in other words why de-attach from pleasure?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Does buddhism make sense if your life is good?
in other words why de-attach from pleasure?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
I like how all these philosophies got destroyed by aryan liberalism. Imagine needing philosophy when you can afford eating everyday kek.
the only good sensual life in samsara is for the devas. Humans can't have a perfect sensual life 100% of the time. It's impossible.
>you can afford eating everyday kek.
nobody afford eating everyday for an entire human life.
>nobody afford
nobody can afford
>Imagine needing philosophy when you can afford eating everyday kek.
The Buddha was a wealthy prince
According to sources written several hundreds of years afterwards
>SOURCE??? DO U HAVE A RELIABKE SOURCE???
frick off midwit
Linguistic analysis demonstrates that the Pali Canon was composed within the timeframe of the Buddha's lifetime by one individual.
It makes complete sense. No one ever said that you're required to become a monk or something.
>Linguistic analysis demonstrates that the Pali Canon was composed within the timeframe of the Buddha's lifetime by one individual.
Lol wtf is this lunacy, that was put together in the 1st century BCE, aka over 400 years after he died, it's not even written in the same language he spoke. There are only speculations that some parts of it go back to him. We know so little that we don't even know what century the Buddha lived.
Cicero was a wealthy man who wrote about the dangers of wealth. The Buddha was a prince who forsook his birthright to wander and pursue a life of asceticism. Believe it or not, we are not defined by the lives we're born into. We can make our own paths.
>aryan liberalism
moronic
>Imagine needing philosophy when you can afford eating everyday
Give both, live forever.
>BTFOs asceticism by showing you the path to peace and eudemonia through hypermetabolism and energetic abundance
he didn't fly so good...
he's flying through the neutrino sea right now
That's not what you're doing. There is no fixed (you) that owns the pleasure. The pleasure is transient and changing in quality constantly if you observe it. And you are eliminating the craving for more pleasure when the one you have no longer satisfies you or goes away. More than that, you're disentangling other phenomena from their causes of arising so you can be present in what you have and not thinking about how your feet hurt at a banging party.
This shit fricking slaps. Where can I start to get into Buddhism, enlightened bros? I have the Tibetan book of the dead that someone gave me a couple of years back but beyond that I don’t know any other texts.
you want the suttas, especially the SN ones fro the redpill
https://americanmonk.org/free-pts-sutta-ebooks/
you can read all this in 1 month if you are neet, otherwise jsut do this :
take 1h to read that and you'll be up to date and know more than 99% of the alleged buddhists :
>start
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN19.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN6_63.html
>middle
https://suttacentral.net/mn148/en/sujato
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_51.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN11_1.html
>finish
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html
speed learning about buddhism with videos
-the redpill which is the ajahn brahm teaching for monks
-then work slowly with the soft pill which is the retreat for lay people, so watch the other ones here (watch the QA too)
https://www.youtube.com/c/AjahnBrahmRetreats2011-15BSWAMedia/playlists
start meditating, then read. theory is nothing without direct experience. a lot of this stuff is based on direct experience and the only way to truly understand it is to experience it yourself. there are free 10 day meditation retreats if you can find the time and really want to commit
I wish this board wasn't filled with children
I'm not a Buddhist.
>in other words why de-attach from pleasure?
Because if you become a slave to pleasure you can't reach higher goods.
what are "higher goods"? knowledge? wisdom? you can get those without completely letting go.
Buddhism doesn't make sense regardless of what state your life is in.
>Does buddhism make sense if your life is good?
Can you really claim to know the good in life if you've never experienced any of its evils?
candy tastes good, but it makes you unwell. If you base your decisions about how something makes you feel in the moment, you will miss other things. Not much of a buddhist, but everyone out here in the world is hooked up to a feed of constant distraction and pleasure and while I don't begrudge them for it, I think I can find greater meaning and by extension greater personal peace by struggling through and weening myself off the dopamine teat of western society.
Because it will eventually disappear.
It won't be good forever
Because life is better when it's purer. The devas with simpler desires enjoy longer and more exalted lives; nirvana, which is free from all desire, is deathless and supreme.
You can think of it like a spectrum. I'll use sex for this example. Down here in the human world, we make love by penetration and release of fluids. The earthbound devas (those under the Four Heavenly Kings and Indra) make love similarly, but with no fluids. Above them are the yama-devas who only embrace without penetration. Still higher are the tusita-devas who are satisfied only holding hands. Higher still are the nimmanarati-devas who need only smile at each other to make love, and at the summit of sensual existence, the paranimittavasavatti-devas are content to make love by merely looking into each other's eyes. The next step up is the brahma realm, whose inhabitants have no desire for sex whatsoever (nor any other sensual pleasures) and enjoy magnificent bliss for thousands of eons. And that's not even getting all the way up to nirvana, which is absolute purity, and thus all the more exalted compared to conditioned existence.
>the paranimittavasavatti-devas are content to make love by merely looking into each other's eyes
That girl. She KNEW it, right?
Huh?
KEK! I must've transcended even nirvana, I make love just by touching my self.
You fool! That is a lower attainment. You should be able to abide in unexcelled bliss dependent on no cause or condition. You shouldn't even need to touch yourself (or not touch yourself).
That's a fascinating and oddly fitting way of explaining it that I'm sure people on here will completely miss the point of
What about lower down the scale? Besides animals, how would hungry ghosts and hell beings have sex? What's coarser than penetration and release of fluids?
Sodomy, Fetishism and general degeneracy.
Can confirm, I'm an paranimittavasavatti-deva, and I'm trying to teach my girlfriend how to make love by eye contact but it's taking her a while to learn. She gets it, but still wants to make love with fluids which I've transcended, so she occasionally falls back into materialistic ways of thinking and sleeps with random people she meets. Obviously I understand because I'm enlightened and I have infinite compassion for all living things, of which we're all only small parts who seem to be separated only illusions but are really all connected.
>Enlightened
>Infinite compassion
>Not practicing Highest Yoga Tantra with your girlfriend to transform her desire into a path to enlightenment
What are some good books I can read with my girlfriend to explore and practice tantric sex?
because you're here forever and for light to exist a contrast must be present and boooooooooooooooooooy when you get there, the fall from pleasure is going to suck. The end. In conclusion stop being a dum dum.
Cause if you master not living, after you die you get to dissolve into the void of eternity instead of living again. Awesome, right?
This is what happens when you don't understand the anatta doctrine, there's nothing to be disolved into a void, not to mention the prajnapatamita doctrine in which the void is actually just this samevreality, everything is the void and the void manifest as all the things in the world, there's no difference betwen matter and emptiness
> there's nothing to be disolved into a void
Except for the skandhas you dummy!
> the void is actually just this samevreality, everything is the void and the void manifest as all the things in the world, there's no difference betwen matter and emptiness
Parinirvana = end of everything
Mahayanists like to equivocate about muh “samsara = nirvana” while ignoring that even in Mahayana parinirvana is the final dissolution/extinction/end of the skandhas including sentience. This os fundamentally dishonest and it shows that Buddhism is really just another ideology for them instead of it actually being true.
In Mahayana, a Buddha's parinirvana is just a show for teaching purposes. The Buddha's nirmanakaya died, but his sambhogakaya and dharmakaya continue. The Mahayana view is based on nonarising, nothing ever arose at any time, so there is nothing to cease. All phenomena have been in a state of cessation from the beginning.
>Except for the skandhas you dummy
The skandas are already empty
>>The skandas are already empty
empty of what?
Inherent existence
>after you die you get to dissolve into the void of eternity instead of living again. Awesome, right?
No, this is shit. I want console access so I can sv_cheats 1 and explore existence. What is this cucked shit supposed to be some sort of reward for figuring out that desire for not desire is still desire? If I clear this line I want some god damn respect around here.
Mfw the goal of one of the biggest religions is cosmic suicide
More like egoic suicide. And that's based. You'll learn when you're older.
The goal of the path is purification. As I illustrated in
, there is a fine gradation of purity, with lifeforms who live simpler and purer lives than we do. The question is, do you believe that total purity is destruction, or is it a real thing? The latter is what the Buddha taught, but the former is ontological nihilism: reality reduces to nothing. You are free to be a nihilist, but don't project it onto us.
I don't believe the texts describe the sex-lives of those beings. I would think they live too squalid and miserably to have time for sex. Yakkhas and such seem to have sex the same way we do, there are jataka and commentary tales about it. I can't remember which one, but there was one story about a brahmin who was abducted by a yakkhini and forced to mate with her. Considering yakkhas also live in the hell-realms (as torturers, granted), I wonder if by syllogism the tortured beings in hell would have sex the same way, *if* they had time in between being skewered, boiled, etc.
There are powerful pretas who are basically worldly deities who cause trouble for humans who can have consorts
The problem with Buddhism is that its entire idea is built around a belief. The belief like your pic related says that there is something beyond pleasure. Buddhism is about pursuing that "something", this pursuit of "something" means you have a "desire".
Thus Buddhism either refutes itself like Stoicism or is another form of "Nihilism".
>this pursuit of "something" means you have a "desire".
and so what? the buddha never said suffering is severed thanks to desire alone.
Desire to end suffering is fine at the beginning. Plus like you said non-enlightened people are just a bundle of desires, so whatever quest they begin in their life, desire will be part of the start, they literally don't know nor can they do anything else than desiring.
Nirvana isn't "something," it's a cessation. There is suffering, suffering has a cause, if you remove the cause you remove suffering.
Does that not make it nihilist in the sense of a pursuit of a negation?
No, embracing suffering because ypu believe there's nothing better, that's the purest form of nihilism
>Buddhism is about pursuing that "something", this pursuit of "something" means you have a "desire".
And? The second noble truth says suffering is the result of desire for sensual pleasure, desire for becoming, and desire for non-becoming. Desire for nirvana is none of those things.
That's not entirely true, nibbāna in the suttas is variously referred to as a dhamma (phenomenon) or dhatu (element). For example when the Buddha says all phenomena are no-self—sabbe dhammā anattā—he's including nibbāna there. Certainly there's some danger in reifying nibbāna, but I think it's overcorrecting to deny that it's a "thing" altogether.
Yes, nirvana is an unconditioned dharma, and it belongs to the dharmadhatu. The dharmadhatu contains analytical and non-analytical cessations.
Yes.
The point of detachment is more immersive and richer engagement with the external world, not asceticism. Most ascetics are misunderstanding the point of Buddhism.
You detach internally so that you do not panick needlessly; then you are capable of being a more compassionate and sober minded person, which enables you to have a richer life and relationship with other people.
Buddhism is about the negation of needless dread, anxiety, worry -- Unnecessary Suffering.
From the beginning Buddhism has stated that even those born into heavenly realms who will experience billions of years of bliss will eventually be reborn
There is one story, I don't know where I found it but it's about devas in a heavenly realm
They are all together, happily enjoying what seems like an eternity when suddenly one among them disappears
They're all confused and don't know where they went, clearly at that point they forgot that they had been born one day since the ages had passed for so long
Eventually they peer down into a Hell realm and they realise that the deva that they used to know is currently suffering incredibly in a Hell realm and will suffer there for billions upon billions of years due to the workings of karma
Suddenly fear is struck into them and they desire to follow the Dharma of the Buddha
So forget the theoretical always happy life of a human being, clearly even the devas should have a reason to follow the Dharma
Enlightenment is never permanent
Because enlightenment is non-existence and it gets boring
The Buddha himself was a prince or so the story goes
Maybe you will find your answer in the Buddha's story
"I would go on all fours to the cow-pens when the cattle had gone out and the cowherd had left them, and I would feed on the dung of the young suckling calves. As long as my own excrement and urine lasted, I fed on my own excrement and urine."
- Buddha
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html
hedonic treadmill. engaging in pleasure all the time isn't worth the cost of being in an almost constant state of dissatisfaction. also, not being attached to pleasure doesn't mean you can't do things you find pleasurable (middle way), it just means your happiness doesn't depend on them
Non Buddhist pleasure
>starts
>omg this feels good
>does this feel better than that other time?
>Oh boy i hope this never ends
>when this ends will there be pain?
>I don't like pain
>...
Buddhist pleasure:
>ahhhhhh omg that's great.
Yoy don't de-attach from pleasure, you're mindful of your states of craving and aversion, the only way to really do that is to not react to the impulse that tjey create in your mind, but the point is to be mindful, you're never de-attaching or negating a feeling, you're just chosing to be mindful instead of reacting, since you can't do both at the same time (some schools say that you actually can wirh enough practice tho)
So even if you have a great life, being mindful of that life still is worth it, since you'll grafually crave less
>But the Sakyans regard King Okkāka as their grandfather.
Sakyā kho pana, ambaṭṭha, rājānaṁ okkākaṁ pitāmahaṁ dahanti.
>Once upon a time, King Okkāka, wishing to divert the royal succession to the son of his most beloved queen, banished the elder princes from the realm—
Bhūtapubbaṁ, ambaṭṭha, rājā okkāko yā sā mahesī piyā manāpā, tassā puttassa rajjaṁ pariṇāmetukāmo jeṭṭhakumāre raṭṭhasmā pabbājesi—
>Now, King Okkāka had a female bondservant named Disā.
Rañño kho pana, ambaṭṭha, okkākassa disā nāma dāsī ahosi.
>She gave birth to a black boy.
Sā kaṇhaṁ nāma janesi. Variant: kaṇhaṁ nāma sā kaṇhaṁ (pts1ed)
>When he was born, Black Boy said:
Jāto kaṇho pabyāhāsi:
>‘Wash me, mum, bathe me! Get this filth off of me! I will be useful for you!’
‘dhovatha maṁ, amma, nahāpetha maṁ amma, imasmā maṁ asucismā parimocetha, atthāya vo bhavissāmī’ti.
>Whereas these days when people see goblins they know them as goblins,
Yathā kho pana, ambaṭṭha, etarahi manussā pisāce disvā ‘pisācā’ti sañjānanti;
>in those days they knew goblins as ‘blackboys’.
evameva kho, ambaṭṭha, tena kho pana samayena manussā pisāce ‘kaṇhā’ti sañjānanti.
Bro, at least familiarize yourself with the story of the Buddha. The dude was a prince in a lavish palace but when he grew up and saw the suffering in the land around him he couldn't stand to live in his palace anymore and left his riches to live a life of the ascetic. Buddhism is MORE relevant if your life is "good" (in the materialistic sense).
>The dude was a prince in a lavish palace but when he grew up and saw the suffering in the land around him he couldn't stand to live in his palace anymore and left his riches to live a life of the ascetic.
Proof? Sounds like cope made up by poorgays
What do you mean "proof"? I said that is the story of the Buddha, it's not some obscure claim, it's literally the foundation of the backstory for the Buddha. Whether you want to believe it or not is like saying technically Jesus may have never existed because the historical records don't corroborate him exactly.
Read up on ancient Aryan philosophia. The upanishads, advaita vedanta.
Linked Discourses 1.68
7. Oppressed
Fastened Shut
“What has the world fastened shut? On what is the world grounded? What has trapped the world? By what is it surrounded?”
“Mortality has the world fastened shut. The world is grounded on suffering. Craving has trapped the world. It’s surrounded by old age.”
“Ānanda, take a mendicant who practices like this:‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’ In this way they gain equanimity. They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to that equanimity. Their consciousness relies on that and grasps it. A mendicant with grasping does not become extinguished.”
“But sir, what is that mendicant grasping?”
“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
Firstly, the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches Dhamma to a mendicant. That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. This is the first opportunity for freedom. If a mendicant stays diligent, keen, and resolute at this time, their mind is freed, their defilements are ended, and they arrive at the supreme sanctuary from the yoke.
aṁyutta Nikāya
Connected Discourses on the Aggregates
22.58. The Perfectly Enlightened One
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form, through its fading away and cessation, is called a Perfectly Enlightened One. A bhikkhu liberated by wisdom, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form, through its fading away and cessation, is called one liberated by wisdom.
“The Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness, through its fading away and cessation, is called a Perfectly Enlightened One. A bhikkhu liberated by wisdom, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness, through its fading away and cessation, is called one liberated by wisdom.
“Therein, bhikkhus, what is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom?”
“Venerable sir, our teachings are rooted in the Blessed One, guided by the Blessed One, take recourse in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One would clear up the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from him, the bhikkhus will remember it.”
“Then listen and attend closely, bhikkhus, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“The Tathagata, bhikkhus, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled in the path. And his disciples now dwell following that path and become possessed of it afterwards.
“This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom.”
So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Now at that time around Venerable Saṅgāmaji had arrived at Sāvatthī to see the Buddha. His former wife heard that he had arrived, and went to the Jetavana, taking their boy.
Now at that time Venerable Saṅgāmaji was sitting at the root of a tree for the day’s meditation. Then his former wife went up to him and said, “I have a little child, ascetic, so please provide for me.” When she said this, Saṅgāmaji kept silent.
For a second time she said, “I have a little child, ascetic, so please provide for me.” For a second time, Saṅgāmaji kept silent.
For a third time she said, “I have a little child, ascetic, so please provide for me.” For a third time, Saṅgāmaji kept silent.
Then she put down the boy in front of Saṅgāmaji, saying, “This is your child, ascetic. Provide for him.”
But Saṅgāmaji neither looked at the boy nor spoke to him. Then his former wife went a little distance away. Looking back, she saw Saṅgāmaji ignoring the boy, and thought, “This ascetic doesn’t even want his child.” She returned to pick up the boy, then left. With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, the Buddha saw how Saṅgāmaji’s former wife went back for the child.
Then, understanding this matter, on that occasion the Buddha expressed this heartfelt sentiment:
“When she came he was not glad,
when she left he did not grieve.
Victorious in battle, freed from chains,
that’s who I call a brahmin.”
Ud 1.8 Sujato
>in other words why de-attach from pleasure?
Pleasure's fleeting moron. Just wait
This. How does buddhism deal with impressionable morons that don't care enough to suffer. They just like and consume goyslop and die content like cattle.
Buddhism doesn’t make sense. Period. Every school is filled with contradictions.
List some
Escape reincarnation by not remembering previous lives. homie what?
What? The Buddha achieved enlightenment by discovering dependent origination after remembering his past lives
>The buddha
What? That's not what Siddathra says at all. It's all life is a river and oom and shit.
They would argue that all pleasures end up resulting in attachment to that pleasure, and as no pleasure lasts forever, that attachment will end up leading to pain that far exceeds the benefit gained from indulging in it.
I am all of the seven deadly sins and my life is shit
Berserk on Religion.
THIS WHAT THEY TOOK AWAY FROM US
Anthology of Discourses 2.7
Brahmanical Traditions
So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. Then several old and well-to-do brahmins of Kosala—elderly and senior, who were advanced in years and had reached the final stage of life—went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, they sat down to one side and said to the Buddha: “Master Gotama, are the ancient traditions of the brahmins exhibited these days among brahmins?” “No, brahmins, they are not.” “If you wouldn’t mind, Master Gotama, please teach us the ancient traditions of the brahmins.” “Well then, brahmins, listen and apply your mind well, I will speak.” “Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“The ancient seers used to be restrained and austere. Having given up the five sensual titillations, they lived for their own true good.
Brahmins used to own no cattle, nor gold or grain. Chanting was their wealth and grain, which they guarded as a gift from god.
Food was prepared for them and left beside their doors. People believed that food prepared in faith should be given to them.
With colorful clothes, clothes and bedding, prosperous nations and countries honored those brahmins.
Brahmins used to be inviolable and invincible, protected by principle. No-one ever turned them away from the doors of families.
For forty-eight years they led the spiritual life. The brahmins of old pursued their quest for knowledge and conduct.
Brahmins never transgressed with another, nor did they purchase a wife. They lived together in love, joining together by mutual consent.
Brahmins never approached their wives for sex during the time outside the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle after menstruation.
They praised celibacy and morality, integrity, gentleness, and fervor, gentleness and harmlessness, and also patience.
He who was supreme among them, godlike, staunchly vigorous, did not engage in sex even in a dream.
Training in line with their duties, many smart people here praised celibacy and morality, and also patience.
They begged for rice, bedding, clothes, ghee, and oil. Having collected them legitimately, they arranged a sacrifice.
But they slew no cows while serving at the sacrifice. Like a mother, father, or brother, or some other relative, cows are our best friends, the fonts of medicine.
They give food and health, and beauty and happiness. Knowing these benefits, they slew no cows.
The brahmins were delicate and tall, beautiful and glorious. They were keen on all the duties required by their own traditions. So long as they continued in the world, people flourished happily.
But perversion crept into them little by little when they saw the splendor of the king and the ladies in all their finery.
Their chariots were harnessed with thoroughbreds, well-made with bright canopies, and their homes and houses were neatly laid out in measured rows.
They were lavished with herds of cattle, and furnished with bevies of lovely ladies. This extravagant human wealth was coveted by the brahmins.
They compiled hymns to that end, approached King Okkāka and said, ‘You have plenty of wealth and grain. Sacrifice! For you have much treasure. Sacrifice! For you have much wealth.’
Persuaded by the brahmins, the king, chief of charioteers, performed horse sacrifice, human sacrifice, the sacrifices of the ‘casting of the yoke-pin’, the ‘royal soma drinking’, and the ‘unbarred’. When he had carried out these sacrifices, he gave riches to the brahmins.
There were cattle, bedding, and clothes, and ladies in all their finery; chariots harnessed with thoroughbreds, well-made with bright canopies;
and lovely homes, all neatly laid out in measured rows. Having furnished them with different grains, he gave riches to the brahmins.
When they got hold of that wealth, they arranged to store it up. Falling under the sway of desire, their craving grew and grew. They compiled hymns to that end, approached King Okkāka once more and said,
‘Like water and earth, gold, riches, and grain, are cows for humankind, as they are essential for creatures. Sacrifice! For you have much treasure. Sacrifice! For you have much wealth.’
Persuaded by the brahmins, the king, chief of charioteers, had many hundred thousand cows slain at the sacrifice.
Neither with feet nor with horns do cows harm anyone at all. Cows meek as lambs, supply buckets of milk. But taking them by the horns, the king slew them with a sword.
At that the gods and the ancestors, with Indra, the titans and monsters, roared out: ‘This is a crime against nature!’ as the sword fell on the cows.
There used to be three kinds of illness: greed, starvation, and old age. But due to the slaughter of cows, this grew to be ninety-eight.
This unnatural violence has been passed down as an ancient custom. Killing innocent creatures, the sacrificers forsake righteousness.
And that is how this mean old practice was criticized by sensible people. Wherever they see such a thing, folk criticize the sacrificer.
With righteousness gone, peasants and menials were split, as were many aristocrats, and wives looked down on their husbands.
Aristocrats and Brahmā’s kinsmen and others protected by their clan, neglecting their genealogy, fell under the sway of sensual pleasures.”
When he had spoken, those well-to-do brahmins said to the Buddha, “Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may Master Gotama remember us as lay followers who have gone for refuge for life.”
>in other words why de-attach from pleasure?
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, no one is more vulnerable to misfortune than those unused to it. For the record, completely detaching from life, contrary to memes on IQfy (shocker, right?) is not actually the overarching "goal" of Buddhist thought. I don't even know where the idea of complete detachment comes from because I've never encountered it in Vedic texts. Another myth: meditation isn't about going completely blank — it's actually the literal opposite. It's about learning to focus your attention on one thing (or a handful at most). It's about existing purely in the moment as a living, conscious component of a greater whole; nothing more, nothing less. If you want to actually learn about Vedic thought and philosophy, a good first step would be shedding preconceptions you picked up from other people who (gently) don't exactly know that they're talking about and reduce an incredibly complex, 4000-year old tradition to the most bite-sized possible chunks.
The "problem" with the core of Vedic thought viz. discussion is that its core is an experiential knowledge. The core idea is something that can't really be brought fully into focus by words. It's something that's still (in my opinion) mostly inexpressible. My belief is that thousands of years of written and oral tradition have done little more than draw a fuzzy line around where this core, experiential truth can be located, alongside a handful of guidelines for how you can reach it.
I want to be enlightened so bad
there's an animated series about the buddha lmao
You get stuck in samsara craving and living a pleasurable life but craving all the same.
Yeah.
>in other words why de-attach from pleasure?
Because the shit hurts to have ripped out of your metaphorical hands. The same reason it may seem like a good idea to stick your hand out of the window to try to hit a road sign while going 45 mph down the road but you (presumedly) don't because you're at least half aware that at that speed it's no longer a whimsical thing to do but will actually hurt you.
Here's two suttas on detachment and not cultivating attachment:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.html
From a Buddhist point of view, why shouldn't an addict remain an addict until he ODs
If one is an addict, they should cultivate proper regard for feelings, senses and sense-objects so that, though they are an addict, they can live with the most happiness (slash) least unhappiness possible in this life.
Suttas on the proper regard for feelings, senses and sense-objects:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN35_88.html
If one intends to remain an addict until they OD, and they cannot be dissuaded, then let them do so. But they should devote all of their conscious energy to cultivating the things which bring welfare and well-being (and destroy misery) in this life. They should do that because that'd be best for them.
They should do what is beneficial and not do what is harmful.
Here's a sutta on things that are beneficial and harmful: https://suttacentral.net/an1.82-97/en/sujato
There is an afterlife in Buddhist doctrine. One fares on in the next life according to their bodily conduct, mental conduct, verbal conduct. Having made hurtful choices, one rearises, after death, in a world that is hurtful. Having made pleasing choices, one rearises, after death, in a world that is pleasing. Having made both hurtful choices and pleasing choices, one arearises, after death, in a world that is both hurtful and pleasing.
Source: https://suttacentral.net/an3.23/en/sujato
If one can be an addict and remain an addict until he ODs but still make exclusively pleasing choices (as judged by those who rightfully judge), then let him be an addict until he ODs.
im stuck between buddhism and eastern orthodoxy and I cant budge in either direction now, there is such an agnostic worm in my mind either could be true. Ops pic btw is some great greco buddhism stuff very cool historically.
Buddhism is true. Christianity is not. If you have any doubt, then watch this.
Because at some point your life will not be good. That's the literal and simple answer to your question, i.e. impermanence.
27. Avoid [women, who are] prone to anger, ungrateful, and deceptive.
Live the pure life, monk, in the teaching of the fully enlightened
buddhas.
Yaśas
At twenty-five verses, the recitation of Yaśas is the longest among the
Gāndhārī versions of the Songs and is also among the longest in the
complete Songs preserved in the Tibetan and Chinese translations. Its
content is also notably different from the others in that it focuses on the
speaker’s psychological states and their karmic results rather than on acts of
external piety or lack thereof. For it was his experience in a past life of
visualizing the human (especially female) body as essentially repulsive that
enabled Yaśas to escape the spiritual bondage of his life of luxury in his
final incarnation, and he vividly describes the existential crisis that led him
to do so. Yaśas’s story also differs from the others in that, although many of
the other reciters allude to their great fortune in meeting the Buddha, Yaśas
is the only one to describe the encounter in detail.
Of particular interest in Yaśas’s story is the episode in which he sees the
women of his palace fast asleep and, feeling nothing but disgust for them,
flees from the palace. This is an exact counterpart to a famous episode in
the life of the Buddha, right down to the details such as the gods opening
the gate for him. In fact, it has been suggested that this legend actually
originally referred to Yaśas and was only later incorporated into the
hagiographic literature about the Buddha as it gradually developed in the
centuries after his lifetime.305