buddhizm and the mahayana hindu conspiracy

[Anonymous No.4666124]

the original buddhizm, lived and taught by the historical buddha and his most eminent monks, was a philosophy and practice of radical disillusionment and detachment.

in original buddhizm
>buddha was a human organism
>not a god, not an incarnation of god
>not a demi-god or any such thing
>not a 'transcendental buddha nature'
>the goal for monks was personal extinction [nirvana]
>not ego trippin bodhisattvahood
>the way was clearly established in the nikayas, particularly samyutta nikaya
>this was the complete teaching, not entry level, not for beginners, as mahayanists claim

yet, at some point, a certain hinduization of buddhizm occurred. the buddha became a transcendent being, an incarnation of perfection, fundamentally different to the rest of us. all kinds of new texts appeared [the entire mahayana literature was neither spoken by buddha nor heard nor approved by him] completely different to the nikayas.

in short, buddhizm in india was subtly undermined by hindus [brahmanical propagandists] until it disappeared and fled to other countries for refuge.

though naive hindus think they are honoring buddha by considering him an incarnation of visnu, they are actually repeating crafty propaganda and destroying buddhizm. simply put, if buddha is a god, the whole edifice of buddhizm crumbles at once and slips back into lower tier hinduism.

i advise anyone here who has attempted a study of buddhizm and found themselves perplexed, to find out whether you studied mahayana buddhizm or theravada buddhizm. the texts of the former, the lotus sutra, mahayana mahaparinirvana sutra, etc., are all hindu propaganda. they teach doctrines contrary to the nikayas. texts like mahayana mahaparinirvana sutra are deliberately long to confuse the reader and deceive him regarding the true doctrine.

the propaganda runs deep. even a widely respect savant scholar like hajime nakamura served the hindu propaganda well by casting doubt on the validity of the 12 links of dependent origination and claiming that it is an invention of monks and not the buddha's true teaching. he neglects to note how the 12 links is the most important idea expressed in the nidanavagga, reiterated some 90 times in different ways. nakamura would have us think that it was an insignificant formulation devised by bored monks rather than the essence of the buddha's teaching. also, in his biography of the buddha, he brushes over the anattalakkhana sutta and claims that it does not really deny the self, only what is not the self. in other words he supports the hindu mahayana "true self" theory. the controversy over anatta theory is part of the hindu propaganda - for it is very clear in the nikayas that the buddha presented an impersonal worldview without self. i think these are very deceptive tactics used by mahayana scholars. please beware.

[Anonymous No.4666147]

>>4666124
That's very interesting and you should look for evidence to back up those claims.

[Anonymous No.4666162]

>>4666124
Are you the ascetic NEET with a beard?

[Anonymous No.4666704]

lol aren't you that guy who called the gita hindu fascism?

[Anonymous No.4666707]

>>4666162
of course. buy bhikkhu bodhi's translation of the entire samyutta nikaya (2080 pages) from amazon if you're interested in buddhizm as presented in my posts. it's nonstop detachment in that book. you'll love it. the full pdf of vol 1 and 2 can be found online but i'd recommend owning the actual book - it's a very nice edition. i spent years trying to understand buddhizm thru mahayana texts. i knew there was something there but kept encountering all this hinduized nonsense. it wasn't until i began a serious study of the actual origins of buddhizm that it all became very, very clear.

mahayana propaganda basically encourages the idea, taken for granted by many so called buddhists and scholars, that original buddhizm as found in the nikayas is somehow incomplete or inferior to later developments. it makes one think that the whole theravada tradition is for simpletons while the real stuff is in mahayana texts like the lotus sutra etc. this is completely backwards. real buddhizm is to be found in the samyutta nikaya. mahayana texts are misleading and deceptive.

[Anonymous No.4666711]

>>4666704
yes, and it's absolutely true. why else would hitler and himmler love it? they certainly would not carry around copies of the samyutta nikaya with them...

[Anonymous No.4666725]

love u antinataneet

[Anonymous No.4666736]

>>4666124
>the goal for monks was personal extinction [nirvana]
I doubt that the goal of Buddha and his monks was suicide.

[Anonymous No.4666751]

>>4666736
When you believe in rebirth, and enlightenment results in the end of rebirth, then yes, the goal of Buddhism is suicide.

[Anonymous No.4666793]

Indians confirmed for being the worst people possibe

[Anonymous No.4666830]

>>4666793
>take their land
>insult them afterwards

[Anonymous No.4666857]

>>4666751
I like to think of Buddhism as the answer to the question "Given the fact of reincarnation, how does one kill oneself successfully?"

Conversely, if there is no rebirth, than Buddhism is worthless from a Buddhist perspective, given that bodily death would provide the end to suffering. The eightfold path could be replaced by a unitary noose.

[Anonymous No.4666887]

>>4666751
>>4666857

Nirvana is not a complete elimination of the self. It is the extinguishing of suffering and the emotions that go with it. You do not cease to exist upon attaining nirvana (although you won't be reborn), and you don't even need to be dead to attain it.

[Anonymous No.4666905]

>>4666857
>Conversely, if there is no rebirth, than Buddhism is worthless

hold your horses. no rebirth would not negate the wisdom of detachment. the process of craving-clinging-becoming is a fact of life here-now.

[Anonymous No.4666922]

>>4666887
in buddhizm there is no self. using the word in this context is misleading, although i assume you mean self in a general sense meaning the organism as a whole. still, one stands on shaky ground using self-terminology when discussing buddhizm.

that is, unless you're a mahayanist and believe in a true self eternal buddha nature. which the buddha did not believe in either. topmost lel

[Anonymous No.4666925]

I don't understand how buddhist people claim to be buddhist. Especially in the west. If you are not literally giving up material desire and possessions, then you are simply not following the beliefs of your religion/faith. It's so frequently touted as the most pure way of living, and yet so infrequently actually adhered to.

[Anonymous No.4666928]

>>4666925
>Especially in the west

a common misunderstanding here on 4chan. the west is the best place to be a practicing buddhist, surrounded by so much nihilistic scum. it would be much harder to be a buddhist in some idyllic ancient village.

[Anonymous No.4666929]

>>4666925
Half the 'Buddhists' in the West are just Orientalist hippies who like it because it's 'weird' and 'different' and not the white bread Protestantism they were raised with. They should either tear off the band-aid and become atheists, or delve into the mysticism and asceticism the West has to offer, which is far more robust than they think.

[Anonymous No.4666933]

I think a similar thing happened with Chan/Zen. The Tang Dynasty masters were very clear about having no dogma, no doctrines, and no practices. Then in the Song certain Chinese Buddhists laid claim to Bodhidharma's lineage so they could have the prestige of a direct connection to Shakyamuni. Eventually the Japanese got interested and the result was Soto and Rinzai calling themselves Zen but teaching dogma and practices that have nothing to do with the old men of the Tang. It's telling that when people like Ikkyu and Bankei popped up in Japan they seemed like outsiders, even though they said exactly the same thing as the old men.

>A monk asked: "I have heard that the masters of old reached great enlightenment through difficult and painful practice, and that it was through various sorts of difficult practice that the masters of our own day too attained complete realization of the Dharma. I can't quite accept the idea that someone like myself can realize the Unborn Buddha Mind just as I am without engaging in religious practice or attaining enlightenment."
>Bankei said: "Suppose there's a group of travelers passing through tall mountain peaks. Arriving at a spot where there's no water, they become thirsty, and one of them goes off to search for water in a distant valley. After strenuously searching all over, he finds some at last and returns to give it to his companions to drink. Without making any strenuous efforts themselves, the people who drink the water can satisfy their thirst just the same as the one who did make such efforts, can't they? [On the other hand,] those who harbor doubts and refuse to drink the water will have no way to satisfy their thirst. Because I didn't meet with any clear-eyed men, I went astray and engaged in strenuous efforts till finally I uncovered the buddha within my own mind. So when I tell all of you that, without painful practice, you [can uncover] the buddha in your own minds, it's just like [the travelers] drinking the water and slaking their thirst without having gone in search of the water themselves. In this way, when you make use of the Buddha Mind that everyone has, just as it is, and attain peace of mind without delusory difficult practice, that's the precious true teaching, isn't it?"

>>4666736
It's extinction of suffering.

[Anonymous No.4666930]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbqTXx7m9j4

are you this guy

[Anonymous No.4666935]

>>4666930
this guy is anti-'me'. he supports the mahayana propaganda 100% quite vehemently, i'm very familiar with him.

he has great books on his blog though for free. gotta give him that.

[Anonymous No.4666936]

>>4666929
Buddha's teachings and atheism are perfectly compatible, genius.

[Anonymous No.4666938]

>>4666929
>They should either tear off the band-aid and become atheists

very amusing indeed considering that the same exact atheism was around in the buddha's time and he regarded it as a putrid way of stagnation. atheism is the band aid - that's why it's the new propaganda to keep the population herd in line. it negates the necessity of discipline and encourages consumer hedonism.

[Anonymous No.4666939]

>>4666935
i only read like the first four words of your post but whenever i see huge walls of text about buddhism on random forums i assume it's that turtle looking guy lol

[Anonymous No.4666943]

>>4666936
true, buddhizm is an atheistic tradition, but that poster almost certainly meant the "every death nirvana" atheism which is just nihilism in the crudest sense. this is where buddhizm and simple atheism differ wildly.

[Anonymous No.4666962]

>>4666939
i consider him just an intellectual. he reads a lot of books. he's the type attracted to grand scale metaphysics rather than the ascetic philosophy of early buddhizm. i've known a lot of these types. it's a way of avoiding actual discipline. he uses a lot of crude language attempting to shock and awe people but he just comes off as a bitter little man afraid to admit that the buddha really taught anatta 'all the way' without a secret self lurking behind the veil.

[Anonymous No.4666965]

>>4666938
Atheists should just pull off the band-aid and become nihilists.

[Anonymous No.4666976]

>>4666922
>in buddhizm there is no self.
That a 'self' exists is obvious. If there is no self then pain and suffering cannot exist because there would be nothing to experience it. The idea that "there is no self" is nothing more than a Hollywood-esque cliche that people use because it sounds cool.

>which the buddha did not believe in either. topmost lel
If you question so many of the teachings attributed to Buddha, how can you even be sure that what you believe about Buddha is even accurate?

[Anonymous No.4666988]

>>4666976
>That a 'self' exists is obvious. If there is no self then pain and suffering cannot exist because there would be nothing to experience it. The idea that "there is no self" is nothing more than a Hollywood-esque cliche that people use because it sounds cool.

this is the error of assuming that "there is no self" is a negation of consciousness, awareness, mind, thought, etc. it isn't. buddhizm presents an impersonal view of reality wherein all phenomena including mind are insubstantial and impermanent. your mistaking is confusing the processes of mind with the metaphysical conception of a self. there is experiencing, but no experiencer. in other words, no split between two separate entities.

>>4666976
because in the earliest writings, it is reiterated again and again in many different ways that there is no self, in the manner explained above. i question the teachings attributed to the buddha by mahayanists which include heretical teachings like buddha nature and true self.

[Anonymous No.4667000]

>>4666976
>The idea that "there is no self" is nothing more than a Hollywood-esque cliche that people use because it sounds cool.

i'd also like to point out that you should not be so confident in dismissing such things in this manner. it is really just your insecurity and unwillingness to explore the idea further. your rejection is your fear. likening the concept of anatta to hollywood hipsterism is simply absurd.

[Anonymous No.4667005]

>making assertions about what is or is not 'historical'
>believes the 'non-historical' beliefs of brown people are false fantasies

Irony!

[Anonymous No.4667014]

>>4666988
>there is experiencing, but no experiencer.

I'd like you to meet someone

[Anonymous No.4667016]

>>4667014
buddha obliterated rene long before he was even born.

>i think therefore i am
girlslaughing.jpg

[Anonymous No.4667017]

>>4666988

It's called monism. 'no self' concept iterates that there are no individual selfs. True self is monism.

Thus it is impermanence that is the illusion. Change and suffering are the illusion. Of course, this is all foolishness. Any monist system asserts that existence is a subject and not a predicate, which I firmly deny. Parmenides, Spinoza, Buddha, etc. : All misguided nihilists.

[Anonymous No.4667020]

>>4667017
early buddhizm is not monism.

[Anonymous No.4667038]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_IDBzEu-FY

i think noise music is very buddhistic. toshiji mikawa is the japanese banking buddha burning off past kharma with every humdrum day at work.

[Anonymous No.4667065]

>>4667014
it should raise suspicion when every pleb on earth understands and considers "i think therefore i am" to be true. there's a reason the buddha said his doctrine was difficult to grasp...

[Anonymous No.4667073]

>>4666905
wouldn't detaching your head be a simpler approach then?

[Anonymous No.4667082]

>>4666929
>jess stick to yer own
curb your racism, bubba

[Anonymous No.4667084]

>>4667017
>Any monist system asserts that existence is a subject and not a predicate, which I firmly deny

Why do you deny it?

[Anonymous No.4667095]

>>4667065
>It's easy to understand so it can't be true
>My philosophy is hard to understand so it must be true

[Anonymous No.4667106]

>>4667073
to respond to your response in that screencap, you seem to be completely unaware of the depth of the buddhist teaching. jesus is a fictional character and muhammad was an epileptic schizophrenic desert warlord. buddha was a different sort of fellow entirely. muhammad beheaded 800 jews in one single day. he actually decapitated people with his own sword "for his beliefs". is there something wrong with sitting under trees? trees are nice, you should give it a try one day instead of going to work.

[Anonymous No.4667117]

>>4667095
>it's easy to understand and conforms to what i already think and confirms what i hope to be true so it must be true
>that no self stuff is weird, makes me feel weird, can't be true

[Anonymous No.4667123]

>>4667073
>jesus suffered and died for his beliefs

And what good did that do him? His story would have ended there if the rumour of his resurrection hadn't spread and Paul and the Evangelists hadn't invented a religion out of an urban myth.

[Anonymous No.4667125]

>>4667117
I also believe that gravity exists, but that must be just because It confirms what I hope to be true instead of being based on logic or reason.

[Anonymous No.4667128]

Existentialism
>think real hard, argue, try to find the answer

Ontology
>think real hard, argue, try to find the answer

Epistemology
>think real hard, argue, try to find the answer

Western theology
>think real hard, argue, try to find the answer

Buddhism
>Consider the tree. Consider this blade of grass. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Consider this piece of cat shit. All possessions are ephemeral. I live in a palace and keep peasants as slaves though.

[Anonymous No.4667133]

>>4667106
>>4667123
sorry i didnt know you guys dont like jokes

[Anonymous No.4667135]

>>4667128
you
>try to make funny post
>fail

[Anonymous No.4667136]

>>4667135
i agree though it is spot on about buddhism philosophical discourse being vapid and buddhists being random pagans with folks religions

[Anonymous No.4667141]

>>4667136
nonsense.

anyway, it's been fun, but now the shit posters have arrived, and it is time for me to depart.

until next time

[Anonymous No.4667142]

>>4667125
Gautama used logic and reason to investigate what people call 'self' and found it lacking intrinsic existence.

[Anonymous No.4667145]

>>4667141
keep it up bhikkhu

[Anonymous No.4667148]

OP why aren't you in a forest tradition monastery? Sounds perfect for you.

[Anonymous No.4667149]

>>4667141
your gimmick is shit. /lit/ has shit gimmicks. goodbye.

[Anonymous No.4667154]

>>4667136
Don't compare pagans with Buddhists. Pagans worship nature and the gods and have an understanding of humility and reverence. Buddhists separate themselves from society and worship the self and try to justify if by saying that there is no self.

[Anonymous No.4667161]

>>4667128
Western theology cops out on some things

>the Trinity is a special mystery and you aren't supposed to understand it

[Anonymous No.4667180]

>>4667142
You keep saying that the D man is wrong but you can't even explain why.

[Anonymous No.4667364]

>>4666929
I agree with my whole heart

[Anonymous No.4667379]

kill the buddha
dat zen tho

[Anonymous No.4668572]

Any book or website where I can read Buddah's direct teachings, in his own words?

[Anonymous No.4668582]

>>4668572
No, he didn't write.