Buddhism literature

Which books will help take me to stream entry?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Buddhism
    Refuted by Christ and Hegel.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      lol u wish

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.amritamandala.com/awake-1

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Vajrayana
      Aren't their methods unrelated to stream entry? As I understand it, their bodhisattva ideal is not compatible with the arahant ideal

      What the Buddha taught, In the Buddha's Words, and the Dhammapada are pretty good (and they're what I'm reading as someone new to Buddhism). I still prefer Christianity but can see how I can apply some Buddhist teachings to my own life

      I've read those, they're good books for developing right view and understanding the teachings but I'm lacking a practical, hands-on guide that will take me through concrete stages of attainment and the jhanas

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You should read the Visuddhimagga then; if you want something shorter, the Heart of Buddhist Meditation by Nyanaponika is also good. But above all, you should also focus more on meditating than on reading. Applied verbal thought (vitakka-vicara) does not occur in any state beyond first jhana, so you shouldn't let yourself get lost in the maze of philosophical literature.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >does not occur in any state beyond first jhana
          I'd like to reach first jhana to begin with. I agree about conceptual proliferation and that's why I avoid reading about metaphysics and such

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Stream entry is attained by cultivating right view, not meditation itself

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you cultivate right view to the point where it shows you a glimpse of Nibbana?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think ekayana is true at least for Buddhism: all the different schools converge on the same goal in the end.

        Read the story of how Bahiya got enlightened, it's really very simple in the end. Or how someone very wise put it to me once:

        > Your thoughts, your emotions, they are the movie. But you're not the movie, you're the screen the movie is playing on.

        That's more of an Advaita Vedanta view (potentially), but I still think it's true and also the very essence of enlightnement/realization. Some Buddhist interpretations would be more like you are neither the screen nor the movie, or arguably that there isn't even a screen at all.

        But that quote is enlightenment in the end. Maybe someone reads it and they get a dissatisfaction, a niggling doubt. But these things are just more movie.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Your thoughts, your emotions, they are the movie. But you're not the movie, you're the screen the movie is playing on.
          Yeah as you say I would go farther and say that there is no screen, it's a "screenless and actorless play" so to speak, and this paradox is the essence of anatta

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            And yet, when you start thinking about it, isn't it obvious that for there to be something witnessed there has to be a witness? Yet, it is true that this witness only appears if you start thinking about it, that is, using your words. Basically, the Self is as real as words, but how real are words? Jesus said his words would outlast the heavens and the earth, the Kabbalah says reality is made of words, yet Buddhism says words cannot grasp the Deathless.

            It's really very interesting that the tradition that rejects a creator God also rejects the self and words: it's like these things come in a trinity of sorts.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because the self is contingent on words and words are fabrications. Everything that is dependent on words, logic, is provisional and not unconditioned

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Your thoughts, your emotions, they are the movie. But you're not the movie, you're the screen the movie is playing on.
          This is a valuable shift in perception but it is not Buddhist awakening
          In Buddhism, the ‘screen’ (awareness) is nothing other than the movie (appearances), and the movie (appearances) is nothing other than the screen (awareness). They bilaterally mutually depend upon each other, and mutually define each other, and would be inconceivable without reference to each other. The principle of this mutual dependence, undermines seeing either side as separate or independent, and thus undermines Self.
          It isn’t just a linguistic distinction, the actual experiential realization is different in Advaita vs Buddhism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In Buddhism you are encouraged to view the screen as dependent on the movie because that's what aligns with Buddhist orthodox dogmas about interdependence, but there is no actual argument which shows that the screen is actually dependent on anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If there was no movie, would there be a screen?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If there was no movie, would there be a screen?
            Sure, there are plenty of traditions that have coherent explanations of why that might be the case, e.g. if the screen is ultimate reality or a part of ultimate reality. The idea itself considered as a hypothetical is not faulty or contradictory at all, whatever axioms a tradition accepts as their philosophical basis is going to make them be predisposed either for or against the idea.

            An awareness that isn’t awareness ‘of’ something is insentience, is no awareness at all. It is a contradiction in terms
            I don’t see how the advaita alternative formulation of awareness-in-itself with nothing to be aware of, is itself supposedly so undeniable or doubtless.

            >An awareness that isn’t awareness ‘of’ something is insentience
            If by 'sentient' you mean 'conscious' and not the more restricted sense of 'perceiving other things' (various dictionaries give both answers) then this is engaging in question-begging (petitio principii) by presupposing that awareness is only sentient or conscious when it's aware *of* something, which is exactly what is in question, so question-begging about this is fruitless because it's an informal logical fallacy and not an actual logical argument.
            >I don’t see how the advaita alternative formulation of awareness-in-itself with nothing to be aware of, is itself supposedly so undeniable or doubtless
            They don't claim that the conceptual understanding of that is undeniable or doubtless, what they say is undeniable and doubtless is the point that we never cease to be aware in lived experience, e.g. our awareness or the fact of being present as awareness or as an aware being/creature is always self-evident; and you can only speak about a rupture or negation of this as a hypothetical notion from the POV of being conscious but without ever being to verify firsthand that it really occurs.

            The explanation of awareness as being partless and non-dual is a separate point that is connected with a process whereby all parts, thoughts, sensations, phenomenal contents, nāma and rūpa are pointed out and shown to be different from awareness inasmuch as they have differing characteristics from it. Advaita doesn't claim that if you speak about this to someone that they will immediately understand it and find it to be self-evident, they actually say that studying Vedanta and all the various sub-topics that it entails are only going to be easily understood by the wise or intelligent men that it's meant for and that it's generally above the common man's head.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism doesn’t require that you ‘see the rupture’ or ‘see the discontinuity/flux’ of awareness (which would be an absurd impossibility since it’d presuppose a still-point that is not subject to flux, from which such flux could be observed)
            Awareness/the fact of being present is always the case, this is undeniable for sure. Awareness is also always prior to that which is observed (awareness cannot be made into an object or appearance by definition), no argument here.
            As far as I understand Buddhism, however, they do not posit a fundamental ground to this capacity of awareness/reflexion.
            As I see it, for instance, there is the appearance of my hands typing. There is also a reflexive awareness of my hands typing, which is not an object in the same way as the appearance of my hands typing. I KNOW my hands are typing, and this knowing is not an object or an appearance, although I can make it into an object/appearance - I can know that I know the appearance of my hands typing. But this sets up a further dyad of the awareness-prior and the object of awareness ‘in front’: here, the *knowing* that I know the appearance of my hands typing on the keyboard, is not itself known, is not an object/appearance.
            But I can step back and make *that* an object too, which sets up a further dyad - the initial knowing (which is not an object) takes a further step back, and ‘in front’ is the knowledge of the knowledge of the appearance of the hands typing.
            This ever-present and innate capacity to step back, infinitely, (and for the initial ‘knowing’ to, structurally, never be a knowable object/appearance) is undeniable. But it is a leap to say that because there is always innately and ever-presently an initial ‘knowing’ which is itself not known - that this means that this ‘knowing’ is eternal, extra-temporal, changeless, that it is always the self-same ‘knowing’ as an entity in itself. As I understand Buddhism, the ever-present capacity of non-conceptual knowing is never denied, but it is understood to be entirely relative to whatever is ‘in front’ at any given moment, and not some independent self-same knowing.
            There is always presence, there is always awareness (not as an object or foreground appearance), but there is a leap in saying because it is *always* there, that it is the same independent changeless presence.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The guy you're arguing with is a notorious shitposter who's been at it for the better part of a decade if not more, and he will keep arguing in bad faith until bump limit, just so you know

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll leave it there then.
            At least others reading might get something out of it.
            There certainly are some mainstream interpretations of Buddhism that suggest the reason for anattā is that ‘everything is constantly fluxing/changing’, that you can ‘see the flux of awareness and therefore see it is changing and not-self).
            I firmly believe that Advaita criticisms of this view are very well-founded (as I said, any perception of change/flux implies and requires a position from which that flux is perceived, a stiller position not subject to that flux), and so any properly Buddhist refutation of the Atman has to centre around dependent arising, which is timeless and not a ‘process in time that you observe happening in front of you’ as is commonly discussed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I firmly believe that Advaita criticisms of this view are very well-founded

            They're really not, all advauta critics relly on question begging, they critic buddhadharma taking for granted that advaita metaphisics is true and self evident, so shankara whole argument ends up being:"you're wrong because i'm right"
            also dependent arising is not timeless, is time itself

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dependent arising is indeed timeless
            It is “akālika” - ‘not involving time’
            Where there is craving, there is suffering
            Where there is suffering, there is craving
            It isn’t a causality thing where A happens first, and causes B to arise afterwards
            Rather, that A always requires the simultaneous presence of B, and always requires the simultaneous presence of A
            Same with Consciousness and Name-and-Form
            Consciousness doesn’t come ‘first’ and then name-and-form later in a causal sequence of events in time
            Rather, consciousness being present means name-and-form is also simultaneously present with it
            Name-and-form being present means consciousness is also simultaneously present with it
            There is no involvement of a temporal sequence here (A first, then B second, then C third…etc)
            And I did not say I agree with all Advaita criticisms of Buddhadharma. I only agree with their criticism of the invocation of flux/‘momentariness’ as a justification for Anattā. Flux/momentariness is completely weak, absurd, and falls apart, and is therefore no good ‘support’ for anattā.
            Any perception of flux (movement in a temporal sequence) requires it being perceived by a standpoint of stillness which is not moving (and thus not subject to the same flux). If you stand on the sidewalk and see a car whizz by you, you perceive its movement to the extent that it is moving faster than its more-still and less-moving surroundings (the pavement, nearby buildings, etc) and especially because it is moving faster than you, who is standing still. Any perception of movement requires a stillness by which that movement can be gauged. The Advaitans make this critique rightly. But it doesn’t refute anattā, only patchy and hollow misinterpretations of anattā (which are nevertheless extremely common).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wait how me being still moment to moment relative to a car moving moment from moment negates momentariness?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anything that arises in dependence does not arise in any of the three times

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But it is a leap to say that because there is always innately and ever-presently an initial ‘knowing’ which is itself not known - that this means that this ‘knowing’ is eternal, extra-temporal, changeless, that it is always the self-same ‘knowing’ as an entity in itself.
            The point that Advaitins make is not that the former provides positive proof of the latter but rather that it's entirely consistent with the latter and is indeed what one would expect if the latter were true, our experience can actually be said (contra some Indian thinkers who argued otherwise) to take place in a way that is consistent with the involvement or presence of a self-illuminating, unobjectifiable, unchanging, independent eternal awareness, even though we cannot provide verifiable proof of its existence.

            Advaita is not concerned with providing logical proof because liberation/enlightenment is held to happen through a liberating spiritual intuition which involves the discernment or realization of this supramundane Self in way that is concomitant with the ending of one's wrong beliefs/assumptions about reality, and which is not fully communicable through language; and this is heavily predicated on the comprehension of scriptural teachings which function through a metaphysical symbolism that is understand via spiritual intuition and not via some logical formulae. All the logic deployed as part of this is just to show how it's logically coherent, to explain why it has a correct understanding of something compared to another school or tradition and things like that, but none of these are taken as having proven Advaita as true. In this way it's less rationality-focused than something like Madhyamaka where the arguments about emptiness are taken as being important in a foundational way; there is no one main argument in Advaita that is supposed to convince someone that it's true or that they should accept the Sruti which is already presupposed.

            Advaitins accept the existence of the eternal Atman-Brahman on the basis of revealed scriptures which they take as axiomatic and then they defend this idea as consistent with logic and experience. In so far as they just accept this axiomatically though its really not any different from how Buddhists accepts as axiomatic that Buddha had supramundane intuition of karma, rebirth, the 4 noble truths etc and through this they accept that these things are true (or accept some other later Mahayana/Tantric scriptures in some axiomatic way).

            >As I understand Buddhism, the ever-present capacity of non-conceptual knowing is never denied, but it is understood to be entirely relative to whatever is ‘in front’ at any given moment, and not some independent self-same knowing.
            That generally is the trend, there are a few smaller exceptions (Dolpopa and a few east-Asians) but most major schools and teachers explain it as you say.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then this is engaging in question-begging (petitio principii) by presupposing that awareness is only sentient or conscious when it's aware *of* something
            Is not a petitio principii fallacy because he's relying on the a priori analitic knowledge we have of awareness, that is an act of being aware of something, a empirical self evident truth from which our concept of awareness arise, if we don't accept this the basic notion of awareness can't function saying that this act of awareness can be self sufficient tho, that's not self evident and starting your argument from there is an actual petitio principii since is taking as truth a speculative argument, a lot of the anatta doctrine starts from this realisation

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            An awareness that isn’t awareness ‘of’ something is insentience, is no awareness at all. It is a contradiction in terms
            I don’t see how the advaita alternative formulation of awareness-in-itself with nothing to be aware of, is itself supposedly so undeniable or doubtless.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I kinda see it both ways: if you think about it, there is a Witness, but that Witness only appeared when you thought about it. Before, there was simply the seen, the heard, etc. It was constructed, in a sense, at least to the extent words and logic are contrivances.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's no basis, everything is illusory

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then end it now, get those karma points for next time, but don't forget (or don't r3call rather), there is no save point, you start the same level with new stats that may or may not be enhanced with better a better roll depending on the points you go this time, oh.. but you won't know that beforehand

            Hate to say it, but inherently illogical like original sin

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if everything is illusory, we still think it's real and suffer because of it. The goal of Buddhism is gaining insight into the true nature of reality, not accumulating good karma to go to heaven.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Semantics

            Imagine if the standard consensus was ' its all an illusion' and some anti-buddha comes along and says, no, it's all real (we only remember this instance of life), nothing changes experience wise

            The point being there is no way to change the set mechanism/course (time) that is ubiquitous for all, observed by all, at different intervals of consciousness (if on consciousness/awareness is all there supposedly is)

            Pureland Heaven, Bardot, levels of heaven, all are intangible and purely speculation without reproducible empirical proof

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nothing changes experience wise
            Correct

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What the Buddha taught, In the Buddha's Words, and the Dhammapada are pretty good (and they're what I'm reading as someone new to Buddhism). I still prefer Christianity but can see how I can apply some Buddhist teachings to my own life

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is slave morality.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        lol u wish

        It's better to not react to inflammatory comments rather than engage in aggressive speech imo, anons

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Lol image actually typing this out and hitting post. What a loser. What a fricking impotent castrated homosexual. Might as well troon out now because thats your endgame anyway.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I've never been more at peace than since when I stopped coming to this website every single day and made a sincere effort to practice right speech. It's hard but it's like night and day. This place has an extremely negative influence on your thought and emotional patterns, and so does the way you express yourself

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are what you eat, after all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If IQfy is already too negative for your fragile heart, never go on IQfy

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            IQfy is extremely negative. You only start realizing it when you stop lurking for a while, nowadays I only look for buddhism threads on the catalog and that's it
            IQfy is the worst board on this website by far though I agree

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >IQfy is the worst board on this website by far though I agree
            In terms of negativity and sheer delusion I think /misc/ beats it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The userbase largely intersects

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            /b/ ad /gif/ however is are actually evil.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            /gif/ is a great way to realize emptiness

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            emptiness of balls

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            looping images of carnality, la petite mort, it's definitely a gateway

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hedonism can't kill hedonism, otherwise women israelites and atheists would be enlightened by now

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            emptiness of balls

            looping images of carnality, la petite mort, it's definitely a gateway

            It is true, dangerous but was my passageway.

            I engaged in Asuba Bawana before it as popular.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can also watch dramatized slasher movies and see beauty torn apart, italian style meditation

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I would say IQfy is a IQfy average in negativity or even a little less than average, nothing special. Even IQfy is more negative imo.

            >IQfy is the worst board on this website by far though I agree
            In terms of negativity and sheer delusion I think /misc/ beats it.

            /misc/ is of a different kind, they talk a lot of hateful shit about other people, just boring racist stuff.
            On IQfy there are so many people that genuinely try to drag you down by trying to psyop you into hating yourself.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's no use saying this shit. Most anons in the entirety of this website have been trained by their cluster-B moms to respond to narcissistic baiting without fault.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this, desire is a good thing, and so is suffering you weak homosexuals

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >desire is a good thing
        Nein, desire is desire. It leads to suffering or enlightenment. Usually suffering though.

        >suffering is a good thing
        Nein, suffering is unpleasant, but can lead to good things like launching rockets into space.

        Those good things don't last, so they are ultimately more suffering, but that's beside the point.

        Not at all, several Ajahns have clearly stated that stream entry is possible for laymen and doesn't require monastic austerity.

        Aye, it is straight-forward. One has the requirements for Stream Entry, which are the following:

        1. The belief that there is an unchanging self or soul
        2. Attachment to rites and rituals
        3. Doubt about the teachings

        One must simply meet these requirements by investigating them to attain Stream Entry. It is best done with Theravada Buddhism because that is the true teaching, as I see it.

        Cause and effect.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >1. The belief that there is an unchanging self or soul
          >2. Attachment to rites and rituals
          >3. Doubt about the teachings
          I feel like I have abandoned all of those. But I am not a stream enterer.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, I don't have the psychic ability to tell you why you might not have become a Stream Enterer if you really have abandoned all those things, but some people cannot become a Stream Enterer until later if they have done some really bad things.

            If I recall correctly, there was a man who understood The Buddha's teaching enough, but he had done some really bad shit in that lifetime or perhaps another. The Buddha told that man that he would have to burn off that bad karma in hell before being reborn and attaining Stream Entry.

            So the four levels of attainment are there, but there can be caveats in certain cases, like described above.

            If you don't think the above situation applies to you, I can suggest closely studying The Teaching, thinking about it for a while and actively applying it to one's life, as in following The Noble Eightfold Path towards the goal, Nibbana.

            In this way, one verifies The Teaching for oneself, as taught by The Buddha. Talking to a qualified Theravadin monk might help too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Attaining stream entry is supposed to be something you instantly know, right?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not necessarily, from my understanding. I think it happens instantly or nearly instantly, but one might not notice a difference right away. Unless perhaps they are mindful of their mental processes when it happens.

            But after it happens, one will notice a difference in how they perceive oneself from this newly realized understanding of not-self. I think having this understanding is the biggest personal tell if a being has become a Stream Enterer or is perhaps destined for it in some cases.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/wXyVAtP.jpg

            Well, I don't have the psychic ability to tell you why you might not have become a Stream Enterer if you really have abandoned all those things, but some people cannot become a Stream Enterer until later if they have done some really bad things.

            If I recall correctly, there was a man who understood The Buddha's teaching enough, but he had done some really bad shit in that lifetime or perhaps another. The Buddha told that man that he would have to burn off that bad karma in hell before being reborn and attaining Stream Entry.

            So the four levels of attainment are there, but there can be caveats in certain cases, like described above.

            If you don't think the above situation applies to you, I can suggest closely studying The Teaching, thinking about it for a while and actively applying it to one's life, as in following The Noble Eightfold Path towards the goal, Nibbana.

            In this way, one verifies The Teaching for oneself, as taught by The Buddha. Talking to a qualified Theravadin monk might help too.

            This set of lectures were very helpful to me:

            buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Transvaluation and life-affirmation are only possible within a framework of trying to escape suffering in the first place
        It isn’t escaping Becoming into an imagined ‘Being’ and to that extent it’s one level of delusion less than what us found in Platonism and Christianity, but it is still implicitly running from and coping with the suffering within Becoming
        Nirvana isn’t any kind of ‘Being’. There is no ‘higher world’ in Buddhism.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          How is recognizing reality for what it is trying to escape and cope?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The will to power and the construction and transvaluation of values (even when done knowingly, without self-deception) is motivated by an intolerance of the terror of the ultimacy of intellectual security.
            It is grasping for a way to orient in the world, to know, to control, motivated by intolerant fear, aversion and flight from the truths of ultimate meaninglessness, the impossibility of intellectual security, the utter groundlessness of any value, viewpoint, ideal, perspective, goal.
            Plato flees from groundlessness by deceiving himself into believing his constructions (motivated by his flight from groundlessness) are objective and absolute, belonging to a ‘truer world’. The Overman lacks this self-deception and knows full-well that his constructions are constructions, but he is motivated by the very same fear and flight as Plato. At least to his credit, his authenticity and self-honesty permits that he is closer to the fear and flight that motivates him than Plato, whose reification prevents him from even acknowledging the fear and flight.
            Groundlessness, meaninglessness, intellectual insecurity, are accompanied by a ‘lack’, which both Plato and the Overman flee. This ‘lack’ is suffering. They are fleeing from suffering.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >terror of the ultimacy of intellectual security
            *of intellectual insecurity

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism recognizes there is no basis to anything and doesn't construct anything. The three doors to liberation are emptiness, signlessness, and aimlessness.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yup, that is part of my point
            Buddhism removes the craving to flee from groundlessness and meaninglessness, and this is ultimate peace, and true freedom from suffering (and freedom from trying to escape from suffering).
            In comparison, even Nietzsche's Overman is merely coping and running from suffering (though in a more authentic and subtle way than a Plato)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      slave morality is an atheist concept

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      tbh I always felt like buddhism is the worst religion, which is why it gets a pass from the israelites for existing. It makes you a meek nonplayer in the game of life, it is the ultimate pacification of the poor.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Buddhism is antisocial, so all roasties and their orbiters hate it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          How is it antisocial?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You mean asocial, antisocial is an entirely different thing. Shut-in neets are asocial. People that go to jail for theft and murder are antisocial. Big difference.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Both slave and master morality are copes, fleeing from the abyss of meaninglessness (though master morality at least lacks self-deception unlike slave morality)
      Buddhism solves the threat of meaninglessness by undermining the possibility of flight from it
      Taking it as another ready-made moral system is to completely miss the point

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche literally says Buddhism is beyond good and evil; his issue with it is that he interprets it as schopenhaur-style pessimism and a form of nihilism. It is not considered slave morality, and in fact he frequently employs this "Buddhism" to attack the ressentiment in Christianity. I swear wikipedia skimmers are getting dumber with every thread.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read Evola's Doctrine of Awakening.

      Here's your (you) kind stranger.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Evola is not a good source of scholarship, and he filters everything according to his own esoteric system that's obsessed with his idiosyncratic interpretation of thr Vaishya caste. Just read the source material with some accompanying commentaries. It's not hard.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Bhikku Nanamoli disagrees.

          And, leaving the lens, Evola reveals a Buddhism that is much more true and less moralhomosexual. The Nietzschean Prince Siddhartha is the real Buddha.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Bhikku Nanamoli disagrees
            And plenty of other Theravadans argue Evola is not a good source of information. Maybe at that time he was a good source of information, but scholarship has greatly improved now. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu is an actual Theravadan MONK, so his views are better than Evola'a cringey Aryan Vshaitrya larp.
            >Evola reveals a Buddhism that is much more true and less moralhomosexual.
            Kys, edgelord scum. Stop spreading your filth everywhere. Go make another Evola thread then.
            >The Nietzschean Prince Siddhartha is the real Buddha.
            Kys.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Vshaitrya
            Kshatriya*

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In all fairness, Buddhist ethics are, by Nietzsche’s standard, ‘beyond good and evil’
            There’s no pretension to them being grounded in some ultimate objective moral basis like the Forms
            Buddhist ethics is from beginning to end, completely relative to the aim of uprooting suffering
            You don’t follow the precepts because ‘it’s objectively good to do so’, or because ‘it’s best for the social good’. You follow them because they incline you towards freedom from suffering.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, this is partly true, but you can't reject the brahmavihārā on the basis of being le based esoteric Kshaitrya (in the Evola sense).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Evola doesn't have anything good to say about Nietzsche in that book, in fact he rejects the entire "life-affirming" bullshit when he praises Buddhism. Read it again.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    None, most Buddhists don’t even believe enlightenment is possible for most people anymore, look elsewhere.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is a Mahayana view

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it's not

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, self power vs other power
          Theravadins still believe you can become a stream enterer in this lifetime

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pure Land isn't representative of Mahayana in general, no other school makes the self power other power distinction

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The bodhisattva vow pretty much carries the implication that you are delaying enlightenment. I think madhyamaka metaphysics are interesting but Mahayana as a whole strikes me as wrong view

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In Tibetan Buddhism, the goal of a Bodhisattva is to achieve Buddhahood as quickly as possible to be most beneficial to sentient beings.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tibetan Buddhism includes teachings such as that nirvana and samsara are identical, that there is a "ground", that for some reason the goal is now buddhahood and that being an arahant is inferior even though the Buddha himself stated that arahants have attained perfect liberation, or that a being who has gone through parinirvana is somehow still present in the universe to guide others because of compassion... lots of teachings that in my opinion are unnecessary and misleading. I'm only interested in liberation

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nirvana and samsara are identical
            "As for saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, these two do not exist. However thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa."
            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
            >that there is a "ground"
            That's an awful translation for gzhi, basis. It's not a universal consciousness like Brahman.
            >that being an arahant is inferior
            In Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa-Bhāsya, presenting the Sautrantika view, he explains how Arhats have a nonafflictive knowledge obscuration, while Buddhas have purified all obscurations
            >a being who has gone through parinirvana is somehow still present in the universe to guide others because of compassion
            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"As for saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, these two do not exist. However thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa."
            This is not stated in that sutta. Nibbana is never equivocated with Samsara in the suttas
            >It's not a universal consciousness
            So many Mahayana sects try to smuggle some kind of "base consciousness" concept through ideas like Buddha nature, luminous mind and so on. I'm not particularly interested in the philosophical debates around how these concepts actually differ from Atman, all I know is they aren't necessary
            >Vasubandhu
            Debates around the differences between Arahants and Buddhas have always existed. Arahants are liberated from suffering and the cycle of rebirth; that is the only important thing.
            >https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
            The Catuskoti is not an endorsement of the eternalist Mahayanin view of Parinibbana. Saying things such as "Shakyamuni Buddha can still exert an influence on the 31 realms because of the Samboghakaya etc etc" implies that some "essence" of the Buddha still exists in this universe. This contradicts the fourfold negation in the suttas. Tathagata means "thus gone", not "thus kind of gone but still there when you need him"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >In Tibetan Buddhism, the goal of a Bodhisattva is to achieve Buddhahood as quickly as possible to be most beneficial to sentient beings.
            Doesn't matter. Vajrayana is a branch of Mahayana and Mahayana says delaying entitlement is possible with ttee types of Bodhisattva:
            King-like bodhicitta – To aspire to become a Buddha first in order to then help sentient beings.
            Boatman-like bodhicitta – To aspire to become a Buddha at the same time as other sentient beings.
            Shepherd-like bodhicitta – To aspire to become a Buddha only after all other sentient beings have done so.

            The buddha says it's impossible to delay full enlightenment, because it doenst depend on will. The path to Enlightenment is conditioned and not based on whether a person wants to be englithened or not.

            And Bodhisattvas don't know anything about the dhamma since they are not enlightened and even worse they claim they delay their own enlightened. Ie they can't help anybody even if they wanted to.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Vajrayana is all about achieving Buddhahood in this life or in the bardo, the idea of shepherd-like bodhicitta is just a skillful means to cultivate a compassionate motivation of placing others before yourself. In reality, anyone practicing Vajrayana is practicing with king-like bodhicitta.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't see the point of complicating everything with this. The four stages of liberation are already a perfect system

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Theravadins still believe you can become a stream enterer in this lifetime
            They believe monks can become stream enterers. And if you're not a monk you need to live like a monk anyway.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not at all, several Ajahns have clearly stated that stream entry is possible for laymen and doesn't require monastic austerity.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Path to Nibbana by David Johnson

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This and Right Concentration by Leigh Brasington seem pretty good

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    > Buddha claims afterlife doesn’t matter
    > meanwhile before his enlightenment his dead mother would descend from the Vedic heavens to communicate with him every year
    It’s a stupid death cult that pretends it’s not a rip off of Vedic culture when it 100% is

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    there is a buddhist thread on r9k lol

    [...]

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Buddhism thread has r9k and pol whiners
    And they do it, for free

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do you know for sure when you've achieved sotapanna?
    Also I've been warming up to the idea of doing a meditation retreat or maybe even ordaining for a few months. How difficult is it logistically to go to Thailand in a forest monastery, with all the visa requirements and all that?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is ridiculous. Why does everything need to be frogified?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's amusing

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the Buddhist method to deal with loneliness

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      None, solitude should feel liberating and peaceful in its own right.
      >Solitude is called wisdom, he who is alone will find that he is happy.
      >Suttanipata 3.11.40

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        As a layman I suffer from solitude

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You have to be reasonably content with yourself to remedy solitude, because if you're not, you're needy and offputting in your interactions.

          Spirituality is great for getting you there. Everyone needs to have principles that are greater than their own emotions. The Bhagavad Gita and the Ashtavakra Gita are great for providing a spiritual angle on life.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        But
        >tfw no gf

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Im sorry that tool is not in this tool box. You must be a rogue

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically listen to Alan Watts.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do I deal with negative emotions? "Just observe them and realize they're not self" isn't doing it for me

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It helps to not resist or try to 'deal' with them in the first place, rather just experience them fully. It helps to maintain a wide open awareness of the full space of your experience (of whatever you're doing, sitting and breathing, or even walking, doesn't matter) and to maintain awareness of these other aspects of your experience (such as the moving walking body, or the fields of vision and sound and the body in the seated posture) *simultaneously* while you are experiencing the emotions. Not like to block the emotions out, but also not to absorb into them and fixate on them either. There's a kind of subtle balance, where you can experience the fullness of your emotions very directly without pushing or pulling, without absorbing into the emotions but also without avoiding them or blocking them out & diverting your attention. See your awareness (of the wider space of your experience) as a kind of 'container' that allows you to fully experience the emotion in its vividness (the feeling, the bodily tensions, whatever) without getting 'hooked' by it, without absorbing right into it. Sometimes the body might tear up or tremble, doesn't matter, just let it be there while keeping this wider awareness as the container. You don't have to repress or avoid emotions, but you also don't have to act them out onto the world or others. You can just feel them in this way with full awareness.
      The truth is that in its very nature, your experience (or your awareness, whatever) can infinitely accommodate any emotion or any emotional experience. It is only the pushing and pulling, the grasping and aversion, that get in the way.
      Just my two cents. I am not awakened.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How do you "fully experience" negativity without indulging in it?
        From what I'm understanding in your post, I should focus on all aspects of my present experience when negativity arises (thoughts, feelings, physical sensations) and try to notice everything without ascribing meaning to anything?
        The thing is when I'm caught in negative feelings, even though I acknowledge that I should not cling to them, that they are meaningless and come from ignorance, the feeling itself is still there, I still feel bad. And this reinforces further negative thoughts.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The feeling still being there (and negative thoughts being there) are also not a problem
          It doesn’t matter what the experience is (emotions, thoughts, whatever), 100% of the suffering and strain is from craving, from pushing and pulling, from wanting it to be different than it is
          You can be aware of thoughts just as much as you can be aware of emotions
          Keep your awareness spacious and gentle, and don’t let yourself get absorbed narrowly into the thoughts and feelings while ignoring the rest of your experience
          Rumination and absorption into thoughts (about the ideas/thinking associated with the emotions, who is to blame, why you feel bad, etc) can also be a way of subtly avoiding the actual bodily feelings of the emotions, of the bodily strain, the nauseous feelings. The world of thoughts and rumination can feel like they promise a security, a solution, an escape from the relative uncontrollable chaos of spontaneously arising emotions
          See if you can just feel the emotions, sadness, fear, whatever in the bodily, with the open awareness, and without absorbing into thoughts to ‘figure it out’ or ‘solve it’ or whatever, which is itself often rooted in a craving for control, to control the emotions and to make them change or go away.
          Spacious awareness, notice the pushing and pulling on your experience, when you absorb into thoughts/rumination, return to the experience (your situation of being seated, breathing, in the room, with sights and sounds all around you) and especially to the bodily feelings themselves

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          In other words
          Attend to your experience (which includes the difficult emotions) and try to find a way of attending to it which would be perfectly content if that emotion was to persist forever, eternally.
          Not ‘attending to it so it can go away’. See how you can attend to it in a way where it’d be okay if the emotion never went away, forever.
          Then you’ll start to relax the extraneous and unnecessary pushing and pulling, and you’ll find a kind of paradoxical simple clarity and ease where you can experience all manners of unpleasant experiences and still keep your composure

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And it’s not a focus
          Mindfulness should involve a kind of relaxed gentle spacious open awareness of your experience as a whole
          Not narrowly focusing like a lazer on anything

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            But something like the breath at the diaphragm, or the posture of the body, can be a good anchor to come back to when you get distracted and absorbed into thoughts
            Then you return to your anchor (the breath, the body) but you don’t just keep staring and focusing on your anchor, you use it to bring you back, and then you gently relax with open awareness to your experience as a whole, including the breath, the field of vision, field of sound, the emotions of the body, the feelings of the body in its posture, the whole thing

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          and last point
          You can’t get rid of thoughts
          But rumination is a kind of absorbing into thoughts, ignoring everything else
          You don’t want to be absorbed, but the thoughts can be there and be whatever they are, no problem
          The simultaneous awareness, while the thoughts are there, helps prevent absorption. Being simultaneously aware and open to the body, vision, sound, while the thoughts are there, will help to prevent you from narrowly absorbing into the thoughts
          But there’s no need to get rid of thoughts themselves

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Should you take the precepts formally or is not breaking them enough?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      actively watching the mind to avoid breaking them is the practice. Formalities are not important in buddhism.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The precepts are basically a kind of risk management. By taking them you decrease volatility of the hedonic treadmill by reducing exposure to situations that would cause you to suffer in the future. If you lie, for example, you alleviate some present itch in exchange for the possibility (certainty, accounting for rebirth) of future suffering.

      By keeping the precepts your experience flatlines. If you don't have a good meditation practice however, that flatline may be experienced painfully because your baseline isn't above hedonic zero. Meditation helps you bring up the baseline. Precepts and sense restraint helps reduce volatility. Consequently, you're always happy and content, but never ecstatic or depressed.

      The formalism is useful if it helps you keep the precepts, but ultimately it matters more if you understand why you are keeping them in the first place.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The speech precept (false speech, idle speech, gossip) is the hardest to keep because so much of what we say is spontaneous
        How does meditation bring your baseline up? Through Jhanas? Also, although the precepts may be hard to keep it's not unpleasant to do so

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          the speech part is super easy compared to the others. To avoid false speech just stick to saying the truth, ie that you don't know, since most of the time you really don't know.
          Try also to be very rigorous on what you know and don't. For instance if you hear TV commentators saying that ''politician ABC said XYZ'', then you don't say "politician ABC said XYZ" but instead, more accurately, "i heard on the TV that ''politician ABC said XYZ'' ". Seems a mouthful but it reduces the intellectual mistakes.

          To avoid gossip well you just avoid it.

          The precepts are seen restrictive to hedonists, so they think they lose everything and gain nothing by following them.
          Which was true if the practice stopped here. Fortunately the next step after the precepts it mindfulness, and since holding the precepts removes lots of pollution from society into the mind, mindfulness should be easy.
          The precepts and mindfulness are like a dam and a Pressure washing cleaning the mind. All the mental fatigue stemming from third parties are prevented from entering the mind and generating mental proliferation.

          After mindfulness, there's samadhi, ie the jhanas, and this is next level of sanitation.
          this has lots of rapture and so on.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just stick to saying the truth
            It's not big falsehoods that are hard to get rid of, it's the small white lies that make everything more convenient, especially distorting the truth in order to not make someone feel bad, or in order to harmonize a social situation.
            >you just avoid it
            Gossip/divisive speech is basically badmouthing others or intentionally deepening a conflict between two people, is that it?
            >mindfulness
            When should one start investigating the contents of reality and consciousness? Should I only start insight once I've become able to reach the first jhana with breath concentration?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >SIMPLE BUDDHIST NEW YEARS RESOLUTION of RENUNCIATION & INTENTION

    >MONK's Q&A's CONDITIONS for ENLIGHTENMENT

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just want to know why Culladasa after so many years of practice, writing/reading still fricked multiple prostitutes?
    I want to know why this buddhist monk i forgot his name took cocaine and had orgies with rockstar wives?
    Whats the point of if you can't even rise above the base sensual with it?
    And abandoning lust and achieving wisdom are like 2 basic tenents of stream-entry. How to achieve it? Well, no one will even tell you from reading these books. In Buddha's Words there is just mantra "ask other monks for help they will tell you how to achieve it" and every buddhist group you join tells you to pay "voluntary" monetary alms as first thing. Its a scam like all religions

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      still waiting for rebutal

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I just want to know why Culladasa after so many years of practice, writing/reading still fricked multiple prostitutes?
      >I want to know why this buddhist monk i forgot his name took cocaine and had orgies with rockstar wives?
      They weren't practicing Buddhism. The practice literally begins with restraint from such things.
      >Whats the point of if you can't even rise above the base sensual with it?
      You can. Many monks have.
      >And abandoning lust and achieving wisdom are like 2 basic tenents of stream-entry. How to achieve it? Well, no one will even tell you from reading these books. In Buddha's Words there is just mantra "ask other monks for help they will tell you how to achieve it" and every buddhist group you join tells you to pay "voluntary" monetary alms as first thing. Its a scam like all religions
      You're reading the wrong books. Read the Pali canon. https://suttacentral.net/sn55?view=normal&lang=en

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Many clergy and holymen of all religions have fallen from grace. When you wander among the filth, you will get dirty.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are you a westerner? Alan Watts and Ram Dass are great starting points, also check YouTube but beware misinformation, there’s many different interpretations to Buddhism (although they all have the same core pillars of thought) and it’s up to you which interpretation is the most accurate. Happy reading bro

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is Buddhism really that cuck? I am reading picrel and it's so fricking dumb how I need to become a slave to help other, only that way I will become "enlightened", that's even more cuck than Christianity. This is my first contact with Buddhism, I'm liking the meditation and how much they value discipline, by the way.

    I saw this video and thought it would be way cooler, what books I need to study so I become a Buddhist more like video related?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The bodhisattva path is characteristic of Mahayana, not Buddhism as a whole (which also includes Theravada)
      Read the Dhammapada, then In the Buddha's Words

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thank you, anon, I will plan on buy Dhammapada when I have money, then. I didn't know Buddhism had a lot of different schools. I just got this book because it was the only Buddhism related book at my city's library. Thanks!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You can read the Dhammapada online or just listen to an audiobook on youtube, it's a very short collection of aphorisms. You can also read suttas (of which In the Buddha's Words is a compilation alongside commentaries) online on accesstoinsight.org
          I would also recommend listening to talks by monks (Thanissaro, Punnadhammo, Vimalaramsi are three I resonate with) on youtube in order to get a bit of concrete information alongside your readings

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      take 1h to read that and you'll be up to date and know more than 99% of the alleged buddhists :

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

      speed learning about buddhism with videos
      -the redpill which is the ajahn brahm teaching for monks

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/NpQl6P0.jpg

        You can read the Dhammapada online or just listen to an audiobook on youtube, it's a very short collection of aphorisms. You can also read suttas (of which In the Buddha's Words is a compilation alongside commentaries) online on accesstoinsight.org
        I would also recommend listening to talks by monks (Thanissaro, Punnadhammo, Vimalaramsi are three I resonate with) on youtube in order to get a bit of concrete information alongside your readings

        Thanks, anon, some days ago I was really confused on where to start, this is really helpful. I will be buying Dhammapada, I thought it would be expensive, but I found one for 8 bucks at Amazon. I will be reading those links you sent at , meanwhile the book don't arrive. Really, thank you very much!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Happy to help, friend.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/NpQl6P0.jpg

          You can read the Dhammapada online or just listen to an audiobook on youtube, it's a very short collection of aphorisms. You can also read suttas (of which In the Buddha's Words is a compilation alongside commentaries) online on accesstoinsight.org
          I would also recommend listening to talks by monks (Thanissaro, Punnadhammo, Vimalaramsi are three I resonate with) on youtube in order to get a bit of concrete information alongside your readings

          NTA but I recommend John J. Holder's Early Buddhist Discourses, or at the very least, read this review:

          https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5540834180

          Is my review well-written?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a really good and well-written review, anon, better than 90% of book reviews I end up seeing. I would rate it if I had a Goodreads account.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks, the next book I plan to read is Ashvaghosha's Gold: Translations of Buddhacarita and Saundarananda by Mike Cross. I'll share a review of it too in the foreseeable future. It's interesting how people tend to overlook Ashvaghosha's poetry. It was widely read in the Kushan empire.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/a8LyrSU.jpg

      The bodhisattva path is characteristic of Mahayana, not Buddhism as a whole (which also includes Theravada)
      Read the Dhammapada, then In the Buddha's Words

      I find it amusing you think Theravada will better appeal to this anon as a sort of 'less cucked' Buddhism when his main issue is that he hates the idea of being of benefit to other people without receiving something in return. You could certainly try to produce a distorted reading of Buddhism where the purpose is to flatter a universal misanthropy but that would require you to omit vast amounts of scripture and tradition about overcoming attachment to selves, results, etc. Ironically, if he really hates the idea of being compassionate toward others, he should lean more into the antinomian aspects of Vajrayana, not the ethical and regimental lifestyle promoted in Theravada.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not really, this is convoluted reasoning
        Mahayana sutras never shy away from calling Theravada a selfish path

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Mahayana sutras never shy away from calling Theravada a selfish path
          because of the pokemon battle semantics of bodhisattva vs arhat, which is a thoroughly meaningless debate when taken out of context of sectarian marketing in historical buddhist communities and used by politically motivated western church shoppers to 'decide' between Theravada and Mahayana; it is still the same religion teaching 80% of the same stuff and Theravada literature will have plenty of citations that are 'cucked' to neo-nazi teenager ears

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >meaningless debate
            Hardly. The difference is whether you aim to be liberated as fast as possible, or if you postpone it indefinitely.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The difference is whether you aim to be liberated as fast as possible, or if you postpone it indefinitely.
            The difference is which superhero you are going to label yourself as—but no, the actual differences are the Mahayanist and Theravadin soteriologies, or what does nirvana actually mean? If nirvana is samsara seen as it 'truly' is, the mahayana bodhisattva is the logical conclusion since you aren't actually going away somewhere. But if nirvana is some removed state of bliss where everything is gone... arhat. These terms have no value on their own, they are downstream of the bigger debate

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If nirvana is samsara seen
            That is wrong view. Mahayana itself is founded on wrong view.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            well, do tell us more about how nirvana is somewhere else and how desperate you are to get there

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, you're the one who should explain how Nibbana and Samsara are apparently identical, considering that even Nagarjuna never actually stated anything along the lines of "Nirvana is Samsara" and that Nibbana is repeatedly and very obviously contrasted with conditioned, samsaric existence everywhere in the suttas even though the Buddha makes very few definitive claims on metaphysics and cosmology.
            Your doctrine of falsehood is not Buddhism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nagarjuna never actually stated anything along the lines of "Nirvana is Samsara"
            It probably went over your head since you read such things with the intention to reject them, but in any case the separation of the two reproduces the same sort of nihilistic current you find in most other religions, especially our mother church with its dead god... why go through all the trouble of studying Buddhism only to produce a reading as similar as possible to what is rejected? You can always be an atheist protestant, you don't need "Buddhism" for this and don't need to adopt its sectarianisms either

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It probably went over your head
            Not an argument. Typical condescending mahayanist sophistry
            >the separation of the two reproduces the same sort of nihilistic current
            How is that?
            >our mother church
            Speak for yourself.
            >You can always be an atheist protestant
            Please don't project your strange neuroses on me, I have no idea what you're talking about. You're that guy who yaps on about protestantism in every Buddhism thread, aren't you? You sound unhinged

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >How is that?
            not terribly interested in getting into it since my reading is informed by texts you dislike for being "wrong" so to be brief, the rejection of the world and lived experience in favor of a faith-based elsewhere, whether that's a "pure land" or nirvana as a heaven substitute I find unacceptable and all versions of that thinking are essentially the same taste despite whatever outward manifestations they take

            >why go through all the trouble of studying Buddhism only to produce a reading as similar as possible to what is rejected?
            Rich coming from a crypto hindu kek

            not really a legitimate critique to make here, not as if i was proposing some alternative atman

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >rejection of the world and lived experience
            Yes, you have described Buddhism as taught by the Tathagatha, Siddhartha Gautama.
            https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html
            You misunderstand nihilism and take it to mean "anything that does not condone hedonism". The Buddha rejected both nihilism and eternalism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You misunderstand nihilism and take it to mean "anything that does not condone hedonism".
            not speaking about hedonism, you are being deeply bad faith in your argumentation, i am referring to the following up of nihilistic world denial with there being an alleged other place, which is a very contrasting idea (one of pure fantasy and ressentiment) from the identification of samsara with nirvana or of nirvana as a kind of purified samsara seen without delusion

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nibbana is not a place, nor is it a fantasy, a heaven, or any of the other made up concepts you mentioned.
            > identification of samsara with nirvana or of nirvana as a kind of purified samsara
            These notions are incompatible with Buddhism and are not what the Buddha taught.
            >ressentiment
            You understand nothing about Buddhism and want to project your own ideology on a religion and philosophical tradition that is deeply incompatible with it. I have nothing more to say to you

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nibbana is not a place, nor is it a fantasy, a heaven, or any of the other made up concepts you mentioned.
            Then what is your objection to the "delaying" your "entry"? Should the buddha have not bothered with other sentient beings and went straight home?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nibbana is liberation, the snuffing out of the fetters. Your non sequitur in no way implies that the ontology of Nibbana makes the bodhisatta path the right one for me let alone all beings.
            The Buddha was initially reluctant to teach and had to be convinced by Brahma Sahampati. I am not a bodhisatta, nor do I aim to become one. My aim is to be liberated, and that is the path of the arahant, that was recommended and emphasized by the Buddha repeatedly and ceaselessly in his 40 years of teaching.
            I recommend you read the suttas and dispel your false notions on Buddhism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >still fixated on super arhat vs bodhisattva man
            ngmi

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >still muddying the waters
            Refer to these posts:

            https://warosu.org/lit/thread/22900818#p22902375
            >It's endlessly regurgitated because we endlessly encounter Theravadins who, without doing any research on it whatsoever, claim Mahayana is false and corrupt just because they don't exclusively follow the Pali canon. This, in my opinion, amounts to schism in the sangha and is a grave misdeed. Buddha did not set out to make a specific dogma, he taught people at the level suited to them. The Pali canon also agrees that a Buddha is perfectly enlightened while an arahant is not necessarily so, why would Buddha teach a path only to liberation but not to full enlightenment. But he absolutely would have not taught that to disciples not prepared, just as he refused to teach anatta and instead gave provisional teachings to disciples not prepared for the deeper teaching.
            >I appreciate Theravada's simplicity and focus on what leads to liberation. That's where I stayed for a long time but there's more to Buddhism than just that. The Pali canon recognizes that the Buddha is higher than just an arahant, so it makes sense he would teach a full path to get exactly where he got. We also have all the same stages as you, they might not be as emphasized but they're all there. We have the four stages, jhanas, eightfold path, etc, I have yet to find anything that really makes Mahayana incompatible. In Lamrim texts (just because that's what I am most familiar with) you would be very hard pressed to find a difference between the lower and middling paths and Theravada's method of liberation. It's the Bodhisattva path where emphasis changes on what is to be cultivated, but a Bodhisattva must also cultivate the same "lower" path to liberation.
            >I still recommend Theravada sources to beginners because of its simplicity, it's definitely hard to approach Buddhism as a westerner. Achieving liberation is great and what I want to happen for everyone, and Theravada is perfectly capable of doing that, so I am all for it and view it as perfectly valid Buddhadharma. It is just not a complete teaching to full enlightenment.

            This is the typical duplicitous and malevolent message by Mahayana followers. It mixes false statements with facts to create a toxic doctrine and criticize the suttas and at the same time trying to get some validation of mahayana form the suttas.

            >just because they don't exclusively follow the Pali canon. This, in my opinion, amounts to schism in the sangha and is a grave misdeed
            that's false. the doctrinal schism happens because people create the dogma that buddhism doesnt lead to full enlightenment, ie that arahants are not perfectly liberated, that somehow the buddha's teaching is incomplete and somehow a teaching created 500 or 1000 or 1500 years after his death is the real teaching leading to full enlightenment....
            exactly this dogma:
            >It is just not a complete teaching to full enlightenment.

            >Buddha did not set out to make a specific dogma, he taught people at the level suited to them.
            Here the mahayanist starts to mix truths with lies. It's true that the buddha adapts his discourse to his audience. And who is his audience? it's buddhist monks, it's jains (lay people or monks), it's brahmins and it's random plebeians. Notice how there is no Mahayanist in the list. The buddha never changes his discourse when he talks to monks.

            >The Pali canon also agrees that a Buddha is perfectly enlightened while an arahant is not necessarily so, why would Buddha teach a path only to liberation but not to full enlightenment.
            The buddha says he teaches full liberation. The buddha never said that arahants are not fully enlightenment. The buddha says becoming a buddha is not needed for full liberation. If you distrust so much the buddha says, there's no point in trying to follow him.

            > But he absolutely would have not taught that to disciples not prepared, just as he refused to teach anatta and instead gave provisional teachings to disciples not prepared for the deeper teaching.
            Here again he mixes truth with is lies.
            The buddha never refused to give the full teaching to monks, since you know, the whole purpose of becoming a monk is to attain full liberation as fast as possible.

            >there's more to Buddhism than just that.
            false

            >The Pali canon recognizes that the Buddha is higher than just an arahant, so it makes sense he would teach a full path to get exactly where he got.
            No, the goal is full liberation and the buddha teaches just that. Non-enlightened people have lots of hubris and want to be samma sambuddha and yet they can't even explain why they cling to their fantasy and what is the added value for their childish wish.

            >We also have all the same stages as you, they might not be as emphasized but they're all there. We have the four stages, jhanas, eightfold path, etc, I have yet to find anything that really makes Mahayana incompatible.
            Here the Mahayanist again mixes his lies with truths. It's always the thing : if the buddha wanted to teach emptiness and nonduality, he would have plastered the ten thousands suttas with emptiness and non-duality. Turns out he didnt. Not even a single time. Which is precisely why mahayanists created their own mahayana suttas in the first place. Instead the buddha plasters the suttas with anatta, anicca, dukkha all over the fricking place.
            So the truth is that indeed the mahayana canon incorporates to suttas translated into chinese. But that's half the story and here kicks in the duplicity of the mahayanist: they dont spend much time reading them, they don't understand them one bit, and they move quickly to their dogmatic lies, ie the mahyana suttas.

            >In Lamrim texts (just because that's what I am most familiar with) you would be very hard pressed to find a difference between the lower and middling paths and Theravada's method of liberation.
            If Mahayana and your little texts are copies of the suttas, then they are useless. If they are different from the suttas, the only thing to do is compare them and compare the buddha to gurus: turns out gurus are shit at removing dukkha which is the buddha's goal.

            Dont forget that theravadans don't give a shit about Mahayana. That's the whole point of having a closed canon. This protects the canon from latter fads, all found in Hindusim and Mahayana (weird huh?). For instance Theravada is a tantra-free practice and that's awful according to mahayana followers.
            Theravadans have set all their criticism in their Kathavatthu and that's the end of it. From now on theravadans would live in their bubble not caring one bit about other teachings... This makes mahayanists pretty mad because their goal is malevolence: arguing with buddhists all day long, while at the same time craving some form of lineage to the buddha, but at the same time saying the buddha lied to people. The cognitive dissonance in mahayana is enormous and they have a hard time dealing with it. They are trapped in their own dogmatic lies and they know the only to get out of it is to tell the truth and accept they are fraudsters.
            After this, what Mahayanists turn to is picking fights with their brahmin twin brothers: they have spend an enormous time to find a difference between Mahayana and Hinduism and they have nothing to show for it.

            and take your false teachings elsewhere.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >pretentious sectarian handwaving
            now i know for sure, convert zeal, ex-believing religious background (probably some US-only Prot denom)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >pretentious sectarian
            Any Theravadin monk would tell you the same thing, less vehemently perhaps because they have more patience than I do for stupid people
            >convert zeal
            Been reading suttas for longer than you've been on this website.
            >ex-believing religious background
            Nope
            >US
            Nope
            >Prot denom
            And wrong again

            I don't understand why you would constantly feel the need to project and share your obsession with american protestantism in Buddhism threads. It's irrelevant, it's stupid, and it serves no purpose, on top of making you seem like even more of an idiot when your strawman fails to apply to the person you're talking to. Your mahayanist nonsense is being rejected and called out for what it is in every thread you vomit it onto, yet you persist in your delusion, wasting your time, mine, and misleading people with a genuine interest in Buddhism into exploring dead ends. You really should stop

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you are born and raised in an ethnically buddhist culture? otherwise this feels like an uncritical religious cosplaying given the intensely narrow outlook

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't care how it feels to your projecting mind, it's clear you are intent on distorting truth in order to fit your comfortable points of view, so it means very little to me that you "feel" like I'm pretending
            >intensely narrow outlook
            Yeah bro everything is upaya dude, the buddha said some cool stuff but you can just take everything to mean other things because it's secret teachings or whatever lol. You should totally read the avatamsaka sutra by the way bro it talks about the multiverse and stuff it reminds me of my weed thoughts, so cool. Remember buddhism is about being non judgmental and taking it easy man. Noble eightfold path? Isn't that some nazi shit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you are intent on distorting truth in order to fit your comfortable points of view,
            listen here lord of death, you have embodied all the worst features of zealotry "my truth" "your lies" etc. and settled on a particular sect to apply this to; it's a ready-made minimal depth rubric for sortings things out and if that comforts you so be it, but don't mistake a memorized catechism for "truth" let alone something inherently free from distortion

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure this sounded way more articulate and clever in your head. I get it, when it doesn't indulge your hedonism and spiritual materialism, it's zealotry, many people think like this because the idea of not clinging to sensuality terrifies them. You should return to the protestantism you so obviously crave, it lives rent free in your mind since you mention it in every single post and use it as a benchmark for spirituality. Obviously you're not ready for anything more since Buddhism has left you so mindbroken

            >Nibbana is not subject to the ontological distinctions we can apply to objects in Samsara, it's a pure "void", unkown, impossible to describe, unbound from the skandhas. I think that's how it should be taken, instead of intepreting "birth is ended
            careful there paligay you sound a little chinese

            >apophatism is chinese
            Unsurprisingly, the lukewarm vedanta-hedonist calling me a "paligay" has never read a single sutta in his life

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm curious, but are you ethnically israeli? I don't want to get further involved, but I just want to know this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            Now what convoluted mental gymnastics will you come up with next? I'm captivated at this point

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, Mahayana and Theravada do differ on certain points, but overall, they overlap enough not to lead to this much hostility in debate. I've read much of the Pali canon too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if you're the guy I was originally arguing with or not. I'll admit I've lost my patience and have become aggressive at this point, which is a mistake, but I maintain that Buddhism needs to be uncompromising in its rejection of wrong views.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            israelites in the west are the foremost proponents of neutered, friendly, sanitized Mahayana and "secular Buddhism", by the way. Theravadin rigor, austerity and uncompromising yearning for liberation doesn't jive with their new age sensibilities. They'd rather larp as Tibetans and tell you to have casual sex
            >b-but Bhikku Bodhi
            Yes. And?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I actually agree to a large extent, but you have to keep in mind people have certain limitations such as available sanghas nearby.
            Also, modernity and industrialization have been leading to erosion of most world traditions...
            As time goes on, I prefer the approach of Thai Forest Monastery.

            I don't know if you're the guy I was originally arguing with or not. I'll admit I've lost my patience and have become aggressive at this point, which is a mistake, but I maintain that Buddhism needs to be uncompromising in its rejection of wrong views.

            The point is you have to abandon all views in deeper levels of samadhi. The Pali canon makes this clear too. Even a lot of Mahayana schools underscore the need of treating the teachings like a raft. It's not like the Mahayana notion of "skillful means" popped out of nowhere, but I would agree with censure of transgressive Tibetan practices since the Pali canon critiqued such antinomianism too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'd say it's preferable to join no sangha and participate in communities online (not this one obviously, I mean real Buddhist communities) rather than join a physical group that will waste your time. It all depends on what you want of course, but if the goal is liberation, you need to be picky.
            >Thai Forest
            Me too.
            >abandon all views
            Yes. And it's important to keep in mind that there is a distinction between actual skillful means, and using "skillful means" as a copout to justify any new teachings that sound good. This is how you get things like "Theravada is just the lower teaching for commoners, but this super special terma on the other hand is what the Buddha really taught to his elite disciples and that alone will take you to liberation"
            Basically: teachings are rafts and you need to stop clinging to them at some point. But until you reach the stage where you don't need teachings anymore, then you'd better cling to the one that will bring you there.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Technically speaking, posting on IQfy is already bad for liberation.
            Practicing alone requires financial stability and a lot of discipline and persistence, but I would agree it's more efficacious for liberation. I don't see how an online community can help when you can just buy all the books you'd need. Large amounts of solitude and contemplation are needed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In the past, I think property laws were different in the past, and more leeway was given to monks.* That's why I mentioned financial stability in order to secure a plot of land or something like that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >transgressive Tibetan practices
            Like what?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Some Vajrayana esoteric practices involve intentionally breaking your vows and having sex, drinking alchohol, eating meat, and if you believe Chink sensationalism doing dumb shit like torturing someone to death and then raping their corpse. You then leave the monastery and go live in a cave as a lay-ascetic.

            The idea here is that you commit a hyper-transgressive act to forcibly break yourself from samsara; if you succeed, great, you'll die and become a bodhisattva shortly thereafter. If you fail, oh well, you're living in a cave and will die of exposure shortly thereafter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Monks can't practice karmamudra, they have to disrobe. Most Tibetans eat meat because they can't grow vegetables. In tantric feasts it's common for monks to just dip a finger in alcohol and touch it to their tongue.
            >The idea here is that you commit a hyper-transgressive act to forcibly break yourself from samsara
            That's not the theory behind it at all. Tibetan tantric practice isn't about transgression.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the idea of not clinging to sensuality terrifies them
            you keep working this angle but your answer to where or what nirvana is amounts to agreeing with a lukewarm vedanta-hedonist insofar as nirvana is not a place, nor is it a fantasy, a heaven, or any of the other made up concepts... well what does that leave? Forget about the capeshit written for medieval people for a minute, we are talking about the metaphysical claim here. If nirvana is not some imputational or imaginary place, and samsara is full of such imputation or imaginary "things," and the accomplished practitioner, wherher he is a sneedhant or a chucksattva, has severed attachment to such things, they are gone, gone, completely gone, that is nirvana? Isn't that just samsara with all the clutter cleaned out? The problem was always our relationship to the clutter, the clutter did not inherently exist, our sense of self gathered from the clutter likewise. Again, all your objections seem to be tied to a kind of over-acted sectarianism and fixation on autistic scholastic categories, which I personally find unhelpful, and it doesn't sound like it does you any good either.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >we are talking about the metaphysical claim here.
            That's my issue. Nibbana is not metaphysical. It's precisely because of this slippery slope that you get Mahayana. Noble silence is all you should meet any questions about Nibbana with. It's simply an unknown, there's nothing to be said about it, we can say what it's not insofar as it's not Samsara, with all that implies (extinguishing the skhandas), but that's it.
            Repeatedly in the suttas the Buddha makes an effort to never liken Samsara and Nibbana, except in one way: when he says that they are both anatta. So I would be wary of saying anything along the lines of "Nibbana is Samsara with/without X" because that makes them both ontological states of sorts and this is countered by the unanswered questions.

            Technically speaking, posting on IQfy is already bad for liberation.
            Practicing alone requires financial stability and a lot of discipline and persistence, but I would agree it's more efficacious for liberation. I don't see how an online community can help when you can just buy all the books you'd need. Large amounts of solitude and contemplation are needed.

            Online communities are helpful since they can help get you in touch with monks who can skillfully answer questions and keep you from getting stuck and so on. But yes, in this day and age, we should take the Rhinoceros sutta to heart.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I was actually thinking of the Rhinoceros sutta when making that comment. I suppose intelligently and mindfully using online communities is valuable...

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's one of my favorites. The Sutta Nipata is full of gems

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I thought nibbana was just the extinction of craving, greed, hatred and delusion, and thus the end of suffering?
            Mystifying it can make it sound like a Brahman or something

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah actually you're right, that's a core issue and I hadn't really noticed it. Endless mystical apophatic aphorisms about Nibbana can end up being pretty misleading too. At its core, it does describe the cessation of craving and thus of dukkha

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Noble silence is the "correct" answer, as in Vimalakirti for instance, but obviously in a real world context of a marketplace of ideas and propagation of systems, proponents must offer explanations to those inquiring, and to say that samsara is not other than nirvana or vice versa, that their nature is emptiness, eliminates the most erroneous conceptions (not a place, nor is it a fantasy, a heaven, or any of the other made up concepts), though like all explanations carries the risk of misunderstanding.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I disagree. The right "conventional" answer would be to say that Samsara is other than Nibbana, that Samsara's nature is anatta, anicca, dukkha, and that Nibbana is anatta but that is the only thing we can say about it. Emptiness and "not other than..." carries the risk of equivocation and muddies the waters

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the ‘nirvana is not some separate absolute or transcendent realm apart from samsara’ thing helps people to get a sense that freedom from suffering is all about uprooting clinging, grasping, aversion, craving, with regard to experience. But it does not mean escaping experience into some higher realm or something.
            An arahant is still alive, six senses still functioning, but they’ve uprooted craving and attained nirvana, thus they cannot be moved by any experience, they cannot grasp anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Samsara's nature is anatta [...] Nibbana is anatta
            well that seems more confusing when you put it that way, why do they share qualities if they are so distinctive? if they are both empty of (imagined) permanent ego-substances or persistent entities then what is left for them to be divergent on?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>well that seems more confusing when you put it that way, why do they share qualities if they are so distinctive? if they are both empty of (imagined) permanent ego-substances or persistent entities then what is left for them to be divergent on?
            Samsara ia anicca anatta dukkha
            nibanna is anatta only, that's really the whole point of it. It doesn't matter whether nibanna ia anatta or not (it turns out it is), what matter is that it's not nicca and not dukha.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            From what I understand, the only real difference is what the traditions say happens to a being who has attained nirvana (arahant, 8th stage bodhisattva, etc) after death
            Mahayana says they continue to go on taking new births out of compassionate intention, all while not suffering or clinging at all (and not reifying it or conceiving any of it a la MN 1)
            Theravada says it is basically atheist death, total end of all experience (or some Theravadins suggest the arahant gets absorbed into some Absolute Nibbana Element as if it is literally a transcendent realm)
            In the suttas the Buddha doesn’t seem to say anything, he refuses to answer about the state of the arahant after death (though they do say many times ‘birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, no future lives,’ etc). But he refuses to engage in the speculation that the mainstream traditions do (about if it’s like atheist death/annihilation vs continuation of birth)
            But either way, the actual praxis is the same, no? The uprooting of craving, uprooting of self-clinging, in this very life. The arahant is completely free from suffering already even before he dies, because he has uprooted craving entirely.
            >”The eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect. Whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there." -- Buddha, SN 35.191

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, in the suttas, the Buddha stays silent about Parinibbana, but uses the catuskoti to explicitly deny both atheist death and continued existence after death. This is obviously because anatta makes "what happens after death to an arahant?" a question based on false assumptions, but also because Nibbana is not subject to the ontological distinctions we can apply to objects in Samsara, it's a pure "void", unkown, impossible to describe, unbound from the skandhas. I think that's how it should be taken, instead of intepreting "birth is ended [...]" as an endorsement of annihilation.
            And yes, Mahayana says many things like these, but as said here

            >"As for saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, these two do not exist. However thorough knowledge of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa."
            This is not stated in that sutta. Nibbana is never equivocated with Samsara in the suttas
            >It's not a universal consciousness
            So many Mahayana sects try to smuggle some kind of "base consciousness" concept through ideas like Buddha nature, luminous mind and so on. I'm not particularly interested in the philosophical debates around how these concepts actually differ from Atman, all I know is they aren't necessary
            >Vasubandhu
            Debates around the differences between Arahants and Buddhas have always existed. Arahants are liberated from suffering and the cycle of rebirth; that is the only important thing.
            >https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
            The Catuskoti is not an endorsement of the eternalist Mahayanin view of Parinibbana. Saying things such as "Shakyamuni Buddha can still exert an influence on the 31 realms because of the Samboghakaya etc etc" implies that some "essence" of the Buddha still exists in this universe. This contradicts the fourfold negation in the suttas. Tathagata means "thus gone", not "thus kind of gone but still there when you need him"

            , they want to have their cake and eat it too, they think it's possible to be unbound from conditioned existence yet still continue to exist indefinitely, because they cling to sensuality and don't want to let it go.
            >the actual praxis is the same
            Since the goals are different and Mahayana doesn't recognize the four stages as legitimate, their praxis takes their bodhisatta ideal as a basis, which makes for a misguided practice to begin with. No schools of Mahayana aim for arahantship, instead they have their own milestones and detours, but arahantship remains the simplest and highest way to destroy dukkha.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nibbana is not subject to the ontological distinctions we can apply to objects in Samsara, it's a pure "void", unkown, impossible to describe, unbound from the skandhas. I think that's how it should be taken, instead of intepreting "birth is ended
            careful there paligay you sound a little chinese

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            As far as I can tell, Mahayanis employ the gradual training. You can find all the renunciation, precept-training, sense restraint, samatha-vipassana, satipatthana…etc in Mahayana circles as well. The early Mahayana writings call for stringent and austere asceticism (going forth, one meal a day, dwelling in forests and caves, etc). First bhumi is equivalent to stream entry, that is when a commoner gives rise to the Dhamma eye and joins the noble path. But maybe I am just very charitable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are so many Mahayana schools that this will ring true for some of them; Zen/Chan especially is less concerned with metaphysical musings about bodhisattvas and emptiness and more concerned with praxis in the present moment. But conceptual proliferation in Mahayana is ubiquitous and practice based on such needless concepts is everywhere, in Pure Land and in Vajrayana notably. The thing is, these schools may include such practices the same way they "include" the suttas in their official canon. But just like they include the suttas just to never read them and tell you their sutras are superior, just so they "include" anapanasati and such just to quickly move on to other methods of visualization, mantra chanting, tantra and so on and tell you these are superior and lead to superior enlightenment.
            So yeah they're similar in theory but different in practice.
            >First bhumi is equivalent to stream entry
            To them perhaps. Stream entry is not that easy and many monks have the exact same point of view on this. Another anon in some past thread said that Mahayana enlightenment is equivalent to sotapanna and I would be inclined to agree.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That might be my bias, I am better acquainted with Zen/Chan than I am with Vajrayana. But yes I don’t think any serious Mahayani would say first bhumi is easy or common. Becoming an ariya is no small feat.
            And I have no disagreements about the supercessionist rhetoric found all throughout Mahayana traditions, it is obnoxious and I don’t buy it. But I think it is just that - rhetoric and baggage. I am fairly confident that there are ariyas who embody the noble path, found in Mahayana traditions, Chan, etc.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >supercessionist rhetoric found all throughout Mahayana traditions
            this thread's paligay is just doing a reverse version of mahayana supercessionism, he bristled greatly at being told not to do this in any direction and accused me of being a hindu

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's not supercessionism when it's just rejecting what has been added on top. Don't be disingenuous.
            >what do you mean wiping your ass with the suttas is not a superior teaching? stop denying my upaya, you're doing a heckin' reverse supercessionism
            This is getting tiresome.

            That might be my bias, I am better acquainted with Zen/Chan than I am with Vajrayana. But yes I don’t think any serious Mahayani would say first bhumi is easy or common. Becoming an ariya is no small feat.
            And I have no disagreements about the supercessionist rhetoric found all throughout Mahayana traditions, it is obnoxious and I don’t buy it. But I think it is just that - rhetoric and baggage. I am fairly confident that there are ariyas who embody the noble path, found in Mahayana traditions, Chan, etc.

            Surely. But then you get to the issue of the legitimacy of the bodhisattva path and that's another problem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I really don’t think an actual ariya practicing within the context of a Mahayana tradition would be seriously worried about whether they were ‘a bodhisattva or a sravaka’. They would have supramundane knowledge of what is wholesome and unwholesome, and would need no external guide or instruction.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe so, but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the puthujjanas who have a choice between aiming for arahantship and aiming to become a bodhisatta. It's obvious that I would be in no position to ever say an arahant is wrong for aiming to become a Buddha, surely they know more about their own condition than I.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bodhisattva and sravaka are used to doxographically sort texts, since the mahayana canon(s) are basically open ended; this becomes even more unwieldly with the proliferation of tantric systems which claim supersede both... my position as a student is simple, that you treat these labels as means to organize your studies and not as the essence of what is taught or as a costume for you to uncritically adopt. You know how every discourse is front-loaded with a boring introduction about "thus i have heard so and so said such and such in wherefore"? That is the result of an internal legitimation process which you have access to as if it were an inscription on an ancient monument. It doesn't authenticate anything for us unless we are primarily concerned with scholarship. But scholarship is not the same as attainment, it is a study of the notes of those who purportedly attained. And since everything we have says it is worth reading, we are still not absolved from being critical. A form was imposed on the texts, the form was dutifully followed even as languages and countries changed. In a new country and a new language, again we must interpret. The monument might be a Roman copy of a Greek original, or not. Its value is not a matter of provenance but efficacy. Study the notes, make note of the noteworthy. Lots of garbage in there unfortunately.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yep, the existing Buddhist traditions (theravada, mahayana, vajrayana) are a mixed bag
            It takes a lot of work to separate the wheat from the chaff. Imo, seeing the fundamentals laid in the early suttas, and then sticking to the material in later traditions that is aligned with them, is a helpful way to narrow things down.
            A big hump to get over, is realizing that different *words* can be used to designate the same *things*

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A big hump to get over, is realizing that different *words* can be used to designate the same *things*
            I have no interest in esoteric rituals but everyone interested in Buddhism should read Kūkai, he is very concise about these things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The foundation of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana is exactly the same

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Read Tsongkhapa's Lamrim Chenmo

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why?

            The foundation of Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana is exactly the same

            In theory, yes.

            What causes the mental aggregate of a Buddha to cease?

            Death of the body

            I'm the anon you replied to.
            I have nothing wrong with helping people, I try to help as much as possible. I just don't like how, in the Bodhisattva path, I have to devote my life to help others.
            "[...] And as you breath in, you should breathe in those people's problems, misery, and torment. You should take in their pain on their behalf." (p. 308)
            There's others quotes like that, in which I deeply dislike, but I can't seen to find them.

            Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKdkSsSK2v0 and make up your mind
            Or if you don't want to spend an hour on a video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3L_rJB_CFc

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's an extensive presentation of the path of sutra in Tibetan Buddhism

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Does the mental aggregate arise from the physical aggregate?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think this is ever stated
            But it's good to see aggregates as activities, that cease once the stillness of Nibbana is attained

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All phenomena are in a state of cessation from the beginning, there has never been a self, the realization of an Arhat does not destroy an existing self. The catsukoti applies to all phenomena from the beginning, Nirvana is not a void because samsara is not a void, there are always unceasing appearances.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I meant void in the epistemological sense, not the metaphysical sense. I agree with what you said.

            I think the ‘nirvana is not some separate absolute or transcendent realm apart from samsara’ thing helps people to get a sense that freedom from suffering is all about uprooting clinging, grasping, aversion, craving, with regard to experience. But it does not mean escaping experience into some higher realm or something.
            An arahant is still alive, six senses still functioning, but they’ve uprooted craving and attained nirvana, thus they cannot be moved by any experience, they cannot grasp anything.

            The only issue I have with this is saying that it's not apart from Samsara. Again this is getting into metaphysical debate which is not something that was ever done in the suttas when it came to this subject, but Nibbana doesn't "coexist" with Samsara, it's not like they're both entities belonging to the same class of "thing" which can be compared. There's Samsara, and everything without exception is Samsara. Nibbana isn't a "thing". There remains a duality between the two but it's not a metaphysical duality because they can't be compared. At least that's my understanding of the unanswered questions and discourses on the matter

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you define samsara as ‘the ‘wandering-on’ of experience and actions infected and led by craving and ignorance’ then yes certainly nirvana is precisely the end of this craving and ignorance-led wandering. Mutually exclusive
            But I think there is a utility to pointing out that nirvana isn’t a mystical realm you escape experience into. It is just when your experience ceases to be infected and afflicted by greed, hatred and delusion (which is the end of ‘samsara’).
            That is my sense of it at least

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe an exclusively phenomenological take like this would help clear things up for most, yes. I don't know, I'm very wary of ascribing any kind of adjective whatsoever to Nibbana, I'd even go as far as to say there is a samsaric experience but there is no "nibbanic" experience i.e. Nibbana isn't even an experience.

            >Samsara's nature is anatta [...] Nibbana is anatta
            well that seems more confusing when you put it that way, why do they share qualities if they are so distinctive? if they are both empty of (imagined) permanent ego-substances or persistent entities then what is left for them to be divergent on?

            Is sharing the lack of something that doesn't exist to begin with really a common quality? No things in Samsara are self, and this extends to Nibbana because a "self" doesn't suddenly appear when the fetters are destroyed. It's not really a shared positive characteristic
            >what is left for them to be divergent on
            I thought it was clear in

            I meant void in the epistemological sense, not the metaphysical sense. I agree with what you said.
            [...]
            The only issue I have with this is saying that it's not apart from Samsara. Again this is getting into metaphysical debate which is not something that was ever done in the suttas when it came to this subject, but Nibbana doesn't "coexist" with Samsara, it's not like they're both entities belonging to the same class of "thing" which can be compared. There's Samsara, and everything without exception is Samsara. Nibbana isn't a "thing". There remains a duality between the two but it's not a metaphysical duality because they can't be compared. At least that's my understanding of the unanswered questions and discourses on the matter

            . They are not ontologically comparable. Even putting aside the other two marks of existence which are what defines Samsara (but doesn't define Nibbana), there is no logical way to compare Samsara to Nibbana because everything is Samsara. Nibbana falls outside of "what can be compared".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nibbana isn’t even an experience
            Is there no experience after nibbana has been attained?
            The Buddha and his arahants didn’t disappear into thin air when they attained to nibbana….
            Unless you mean in a kind of ‘ultimate sense’, where our usual categories of ‘experience’ (laden with ontological implications/solidity) no longer apply
            But I’m skeptical of the utility of that sort of language
            I think phenomenological approaches are much more pragmatic and less amenable to metaphysical speculation or to mystifying things

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is still the samsaric experience. But after that ends, with Parinibbana, all experience ceases.
            >phenomenological approaches are much more pragmatic
            You're probably right

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >with parinibbana, all experience ceases
            This sounds a lot to me like atheist death.
            I’m skeptical about whether there is a basis in the suttas for this view (and likewise, I don’t think the suttas support an affirmative view that ‘experience persists after parinibbana’ either).
            I also suspect it is much more important to emphasize the nature of nirvana as the uprooting of craving in this very life. Lest we delay ‘freedom’ into a Higher World or into a promised annihilation, which would be no different than something like Platonism. Whatever happens at parinibbana is, I think, more or less incidental & secondary. The full freedom from suffering occurs with the extinction of craving, unless one thinks that something other than craving is the necessary condition for suffering.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All experience comes from the skhandas. If they cease at death, then experience ceases.
            >much more important to emphasize the nature of nirvana as the uprooting of craving
            Yes, this is what most monks do anyway.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fair enough. My main point is just that, if the *problem* is thought to be experience-itself (and not craving), and if one thinks that an ariya only extinguishes craving so he can have his ‘actual’ freedom from suffering in parinibbana…. then this view kind of reduces Buddhism to a ‘higher world’ soteriology like any other (Platonism, Christianity, etc).
            However, if experience is not the problem, and it is 100% only craving (and ignorance) which is the problem - then the Arahant enjoys his full freedom from suffering and absolute peace in this very life once he attains nibbana, and parinibbana (and whatever occurs with it, the aggregates end, etc) is merely incidental and secondary, a kind of side-effect of the main goal - which is the extinction of craving and extinction of suffering in this very life.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What causes the mental aggregate of a Buddha to cease?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's not really a shared positive characteristic
            that's its own separate debate, a debate within a debate, but as far as the demands of the logic typical to the texts go you can't lack what doesn't exist, but what doesn't exist can still appear and be a source of clinging, so it isn't unheard of to describe something as not-x just to cover one's bases

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why go through all the trouble of studying Buddhism only to produce a reading as similar as possible to what is rejected?
            Rich coming from a crypto hindu kek

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What Mahayana Sutras say about the Theravada and what actually participating in the Theravada tradition entail are two separate things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The solution from a western pov is to apply a diluted solution of textual criticism and understand the historical, dialectical process in which sectarian buddhisms were developed, that is to say, the human intention behind passages in Mahayana literature denigrating non-Mahayana is all too obvious, much like the passages in the nikayas purely arguing against highly specific non-Buddhist philosophical positions. Will one really fall into hell for having learned the Mahayana but opted for the "Hinayana"? Or does this speak to exasperating debates which must have taken place and their subsequent abridgment for posterity? I don't see much value in reproducing traditional Buddhist doxographies/sectarianisms in a western context except as study guides for related bodies of literature, and where those sentiments occur in the text, the writers aren't really talking to you but their contemporaries. That is to say, one can study any and all branches of Buddhism insofar as one rejects both hyperprotestantism and supersessionism, which are arguments for particular readings rather than being actual teachings themselves.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hyperprotestantism
            Nobody cares about your obsession with Semitic religion

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm the anon you replied to.
        I have nothing wrong with helping people, I try to help as much as possible. I just don't like how, in the Bodhisattva path, I have to devote my life to help others.
        "[...] And as you breath in, you should breathe in those people's problems, misery, and torment. You should take in their pain on their behalf." (p. 308)
        There's others quotes like that, in which I deeply dislike, but I can't seen to find them.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I would say two things, one, that "help" or more properly compassion is not the same as just giving whatever is asked for, much in the way you do not help a child by getting him the entire cookie jar, and two, striving to center the needs of others above your own desires is an effective way to put to practice non-attachment, non-self etc. How strongly one wants to follow this ideal is up to himself; it's no sin of course to be useless to other people but since you reap what you sow it will hardly be expedient

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >striving to center the needs of others above your own desires is an effective way to put to practice non-attachment, non-self etc.
            >How strongly one wants to follow this ideal is up to himself; it's no sin of course to be useless to other people but since you reap what you sow it will hardly be expedient
            Interesting, when I was reading this book, I thought that, if I don't helps others, I'm not practicing Buddhism. Although I agree, I'm pretty self-centered most of the time, I want to be the first on everything and I put others down if it is needed to get what I want. Buddhism is really helping me in those issues; but there's still a long road ahead.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All Buddhist practice is for the benefit of self and other
            https://suttacentral.net/an8.25/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
            https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Seven_great_qualities_of_the_Mahayana

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Think of the precepts as preventing mind problems, just like being being conscientious about back safety prevents you from hurting your back (like when lifting heavy things)

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like >the missing peace
    by Ajahn amaro. It's helping me with my meditations.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism is hot air made by a spoiled prince who was afraid of aging

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How spoiled was he if he decided to spend the rest of his life in the woods with a rag and a bowl

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Just go on yt and you will see the ego fluffing these gurus get

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Atheism plus Asia rizz
    Actually just exclusively Asia rizz

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Please do not engage in aimless, sterile debate with people who do not care about truth, and make this thread yet another cesspool of conceptual proliferation

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      You better not be defining 'truth' as 'my interpretation of Buddhism'.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The first thing I would do with a time machine is get Buddha drunk, because I want to hear what a drunken Buddha has to say, the drunken Dharma.

    What do you think drunk Buddha would teach?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.drogmi.org/history-of-mahasiddha-virupa.html

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bön

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhas can't get drunk

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >get Buddha drunk
      that's a challenge in itself lol

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Sutta Discussion Group 48 : Schisms & Disputes - Venerable Canda | 23 June 2023

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

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

    Just this.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ctrl+f
    >Evola
    >Doctrine of Awakening
    >0 results
    I'm disappointed IQfy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why Evola or Doctrine of Awakening should be discussed specifically? While insightful, books written by monks and practitioners are arguably more useful.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ajahn Punnadhammo says that sunyata is just a generalization of anatta to all things, and that anatta/sunyata is the only one of the three marks that applies to Nibbana. Thoughts?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      sunyata is what happens when the average intellectuals want to talk about something else than suffering because they are obsessed to describing the external world, the universe, the cosmos, instead of focusing on sensory inputs and how their minds react to them.
      In other words they are infatuated with outward phenomena and pretty things and don't care one bit for inward world and suffering.
      And it gets even more stupid when they move on to their logocentric hard-on ,ie describing consciousness.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I thought sunyata was just a Mahayana elaboration on the cessation of contact
        Even in Pali Buddhism, anattā brings with it, the cessation of conceiving about the world
        The Self-World relation is undermined, seen through

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >When in contact with pleasure or pain
          in village or wilderness,
          >don't take it as yours or as others'.
          >Contacts make contact
          >dependent on a sense of acquisition.
          >Where there's no sense of acquisition,
          contacts would make contact
          >with what?
          - Sakara Sutta
          Plus there is always the Rohitassa sutta

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        When Mahayana says "all dharmas are empty," "all dharmas" refers to the rupa skandha, mano ayatana, and dharmadhatu, just like in Theravada. It's phenomenological, not metaphysical.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          they don't that's the point. They invented interdependence precisely for this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            They don't what? Dependent origination is fundamental to Theravada too.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    There are a few accounts in the suttas where Shakyamuni smiles
    But does he ever laugh?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's said that arahants still enjoy things, they're just not attached to them

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, they can still tell what is pleasant and unpleasant to the body and mind, and they can acknowledge those things visually if it helps with teaching or for other reasons, I suppose.

        Of couse, there are certain things they will not indulge in, like sex or murder.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they can still tell what is pleasant and unpleasant to the body and mind
          But are these things actually enjoyed by the arahants? Or are they so entirely dissociated from experience that they see something pleasant arises and don't care about it whatsoever? Wouldn't that be the same as being emotionless, in which case, how can it be considered blissful?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Become an arahant and find out

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >9251 [Reply]▶
    > Which books will help take me to stream entry?
    ill dontate 1984 and fydor.
    any consecrated buddhism books aaswell. theyr always pulling the strings.

    and muslm or hindu script. scrolls aswell
    its the parchment really.the whole type set/face and paíper bludgeon filling. think of it a coneceptiual faith or morale plz. smartness doesnt cover eveyrthing thing but after the pr0n scene it might be the bait now. foo`s. trust the acid. trust the MMM. be anon for long as you can isuppose but be lorthy aswell. nothing like dumb-kin stoopid blue to get the whole house or family in a str00p. randominity and marypoppins come into it two but their only presuaders like that syndicatye wars game. i fully believed in quantum then. godlike mouse clicks and then auto-magic targeting. like a a movie called predator

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >anatta
    >karma => reincarnation
    How do these contradictory theories coexist?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no self, but there is a stream of conscious moments which continues serially from life to life. Just like there is a continuum connecting you as a child to you as an adult, even though there is no persistent essence.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      How would a permanent being or ego-substance mutate in response to the consequences of actions it was motivated to undertake by causal factors? Do you see how absurd the alternative becomes? You will end up with an embodied soul that is just riding around in changing bodies or some other equally just-so explanation. Yet everything else we experience is known not to be like that.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anyone who actually meditates here instead of just reading?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pannobhasa may be a meme but he's right. Mahayana is Mara's response to Buddhism.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Pannobhasa
      apparently there's another pannobhasa lol
      https://northwestdharma.org/snohomish-burmese-monastery-grows-quickly/

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://warosu.org/lit/thread/22900818#p22902375
    >It's endlessly regurgitated because we endlessly encounter Theravadins who, without doing any research on it whatsoever, claim Mahayana is false and corrupt just because they don't exclusively follow the Pali canon. This, in my opinion, amounts to schism in the sangha and is a grave misdeed. Buddha did not set out to make a specific dogma, he taught people at the level suited to them. The Pali canon also agrees that a Buddha is perfectly enlightened while an arahant is not necessarily so, why would Buddha teach a path only to liberation but not to full enlightenment. But he absolutely would have not taught that to disciples not prepared, just as he refused to teach anatta and instead gave provisional teachings to disciples not prepared for the deeper teaching.
    >I appreciate Theravada's simplicity and focus on what leads to liberation. That's where I stayed for a long time but there's more to Buddhism than just that. The Pali canon recognizes that the Buddha is higher than just an arahant, so it makes sense he would teach a full path to get exactly where he got. We also have all the same stages as you, they might not be as emphasized but they're all there. We have the four stages, jhanas, eightfold path, etc, I have yet to find anything that really makes Mahayana incompatible. In Lamrim texts (just because that's what I am most familiar with) you would be very hard pressed to find a difference between the lower and middling paths and Theravada's method of liberation. It's the Bodhisattva path where emphasis changes on what is to be cultivated, but a Bodhisattva must also cultivate the same "lower" path to liberation.
    >I still recommend Theravada sources to beginners because of its simplicity, it's definitely hard to approach Buddhism as a westerner. Achieving liberation is great and what I want to happen for everyone, and Theravada is perfectly capable of doing that, so I am all for it and view it as perfectly valid Buddhadharma. It is just not a complete teaching to full enlightenment.

    This is the typical duplicitous and malevolent message by Mahayana followers. It mixes false statements with facts to create a toxic doctrine and criticize the suttas and at the same time trying to get some validation of mahayana form the suttas.

    >just because they don't exclusively follow the Pali canon. This, in my opinion, amounts to schism in the sangha and is a grave misdeed
    that's false. the doctrinal schism happens because people create the dogma that buddhism doesnt lead to full enlightenment, ie that arahants are not perfectly liberated, that somehow the buddha's teaching is incomplete and somehow a teaching created 500 or 1000 or 1500 years after his death is the real teaching leading to full enlightenment....
    exactly this dogma:
    >It is just not a complete teaching to full enlightenment.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddha did not set out to make a specific dogma, he taught people at the level suited to them.
      Here the mahayanist starts to mix truths with lies. It's true that the buddha adapts his discourse to his audience. And who is his audience? it's buddhist monks, it's jains (lay people or monks), it's brahmins and it's random plebeians. Notice how there is no Mahayanist in the list. The buddha never changes his discourse when he talks to monks.

      >The Pali canon also agrees that a Buddha is perfectly enlightened while an arahant is not necessarily so, why would Buddha teach a path only to liberation but not to full enlightenment.
      The buddha says he teaches full liberation. The buddha never said that arahants are not fully enlightenment. The buddha says becoming a buddha is not needed for full liberation. If you distrust so much the buddha says, there's no point in trying to follow him.

      > But he absolutely would have not taught that to disciples not prepared, just as he refused to teach anatta and instead gave provisional teachings to disciples not prepared for the deeper teaching.
      Here again he mixes truth with is lies.
      The buddha never refused to give the full teaching to monks, since you know, the whole purpose of becoming a monk is to attain full liberation as fast as possible.

      >there's more to Buddhism than just that.
      false

      >The Pali canon recognizes that the Buddha is higher than just an arahant, so it makes sense he would teach a full path to get exactly where he got.
      No, the goal is full liberation and the buddha teaches just that. Non-enlightened people have lots of hubris and want to be samma sambuddha and yet they can't even explain why they cling to their fantasy and what is the added value for their childish wish.

      >We also have all the same stages as you, they might not be as emphasized but they're all there. We have the four stages, jhanas, eightfold path, etc, I have yet to find anything that really makes Mahayana incompatible.
      Here the Mahayanist again mixes his lies with truths. It's always the thing : if the buddha wanted to teach emptiness and nonduality, he would have plastered the ten thousands suttas with emptiness and non-duality. Turns out he didnt. Not even a single time. Which is precisely why mahayanists created their own mahayana suttas in the first place. Instead the buddha plasters the suttas with anatta, anicca, dukkha all over the fricking place.
      So the truth is that indeed the mahayana canon incorporates to suttas translated into chinese. But that's half the story and here kicks in the duplicity of the mahayanist: they dont spend much time reading them, they don't understand them one bit, and they move quickly to their dogmatic lies, ie the mahyana suttas.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >In Lamrim texts (just because that's what I am most familiar with) you would be very hard pressed to find a difference between the lower and middling paths and Theravada's method of liberation.
        If Mahayana and your little texts are copies of the suttas, then they are useless. If they are different from the suttas, the only thing to do is compare them and compare the buddha to gurus: turns out gurus are shit at removing dukkha which is the buddha's goal.

        Dont forget that theravadans don't give a shit about Mahayana. That's the whole point of having a closed canon. This protects the canon from latter fads, all found in Hindusim and Mahayana (weird huh?). For instance Theravada is a tantra-free practice and that's awful according to mahayana followers.
        Theravadans have set all their criticism in their Kathavatthu and that's the end of it. From now on theravadans would live in their bubble not caring one bit about other teachings... This makes mahayanists pretty mad because their goal is malevolence: arguing with buddhists all day long, while at the same time craving some form of lineage to the buddha, but at the same time saying the buddha lied to people. The cognitive dissonance in mahayana is enormous and they have a hard time dealing with it. They are trapped in their own dogmatic lies and they know the only to get out of it is to tell the truth and accept they are fraudsters.
        After this, what Mahayanists turn to is picking fights with their brahmin twin brothers: they have spend an enormous time to find a difference between Mahayana and Hinduism and they have nothing to show for it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddha did not set out to make a specific dogma, he taught people at the level suited to them.
      Here the mahayanist starts to mix truths with lies. It's true that the buddha adapts his discourse to his audience. And who is his audience? it's buddhist monks, it's jains (lay people or monks), it's brahmins and it's random plebeians. Notice how there is no Mahayanist in the list. The buddha never changes his discourse when he talks to monks.

      >The Pali canon also agrees that a Buddha is perfectly enlightened while an arahant is not necessarily so, why would Buddha teach a path only to liberation but not to full enlightenment.
      The buddha says he teaches full liberation. The buddha never said that arahants are not fully enlightenment. The buddha says becoming a buddha is not needed for full liberation. If you distrust so much the buddha says, there's no point in trying to follow him.

      > But he absolutely would have not taught that to disciples not prepared, just as he refused to teach anatta and instead gave provisional teachings to disciples not prepared for the deeper teaching.
      Here again he mixes truth with is lies.
      The buddha never refused to give the full teaching to monks, since you know, the whole purpose of becoming a monk is to attain full liberation as fast as possible.

      >there's more to Buddhism than just that.
      false

      >The Pali canon recognizes that the Buddha is higher than just an arahant, so it makes sense he would teach a full path to get exactly where he got.
      No, the goal is full liberation and the buddha teaches just that. Non-enlightened people have lots of hubris and want to be samma sambuddha and yet they can't even explain why they cling to their fantasy and what is the added value for their childish wish.

      >We also have all the same stages as you, they might not be as emphasized but they're all there. We have the four stages, jhanas, eightfold path, etc, I have yet to find anything that really makes Mahayana incompatible.
      Here the Mahayanist again mixes his lies with truths. It's always the thing : if the buddha wanted to teach emptiness and nonduality, he would have plastered the ten thousands suttas with emptiness and non-duality. Turns out he didnt. Not even a single time. Which is precisely why mahayanists created their own mahayana suttas in the first place. Instead the buddha plasters the suttas with anatta, anicca, dukkha all over the fricking place.
      So the truth is that indeed the mahayana canon incorporates to suttas translated into chinese. But that's half the story and here kicks in the duplicity of the mahayanist: they dont spend much time reading them, they don't understand them one bit, and they move quickly to their dogmatic lies, ie the mahyana suttas.

      >In Lamrim texts (just because that's what I am most familiar with) you would be very hard pressed to find a difference between the lower and middling paths and Theravada's method of liberation.
      If Mahayana and your little texts are copies of the suttas, then they are useless. If they are different from the suttas, the only thing to do is compare them and compare the buddha to gurus: turns out gurus are shit at removing dukkha which is the buddha's goal.

      Dont forget that theravadans don't give a shit about Mahayana. That's the whole point of having a closed canon. This protects the canon from latter fads, all found in Hindusim and Mahayana (weird huh?). For instance Theravada is a tantra-free practice and that's awful according to mahayana followers.
      Theravadans have set all their criticism in their Kathavatthu and that's the end of it. From now on theravadans would live in their bubble not caring one bit about other teachings... This makes mahayanists pretty mad because their goal is malevolence: arguing with buddhists all day long, while at the same time craving some form of lineage to the buddha, but at the same time saying the buddha lied to people. The cognitive dissonance in mahayana is enormous and they have a hard time dealing with it. They are trapped in their own dogmatic lies and they know the only to get out of it is to tell the truth and accept they are fraudsters.
      After this, what Mahayanists turn to is picking fights with their brahmin twin brothers: they have spend an enormous time to find a difference between Mahayana and Hinduism and they have nothing to show for it.

      Good posts.
      I would say one thing though, I distrust commentaries on the suttas as well, though not to the same extent as I do Mahayana literature. I see no reason why I should consider Abhidhamma literature to be representative of the Buddha's teachings, instead I would rather rely on the Suttapitaka, on my own practice, and on the Dhamma talks of accomplished monks.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We also have all the same stages as you,
      if this is true then you have stream entry and thus as soon as it is reached you become independant of a teacher, you know the right view and you know that enlightenment cannot be delayed
      In other words, you know Mahayana is false. Check mate.
      Where is your dharmakaya now?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is silly
        Right view is understanding dependent arising and the four noble truths, on an experiential and supramundane level, as it pertains to the very nature of experience (along with the uprooting of the first three fetters)
        It doesn’t have anything to do with weighing the validity of the mythos of the tradition you practice under

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Deliberately misleading

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That was not my intention, so if it was misleading then it wasn’t deliberate. How is it misleading? Is it impossible to think a Mahayani might attain to stream-entry and still see a utility in the tradition/context under which they reached their attainment?
            Or do you think any Mahayani who attains stream-entry would quickly renounce and abandon Mahayana traditions entirely?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>Or do you think any Mahayani who attains stream-entry would quickly renounce and abandon Mahayana traditions entirely?
            yeah, right view is right view and it cannot be fought

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is right view?

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Way back then people in Asia didn’t just “read the suttas” like a Bible only Protestant. Buddhist traditions would’ve been largely oral and more similar to how Mahayana and Vajrayana is within traditional Asian cultures.

    Another complete crap by the idiot. Mahayana literally started with written suttas. They even said that writing down a copy of a mahayana sutta brings enormous merit, maybe even more than actively cleaning the mind.
    Mahayana and Vajrayana never ever were oral traditions, unlike buddhism.
    Whereas the oral tradition is so strong in theravada, that it shows in the written suttas.

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read Gien Inoue

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is zen and buddhism related. In another words, can you practice both, aka, become a zen-buddhist. Both religions fascinate me, I will study both, but do they work well together? Also, someone here have a good introduction to zen?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Zen is literally a branch of Buddhism
      Read the Blue Cliff Record and the Gateless Gate

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >>Zen is literally a branch of Buddhism
        in your dreams

        Is zen and buddhism related. In another words, can you practice both, aka, become a zen-buddhist. Both religions fascinate me, I will study both, but do they work well together? Also, someone here have a good introduction to zen?

        they are antagonist. RIght view and Samma samadhi are only in buddhism

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Zen is a form of Mahayana Buddhism
      It is the Japanese form of Chan Buddhism
      Check out ‘Everyday Zen’ by Charlotte Joko Beck

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is a good biography of Buddha? I don't understand the Buddhist texts and would rather read about him.

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    None of the books mentioned in this thread will make anyone into a sotapanna.

Comments are closed.