/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7007732]

>yfw Buddhism is both a warrior religion and a religion of peace

[Anonymous No.7007766]

explain

[Anonymous No.7007773]

>>7007766
It requires all the virtues of a warrior (and was created by one of course) but preaches nonviolence

[Anonymous No.7007780]

>>7007773
k thanks

[Anonymous No.7007885]

>>7007732
>religion of peace

Why does every religion try to claim this meme? It's never correct.

[Anonymous No.7008225]

>>7007773
You need to know something to avoid it, and if you can't avoid it, you need to do it quickly, efficiently, and avoiding the details that you don't like, hence their focus on non-lethalithy.

[Anonymous No.7008315]

>>7007732
>religion
>peace
Anything you believe to be of infinite importance that others can't even see will eventually lead to violence.

[Anonymous No.7008326]

>>7007885
>>7008315
euphoric

[Anonymous No.7008577]

>>7007773
Gautama was a warrior?

[Anonymous No.7008643]

>>7008577
saints are the ultimate warriors

[Anonymous No.7008704]

>>7008577
He was from the warrior cast and enjoyed all it's fruits until it became time to step up to the plate which is when he pussied out.

[Anonymous No.7008712]

>>7007732
>religion of peace/violence
Stupid meme. Being "peaceful" and being "violent" doesn't equate to being right or wrong, respectively. The most oppressive tyrants are always "champions of peace", including your various Buddhist warlords, kings, and monks.

[Anonymous No.7008763]

>>7007732
>religion of peace
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War

[Anonymous No.7008780]

Buddhism is Epicureanism for backpacking hippies who like superstition and hate Western things.

[Anonymous No.7008793]

>>7008780
>hate Western things.

Bodhidharma was a white man, they called him the red-haired, blue eyed barbarian.

[Anonymous No.7008818]

>>7008793
The first group to become Buddhists en masse were Greek.

Hell up until the rise of Islam in central Asia the majority of Buddhists were Indo-Europeans.

[Anonymous No.7008861]

>>7008315
Not in the case of a religion that also believes in infinite reincarnation. They literally don't care if you disagree because they think you'll come around eventually.

[Anonymous No.7009150]

>>7008793
I know, doesn't mean he was culturally European. He walked among the designated shitting streets.

[Anonymous No.7009163]

>>7009150
Could you delete that, please?

[Anonymous No.7009174]

>>7009163
Done, hope it didn't offend you too much.

[Anonymous No.7009733]

>>7008780
>muh Christianity
Christianity has been a long delusion for Europe. It is not near the original Indo-European religions, it is not the foundation for Graeco-Roman philosophy. I'm glad the West is starting to reject it

[Anonymous No.7009736]

>>7008793
>white
Well now. Probably an Uyghur actually.

[Anonymous No.7009744]

>>7009733
Where the fuck did you get Christianity in my post?

[Anonymous No.7009783]

>>7008780
I love Milton, and Pérotin, and Gothic architecture, and Hieronymous Bosch, but not for a fucking second do I believe anything in the New Testament to be true, nor do I think Jesus' scatterbrained morality is compelling in the least.

[Anonymous No.7009787]

>>7008780
Honestly I think Western Christianity leaves a lot to be desired regarding even the most basic theological matters; too much has been absorbed from Aristotelianism via Aquinas, replacing much of the basic mystery of religion with rationalization. The East is a different story, but it has certainly had its own share of problems, and I don't think you really addressed any of them, so I'll ignore it for now.

[Anonymous No.7009795]

>white Buddhists
>so desperate for salvation they reach out to anything
>so angsty, edgy, and desperate to get away from evilwhiteracist western culture they turn as far east as they can stand

>white Buddhists

[Anonymous No.7009801]

>>7009795
Reply

[Anonymous No.7009804]

>>7009801
Thank you, deep down that's all I really wanted

[Anonymous No.7009820]

>>7007885
Because in the foundational teachings all forms of Buddhism (maybe not for Pure Land) which are The Pali Canon and its counterpart the Agamas, there is a very clear message of non-violence (in fact, non-ill will) for everyone without exception. It is impossible to use them to justify anything bad you do and impossible to attain liberation in this life if you're someone who's breaking the precepts. And sometimes you've accumulated so much bad karma that nothing you do later on will be enough to save you from being reborn in a Hell realm in your next life (this was the case with king Ajatasattu, who is told that he'll have to endure life as a Hell dweller before being able to experience the fruits of repentance).

>>7008712
>Stupid meme. Being "peaceful" and being "violent" doesn't equate to being right or wrong, respectively.
It does in Buddhism. Very clearly in fact. In the Abhidhamma system there are even a demonstrations of it.
The only person in Buddhist history globally seen as a "champion of peace" that had a violent past is king Ashoka, and that's because he did pretty much stop being violent and tried to follow the teachings as much as he could. People like the 5th Dalai Lama are seen as good goys only because of forcefulness, and I believe people that are not Gelug followers don't see him that way, I might be wrong though.

[Anonymous No.7009826]

>>7009787
>a religion where bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of God on a daily basis lacks mystery

[Anonymous No.7009836]

>>7009795
The reason why people find Buddhism appealing is that it lifts all responsibility off them, and any guilt/shame they might. It is the metaphysical burying of the head in the sand. You don't have to consider anything evil you might have done if "you" don't exist.

I think that Buddhism is the worst thing that could happen to a person. If I think about someone I love, I can't imagine anything worse happening to them than them becoming a Buddhist. It's the ultimate act of denial. To die is bad, but to commit spiritual suicide is worse.

[Anonymous No.7009842]

>>7009836
Reply

[Anonymous No.7009844]

>>7009842
?

[Anonymous No.7009847]

>>7009842
>being so insecure you feel the need to let anonymous posters on a Thai pottery website you disapprove of what they say without actually contributing to the conversation

>and you did this twice

lol butthurt

It's like a little kid pouting and going "HUMMPH" really loud

>>7009844
Reply :^)

[Anonymous No.7009850]

>>7009847
Not the same person fam. I didn't bother writing a proper reply because bait doesn't deserve a proper reply.

[Anonymous No.7009860]

>>7009850
>anything that I disagree with is bait
LOL

So, so that means that this is bait because I disagree with it?

Ok

>>7009850
Reply :^)

[Anonymous No.7009864]

>>7009860
It's not because I disagree, it's because you said something flat out wrong, and on the level of "Christianity is shit because it doesn't teach about God".

Your passive-aggressive behavior doesn't strengthen your case either.

[Anonymous No.7009868]

If Buddhism is a religion of peace, why does it have wrathful deities?

Checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.7009869]

>>7009864
I was passive aggressive?

Ok

You're a fucking faggot cock gobbler who isn't old enough to use this fucking website

Was that better?

Maybe you could try to form an argument against that anon's post if you disagree with it and think it is flat out wrong

Faggot

[Anonymous No.7009872]

>>7009864
Reply :^)

[Anonymous No.7009873]

Real Buddhists and real Christians never tell people that they are, they keep to themselves.

You are all so salty.

[Anonymous No.7009876]

>>7009873
>what are missionaries

[AZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZA No.7009880]

>>7009869
Nobody cares what you fucking Marxist faggots think
Get some morality and some fucking history books and try again
The Soviet Union is DEAD. Get it through your skull.

[Anonymous No.7009882]

>>7009869
When you stop talking like a child about to burst his vein and stop pretending that you didn't write falsehoods on purpose, I'll give you your argument. Sorry, I mean I'll give that anon his argument.

[Anonymous No.7009893]

>>7009882
Maybe try not posting instead

[Anonymous No.7009896]

>>7009893
No :^)

[Anonymous No.7009901]

>>7009896
________________________________________________________________________________ reply ________________________________________________________________________________

;^)

[Anonymous No.7009905]

>>7009901
JACK MY HAMMER INTO A PINWHEEL, YOU CURDLED CHEESE MILKER
DROP YOUR MOTHERFUCKING YODS SOMEPLACE ELSE

ȜȜȜȝȝȝȝȝȜȜȜÞÞÞÞþþþþþþþþþþþþþB-Þ PPPPTHTHTHTHHTH

REPLY
REPLY
RELY
REPLY

AHAHHAahahaaaaaaaa... dingus.

[Anonymous No.7009906]

>>7009905
btw this was also me
>>7009893

[Anonymous No.7009935]

>>7009901
This isn't how and when you're supposed to use "reply", fam.

[Anonymous No.7010352]

>>7008704
that's fucking dumb bruh

[Anonymous No.7010394]

that's Hinduism

[Anonymous No.7010479]

>>7009820
>It does in Buddhism.
Of course Buddhists say that, that's how they clinch their truthiness. In reality, all bullshit aside, Buddhists are just as violent as everyone else, up to the present day, including overt war-like violence as well as state-societal violence, they've just hidden it well.

[Anonymous No.7010527]

>>7010479
who specifically ? are they the civilians, the monk or the aharants ?

[Anonymous No.7010553]

>>7010527
Try reading a history book. Buddhists are well represented in the Mongol Hordes, the Chinese Empire, the Japanese Empire, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos there is no where that Buddhism has touched where Buddhists were not gladly going to war, killing people, setting up or enforcing caste societies with slaves and serfs, all justified by Buddhist dogma. I'm not even condemning the religion as such, I'm just sick of the special treatment you idiots give it because of its founding mythology.
http://www.tricycle.com/blog/genocidal-buddhists-interview-burmese-dissident-maung-zarni

[Anonymous No.7010596]

>>7010527
>>7010553
To add to this, the reputation has been massive in these things. Before, during and after the genocide in Cambodia, the country was always painted as ''a nation of friendly smiling faces'', even though it had an incredibly murderous and revenge driven culture of extortion, torture and the likes. (Lon Nol - given, an American puppet - even started a Buddhist Holy War against the Vietnamese ''infidels'' around 1970) The East and their mysticism has an incredibly strange reputation considering the brutality they have inflicted upon one another.

It's like the Japanese being this noble, honorable people, while they had nationwide newspapers announcing decapitation contests between officers during WWII. (they set out to see who could reach 100 first, but lost count, so gave both a set number and made the goal 150).

Image, discourse and flack are a hell of a drug, mate.

[Anonymous No.7010719]

>>7010553
>>7010596
You'd be surprised how many people don't realize the Buddha wasn't a social reformer, he didn't want to abandon the caste system and didn't particularly treat women better than the average person.

[Anonymous No.7010906]

>>7009836
How the fuck is thinking you are the only real cause of your own suffering burying your head in the sand? How does it lift more responsibility than magical sky daddy telling you what's right and wrong? How can someone advocate for a way of life where you have to live all your life in repenance like you're some misbehaving child, rather than actually deal with the things that hurt you?

[Anonymous No.7010918]

>wearing a silly orange janitor costume means I'm enlightened :^)

Grow up

[Anonymous No.7010925]

>>7010352
>bruh
Lynch yourself bruh

[Anonymous No.7010963]

>>7010553
then why did buddhism die out in Afghanistan, india and indonesia when confronted by islam? in addition, why is it that empires that adopted buddhism (Maurya Empire, Mongols post fragmentation, Tibet) tended to be much less expansionist?

[Anonymous No.7010964]

Sam Harris makes a good point about the paradox of westerners embracing Buddhism as the truth. Your technological advancements, progressive inventions, medical lifesaving practices and potentially a cure for cancer are not coming from an eastern mindset. They are born in the west. Humanity moves forward not by way of the enlightened all knowing eastern philosophies but by a western drive for advancement and tangible knowledge. Practices like mindfulness, empathy, and exploring one's own consciousness are all valid parts of living a good life. To go any further and dive into the mystical rituals and legends of Buddhism is to be a silly goose.

[Anonymous No.7011010]

>>7009836
"I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir."

[Anonymous No.7011046]

>>7009868
mahakala gonna wrek some cunts tbh

[Anonymous No.7012209]

>>7010963
>losing a fight means you're non-violent
>tibet wasn't a bullying shitty violent sectarian oppressive theocracy

[Anonymous No.7012218]

>>7009868
Does anyone remember the chinese name for hercules?

I think he was supposed to have been transformed mythologically into the personal protector of the buddha.

[Anonymous No.7012310]

>>7007885
It's hilarious when Muslims try to claim it

[Anonymous No.7012316]

>>7008704
Mohammed was a warlord who raided caravans to get rich.

[Anonymous No.7012331]

>>7009795
Says the person posting a picture of a communist synphatizing cuck.

The pope deserves to be executed according to old catholic law

[Anonymous No.7012342]

>>7010596
>hurr he wuz American puppet

You know the fucking Vietnamese invaded Cambodia first right? Read a book

[Anonymous No.7012351]

>>7010553
>Burnese auctions against Muslims
>bad

Islam corrupts every nation it comes in contact with. I'm glad Burma is taking action against them

[Anonymous No.7012361]

>>7010964
Holy shit did you just get here from Reddit?

[Anonymous No.7012490]

>>7012316
Yes. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.7012517]

>>7010964
Not everyone has unwavering faith in progressivism and scientism and buddhism approaches problems from a whole different perspective.

Where you say "let's solve death" they say "let's solve clinging to life".

[Anonymous No.7012798]

>>7009795
>Hurr they aren't Buddhists if they're white because they're white LOL
>But if Wang Lung from Guahxi province so much as glances at a Bible HE'S A CHRISTIAN NOW YOU ATHEIST SHITLORD

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.7012818]

>>7012361
What makes you ask that?

>>7012517
So far science and progress is tried and true. Why cling to mystical notions where the approach has not led to any real success for humanity as a whole? Are you so afraid of death that you feel a need to latch onto ideas like reincarnation?

[Anonymous No.7012848]

>>7012818
Science is destroying humanity at a much faster pace than the natural order of things. I'm not going to give much support because it should be obvious once you look at things in perspective. Human waste from technology is polluting the air and destroying the Earth and its oceans. Through science and technology we have become a cancer starving the planet. There is no synchronicity.

[Anonymous No.7012863]

>>7009795
Oh look that same guy who keeps getting BTFO. How many is it now? 3 or 4 times?

[Anonymous No.7012886]

>>7012218
That's Vajrapani, one of his names in China is Jingang Shou

[Anonymous No.7012947]

>>7012848
We'll soon colonise other planets and perhaps someday way off places we cannot even comprehend. The Earth is a speck.

[Anonymous No.7012967]

>>7012947
You are a fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.7012981]

>>7012818
>So far science and progress is tried and true.
Depends on your goals, as said. If you buy into progressivism perhaps.

>Why cling to mystical notions where the approach has not led to any real success for humanity as a whole?
Your arbitrary definition of success does not necessarily apply within other value systems.

>Are you so afraid of death that you feel a need to latch onto ideas like reincarnation?
You have no idea what Buddhism is about, do you? They don't view rebirth as a positive thing.

[Anonymous No.7013099]

>>7012981
I'm not sure if I buy into progressivism as a fixed ideology, but I would be very disappointed if people stopped moving every field to new heights.

The notion of rebirth is still a comfy idea to apply ti a life which in all likelihood will stop when it stops. It's inflating one's own importance

[Anonymous No.7013314]

>>7013099
>I'm not sure if I buy into progressivism as a fixed ideology, but I would be very disappointed if people stopped moving every field to new heights.
That you use the phrase 'height' seems telling that you seem to believe there is some actual point to which progress moves rather than just being directionless change.

>The notion of rebirth is still a comfy idea to apply ti a life which in all likelihood will stop when it stops. It's inflating one's own importance
No, it's not comfy. Buddhists want to get off the ride. Rebirth is their greatest obstacle, the very goal of their religion is to overcome it, to get out of samsara. Reincarnation from a Buddhist perspective has nothing to do with self-importance or feeling special, by the way. It's not like only humans have a precious soul that gets to reincarnate. It also goes for pigs, eels and insects. Being viewed as a universal condition, it does not increase importance of the individual. To say that a Buddhist is inflating his own importance by thinking he reincarnates is like saying you inflate your importance by saying you're a carbon-based lifeform.

[Anonymous No.7013383]

>>7013314
BS, it is more cozy to imagine an existence beyond these few years on Earth than it is to accept this is all we will ever know. Besides, are bacteria reincarnated souls? Are viruses? Mitochondria?

[Anonymous No.7013420]

>>7013383
You may not share their fucking opinion, but that's how it is. Rebirth is not cosy to them, especially not if you fuck up and get thrown into one of their hells for a few aeons.

Educate yourself on religions through some other source than Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.7013447]

>>7013420
No, religion's a waste of time and I won't dedicate a minute to that nonsense. Religion served it's purpose in history. Gig's over now, buddhism is a relic.

[Anonymous No.7013482]

>>7013447
>not knowing that Buddhist philosophy is scientifically relevant

Education, friend.

[Anonymous No.7013488]

>>7013482
Nice opinion, buddy

[Anonymous No.7013518]

after that we notice that hedonism fails to provide lasting happiness, the goal of the dharma is to understand the dependant origination-> see things are impersonal and impermanent -> dharmic morality becomes intuitive that is to say foremost
>The Buddha explains right intention as threefold: the intention of renunciation, the intention of good will, and the intention of harmlessness.[1] The three are opposed to three parallel kinds of wrong intention: intention governed by desire, intention governed by ill will, and intention governed by harmfulness.[2] Each kind of right intention counters the corresponding kind of wrong intention. The intention of renunciation counters the intention of desire, the intention of good will counters the intention of ill will, and the intention of harmlessness counters the intention of harmfulness.
-> once you act according to the buddhist morality, IF you ever cared about karma and rebirth, then you no longer CARE about karma and afterlife

those who care about karma and rebirth are precisely those who are aspiring to be awaken, but adopt another moral doctrine ( than the doctrine of the buddha which they do not find intuitive.)

the awaken people do not think in terms of good karma, bad karma and rebirth.

[Anonymous No.7013526]

>>7013488
At least it's an informed one, lad. You have that Dunning–Kruger smugness that is typical of your average hat tipper.

If you don't think there's useful shit to salvage from Buddhism even as an arrogant progressivist scientism fag you're just not very well informed.

[Anonymous No.7013527]

>>7013447
I honestly can't tell if this is satire.

[Anonymous No.7013544]

>>7013518
of course, to understand the dependant origination, the dharmic morality is more or less necessary: it facilitates the practice of the yogi when it comes to contemplation

for the dharma, morality is first [and so you do not care about karma and rebirth] and then mediation on the suttas comes second, then contemplation becomes easy [but again, the contemplation is a moral behavior since it deals with what is appropriate to do, think, say when you turn towards yourself, instead of others as in the ''first morality'' above]

many westeners believe that they do not need the morality, or at lest not at the beginning. and after years of practise, they wonder why they remain on, at best, an intermediate level for contemplation.

on the contrary, the asians apply only the morality but do not contemplate [nor meditate] enough

[Anonymous No.7013580]

>>7013544
What about the Asian Zen lads?

[Anonymous No.7013982]

>>7013580
I was talking about the asian civilians when it comes to (lack of) will to be a yogi


also, the dharma does not say what to do after awakening. the dharma sets a person upright to live day after day, but even an aharant must fill up his day. typically, the activity will be teaching. For those most solitary, the daily life will be mostly epicurean : to meditate and contemplate in gardens with more or less meditators and contemplators.

it is only after awakening that we can dwell on metaphysics really [the physics being the analysis of the direct perceptions aka the dependant origination]

so the after buddhism comes buddhism-epicurism. Epicure states clearly his good life when, it comes to desire, natural and necessary.
The buddha states clearly that the contemplation leading to tranquillity only lessen the desires which are not natural nor necessary. The buddha states clearly that only the comprehension of the dependant origination of the direct perceptions through the 6 senses destroy the desires which are not natural nor necessary.

So this dharma is the best manner to become an epicurist in daily life. Only after we can engage in metaphysics [in the etymological sense, that is to say philosophy] about the true nature of the world and what not.

Too many hedonists become epicurean after a loss of means to be hedonist. They have resentment, unsatifaction and still attached to their self.
The come to philia through eros, whereas the buddhist comes to philia through agapè. this is what the hedonist-epicurean misses.


Buddhism is not about the end of life, but through an inquiry about the end of life via some reflexivity about the failure of the hedonism, buddhism is how to begin our life. Epicure is how to live day after day.

[Anonymous No.7013987]

>>7013982

Of course, to be really epicurean is to destroy every needs which are not natural nor necessary, so an hedonist-epicurean cannot be said to be epicurean. Those kind of person will always be subject to some outburst of anger, of delusion, of sadness, of ill-will, no matter how they decrease their desire. Buddhism seems to be the sole way to be a epicurean, in flipping, when it comes to love, eros into agapè.

[Anonymous No.7014132]

>>7010479
"Buddhists" and Buddhists are 2 different things. The Buddha himself made the distinction so don't cry about true Scotsmen here.
Buddhists are not enlightened beings, they're human. The exact same kind of human as everywhere else. Those who are and were actually serious about practice never did these things. The number of such people, after the death of the Buddha, has been relatively small. This is perfectly normal.
This still doesn't change that, in Buddhist doctrine, being violent equates to being wrong. You say in >>7010553 that "all justified by Buddhist dogma", but do not care to provide a single citation for that. Things like "the existence of a caste of untouchables is justified because of karma" (Japan) does not count as an actual justification by the way because the teachings on karma and on "nobility" (what really makes a person noble or not is not birth) contradict them.
You severely insult the intelligence of people in /lit/, most of whom are aware of all this and are aware of the fact that "adhering" to a religion does not make you an actual follower.
Why not also mention the fact that the image of the Buddhist reading his sutras, understanding them, and frequently meditating is also wrong, even among monks? Such a mode of being has been relatively rare through history if we talk about numbers. Why not mention the fact that in many Buddhist countries, for many people the extent of being Buddhist is giving donations, praying to the deities, bodhisattvas or Buddhas for success in worldly matter? Yet these are not things that are part of the teachings.

>>7010719
He abandoned the caste system within the Sangha. What else could he do? He held no power at all. He also did treat women better than the average person, this is seen if you remove later additions by people who were butthurt at women.
But yes, his goal was not immediate country-wide social reform. He still did that within his organization.

[Anonymous No.7015072]

>>7014132
>"Buddhists" and Buddhists are 2 different things.
Despite your special pleading, as with all of your points in this post, this is, and you know it to be, a No True Scotsman. Suffice it to say that if one perhaps falls short of one's religious ideal that does not make them no-longer of the religion. To point out how benign this argument is, simply apply it, which works especially well regarding Buddhism: As you point out, Buddhists are not enlightened beings. So, by your own method, there are no Buddhists in this world to speak of, because all Buddhists fall short of Buddhism!

More to the point, you're overlooking the real crux of the matter. If we are to be celebrating Buddhism as such a "peaceful", "non-violent" religion, we need to wash away the long history of violence perpetrated by Buddhists throughout their long history (including the present), and this is in fact what has been happening, even in this very thread.

We can lie to ourselves say that the violent Buddhists have all been lay people, but this is the point being overlook: how does that answer the problem of Buddhism's ahimsa doctrine when the billions of people that have lived under Buddhist religion that are taught by monks and are well aware of this doctrine and only keep it selectively?

Of course it's not a matter of just lay-people, but it's enough to point out the phenomenon in just them, frankly. But of course nothing is good enough for the fundamentalist- everything can be explained away; the establishment of Buddhist theocracy isn't /really/ Buddhism; the oppression and genocide of other ethnic groups isn't /really/ Buddhism. No one is /really/ Buddhist. The problem here is clearly either Buddhism itself, or the way some of us are synthesizing reality.

[Anonymous No.7015263]

>>7013982
>>7013987
Interesting combination of the two. I always felt they were somehow alike, but Epicureanism didn't leave us with actual methods to the degree of Buddhist meditation and such. Well, perhaps Epicurus did, but most of his work got lost after all.

I think you're right that Epicurean living without some sort of deliberate praxis is bound to be unsatisfying or simply leads you to get caught up in pleasure chasing again.

[Anonymous No.7015322]

A shitpost op with no details or evidence for it's argument creates a thread full of shitposts. This formula is guaranteed to work every time.

[Anonymous No.7015365]

>>7015072
>a No True Scotsman
It seems like you are incapable of reading. I repeat: the Buddha himself made the distinction. There are basically guidelines (not extremely concrete ones, but nevertheless) for judging whether someone is actually on the path, or just pretending. There's the same for judging whether someone is putting the dharma in another way, or saying something completely different. Even in his time there were people who had joined the Sangha, but were acting like thugs -of all kinds. They were found to be not following the teachings, and expelled. Would you, hiding behind the NTS argument, tell the Buddha that he had no right to declare these people non-followers of the Way just because they pretended to be?

>we need to wash away the long history of violence perpetrated by Buddhists throughout their long history (including the present), and this is in fact what has been happening, even in this very thread.
No we don't. We have to take the teachings themselves for what they are, and historical realities as what they are. The teachings have an unambiguous message of non-violence. People grouped under the umbrella of Buddhism might and have been violent.

>how does that answer the problem of Buddhism's ahimsa doctrine when the billions of people that have lived under Buddhist religion that are taught by monks and are well aware of this doctrine and only keep it selectively?
But they are not necessarily aware of ahimsa, if you had any actual knowledge of Buddhist history you would know this. Historically it all depended on what the monks taught, how pure the Sangha was. That aside, even today educated people from modern societies who have full access to pretty much all parts of the various Buddhist teachings (as opposed to people from traditional Buddhist societies for whom this was and is very very rare) are able to rationalize their own lack of ahimsa in many ways, see the Journal of Buddhist Ethics papers on Buddhist soldiers and chaplains in the US Army. And not only about ahimsa, there are plenty of people who break the precepts but rationalize it through empty mental gymnastics. It's not a "problem" of doctrine because the Buddha's ahimsa doctrine is clear. It's a problem of human nature. One that has existed in all institutions, religions and ideologies. That's just the way human beings work, always have.

[Anonymous No.7015389]

>>7015263
>Well, perhaps Epicurus did, but most of his work got lost after all.
yes indeed

it would be amazing to find contemplative techniques in his writings. But at best these would be contemplation about tranquillity like for the Christians or muslims or perhaps jews too. It is said that these guys focus on the breath too and also on lovingkindness and karuna [=agapè/charity] through some prayers [of Jesus and so on] to enter into contemplation.

>>7015263
>simply leads you to get caught up in pleasure chasing again.
especially in the cities. the hedonist-epicurean would not last long as an epicurean in urban areas.

Only the awaken people can stand alongside hedonist or traditional objects of desires

[Anonymous No.7015447]

>The Epicureans defined pleasure as the absence of pain (mental and physical), and hence pleasure can only increase up until the point in which pain is absent.[1] Beyond this, pleasure cannot increase further, and indeed one cannot rationally seek bodily pleasure beyond the state of aponia.[2] For Epicurus, aponia was one of the static (katastematic) pleasures,[3] that is, a pleasure one has when there is no want or pain to be removed.[4] To achieve such a state, one has to experience kinetic pleasures, that is, a pleasure one has when want or pain is being removed.[4]

[Anonymous No.7015491]

>>7015072
>>7015365
>the establishment of Buddhist theocracy isn't /really/ Buddhism; the oppression and genocide of other ethnic groups isn't /really/ Buddhism.
It is "/really/ Buddhism in the sense that it has been and is still part of Buddhist history. Yet there is no justification for them in the Pali Canon/Agamas (or the Mahayana sutras).
>No one is /really/ Buddhist.
Kek, no. There are plenty.
The problem seems to be that you can't or don't want to make a distinction among different levels and kinds of people that profess an adherence to Buddhism. You want all "Buddhists" to be considered the same. But that's stupid, and is as detached from reality as claiming that any and all people professing to be Buddhists have been non-violent. First you do that: you analyze and separate the different kinds of followers, then you compare each with the descriptions the Buddha gave of a true follower of the Way. Then you should be able to see whether a simple claim or feeling of being Buddhist has any value or not.

>The problem here is clearly either Buddhism itself, or the way some of us are synthesizing reality.
Synthesizing reality through an agenda, which you clearly have, is pretty problematic. That you do this is quite evident by the fact that you basically say that all Buddhists in societies where oppression or genocide has been perpetrated must be treated as equals and share responsibility. Yet reality does not work like that. A recent example has been certain Burmese monasteries sheltering and taking care of Muslims fleeing from "Buddhist" violence. Monks or lay Buddhists might even condemn other lay Buddhists and monks as un-Buddhist (only the non-violent ones do this). What is to be made of these people? Are they the same as the ones burning shops and buildings? Is their compassion just coincidence, something that has nothing to do with the teachings they follow? Talk to Buddhists and non-Buddhists from Cambodia, Sri Lanka etc. See what they have to say about all this.
Ignoring the realities of human existence, realities which the Buddha talked and warned about, is pretty problematic.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7015567]

>>7015389
>the hedonist-epicurean would not last long as an epicurean in urban areas.
Says you.

[Anonymous No.7015628]

>>7015567
Epicurus did recommend to move out into the country side with your mates and ignore the polis tbh.

[Anonymous No.7015635]

>>7008326
>one-word refutations of skepticism with fedora stereotype

It's like throwing a piece of chicken at every black person who's ever tried arguing with you.

[Anonymous No.7015652]

>>7008704
That's literally the oddest take on Buddhism I've ever read.

Neither agree nor disagree with it. Just taken aback. A real eyebrow-raiser, there.

[Anonymous No.7015681]

>>7015652
Well then, go research some facts and you'll see how wrong this take is.

[Anonymous No.7015697]

>>7012342
I can not believe the stupidity in this post.
You are a laughing stuck, chump ass cunt.
You honestly deserve every form of ridicule in this world for your stupidity.

Honestly, I never post anything like this, but god damn you are fucking retarded.

Got any more, champ?

[Anonymous No.7016137]

>>7015681
What's wrong about it? Seems all facts to me.

[Anonymous No.7016296]

>>7016137
First, trivialities like how he probably wasn't eating ass after he was married, and he never mentioned smoking kush either. He was enjoying all the comforts of palace life, but at the same time he was feeling uneasiness related to them since he was little. India at the time was (like today) far from being a tropical paradise, in fact the north of the country isn't even in tropical climate (and the Buddha was born in the north).
He was not completely disconnected from the responsibilities of rulership, both because it is impossible for his father who wanted to make him into a great king (Suddhodhana himself was not a king but something like a Prime Minister) to not teach him about how the affairs of the state are run (the Buddha demonstrates familiarity with these many times) until the age of 30, but also because his encounter with the 4 signs (old man, sick man, dead man and an ascetic) was prompted by his own wish to go out and learn more about his clan's people. Also, it wasn't rare for householders, people with responsibilities or about to take responsibilities to leave house permanently, another famous person who did the same thing is Mahavira.
"i'll eliminate my consciousness with a shotgun to the face lel" simply trivializes the 6 years he spent as an ascetic after he left the palace. He didn't go on a pleasure cruise, he was homeless, very simply dressed and getting his food by begging, spending years first in intellectual studies and then in torturing his body, exposed to the elements and starving. It was only after this that he came to the realization that neither opulence nor deprivation is the way to go, so the assertion that he would just try to make it rich if he was born poor is nonsense. He earned the right to arrive at the conclusion about richness and poverty.
The assertion that he told people to stop enjoying life is nonsense. The entire point of his teaching is to reach the utmost enjoyment, permanently.
The section with "fuck they deserve to be poor" is also complete nonsense and in direct contradiction with what he actually said. It is one thing to say "a life with bad actions begets a bad life, this is the law of the universe" and it is another to say "people with bad lives deserve it because they were bad people before, lmao". On top of that, the Buddha clearly said that there is no "person" that passes between lives, so it's pointless to say anything accusatory about the current persons.

Yes, the Buddha got everything he wanted while he was in the palace, except the end of suffering and a solution to the human condition. That was also something he wanted, and he simply could not get it. That end of suffering was what the Buddha wanted most, so he chose to abandon everything and after a lot of effort managed to obtain ultimate happiness, independent of all things. It just shows the smallness of that poster and his entanglement in ideology that he thought a person can only possibly wish for material opulence.

[Anonymous No.7016314]

>>7015365
>It seems like you are incapable of reading.
On the contrary, you're the one hung up on a special pleading argument that has nothing to do with reality, nor what I wrote. You've wasted significant amounts of time on your emotional misunderstanding, or else these inane arguments about real vs. unreal Buddhists are poor attempts to save face. I think it is the latter because you seem to think that anyone here has said that Buddhists can only be good by coincidence...
>Are they the same as the ones burning shops and buildings? Is their compassion just coincidence, something that has nothing to do with the teachings they follow?
... which is not the case.

>We have to take the teachings themselves for what they are, and historical realities as what they are.
Amazingly, you grasped the point without even realizing it. There are the teachings and there is the historical reality. As I said way back when, there is no where that Buddhism has touched where Buddhists were not gladly going to war, killing people, setting up or enforcing caste societies with slaves and serfs, and justifying all of it through Buddhist identity and dogma. But perhaps I'm mistaken: perhaps these are not-monks not-leading not-lay people that are not-Buddhists in a not-riot not-destroying not-churches?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUHCQyxK3ps
I'm sorry to say but it turns out that Buddhism has had more than 2000 years to spread its ideas, much of that time includes official authority over or privilege within many governmental bodies. Kublai Khan was a highly intelligent individual and a practicing Tibetan Buddhist that was taught by lamas, he wasn't some idiot taught by idiots that didn't understand what Buddhism is. I'm sorry to say but Buddhism does not get a special case and you don't get to wave-away every violent Buddhist and Buddhist society with "they're phonies and weren't taught correctly".

[Anonymous No.7016410]

>>7016314
>because you seem to think that anyone here has said that Buddhists can only be good by coincidence...
Wrong projection, it has nothing to do with the people here (none of which are supporting either of us by the way). I'm talking to you, and I didn't ask the question because I thought you thought that way. Else I wouldn't ask. I wanted to know your take on the issue, but you disregarded that. No, "... which is not the case." has nothing to do with the question I asked.
>But perhaps I'm mistaken: perhaps these are not-monks not-leading not-lay people that are not-Buddhists in a not-riot not-destroying not-churches?
Thank you for disregarding everything I said about the involvement in violence and about the different kinds of followers and just repeating yourself like a broken record. If you don't want to give any thought to what I said, or even give arguments against it properly, what else can I do?
>I'm sorry to say but it turns out that Buddhism has had more than 2000 years to spread its ideas, much of that time includes official authority over or privilege within many governmental bodies.
No, actually it doesn't. It was only in Tibet that monks held direct governmental power. Everywhere else was a story of the "church" influencing rulers to various degrees, sometimes not at all (according to the time period).
>Kublai Khan
There is no indication whatsoever (as far as I know) that Kublai was "practicing" anything more than ceremonies and that he had any kind of understanding of the dharma, there is indication however that he was not attracted to Buddhism because he appreciated the teachings. We do not know what sort of explanation has been given to him by the Chinese monk whom he interviewed, we do know however that Buddhism has been adopted by rulers pretty much always because it could supposedly grant "state protection". How do you even know Kublai was intelligent in this regard in the first place? You knew him personally?

[Anonymous No.7016493]

>>7016314
If the creator of a given philosophy says to specifically not do something for whatever reasons and that if you do this you are not actually one of his followers (or doing his teachings' wrong), then would that not be a criticism of the the individuals who are being shitty followers rather than the actual doctrine they are following?

I cannot think of a religion that says that every single person who flies it's banner is perfect in every regard. Monks of all stripes are flawed as people as a whole are flawed. If a Muslim king demands people pray to Thor, Perkele, and Quetzalcoatl because "This is a Muslim kingdom, and this is what Muslims are told to do" he is objectively doing Islam wrong (Because Muhammed says not to worship any deity besides Yahweh). Likewise, if the Buddha says "Don't kill" then isn't a killer who also says he is a Buddhist doing Buddhism objectively wrong? Or, since Buddhism isn't an Abrahamic religion, isn't he driving himself further away from what the Buddha taught?

I'm not him, nor am I disagreeing that there aren't people who use Buddhism to justify violence, but if one of the written rules of being a Scotman is eating haggis and the God-Scotsman who defined "Scotsman" says that not eating Haggis makes you not a Scotsman, is the Non-haggis eater indeed not in fact a Scotsman at all? Whether or not a person claims he is a Scotsman is irrelevant, what is important is if he meets the criteria for being one. Now of course who the fuck would want to eat Haggis so you could of course say that being a Scotsman (Or a Buddhist) is totally divorced from reality and what not, but that's a different claim entirely.

[Anonymous No.7016495]

>>7016314
>and you don't get to wave-away every violent Buddhist and Buddhist society with "they're phonies and weren't taught correctly".
In the case of societies where, again, most people's Buddhist education was and still is simply based on superstition and everything depends on whether the Sangha is pure or not.
In the case of individuals it's even easier to judge if we have access to their rationalizations. Let me give you an example: Pol Pot's second hand man Nuon Chea is a Buddhist. Meeting with a remorseful executioner in the Killing Fields decades later, he tells him not to feel remorse because the Buddha teaches about intention and the executioner was just following orders, and had no intention of his own, so is blameless. What does the executioner, presently Buddhist (unknown if he was at the time), think about this? He says that according to his understanding of the dharma, he will be reborn in Hell, many times over. Which one of the two has learned or has been taught correctly? Any person that has even a mundane knowledge of the Pali Canon will discredit Nuon Chea's insane assertion.

Again, you're looking at things the wrong way. I'm not waving away anyone or anything away. I'm saying that:
a) The Buddha's teaching is non-violent (something you didn't challenge, so you accept it as true)
b) Some Buddhists have been violent
c) There is a difference that can be made between followers of the path, and it is possible to identify and discredit those who are just pretending. This is supported both by the sutras and the Buddha himself.

Which brings us to
>I'm sorry to say but Buddhism does not get a special case
It doesn't get a special case globally as a religion that is followed by ordinary human beings, subjected to their stupid passions and greed. But it does get a special case with the clarity of its doctrine on non-violence, with which it nullifies accusations like "their religion is the cause of their actions".
Now let's recall what the original argument was: that being violent equates to being wrong in Buddhism. I said this, and then provided DOCTRINAL justification. I didn't say anything about history at all. You were the one who was unable to challenge the teachings, and instead made the ages-old "b-but da boodizt r jus lying! they r violent!" argument to move the goalposts. What more can I say against this? I don't deny that "Buddhists" have engaged in violence, but I can say that these people are not true followers of the Buddha and I am 100% justified, again doctrinally, in making this claim. Take this as you will. I said everything I needed to, repeatedly, and I'm not going to waste any more time on this. If you are honest with yourself, you'll find and read non-mainstream, in-depth sources on Buddhist history instead of wikipedia and possibly /pol/. Every new bit of information will show you the complexities that goes on to dissociate the professed faith and the application of violence.

[Anonymous No.7016509]

>>7016410
Is English your first language? Honestly.
>Wrong projection, it has nothing to do with the people here
"Anyone" is clearly used here for emphasis, not for actually addressing any other person.

>No, "... which is not the case." has nothing to do with the question I asked.
It clearly answers your question. No one (I mean myself) made universal condemnations of Buddhists and their practice. Once again, that isn't the issue.

>No, actually it doesn't.
Read it again.
>much of that time includes official authority over or privilege within many governmental bodies
>official authority over
>or privilege within many governmental bodies
>official authority over
>or
>privilege within
You can't honestly say that in the 2000+ years of Buddhist history that non-violence was ever in the backdrop of proselytizer rhetoric and dogma transference.

>You knew him personally?
Evidently you do, since you're privy to his private phony thoughts about Buddhism. Which is odd since you seem to think Kublai wasn't taught the religion by various Buddhist monks and didn't grow up in the religion regardless. Your theories that these monks simply didn't know about Buddhism is convenient and unfounded. The simple answer is that Buddhists have never been strangers to committing violence. Time to stop the orientalist mysticism.

[Anonymous No.7016639]

>>7016509
I said that I'm not going to make any more comments but this one has to be addressed:

>Read it again.
Oh yeah, I missed the "privilege within" part. Sorry.
It still changes nothing though, and yet again I have to refer to something I mentioned before: to your lack of substantial knowledge about Buddhist history. The first and greatest expansion of Buddhism from India was precisely done without violence. So yes, non-violence was actually at the backdrop of supposed "proselytizer rhetoric" for some time. And since we're at it, let's add that the part about "much of that time" greatly depends on what country we're talking about, and what period. Unlike what you imagine based on what I understand is your extrapolations from a limited knowledge of Tibetan history, Buddhism had far from an uncontested, easy and domineering life in the lands it spread to.
"dogma transference" is not a thing, by the way.

And one last thing, good job disregarding evidence, not providing counter-evidence, and still insisting on your correctness. Nice thinly veiled and completely unrelated ad hominem too.

And with this, I'm gone for real.

[Anonymous No.7016812]

>>7016639
>disregarding evidence
>not providing counter-evidence
I gave example upon example, what are you talking about? I didn't rewrite history so that Japanese caste societies (your particular example) weren't justified by Buddhism, or that every monk that taught warlords somehow didn't know about nonviolence, or that 99% of historical Buddhists are just pretenders because they violate some dogma position, etc.

>Nice thinly veiled and completely unrelated ad hominem too.
If you mean the English comment, I'm genuinely not sure why you kept interpreting things from my posts that weren't there. For example, that by pointing out the violent history of Buddhism I disregard that Buddhists also do good things, or extrapolating that because I point out that Buddhism has a long history of state religion status and close connections with governments that I am saying that Buddhists have always had it easy. It's frankly justified, and merely tit-for-tat after your own series of personal attacks.

>>7016493
>If the creator of a given philosophy says to specifically not do something for whatever reasons and that if you do this you are not actually one of his followers (or doing his teachings' wrong), then would that not be a criticism of the the individuals who are being shitty followers rather than the actual doctrine they are following?
Yes, it's a criticism of that individual. Being a "bad" practitioner, however, does not make one /not/ a practitioner. This is especially the case with open, non-/semi-organized groups like Buddhists.

This has been made way more complicated than it is. If being a "bad" Buddhist makes one a non-Buddhist then the entire history of Buddhism is a facade with a time-scale handful of "real" Buddhists. On the other hand, Buddhism is one of the world's largest religions and pretty much has been that way since it was founded. It's patently absurd. Then again, with that massive Buddhist population, aggressive wars, conflicts, oppressive societies have all been propped up, protected, justified, and perpetuated, all to spread its enlightenment. Why is it that Buddhist populations that are ostensibly against violence themselves vehicles of violence, and not the unruly, deaf-to-reason lay population but the monks are part of it? Because sociology is complicated and idealism doesn't hold up to reality. What's the point in saying Buddhism is a "religion of peace" when it has a long history of /not/ being a religion of peace? What exactly are we protecting?

THIS is why "religion of peace/violence" is a stupid meme.

[Anonymous No.7016851]

>>7012316
Muhammad was "rich" for a long time before he started raiding caravans. He was the leader of one of the two biggest cities in hedjaz plus he had all the wealth he inherited from his wife.

[Anonymous No.7016960]

>>7012361
nice ad hominem

[Anonymous No.7016991]

>>7013314
the standard of living today is far higher for most people than it has been at any other time in human history. I'll agree that there are many areas of human life that technology hasn't improved, or has worsened, but you'd have to be a complete idiot to call advances like the elimination of smallpox or the invention of the internet "directionless change"

[Anonymous No.7017021]

>>7016851
Shh, don't hurt the /pol/'s feelings, you know his bullshit is important to him.

[Anonymous No.7017069]

>>7011010
All religion just repackages guilt for fun and profit.

[Anonymous No.7017122]

>>7009873
Ooooohhhhhh MIC DROP

[Anonymous No.7017271]

dumbass fascist on 4chan talks about buddhism and makes a whole thread of it.

[Anonymous No.7019041]

>>7016991
>but you'd have to be a complete idiot to call advances like the elimination of smallpox or the invention of the internet "directionless change"
You just think that because you lack the intellectual discipline to see opinions as merely opinions. Try to understand that things you like aren't objectively good.

[Anonymous No.7019311]

>>7010964
>Sam Harris
In the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.7019384]

>>7016991
what are suicide rates

[Anonymous No.7019478]

Violent ways of punishing criminals and prisoners of war was not explicitly condemned in Buddhism,[118] but peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with the least amount of injury were encouraged.[119][120] The early texts condemn the mental states that lead to violent behavior.[121]

Nonviolence is an overriding theme within the Pali Canon.[122] While the early texts condemn killing in the strongest terms, and portray the ideal king as a pacifist, such a king is nonetheless flanked by an army.[123] It seems that the Buddha's teaching on nonviolence was not interpreted or put into practice in an uncompromisingly pacifist or anti-military-service way by early Buddhists.[123] The early texts assume war to be a fact of life, and well-skilled warriors are viewed as necessary for defensive warfare.[124] In Pali texts, injunctions to abstain from violence and involvement with military affairs are directed at members of the sangha; later Mahayana texts, which often generalize monastic norms to laity, require this of lay people as well.[125]


The early texts do not contain just-war ideology as such.[126] Some argue that a sutta in the Gamani Samyuttam rules out all military service. In this passage, a soldier asks the Buddha if it is true that, as he has been told, soldiers slain in battle are reborn in a heavenly realm. The Buddha reluctantly replies that if he is killed in battle while his mind is seized with the intention to kill, he will undergo an unpleasant rebirth.[127] In the early texts, a person's mental state at the time of death is generally viewed as having a great impact on the next birth.[128]

[Anonymous No.7019492]

>>7019478
Some Buddhists point to other early texts as justifying defensive war.[129] One example is the Kosala Samyutta, in which King Pasenadi, a righteous king favored by the Buddha, learns of an impending attack on his kingdom. He arms himself in defense, and leads his army into battle to protect his kingdom from attack. He lost this battle but won the war. King Pasenadi eventually defeated King Ajatasattu and captured him alive. He thought that, although this King of Magadha has transgressed against his kingdom, he had not transgressed against him personally, and Ajatasattu was still his nephew. He released Ajatasattu and did not harm him.[130] Upon his return, the Buddha said (among other things) that Pasenadi "is a friend of virtue, acquainted with virtue, intimate with virtue", while the opposite is said of the aggressor, King Ajatasattu.[131]

According to Theravada commentaries, there are five requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for an act to be both an act of killing and to be karmically negative. These are: (1) the presence of a living being, human or animal; (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being; (3) the intent to kill; (4) the act of killing by some means; and (5) the resulting death.[132] Some Buddhists have argued on this basis that the act of killing is complicated, and its ethicization is predicated upon intent.[133] Some have argued that in defensive postures, for example, the primary intention of a soldier is not to kill, but to defend against aggression, and the act of killing in that situation would have minimal negative karmic repercussions.[134]

According to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, there is circumstantial evidence encouraging Ahimsa, from the Buddha's doctrine, "Love all, so that you may not wish to kill any." Gautama Buddha distinguished between a principle and a rule. He did not make Ahimsa a matter of rule, but suggested it as a matter of principle. This gives Buddhists freedom to act.[135]

[Anonymous No.7019511]

Reminder, Jainism is the only true religion of peace.

[Anonymous No.7019520]

>>7013420
Pretty sure this person didn't even get educated by Sam Harris because Harris' is always arguing that buddhism is really different than other religions and actually has some merit to it.

[Anonymous No.7019525]

>>7008704
That's literally wrong though. Hindu and Buddhist ideas of reincarnation have more in common with Rawls's veil of ignorance than with "you deserve to be poor".