>mfw attained nirvana
>mfw didn't want to attain nirvana

[Anonymous No.5717932]

>>5717794
I like this post. So you think Anatta is "true"?

[Anonymous No.5717938]

>>5717774
sounds like a load of bollacks to me

[Anonymous No.5717942]

>>5717938
Do you have an alternative that you think is superior?

[Anonymous No.5717952]

>>5717942
Do I have to be able to prove something to be wrong or better in order for my opinion to be valid?

[Anonymous No.5717967]

>>5717952
No, I'm just curious anon.

[Anonymous No.5717989]

>>5717967
Ok, well no, no particularly, other than my own view of the world. I have studied aspects of Buddhism but it never convinced me, much like any other belief, philosophy or religion.

Personally I am of the belief that we can never understand anything as complex as ourselves or our place in the universe. Not that this contradicts the OP stuff but I find it hard to subscribe to that stuff even if a lot of it is undoubtedly true. Any truth it contains is veiled by mistruths so in the end only represents a fraction of reality and the human condition, much like every kind of religion or philosophy.

[Anonymous No.5718046]

>>5717774
Its valid for sure.

The world is impermanent, has suffering, and doesn't have any soul.


I suppose someone raised in a western world would disagree with the last part because of cultural baggage about souls.

[Anonymous No.5718058]

>>5718046
>I suppose someone raised in a western world would disagree with the last part because of cultural baggage about souls.
I think you're confusing America with the western world.

[Anonymous No.5718062]

>>5717774

>impermanence

humans don't live long enough to know if this is true.

>dukkha - dissatisfaction

a matter of preference and taste.

>anatta

this is something only a God can know, human intellect doesn't seem able to grasp the-thing-itself.

In conclusion I've reviewed these 3 marks and found them wanting.

[Anonymous No.5718093]

>>5718062
Can you show me anything permanent?

[Anonymous No.5718102]

>>5718093

again, humans don't live long enough to demonstrate such a thing.

[Anonymous No.5718103]

>>5718102

God is permanent.

[Anonymous No.5718116]

>>5718103
>god

[Anonymous No.5718122]

>>5717774
When was this from? First mark sounds like Heraclitus

[Anonymous No.5718125]

>>5718058
Believing in souls is essential part of european culture last I checked. Every religion and most philosophy in the west acknowledges the soul concept without question.

[Anonymous No.5718129]

>>5718103
>>5718116
>is

[Anonymous No.5718135]

>>5718125
Most of Europe are atheist

[Anonymous No.5718139]

>>5717774
Too metaphysical to be proven valid. Whether you find them that way depends on how scientific you wish to be, or what level of thinking you are willing to commit to.

[Anonymous No.5718167]

>>5718062
you have a long way to go
you are not very mature, have barely touched life

[Anonymous No.5718174]

>>5718167
Why don't you try refuting his arguments?

[In a nutshell ... No.5718195]

>What are your thoughts on the Three Marks of Existence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3I1hlNEdC4

[Anonymous No.5718345]

>>5718122
Gautama lived a few decades after Heraclitus.

[Anonymous No.5718350]

>>5718135
So? Western world is still based on Christianity and the people still have Christian morals.

Cognitive dissonance is common.

[Anonymous No.5718374]

>>5718345
I think you meant few decades before.or after or century before.

Heraclitus: 535 BCE - 475 BCE
Gautama: 563 BCE - 483 BCE (or 480 BCE - 400 BCE) (or 623 B.C. - 543 BCE (unesco))

Depending on your sources.

[Anonymous No.5718377]

>>5717932
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying.

But like I said, my understanding of Buddhism is Alan Watts tier. I downloaded and am reading the Pali Canon. But making slow progress, I have other reading priorities.

[Anonymous No.5718400]

>>5718374
I was going by approximately 480-400 BC for Buddy Boy Buddha.

[Anonymous No.5718404]

>>5717794
Why are you making it complicated? Your senses say that consciousness is existence. There's no reason to doubt them in this specific instance if you trust them every other time.

[Anonymous No.5718442]

>>5718404
I'm not saying consciousness doesn't exist, but that consciousness is not a product of the self. If starlight from a distant star hits my retina, that starlight is as much a part of my consciousness is as my hand, and my thoughts/brain.

That the experience of consciousness is a real one, but it is one that is a mere product of the SUBTRACTION of the overwhelming and useless amount of data the universe is. That is, the light that doesn't fall on the retina, the neurons that don't fire, the matter which is never incident upon your skin, the sounds that never vibrate your eardrum. Consciousness does not have a boundary, a wall in which you can say "This is the mechanism of conscious thought." The quest for the locus of consciousness, from the materialists who claim it is the brain alone, to the dualists who claim it is a phenomenon wholly separate, are both wrong because they both seek to define a strict boundary between them and the universe. That is to say: the western 'problem of consciousness' is just the incorrect framing of a question.

I don't know if my post is coherent, or if it just sounds stupid as shit. Let me know if I can clarify something. Or maybe it is already clear and you think it's fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.5718459]

>>5718442
Pretty incoherent. But I think I get what you're saying. Consciousness = byproduct experience. Not a thing into itself like a "soul" that people believe in.

[Anonymous No.5718528]

>>5718442
>I'm not saying consciousness doesn't exist
I'm not saying that either. I'm saying that it's the whole of existence, as in, your senses are sensing the whole of existence.

[Anonymous No.5718540]

>>5718528
Okay, well I am having a difficult time understanding how that's relative to what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.5718674]

>>5717794
Never forget the observer!

[Anonymous No.5718728]

buddhizm is the peak
there is no higher
than nirvana

[Anonymous No.5718738]

What is subject to origination is subject to cessation. - Gautama

[Anonymous No.5719460]

>four noble truths
>three poisons
>three marks of existence
>5 skandhas
>8-fold path
>5 niyamas
>5 precepts
...

Fuck I don't ever feel like I'm learning anything but chunk-lists of sanskrit.

[Anonymous No.5719474]

>>5718062

this guy ruined the whole thread.

[Anonymous No.5719476]

>>5719460

Buddha organized his speeches in lists and included tons of stupid repetitions because they were passed down orally. It's a way to help memorization and avoid corruption of the original idea.

[Anonymous No.5719481]

>>5719476
>buddha tons of stupid repetitions


>mfw I bought the middle-length discourses
>mfw 63% of fucken repetitions

fuck this shit

[Anonymous No.5719483]

>>5719481

Should have bought the Bikkhu Bodhi's version by Wisdom Publications, since they root out the useless reps. Just skim through them, they are far from essential.

[Anonymous No.5719489]

>>5718062

kek

How can someone miss the point by so much, I actually didn't think it was possible

[Anonymous No.5719492]

>>5719483

that's the one I have, it still has repetitions. lol

Although it does skim many out, you still see the start of the repetitions, followed by dots . . .

[Anonymous No.5719498]

>>5719489

so share your thoughts

[Anonymous No.5719527]

>>5718093
truth is permanent

[Anonymous No.5719529]

>>5719498

>humans don't live long enough to know if this is true.
´
Retarded argument. Buddha's words exist for more than 2500 years, yet there was never before nor since anything remotely permanent. You could argue that, since we don't know the entire Universe, there could be something permanent somewhere. But there could also be a galaxy made only of candy, chocolate and rainbows.

>a matter of preference and taste

This is such a superficial interpretation. Dukkha is not about "preference" or "taste". It's about the human condition. This is one of the strongest precepts and the one on which the whole fucking human essence rests upon. If you cannot see that dissatisfaction is the only reason why we got to evolve and become the "dominant" species, you are simply blind and/or haven't read many books on the subject.

>anatta

How can you say there's something permanent in the shape of a "self", or a "soul", if nothing that composes you are permanent? You have mood swings, you have billions of random thoughts, you have different experiences. Do you think you are the same person you were a year ago? Or 10 seconds ago? Anatta doesn't mean YOU don't exist, only that what you think is "you" is just a label, an image, you constructed yourself. Which is ultimately useless and prejudicial, imo.

[Anonymous No.5719530]

>>5719527
Get a load of this guy.

[Anonymous No.5719531]

>>5719527

"Truth" is neither permanent nor anything more than a concept created by us.

[Anonymous No.5719532]

>>5719474
You mean he liberated you all from your pathetic circle-jerk?

[Anonymous No.5719547]

>>5719529
>. You could argue that, since we don't know the entire Universe, there could be something permanent somewhere

It could be right here in front of us, or inside us, we don't know since we don't live very long and our minds have boundaries.

The idea that everything is impermanent is dubious.

> If you cannot see that dissatisfaction is the only reason

dissatisfaction comes and goes, but it really is a matter of point of view.

> anatta, how can you say it's permanent...if nothing that composes you are permanent?

we can't know what is permanent or impermanent, we aren't privileged to such Cosmic knowledge. And we can't really see what lies past appearances anyway.

Buddha is getting ahead of himself imo.

[Anonymous No.5719552]

>>5719547

Well, Buddhism is mainly based on empirical evidence. If you start saying that we can't believe our senses, than the whole buddhist theory is kinda useless. But so is any kind of philosophy, then.

>dissatisfaction comes and goes.

It's always there. Have you ever seen anybody who is ultimately happy with what he has that wouldn't even think or consider having anything more at all? I sure haven't.

Satisfaction is fleeting and hinges on novelties. We crave for the More, for the New, for the Better. It's impossible for a "normal" person to be truly happy with something, since the way our brain works will cause him to get tired of it and search new things. It's how we are wired.

[Anonymous No.5719554]

>>5719552
Not that guy, but is Nirvana overcoming dissatisfaction then?

Dukkha actually IS more properly translated as dissatisfaction or inconvenience than suffering.

[Anonymous No.5719555]

>>5719552
>Buddhism is mainly based on empirical evidence

Then it shouldn't make grand sweeping claims that are beyond our perception.

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.5719562]

>>5719552
>Well, Buddhism is mainly based on empirical evidence.
Reincarnation is not an idea that comes from empirical evidence.

>It's always there. Have you ever seen anybody who is ultimately happy with what he has that wouldn't even think or consider having anything more at all? I sure haven't.
This is the point about he half empty/full platitude.

>Satisfaction is fleeting and hinges on novelties. We crave for the More, for the New, for the Better
Which is a good thing, unless you'd prefer humanity forever living like the Australian Aborigines used to.

[Anonymous No.5719571]

>>5719547
>we aren't privileged to such Cosmic knowledge

Look it's a totally moot point. If we CAN know that everything is impermanent, then great. If we CAN'T know that everything is impermanent, then we would seem to have a problem. But how do we then know that we can't know? Isn't that on the same order of "cosmic knowledge"?

Every assertion either way, knowing or not knowing, knowing or not knowing that you can or cannot know, is just as easily shut down by the "we aren't privileged to such cosmic knowledge" argument.

So we're back to where we started-- which idea, from our human perspective, seems most reasonable?

[Anonymous No.5719593]

>>5719562

>mainly based
>mainly

>which is a good thing

Not right now. It was useful until we got to a point that our need for more is no longer sustainable. Now, our craving is just a source of psychological and phisical pain for us and others.

I think that we should be able to control our "dukkha". We should be able to choose when we want more, not be blindingly following some animal urge we have got in our brains.

[Anonymous No.5719602]

>>5719555

It's also a religion, so there is some amount of faith needed if you want to believe in all the aspects of buddhism. The difference is that Buddha has a far more compeling "Pascal Wager" argument.

>>5719554

Yes, Nirvana is often described as the cessation of dukkha. Of course, Nirvana is also a lot more and shouldn't be accurately describable in human terms, since it supposedly transcends any concepts.

[Anonymous No.5720661]

>>5719562
Reincarnation involves a soul, there is no soul according to Buddhists so it is more rebirth

Not sure how relevant the comment is but it serves as a bump regardless

[Anonymous No.5720718]

>>5719571

Seems reasonable to let go of universal claims we can't substantiate.

[Anonymous No.5720742]

I have to write a 7 page essay about karma. What do you guys think it is, in the Buddhist view?

I've done a lot of reading and I just don't fucking get it. Actually I don't get anything in Buddhism.

How does it make any sense to talk about Nirvana when there is no self to be liberated?

[Anonymous No.5720749]

>>5720718

Then you can't make any assertions either way and you're in Wittgenstein Land.

That's my point. You either affirm it or deny it or you stop talking about it, but you can't affirm or deny it on the grounds of "cosmic knowledge we aren't privileged to know." Invoking this latter argument is only a ticket to Wittgenstein Land, that's it.

[Anonymous No.5720826]

>>5720742
In a perfect buddhist world, someone who has realised that he is not the self-image he think he is. He acts and thinks and feels according to the logical conclusion drawn by the self-less. Like not giving into meaningless emotions like desire/lust/anger/etc yet trying to help out people realize this truth.

This is where meditation/practice goes with "knowing" buddhism. Meditation and practice changes the brain to accept this reality and be at peace.

[Anonymous No.5720884]

>>5720749
>Then you can't make any assertions either way

Not all assertions are universal that go beyond our experience, sorry that's just silly.

>You either affirm it or deny it or you stop talking about it

yep, buddhists should stop talking about those things.

[Anonymous No.5720913]

>>5718062
>humans don't live long enough to know if this is true.

If humans lived long enough they would be pretty wise and be more contemplative.

[Anonymous No.5720961]

>>5720742
cause-effect, nothing more
they just have completely ludicrous ways to describe it
the most understandable I read, funny enough, was in a foreword written by the current dalai lama for a german translation of the bardo thodol

[Anonymous No.5721028]

>>5720961
excuse me, to be a bit more precise. it describes the infinite, closed system of cause and effect. the point of karma is to not have it, that means to not cause anything, because in some way it will always propagate suffering. even if not directly, the direct effect of what you be a cause on it's own and so on. at least that's what I understood, keep in mind I'm not terribly well-read not he topic of buddhism. karma also has to do with rebirth, and that rebirth is not to be taken literally, but i didn't get that so much

[Anonymous No.5721037]

>>5718062
Hey smartass, even if you were immortal, how would you know if something is permanent, if both you and the thing never stop existing, how can you know it will REALLY never stop existing. You can just know it exists as long as you live.

[Anonymous No.5721348]

>giving opinions about unavoidable things

yeah and what do you think about the pancreas digesting starch? shouldnt it rather digest fat? what do you think?

[Anonymous No.5721534]

>>5721348
So you agree with Buddha's conclusions then?

[Anonymous No.5721544]

>>5721534
i do

[Anonymous No.5721572]

>>5721534
oh please...you are beyond help... let me rephrase it: do you agree with the liver secreting bile?

[Anonymous No.5721599]

>>5721572


personally i find the livers proclivity to secret bile to be very righteous.

[Anonymous No.5721634]

>>5721572
Was just confirming, anon.

[Anonymous No.5721733]

>Gautama Buddha achieved enlightenment with little external help in under 50 days
>no one has been able to get anywhere near with decades of time and hundreds of years of teachings to meditate upon

[Anonymous No.5721779]

>>5721733
>little external help
>implying the society he grew up in didn't have an extremely formidable Hindu tradition of meditation, sages, enlightened beings, wisdom, and knowledge of the nature of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5721847]

>>5721779
But all of those traditions are wrong.

Proof: India is a shithole.

[Anonymous No.5721981]

>>5721847
Are you implying it was always a shithole?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

[Anonymous No.5722020]

>>5721733
>>no one has been able to get anywhere near with decades of time and hundreds of years of teachings to meditate upon
Dude there a bunch of people who have achieved enlightenment. Just do a fucking google search.

[Anonymous No.5722029]

I find them pretty valid.

There is nothing I can think of that is truly permanent. Some say 'truth' and 'concepts' but even buddhism acknowledges that concepts are only mental fabrications, an entity conjured in one's mind only to disappear eventually when the person stops paying attention to it. Thus concepts only give the illusion of permanence, because people conceptually ascribe to concepts the property of of somehow 'being' in the world, waiting to be thought of. Sort of like Plato's immaterial forms. Buddhism rejects this.

Suffering may sound subjective. For instance, one might point out that a blade of grass exists and clearly has no suffering. But I think Buddhism takes a view that real existence ultimately presumes some form of observer. All existence thus requiring an observer, and all observers subject to suffering, all existence is suffering. We again, fall into the illusion of contemplating a an existence without observation. Like if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around to hear it, does it make a sound? I think Buddhism would essentially say no.

I'm too lazy to discuss anatta, although I think that might be toughest one.

[Anonymous No.5722085]

>>5721733
Well 2. things:

1. Buddhism admits that enlightenment, the ULTIMATE enlightenment, Nirvana, is very very difficult for a being to achieve. For instance, Buddhism recognizes Buddhas that came before the Gotama Buddha of this humanity. However, the intervals between Buddhas are eons and eons. So every now and then a Buddha comes and teaches, and in time the Buddha and his teachings are forgotten, and then it's like trillions of years before another one returns.

2. The above info only applies to Buddhas, and Buddha is a special term in Buddhism usually given only to that first enlightened being that attains nirvana on his own, and goes on to teach his discovery to others. The good news is that Buddhism acknowledges that others have attained nirvana through the teachings of the Buddha. They are called arhats. In the Pali Canon, supposedly many of the Buddha's close disciples attained nirvana in time just as the Buddha did. Moreover, as someone else said, if you google it, there are many people who have been revered as enlightened.

I do agree, however, that many popular buddhist figures today have openly confessed that they are not enlighted (see: Dalai Lama). But that is not to say, that many lay people who were never prominent figures that went on to become arhats themselves

[Anonymous No.5722132]

>>5722085
>However, the intervals between Buddhas are eons and eons

That's true but it's an understatement.
Eons in buddhism are basically big bangs, followed by big crunches.

I can't remember the amount of universes it takes before a buddha appears, but it's like thousands and thousands and thousands of big bangs and big crunches and deaths of universes.

People think they can attain enlightenment by being "lay buddhists" and casuals lol...even the best of the best monks won't do it, for trillions of years and trillions of life times.

[Anonymous No.5722163]

>>5722132
But in the Pali Canon some of the suttas talk about how some monks in the Sangha do attain enlightenment. I don't think it's quite as difficult to become an arhat since the teachings of the Dhamma are available at the time.

You are right, however, that casuals will almost never succeed, but by being good lay buddhists they will supposedly have good opportunities in future births to advance in the Dhamma

[Anonymous No.5722451]

>>5717794
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/consciousness.htm

[Anonymous No.5722650]

So... if Gautama had defeated desire, why did he continue to eat? Why not just chill until death sweeps you away?

[Anonymous No.5724203]

>>5722163
If I remember it correct, arhat is simple a person who is on the path of enlightenment (serious dedication). I believe the term is stream-goer or enterer or something. They still have a long way to go before reaching enlightenment

[Anonymous No.5724616]

>>5724203
>In Theravada Buddhism, an Arhat (Sanskrit: अर्हत् arhat; Pali: arahant; "one who is worthy"[1]) is a "perfected person"[1][2] who has attained nirvana.[2][1]

It is true that not all Buddhist traditions consider arhats enlightened, but in Theravada they are

[Anonymous No.5724743]

>>5724616
Actually I was wrong a bit.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment

Arhant is the 4th stage of enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.5724770]

don't discuss buddhism with plebs

don't waste your time

resist temptation to get involved in threads like this

[Anonymous No.5724908]

>>5722650

enlightenment is an ideal, you don't ever reach it.

[Anonymous No.5724982]

>>5722132
>People think they can attain enlightenment by being "lay buddhists" and casuals lol...even the best of the best monks won't do it, for trillions of years and trillions of life times.

You are basing your statements upon a linear-horizontal understanding of enlightenment.

That is based on an expedient teaching by the early teachings of the Buddha.

Later in the Lotus Sutra the naga girl achieves enlightenment suddenly.

That means that in Mahayana Buddhism, there's something like "sudden enlightenment"

How is such a thing possible?

Well, it's possible, if you realize that both "enlightenment" and "delusion" are ultimately produced by your own nature of mind.

This insight will make you see enlightenment not only as a distant impossible goal. But something that is here from the outset.

The Lotus Sutra contains parables that explain this. A poor man has a gem sewn into his garments. He falsely believes he's poor, not realizing he has a great treasure and he's carrying it around.

Basically, this model means that we already have Buddha-Nature. What we seek for, is already within us.

The point now is to manifest it. Yes, that takes a lot of Practice, a lot of Study, and a lot of Faith.

But. The important thing is, that Buddhahood is a state that can be accessed at any time, even if just for a moment. The situation is not linear, it's more complex.

All the Ten Worlds (Buddhahood, Bodhisattvahood, the realm of Devas, Humans, Animals, etc.) are interpenetrating.

[Anonymous No.5725053]

>>5724982
>Lotus Sutra

>fake buddha quotes from mahayana heretics

we're talking about real buddhism here friend.

[Anonymous No.5725146]

>>5724743
correct

>>5724982
It's actually quite a divergence from the original sutta pitaka in theravada buddhism, which stresses that enlightenment is a very difficult process, usually amounting to several births of practice, chipping away bit by bit at the ignorance and attachment of one's mind. Although there are some suttas in the sutta pitaka where the Buddha will speak to a lay person about the Dhama and the lay person will suddenly attain stream entry, thus setting himself up on the fast track to enlightenment

Also, there is the fact that there are often demarcated 4 stages of enlightenment. Even the first stage, stream winning, is considered extremely difficult in theravada buddhism

[Anonymous No.5725162]

>>5725146
rereading my post I realize there's a bit of inconsistency, but it is reconciled by the fact that although stream entry is generally very difficult to obtain, there are some cases in theravada where supposedly a person is suddenly enlightened on some level. So, while extremely unlikely, it appears that one could have a sudden revelation, whereas most people will have to work very diligently for years to obtain the same level of progress.

[Anonymous No.5725178]

>>5724743
>It is only when suffering becomes acute, or seemingly unending, that an entity looks for a "solution" to and, if fortunate, finds the Dharma.
>only

is pain the ONLY way? then we should all indulge in pain until it ecomes so unbearable that we are forced to do something about it... otherwise we will be in an eternal state of general pain. right?

[Anonymous No.5725200]

>>5725178
I don't think you ALWAYS have to be in pain, it's just when an ordinary person, having followed a certain train of thought, comes to the conclusion that, in their current state, suffering will inevitably come to haunt them again and again. Thus, while I may sit comfortably now, I suspect confidently that amongst my desire and attachments and delusions, I will be subject to suffering again, and so ad infinitum until I finally seek a way out.

In Buddhism, humans are generally (not always, but generally) regarded as the only group that seeks the Dhama, because those living in heavenly realms do not suffer enough to concern themselves with a way out, and those in lower hellish realms are in too much pain to concern themselves with Dhama practice. It is when one is born a human that one lives comfortably enough to contemplate their predicament (in most cases), yet at the same time suffering is prevalent enough that humans feel an urgency to investigate it.

[Anonymous No.5725215]

>>5725053
1) Buddha's words were written down some ~100 years after his passing (Mahaparanirvana). They were memorized by monks... so your Pali Canon is as historically accurate as the Gospels.

2) The Lotus Sutra tells us that the Buddha attained enlightenment many aeons ago, before he was even born in India. This is hard to accept for Hinayanists. That's why some Hinayana practitioners left the room and didn't want to hear the Buddha preach the Lotus Sutra.

>>5725146
For us Mahayana Buddhists the Buddha's teaching were given progressively. As an expedient device, the Buddha first had to talk about enlightenment and delusion in very stark dualistic terms, and only later progress to express the full truth. also, it depended on the people he was addressing... to some he revealed one aspect of the Dharma, to others another aspect. The highest and ultimate exposition was the Lotus Sutra.

Highest doesn't mean it invalidates others. The Lotus Sutra is alike a "meta-sutra", a sutra that explains all other sutras and puts them into perspective, into a Whole, a system almost. It is the mother and father of all the sutras.

[Anonymous No.5725218]

>>5725200
well one is obviously not always in pain, as in 24/24, but i meant to say if pain, and the realization of its inevitability in a given state, is the only thing that will drive one to seek the dharma.

[Anonymous No.5725231]

>>5725218
Yes, to my knowledge pain is the only thing that will drive a person. I guess to answer you question, if there were no pain and suffering in the world, if existence did not necessarily entail pain and suffering, then the Dhama would be pointless and superfluous. So the only real significance of the Dhama is to liberate oneself from suffering.

[Anonymous No.5725256]

>>5725215

The Lotus sutra is not in the Pali Canon. It is a fake contrivance created by Mahayana heretics.

[Anonymous No.5725261]

>>5725231
i see... but if that is so isnt the sangha then a contradiction? they are keeping humans from realizing the dharma by themselves, by "protecting them from themselves" and their humanity so they can go to the bottom of it and seek a true way and not just a pre-made mass way.

i think in that sense the buddha is not that compassive cause it imposes his own way instead of telling people to find their own.

[Anonymous No.5725264]

>>5725215
When was the Lotus Sutra written?

Also, you are correct that the Tipitaka came well after the Buddha's death, but interestingly there is evidence that human beings several millennia ago had much much better memories than we do today, precisely because things were not written down. Hence, entire stories like the Illiad for instance were memorized word for word to be told to others for entertainment.

>>5725218
also, as an anecdote, the realization of the inevitability of intense pain is what motivated me, an overly analytical, anxiety ridden law student, and my Alcoholic/Cocaine abusing friend to seek an escape from our perennial suffering

[Anonymous No.5725265]

>>5725256
>The Lotus sutra is not in the Pali Canon.
Thank you for clarifying that, captain Obvious.

>It is a fake contrivance created by Mahayana heretics.
It reveals the complete and total truth of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.5725273]

>>5725215
>The Lotus Sutra is alike a "meta-sutra"

No it's just a fake commentary that misrepresents the teachings from start to finish and injects it's own superstitions into it.

[Anonymous No.5725278]

>>5725265

that's like saying authentic christianity comes from gnostic Apocrypha.

totally backwards.

[Anonymous No.5725281]

>>5725273
The Lotus Sutra itself anticipates that whoever will uphold it, will be attacked by heretics. And this is what is happening now in this thread, so it's no surprise! The Sutra is right again.

Only faith in the Lotus Sutra brings enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.5725283]

>>5725278

Mahayana is the mormonism of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.5725291]

>>5725278
This is because you're limiting yourself to a narrow view of the Buddha as some guy in India ~2600 years ago.

The Buddha that speaks in the Lotus Sutra is the True, Eternal Buddha Shakyamuni, who attained enlightenment countless aeons ago, and manifested in India for the sake of helping deluded Hinayanists.

[Anonymous No.5725297]

>>5725283
Mahayana is larger than Theravada.

You can see the proof of the superiority of the Mahayana that countries that embraced it, like Korea and Japan, are the pinnacle of humanity, while Theravada countries like Thailand, are mainly known for ladyboys and prostitution!

Cause and effect, my friend.

[Anonymous No.5725305]

>>5725297

>korea's economy proves mahayana is true
>thailand's ladyboys prove theravada is false

mahayana logic.

[Anonymous No.5725310]

>>5725261
So, for one, people aren't generally forced into the Sangha (nowadays it may be different, as many children enter monkhood in south asian countries), so those (in old times) who join were likely already driven to seek the Dhama themeselves. The Buddha wasn't keeping humans from doing anything. They came to him.

>they are keeping humans from realizing the dharma by themselves, by "protecting them from themselves" and their humanity so they can go to the bottom of it and seek a true way and not just a pre-made mass way.
Many many people have "gone to the bottom" of their humanity as you say and do not find the Dhama like the Buddha did. Look at Nietzche for instance, a man certain perturbed by suffering, ultimately killed himself, and took a much more nihilistic view toward the solution of suffering. Many, for instance, say that suffering is inescapable and go about their lifes. Many try to quell their suffering through drug abuse. And, of course, a few may have stumbled upon a path very similar to the Buddhas. Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, Rumi, some of these individuals come to mind in considering that question. But for the most part, humans, in their efforts to escape suffering, do not become like Jesus or Rumi, but often become even more mad and helpless, like a tadpole flopping on highway in the burning sun

An interesting fun fact, supposedly the Buddha attained enlightenment and originally had no intention of teaching the Dhama because he thought it would be a waste of time, that other beings had too much "dust in their eyes" so to speak. But supposedly a Deva (god) pleaded to him to teach it because there were many beings who had little dust in their eyes and that teaching the Dhama could liberate these few individuals.

>>5725281
It is unfair that you are being slandered by other posters, but your response to be honest is pretty dogmatic as well.

[Anonymous No.5725336]

>>5725310
right, i was speaking about the sangha in the sense that you take a child and raise him as a buddhist, but you are right, originally it is a community that is to be voluntarily joined.

and i totally agree with you about the fact that people let to themselves are rather gonna fall in terrible states without finding the dharma, but i dont think having a huge mass of mindless dharma followers is any better. might as well kill all those who cant into the dharma instead of letting them slowly and painfully kill themselves in their humanity.

i think the buddha was right in his intuituion about not wasting time sharing it, people would, if not already have, degenerate it anyway.

[Anonymous No.5725341]

>>5725310
i forgot to ask, kind anon, if, after having realized the inevitability of pain, there are other ways into the dharma than joining a sangha? is there an individual one? i think this might have a relation with the pratyeka/sravaka distinction but id like to read what you have to say, as you seem to know about this.

[Anonymous No.5725386]

>>5725341
Unfortunately I'm no scholar of buddhism. I'm just a very very interested lay follower. All I can go by is the explicit words and underlying tones I have picked up from reading buddhist scriptures

The Sangha, no doubt, is very heavily revered in Buddhism, since it is essentially the institution that has preserved Buddhism to this very day. I don't, however, think that declaring yourself a member of the Sangha is necessary. As you said, there is the case of the lone Buddha, who seems to attain it on his own and go on his merry way.

Reading the Pali canon, there have been suttas in which lay people have come to the Buddha having asked a question, and then, after the Buddha expounds on the question, they attain "stream entry" or the first stage of enlightment. Thus, it seems pretty clear in my opinion that one does not have to be a member of the monkhood to fulfill the Dhama. It would seem rather arbitrary in the first place, since one could just as well practice on his own if he were dedicated to the Dhama. Why someone would have to join a club, basically, would not make much sense to me.

There are also stories in the Pali Canon, in which young peasant boys, not members of the Sangha, attain stream entry essentially by... well, doing nothing. The stories seem to acknowledge that there are people in the world who are already very well primed to practice the Dhama, and having studied just a little bit of the Dhama, swiftly come to realization.

I'm sorry, I'm kind of losing my train of thought because I've typed like 15 posts all 2 or 3 paragraphs long.

If you wish to do your own exploration, this is a great website.
www.accesstoinsight.org

[Anonymous No.5725393]

>>5725386
more specifically, go here

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html

and select the Sutta Pitakaya subheading. This will take you all the stories and parables in the Pali Canon. This collection of stories is extremely numerous, but as you read through them you start to see an interesting world develop from them.

[Anonymous No.5725406]

>>5725305
You know a tree by its fruit.

>>5725310
All they are saying is "Mahayana is BS" - without giving any proof. So my "dogmatic" reply is understandable.

The Buddha's teachings can be grouped into four categories, according to the greatest Chinese Buddhist philosopher, Zhiyi:

1) Hinayana period (impermanence, no-self, suffering, four noble truths, ...) - here, the Buddha is speaking to people who are completely immersed in their erroneous self-identification and so he teaches them to separate what is the self from what is not the self (Theravada Schools embrace this first period)

2) emptiness teachings (Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, etc.) - here, the buddha goes further: not only are people devoid of a self-substance, but so is everything else! even rocks and trees are empty in themselves and can be said to exist only conventially... everything arises from conditions and everything is devoid of self-substance (svabhava) ---- (this is embraced by many Tibetan Buddhists)

3) the Separate Teaching period (Vimalakirti Nirdesa, Lankavatara) - here, the Buddha reveals that the basis of the emptiness of everything is the Mind. The Mind, the One Mind, is prior to all things and is the matrix of everything that exists. - This is embraced by the Zen School. Also Kegon, Huayan. Also the Pure Land schools fall into this category.

4) the ultimate, Integrated Teaching (Lotus Sutra): if period (2) told us that all phenomenality is emptiness, and period (3) told us that behind the phenomenality there exists a True Mind - this last teaching tells us that Mind is phenomenality and phenomenality is Mind

This is the hardest teaching to understand. It is contained in phrases such as "rocks and trees and tiles will attain enlightenment" and "this Mind is rivers and mountains"

This is teaching is embraced by the Tendai (Tiantai) and Nichiren Schools.

Nagarjuna had a glimpse of this when he said: "there is no difference between samsara and nirvana"

Basically, this teaching tells us that even within a moment of total delusion, total ignorance, even suich a moment is not devoid of the essence of Buddhahood. It is a little hard to explain here, but let me give you an example... it is very simplistic but it's the best I can do here:

Imagine a serial killer. Even the most ruthless killer is compassionate to his family, to his kids. So the world of Bodhisattvahood is not absent in such a person. But let's go further: serial killers often describe their actions as a compulsion. So every serial killer is also a victim (of his own compulsion). And, at the same time, he is showing kindness to his compulsion, by not reacting against it. His compulsion to kill is suffering because it's not being satisfied. So, by satisfying it, by killing, he is showing compassion towards his own compulsion, and acting altruistically towards it.

This sounds crazy, but the point is, each act you analyze enough, contains the seeds of its opposite, of Buddhahood.

[Anonymous No.5725411]

>>5725386
great, thanks for taking the time to answer and sorry if i abused your kindness. everything you said has been quite useful cause, just like you and your realization after indulging in alcohol/drugs, i am in the middle of this realization struggling with myself and my body, cause ive done some reading, i get perfectly the thing in an intellectual way, but it is still very hard to actually do it.

[Anonymous No.5725419]

>>5725406
>You know a tree by its fruit.

>buddha praised wealth and economic power above all

ayyy lmao

[Anonymous No.5725428]

>>5725419
Why don't you learn something instead of just assuming stuff you absorbed uncritically from Hinayanist propaganda?

This is one of the foremost scholars of Buddhism, arguing that the Buddha was actually very business-minded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GeZGFvbDzo

[Anonymous No.5725436]

>>5725419
>>5725406

>mahayana is right because Korea is a successful buddhist country

there's more christians than buddhists in korea.
most are atheist lol

[Anonymous No.5725457]

>>5725436
Culturally, Korea has been influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism the most.

So is Japan.

In any case, even if what you say was true, it would only prove that even atheism and Christianity are superior to Theravada.

Which might be true.

[Anonymous No.5725458]

>>5725411
No, thank you. I really enjoyed sharing, but my fingers are getting stiff.

If you want my two cents, I think that having a good intellectual grasp on the teachings goes a very long way, so you should feel confident in that. It may seem easy enough to you or me, but surprisingly to many the buddhist teachings are very queer in their eyes.

Again, from what I gather, although Buddhism emphasizes the difficulty of attaining enlightenment, it also emphasizes that even small things, such as compassion, and skillful conduct, go a very long way in. It's not all about meditation as many in the West would like to suggest. Empathetic and "skillful" behavior goes a long way, not only in giving you good karma, but helping to still the mind so that it is at peace.

Read this sutta for instance: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.016.piya.html

[Anonymous No.5725484]

>>5725457

>economic success determines the truth of a religion

korea was broke and as poor as sub-saharan african countries until the 1960s, a lot of good buddhism did it, ehh? The more atheist and christian it became the better it's economy grew.

japan is mounted in debt, it's population is declining and can't support its welfare state.
The only reason it's economy was successful was the post-WW2 boom and tons of foreign investment from America...

Mongolia and Tibet are mahayana and poor as shit. I mean, even if we accept your broken backwards logic that economic wealth implies religious truth, your facts are just wrong, mahayana does not promote wealth...if wealth comes to a country it's DESPITE mahayana, not because of it.

[Anonymous No.5725486]

>>5725436
Atheism and irreligious aren't the same thing you know

[Anonymous No.5725490]

>>5725457
Theravadins pretend to be following the teachings of the Buddha, but they are actually following Abhidharma.

To people who don't know Abhidharma, it is a kind of scholasticism loosely based on the words of the Buddha. It is like in the case of Catholics who base their theories on Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle instead of the words of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, Theravadins deny the Buddha's words and embrace heresy because they don't stress the ETERNAL and IMPERMANENT Nirvana. They are close to nihilists who thinks everything is impermanent. Of course the Buddha never taught that!

>There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.than.html

Here the Buddha speaks of something that is not subject to impermanence and suffering. So it is also clear that "not-self" is not applicable.

The Theravadins also lie about the Mahayana and pretend that the Buddha didn't teach it. They say Mahayanists invented the Buddha-Nature and the teaching about the Luminous Mind-essence, and yet, it is right there in their scriptures (which they ignore). The Pabhassara Sutta:

>"Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern that as it actually is present,

[Anonymous No.5725499]

>>5725490

even the abhidharma pre-date mahayana fake buddha quotes :)

plus theravadans differentiate between commentaries on teachings (abhidharma) and the teachings themselves (pali canon).

[Anonymous No.5725500]

>>5725484
You're misrepresenting what I said. I never implied that Japan is superior to Thailand because of economy.

I say that the influence of Mahayana religion on East Asia is noticable by many factors. Thailand is the most Theravada land on Earth (over 90% people are Theravadins) and it's the world center for prostitution.

Now Japan has also many negative things but at the same time, you can see it's a very ordered and peaceful society. They have some of the lowest crime rates in the world, they're very ecological, clean, and disciplined.

It's not about how much money they have.

America has a lot of money and still is a country of great depravity. People are obese and disgusting etc.

[Anonymous No.5725512]

>>5725499
So your point is "older is better"?
What is your guarantee that the words in the Pali Canon were spoken by the Buddha?
You do realize it was all written over a HUNDRED years after the Buddha died, right?
They basically met at a council and decided what the Buddha said.

>scholars of later Indian Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism say that little or nothing goes back to the Buddha. Ronald Davidson has little confidence that much, if any, of surviving Buddhist scripture is actually the word of the historical Buddha. Geoffrey Samuel says the Pali Canon largely derives from the work of Buddhaghosa and his colleagues in the 5th century AD. Gregory Schopen argues that it is not until the 5th to 6th centuries CE that we can know anything definite about the contents of the Canon. This position was criticized by A. Wynne.

[Anonymous No.5725541]

>>5725512

it's closer to the historical source. It is the first known and most complete early Buddhist canon created by the sangha.

Just like the gospels in Christianity are more authentic than Joseph Smiths' revelations in the 1800s...Mahayana is like Mormonism in this sense...a bunch of fake revelations and interpretations that came way later, after the canon was already codified.

The canon has everything you need to travel the path to nirvana.

[Anonymous No.5725552]

>>5725512
>You do realize it was all written over a HUNDRED years after the Buddha died, right?

Yes the Sangha memorized it and wrote it down over a hundred years later. It's the closest canon we have to the buddha. :)

While in Mahayana the Lotus Sutra was invented over 600 years after Buddha. The heart sutra was fabricated 900 years after Buddha.

NO thank you.

[Anonymous No.5725557]

>>5725541
>it's closer to the historical source. It is the first known and most complete early Buddhist canon created by the sangha.
What's your proof?

>Just like the gospels in Christianity are more authentic than Joseph Smiths' revelations in the 1800s...
So the part where it says Christ has risen from the dead? That is also closer to history?

>a bunch of fake revelations
As opposed to the real revelation in the NT? Such as Christ mystically manifesting to St. Paul? Or Christ rising a man from death?

> after the canon was already codified.
Codified is an euphemism for made up.

>The canon has everything you need to travel the path to nirvana.
How do you know this? Where are you on your path? What do you practice?

[Anonymous No.5725580]

>>5725557
>So the part where it says Christ has risen from the dead? That is also closer to history?


Christ rising from the Dead is a central Christian doctrine. Anyone who denies it isn't christian, anyone who rejects the Gospels isn't christian.

Mahayanists call themselves "buddhists", but really they aren't...Just like a guy who calls himself "Christian" but thinks Jesus is the devil, and rejects the Bible...he really isn't christian.

Mahayanists are just confused. :(

[Anonymous No.5725581]

>>5725552
Because the Buddha can still give discourses today, when one is in deep meditation.

But because you were never in any of the deep samadhis, you cannot know that...

The anonymous writers of the Mahayana Sutras have received instructions from the Buddha directly, on the mystical Eagle Peak.

This historical discussion is not even that interesting. We will never know for certain what was spoken by the buddha and what wasn't.

What if it came out suddenly that the Buddha said you must have sex with a donkey to reach Nirvana?

Would you follow it just because the historical Buddha said it?

Obviously you have to use your own 1) reason; 2) meditation; 3) concentration to assess the truth i na sutra.

A sutra is never true just because some guy in India spoke it. It is true because it is true. It is true IF reading it DOES something to you.

The Lotus Sutra is written in such a way that just reading and studying it induces a deep samadhi to those who know how to read it. Through the Lotus Sutra you can receive instructions on sacred Eagle Peak from the living Shakyamuni Buddha Himself, today. Because the Sutra is alive. It does something to you. Once you get its message, everything changes. It's an ontological event. It is self-validating. It's true because it works. It shows you the nature of mind. - Questions of historicity then become frivolities.

[Anonymous No.5725597]

>>5725580
Read this:
>>5725581

And btw. - how is your practice going?

The Lotus Sutra is pretty clear what the next rebirth is, for those who slander the True Dharma (saddharma)... and it's not a pleasant one.

[Anonymous No.5725600]

>>5725581

>muh new age mumbo jumbo
>buddha is speaking to me via Alan Watts
>I'm writing a new sutra as we speak

[Anonymous No.5725609]

>>5725597

if I was Christian I would go to the original Gospels, if I was muslim I would go to the Quran, etc..

I'm sure there are off-shoots and schisms in all religions, but I'm not a fan of off-shoots and later additions.

[Anonymous No.5725630]

>>5725609
I prefer to study the whole thing, including the greatest Indian philosopher, Nagarjuna (himself one of the creators of Mahayana), and then the greatest of China, Zhiyi and Zhanran.

Grasping at some idea of "original purity" is delusion. It's as if you wanted to study Greek philosophy but insisted that only Heraclitus and Parmenides are pure, the rest is contaminated.

The Buddha-Dharma is not static. It is incredibly dynamic and accomodates various people and historical situations.

You may find me silly but I will guarantee you will not find enlightenment by studiyng the Tharavada and Pali Canon. It will only alleviate suffering temporarily. It was meant to. Because the full disclosure of Buddhahood wasn't given until the Lotus Sutra.

>>5725600
What is "mumbo jumbo"? Do the supernatural powers of the Buddha like levitation and walking on water, described in the Pali Canon, count as "mumbo jumbo"? But I guess you don't really study the Pali Canon, you just like to pretend to.

[Anonymous No.5725641]

>>5725630

you can read those as commentaries and speculation, as abhidharma.

But they aren't sutras or canon. And sometimes they are wrong and contradict the teachings.

The canon is the Pali Canon, everything else is a footnote to it.

[Anonymous No.5725646]

>>5725630

>I'm a Platonist, but I don't accept Plato or his writings.

then call yourself something else.

[Anonymous No.5725671]

>>5725641
By just dogmatically reasserting that some stuff baldheaded senile farts wrote down hundred(s) of years after Buddha died is "Buddha's words" - if you are willing to stake your karmic destiny upon such a feeble notion, then be my guest!

But I hope you will validate everything by actually achieving samadhi. Because otherwise you will be fooled. Unless you realize the practice and manifest it in your own life, the sutras are worth as much as shitpaper.

But if they're lived, if you read them with your whole body, then they become the greatest treasures in the Universe.

Don't just decide a priori without truly studying. Don't let historians decide your karmic destiny.

The Sutras need to be validated experientially.

The Pali suttas are world-denying and describe the word in negative terms. So this will have effects on your life. It will paint your world in a dark shade. The Lotus Sutra is world-affirming, and claims this world of ours is the Pure Land if it is seen through th eenlightened perspective.

>>5725646
Bad analogy. A better analogy is this. Someone says "I am a Christian" - and you come and tell him that "oh, if you're a Christian, then why do you read Saint Paul and his Epistles? that guy claimed Christ mystically appeared before him and gave him instructions... so he must be a fraud! Just read the words of Jesus!"

Such person is not a Christian, but a Jesusist (actually that's a real thing, you can Google it). Jesusists claim that everything except Jesus' words is to be discarded, including Saint Paul, Saint Peter, Saint Augistine, etc.

Mahayanists are those who accept not only Buddha's Nirmanakaya (his worldly body) but also his Sambhogakaya (his bliss-body that appears mystically to meditators) and most importantly ,the Dharmakaya ( the body of truth, the final ,non-dual reality of a Buddha).

From the PoV of the Dharmakaya, the Buddha is present even in a piece of wood.

[Anonymous No.5725692]

>>5725671

>blablablabla

you have verbal diarrhea

[Anonymous No.5725706]

>>5725692
No, I am explaining Buddhism to you, but you're too full of yourself to make room for new information.

[Anonymous No.5725793]

>>5725706

I prefer my understanding of buddhism to yours.

[Anonymous No.5725851]

I feel like the Buddhist idea of enlightenment being sitting by yourself under a waterfall is dumb.

Shouldn't life be enjoyed by spreading happiness to others?

[Anonymous No.5726452]

> Second Noble Truth: All suffering is derived from desire
> Footnote: This includes desire not to suffer.
> Ergo the desire not to suffer causes suffering

u wot m8?

[Anonymous No.5726463]

>>5725428
Gregory Schopen is not one of the foremost scholars on Buddhism. Please stop spreading misinformation as you clearly are not current in the field of Buddhology.

[Anonymous No.5726553]

>>5719527
>objectivity
oh yeah sure that's a thing

[Anonymous No.5726914]

>>5726452
All men are cows
Footnote: This includes women
Ergo women are cows
u wot m8

[Anonymous No.5726935]

>>5726452

The desire not to suffer is one of the "good" desires. Buddha said it should be the one of the last to be dropped.

[Anonymous No.5726942]

>>5726935
>"good"
The correct word is "wholesome" I believe. Good/bad is just a moral dilemma where as "wholesome" is more of a neutral/utilitarian approach which is what the Buddha really was conveying.

[Anonymous No.5726947]

>>5726942

you are correct, but you get the point

[Anonymous No.5726949]

>>5726942

buddhism has a normative dimension, so good/bad is perfectly fine.

good= tending towards compassion and nirvana
bad=tending towards suffering and ignorance

[Anonymous No.5727127]

>>5724908
...Nah dude Buddha was said to reach enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.5727150]

>>5727127

not only buddha, but hundreds if not thousands of arahats.

[Anonymous No.5727157]

>>5727150
Yeah, so what was that guy on about?

[Anonymous No.5727171]

>>5727157

Some branches of buddhism believe that, like Zen.

[Anonymous No.5727227]

>>5727127
>>5727150

It was also said buddha could walk on water, multiply himself, fly through space, read minds, walk through walls, etc..

>Jesus was said to raise from the dead, turn water into wine, provide salvation to mankind

people say all sorts of things about their gurus.

[Anonymous No.5727231]

>>5727227

honestly, buddhist Nirvana is 1000x more magical and unbelievable than jesus coming back from the dead, or buddha walking through walls.

[Anonymous No.5727249]

>>5727227
You seem informed, and I am ignorant, so I will ask you.

Lately I've been diving into Buddhism and lots of parts seem 'correct', like the three marks of existence for example. But the more I get into it, it seems like Buddha was no different than someone like Socrates, with no real mystical element to him. But the East was obsessed with mysticism so his teachings took on a religious turn.


But all this shit about rebirth, Samsara, etc... man I just want to be gone when I die - why do I have to do so much shit for that to happen. I want to minimize my suffering, and it seems like Cynic/Stoicism is much more straightforward, without all the superstitious bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5727255]

>>5727171
Zen is not Buddhism.

Read a book.

[Anonymous No.5727261]

>>5727231
I was just thinking this. Nirvana is an unbreakable cessation from suffering? What if you get shot in the head, lose some of your brain, but don't die? Now you have the mind of a retarded child. You will now throw a tantrum if someone takes your food away.

[Anonymous No.5727300]

bump

[Anonymous No.5727308]

>>5727261
>"you"
The whole point of buddhism is reshaping the mind (brain in modern science) to experience things differently. Suppose the buddha was walking and someone shot him in the head. But the buddha didn't die and now his brain is scrambled and he acts like a african out of jail. Is he still a buddha? No. A buddha is not defined by the person's body. Remember, in Buddhism there is no lasting "self" or "soul". So even if the body changes, the one that is experiencing the world after the gunshot and the one before are completely different to buddhists.

[Anonymous No.5727320]

>>5727308
I'm not denying non-self or impermanence mate, but it is very clearly the same body and the same "ego" experiencing shit after the gunshotta.

[Anonymous No.5727325]

>>5727320
same 5 aggregates if you will

[Anonymous No.5727346]

>>5727249
>>5727320
answer me you useless cumstains

[Anonymous No.5727355]

>>5727249
>But all this shit about rebirth, Samsara, etc... man I just want to be gone when I die

The annihilationist view of death is wishful thinking, whether you believe in Buddhism or not. It's akin to believing in Christian heaven.

Annihilation is the end of suffering. I don't think such a paradise exists here, or in the here-after.

Anyway, rebirth is CENTRAL to buddhism and what buddha taught. There are a lot of things he remained SILENT about, like when asked direct face to face what the "self" is, does it exist? He remained silent. When asked about the creation of the universe he remained silent.

But about rebirth he went on and on and on because it has such huge importance in the teachings.

[Anonymous No.5727365]

>>5727346

Stoicism is great at navigating life peacefully without all the metaphysical bullshit that buddhism asks you to believe in.

But as far as I know stoicism doesn't have "meditation" which is really really good for you.

Stoicism + meditation = epic

[Anonymous No.5727372]

>>5727365
>>5727346

Just read the Enchiridion and learn some simple meditation practices, breathing meditation and even good-will meditation.

I think most of the Greeks believed in reincarnation anyway, it's not a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.5727444]

>>5727320
In the buddha context, there is no "same body" or "same ego". Sunyata goes even more into this where it is stated that to a buddha, the concept of "things" or the things/humans/everthing having selfhood (aka aggregates) is entirely flawed.

[Anonymous No.5727498]

>>5727355
But I didn't suffer before my birth. And I don't suffer when I am in a dreamless sleep, or when I was put under for surgery.

[Anonymous No.5727506]

>>5727498
You also didn't suffer anything that happened 10 years ago in your childhood either. The "you" of now is vastly different from the "you" of the past.

[Anonymous No.5727519]

>>5727506
Good point. I want to suicide but according to Buddha that puts me in a worse situation next time. Like fuck I wanna be DONE and now I doubt sudoku will achieve that :(

[Anonymous No.5727526]

>>5727506

it's also vastly similar, continuity exists.

>>5727498

sure, suffering comes and goes.
it will always keep coming, and keep going :)

[Anonymous No.5727541]

>>5727519

no point to suicide mate. you were already in the "lifeless" state for 14billion years, and look what good that did you....

nothing can protect you against life, nothing did...suicide just means you'll re-roll the dice.

And unless your life is absolute shit-tier cancer tumors all over your body bad then I wouldn't roll the dice.

[Anonymous No.5727552]

>tfw everyone worries about death
>everyone except buddhists
>buddhists worry about rebirth

[Anonymous No.5727557]

>>5727541
And Nirvana is supposedly how you opt out?

[Anonymous No.5727561]

>>5727557

According to buddha, ya. But I'm not convinced that's possible.

[Anonymous No.5727575]

>>5727561
I have my doubts too. If nothing is permanent, how does achieving a state of non-suffering lock you into that position in "your" next life?

[Anonymous No.5727602]

>>5727575

I dunno how or why it would work.
All I know is meditation has greatly reduced my stress levels, enhances my mood and concentration ability, and it cured my anxiety.

Nirvana is just a crazy ideal to me, I don't think we can really achieve it... I just practice because it gives me some palpable benefits.

[Anonymous No.5727617]

>>5727557
>>5727561
>>5727575
I think the theravada says Nirvana might be a place to goto or get out of Samsara. But Nagarjuna is saying that there is no outside of samsara. He goes on about how Nirvana is Samsara. So most likely its not about opting out but rather understanding the nature of samsara and how people "opt in" to begin with.

He could also be talking about how the whole nature of emptiness/not-self/no-self thing renders the "opt out" business irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.5727648]

>>5727617
The more I dig the more it seems Buddhism is no different than Abrahamic religions, in that it is just a way to control the population.

[Anonymous No.5727651]

>>5727552
kek... seriously though i better not come back

[Anonymous No.5727659]

>>5727648

those are monk precepts for getting ordained and living a very different style of life.

like becoming an Orthodox Christian monk, the requirements are higher than normal

[Anonymous No.5727660]

Haven't read the whole thread, but Buddhism seems like skepticism and epicurean philosophy with funny colors.

[Anonymous No.5727735]

>>5727659
What is the purpose?

>no cumming

have fun with prostate cancer

[Anonymous No.5727770]

>>5727735
Purpose for those strict rules?

Its a monk's own choice whether to follow it or not. Whether to follow it fully or half-assed. The end goal is your own liberation by yourself.


Or are you asking about the purpose of the rules themselves?

The rules are mainly to steer you into the right direction. Aka highlight the distractions and remove it so you can focus on following the path.

[Anonymous No.5727812]

>>5727735

Not all monks have those strict rules. Zen monks can marry and have kids.

There is some Vajrayana monks that perform tantric sex rituals.

[Anonymous No.5727829]

>>5727812
>vajrayana monks
Those are not monks but rather lay-gurus. Gurus can be monks or non-monks.

[Anonymous No.5727858]

>>5727829

Nope, some monks practice it.

>"There are different stances on whether current monks can engage in the practice. The Buddhist scholar Tripitakamala felt the overall goal of Buddhahood overrides concerns for monastic vows"

[Anonymous No.5727896]

>>5727858
"All Vajrayana traditions agree that qualified lay practitioners, including former monks who have given back their vows, can use physical consorts as the Vajrayana founders did."

Vajrayana monks don't. If you read the page more you see that its outside of the monastic practice where it is learned. So monks don't practice tantric sex. The former monks/lays (who are tantric masters) do to further their goals. Tantra is a whole another thing that both hindus and buddhists use, as well as many other religions from India.

[Anonymous No.5727982]

>>5718442

prdy gud

[Anonymous No.5727987]

>>5727896

>"There are different stances on whether current monks can engage in the practice. The Buddhist scholar Tripitakamala felt the overall goal of Buddhahood overrides concerns for monastic vows"

[Anonymous No.5728009]

>>5719593

Nice framing anon.

Do you agree or disagree on the premise that there must be a balance between discipline and base desires? If yes, is it because it is easier to exploit under the kalyug?

[Anonymous No.5728016]

>>5722029

Nice. I see your point.

[Anonymous No.5728020]

>>5724770
>D

present your argument you autonomous blood sack.

[Anonymous No.5728139]

>>5718135
So nobody's gonna call him out on how incredibly wrong this statement is?

[Anonymous No.5728144]

>>5728139
I think he means the 30 and under demographic. And he's right if that is the case.

[Anonymous No.5728492]

>>5727255

It is, read a book.

[Anonymous No.5729227]

>>5728492

>mahayana
>buddhism

pick 1

[Anonymous No.5729266]

>>5727648
>Guy makes these rules to control population
>"Hey guys, I need you to go to war"
>"We can't because we're not supposed to destroy living creatures"
>"Hey guys, the population is dwindling I need you to procreate"
>"We can't because we're not allowed to have sex"
>"Hey guys, the economy's falling apart because nobody's spending money"
>"But we don't accept money"

Yea some population control you got there. One of the precepts says not to take drugs specifically because they lead to carelessness and poor judgment. This would be a rulers worst nightmare.

[Anonymous No.5729295]

>>5729227
Can we please stop with this? Both emphasize meditation, good conduct, and the basic precepts and teachings, so who cares?

[Anonymous No.5729313]

>>5729295

>abstaining from sex =promoting genocide
>abstaining from money use = promote poverty

sounds like an ideology to impose on your enemies

[Anonymous No.5729316]

>>5729266

>>abstaining from procreation
>>abstaining from economic prosperity

sounds like a recipe for disaster

[Anonymous No.5729321]

>>5729266
>This would be a rulers worst nightmare.

Also the whole "don't believe in anything just because you think you should, but because you think it's good" thing.´

Read up on Asoka, the Buddhist King. I wouldn't mind going back to monarchy if we had that chill dude as a ruler.

[Anonymous No.5729331]

>>5729316

This are the "rules" you have to follow if you want to become a monk. Even then, they had different sets of precepts and even suttas for the lay people

[Anonymous No.5729343]

>>5729331

ideally all would be serious monks in buddhism, since they are on the most efficient path. The one closest to how Buddha lived

[Anonymous No.5729361]

>>5729343

If everybody were a monk, then we would live in an utopian future.

[Anonymous No.5729369]

>>5729361

our economies and birthrates would be destroyed, there would be no more future humans...

all rebirths would be worse off because of it. and nirvana would probably be impossible.

[Anonymous No.5729377]

>>5729369
Antinatalist buddhist reporting in.
The realistic goal of Buddhism is to stop existing.

[Anonymous No.5729388]

>>5729377

nirvana is not annihilation. you don't stop existing, go read the sutras.

[Anonymous No.5729463]

>>5729321
>Read up on Asoka, the Buddhist King. I wouldn't mind going back to monarchy if we had that chill dude as a ruler.

Might you have any good literature detailing how based this king was, good sir?

[Anonymous No.5729599]

>>5729388
How one does stop rebirth without stopping his existence?

[Anonymous No.5729602]

>>5729599

nirvana.

[Anonymous No.5729799]

>>5729599
If you read the suttas, you'll find that the Buddha essentially says that existence and non-existence do not apply to nirvana.

Obviously that makes no sense, but then again, having meditated myself, things can get pretty weird conceptually