I think I'm starting to understand Buddhism

People misinterpret Buddhism when they say that desire is the source of suffering.
Buddhism actually meant that it's mental attachments that are the source of the suffering.
Desires are merely a category of the larger concept that are mental attachments.
Let's take the idea of the platonic realm as an example.
Those who are attached to the physical world often fail to see and recognize higher patterns. They live like animals, which makes them miserable.
On the other hand, those who are attached to the platonic realm tend to become disillusioned with abstract concepts and therefore reject the physical world for being dirty and imperfect. They try to pretend that they are not animals, which makes them miserable too.
I think that Buddhism teaches that you should not only detach yourself from both the physical and platonic realms, but also from the very idea of 2 separate realms since it's most likely a false dichotomy.
When I realized that, it made me feel relaxed and somewhat euphoric.
Is this really what Buddhism is or is it what a branch of Buddhism (such as Zen) teaches?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This picture is moronic, Plato did not separate the world of ideas and the material realm

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      idk OP.

      all those puppets have roles

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Welp,
      I guess that the fixation on the platonic theory of forms leads to shoddy misinterpretations

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      They're not separate in the picture either moron, you can literally see the huge cone with the arrow inside it connecting them.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    ok

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not Buddhism

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Enlighten me then

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I think you should start back with Buddhism and not whatverr made up Bs you are going on about

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >platonic world
    "I don't really see you that way, maybe we can just be friends?"

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. The source of suffering in Buddhism is the attachment or aversion that you experience towards whatever arises in your awareness at a given moment. It's very direct, more biological than conceptual. That's why the way to realize and start fixing it is meditation and not philosophizing.
    Buddhism has a process metaphysics and arose in a land dominated by process metaphysics. That means that not only they are opposed to Plato, but Plato is not even on their radar. Buddhism doesn't spend a lot of effort debating forms beyond just saying that there's no such thing; this was already obvious to everyone around.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Buddhism doesn't spend a lot of effort debating forms beyond just saying that there's no such thing; this was already obvious to everyone around.
      based post. certain varieties aside, buddhism is, ironically given how its historically been viewed by many hippie ass new age westerners, a purely materialistic philosophy that sets no stock in vague spiritual otherworldly mumbo jumbo.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Read the avatamsaka and then come here and say that again

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It takes the understanding of the spiritual world common in India at the time for granted, it's not materialistic.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Buddhism explicitly rejects the magical eternal-universal-soul-atman mysticism of the ancient eastern world

          Read the avatamsaka and then come here and say that again

          hence why i wrote "certain varieties aside"; thats a tibetan buddhist text, isnt it? iirc they believe in literal reincarnation & ghost worlds & demon gods & all kinds of other goofy scifi fantasy shit

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >they believe in literal reincarnation & ghost worlds & demon gods & all kinds of other goofy scifi fantasy shit
            That's all in the Pali Canon, and the Avatamsaka is common to all Mahayana schools.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You may be a little misinformed. Even Theravada Buddhism and the original Pali Canon has a vast amount of the “supernatural,” “miraculous,” or “magical” in it, a basic example being conventional Buddhist teachings of one inevitably receiving the fruits of one’s karma, and of reincarnation. The Pali Canon is also replete with numerous instances of the Buddha talking about supernatural faculties that can be gained by yogis, or siddhis. The central “twist” of Buddhism, though, is that you shouldn’t let these potentially exciting phenomena distract you, as even so-called “supernatural” or “miraculous” phenomena are just another form of phenomena, and not worth either greedily hungering after and glorifying, nor rejecting them and belittling their existence.

            To make a reference to modern philosophy, the Buddha isn’t quite Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett. He came from a different milieu than them and, if sutras of the Pali Canon are to be trusted, seemed to refer to a host of beliefs and teachings which go beyond modern strict logical positivism, empiricism, scientism and reductionism that has excised all the “messy and sillily archaic” supraphysical aspects of reality. Even the great Brahma, the creator deity, and various devas (godly beings) are referred to in the Pali Canon, with the caveat that even they are impermanent, subject to change, and intrinsically egoless. This is all according to my own limited understanding and scholarship (I am not a Buddhist), so if I got it wrong, feel free to correct me, anyone.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >a host of beliefs and teachings which go beyond modern strict logical positivism, empiricism, scientism and reductionism that has excised all the “messy and sillily archaic” supraphysical aspects of reality
            that's exactly right—the soteriological aspects of Buddhism, which are themselves the impetus for the presentation of any philosophy in the first place, are outside the domain of modern scientific inquiry, and no amount of cat scanning of monks is going to detect nirvana

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Ah I love the chariot analogy

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        the king is an idiot if he thinks the chariot isn't a combination of wheels, axles and reigns.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          and what part of you is the ultimate, essential you?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why does one part of me have to be the 'essential' part? Why can't I just be a combination of my constituent parts, all of which play a role in forming what I would consider to be 'me'? All this shows is that things can be subdivided into smaller things. That doesn't mean the concepts we use to group things together aren't a more useful model to approach the world.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are understanding a lot here, friend.

            In the end, what are YOU, but a fraction of humanity? What is humanity, but a fraction of life? What is life, but a fraction of reality? But look at the reality as a whole, and we are all included, throughout all time and space and existence.

            The connection holds, and we exist to exist, and we exist with each other. As a scientist would say, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another."

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it made me feel relaxed and somewhat euphoric.
    High anxiety tard discovers emotional regulation
    Im not mad at the idea of detaching from the world a bit, im disgusted at the idea of detaching from the self, because it allows for millions of atrocities to happen before your very eyes

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      most atrocities in the world are perpetrated by people seeking their own self interests or extended embodiments of their own self interests

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        source?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        That looks wise, but "Right Speech" is defined falsely. The proper subtitle to "Right Speech" should be: "Say nothing that deceives others."

        I think that is much better, because worrying about harming or hurting people is nonsense. We must eat to live, and to eat, we must kill. We must hurt and harm to live, so it is not wrong to hurt or harm.

        But there must still be a difference between slaughtering an animal with a single strike from a sword, versus hanging them upside down while alive, and slitting their throat so they can slowly bleed out as they scream, cry, and struggle.

        There must be a difference between speech that merely hurts others, versus speech that is actually wicked and false.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >We must eat to live, and to eat, we must kill.
          The strictest reading of Buddhism is vegan, and professions that require harming and killing are condemned. But most Buddhists are not fundamentalists, not even monks. The ideal is however plainly stated in a number of texts.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Buddha never required a vegetarian diet. Devadatta criticized the Buddha for this and tried to divide the Sangha by requiring it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because monks are beggars and they are not supposed to refuse donated food.
            Professions that involve killing animals are still looked down upon (as in, lay buddhists shouldn't do them)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism is hinduisms moronic cousin

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, killing CANNOT be wrong.
            I will look to nature on this, and assume that animals are not wicked, false, lower, stupid, or disgusting.

            I will assume that plants and animals DO contain the truth of love, beauty, intelligence-relevant-to-the-context-of-their-lives, and they do what they do because it is functional and works.

            And so I know it cannot be wrong to eat food. What is wrong is to lack respect for it. If ever I should butcher an animal myself, do you know what I will say first? "Forgive me, I beg you."

            And my last? "Thank you for giving me the energy I need to live."

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The thing you have to understand is that Buddhism states that you should ideally follow a vegan diet but you should not get attached to this lifestyle.
            One of the greatest threats to Buddhist philosophy is law freaks like Devadatta.
            It kinda reminds me of the koan about 2 monks and 1 woman.
            Following the spirit of the law is better than following the letter of the law.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The ideal is however plainly stated in a number of texts.

            Nonsense. Early Buddhists monks always lived on donations of the laiety and never made such ridiculous demands on them that their food be meat-free. They took what they were given. Monks themselves are not supposed to do any kind of agricultural work, which rules out animal husbandry for themselves as well as gardening or farming. So the question of whether they should kill animals to eat doesn't even come up. They eat what they are given. It's that simple.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The strictest reading of Buddhism is vegan,

            This is also ridiculous as historically vegans would never have survived. The only reason modern day vegans are able to survive at all is with a host of modern dietary supplements.

            As I said, most Buddhists are not fundamentalists, but if being a butcher is a discouraged lay profession and monks are "allowed" to eat meat because donations should not be turned away, the ideal presented is quite clear and strict adherence would effectively be veganism.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's a karmic difference between killing an animal yourself and just eating meat

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >veganism
            Buddhists are allowed to consume animal products such as dairy and honey and don't actually care about the fact that animal husbandry is coercive, so no veganism is incorrect, but vegetarianism absolutely is.

            A strict reading of the material gets you veganism is all I am saying, not that it isn't Buddhism if you aren't vegan

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            A strict reading of the material results in vegetarianism because killing a sentient being nets you bad karma, not eating meat or forcing animals to labor, and certainly not consuming dairy or honey (or any other animal products that can be acquired nonlethally, like wool). In fact the mere existence of the animal realm is a cosmic sanctioning of animal husbandry as animals are a separate class of sentient being from humans, one that must be tamed for their own good.

            I do not believe there is any difference between hiring a man to kill for you, and doing the killing yourself. In fact, I would go so far as to state that hiring a person might even be slightly worse.

            Thus, it is more noble to accept the burden of death unto yourself, rather than attempt to pass it on to someone else. When you take the sin in your own hand, and lift it upon your shoulders, then that is something a man who has strength of heart, mind, and body can do.

            It is when you try to have someone else take the guilt for killing, that you suddenly realize that the burden is not in your hands, but chains upon your ankles, weighing you down in a way you never expected.

            It's irrelevant whether you agree with it, in Buddhism killing and eating meat have different karma. Countless insects are killed by farmers harvesting fruits and vegetables, do vegetarians accumulate negative karma for the deaths of those insects?

            The Buddhist position on this is that there's no bad karma from eating meat, but killing an animal, or asking for one to be killed, generates bad karma.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            I do not believe there is any difference between hiring a man to kill for you, and doing the killing yourself. In fact, I would go so far as to state that hiring a person might even be slightly worse.

            Thus, it is more noble to accept the burden of death unto yourself, rather than attempt to pass it on to someone else. When you take the sin in your own hand, and lift it upon your shoulders, then that is something a man who has strength of heart, mind, and body can do.

            It is when you try to have someone else take the guilt for killing, that you suddenly realize that the burden is not in your hands, but chains upon your ankles, weighing you down in a way you never expected.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's irrelevant whether you agree with it, in Buddhism killing and eating meat have different karma. Countless insects are killed by farmers harvesting fruits and vegetables, do vegetarians accumulate negative karma for the deaths of those insects?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >veganism
            Buddhists are allowed to consume animal products such as dairy and honey and don't actually care about the fact that animal husbandry is coercive, so no veganism is incorrect, but vegetarianism absolutely is.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The strictest reading of Buddhism is vegan,

            This is also ridiculous as historically vegans would never have survived. The only reason modern day vegans are able to survive at all is with a host of modern dietary supplements.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          They are all defined falsely. There's a reason the early Buddhists used the word "right" and this diagram completely misses the idea.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You think so, hmm?

            My first thought when I saw that chart was "Oversimplification."

            But when I see any creation of mankind, I demand myself to assume benevolence and intelligence. I never look at a person or their words and creations, and assume wickedness, falsity, or insanity.

            I just give people the benefit of the doubt, no matter how much suffering that incurs on my part. I will take it. I will suffer. I do not mind.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The thing about the middle path is that it seems pedestrian, like it's the way normal successful and semi-successful people live automatically without any deep insight into themselves, rather than an elevated path to enlightenment.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The hurdle I keep getting stuck on with Buddhism is purpose. Everything Buddhism teaches about reducing suffering through eliminating attachment makes sense to me, but once you remove your attachments to everything it doesn't seem to give you anything else to replace it, on which you can base your decisions and behaviour. Maybe the point is that you don't need to base your behaviour on anything, but then how is that distinct from nihilism?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      As the anon above you said, follow the spirit of the law.

      Give up your attachment to attachments; or vice-versa, give up your attachment to eliminating attachments.

      Look at Buddhism as a functional philosophy, rather than a spiritual one, and make the proper amends that grant you purpose and meaning. As if to deliberately contradict: Do not follow the materialistic letter of the law as a spiritual Buddhist, but instead, follow the spirit of the law, as a functional philosophical Buddhist.

      The ultimate truth is this: Suffering is not evil, false, or wrong.

      Thus, acquire attachments. But then be prepared to suffer. For you shall suffer. Mankind will know pain. Will know pestilence. Will know monotony. Will know death. And they will suffer for it all.

      And so will you. And so will I.

      When you comprehend this, you will not only smile, but you will also cry. But through that broken smile, remember that I'm here, and so is that anon above you. You're not alone bro. You are NOT alone.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thank you, my friend. What you say about avoiding spiritual dogmatism resonates with me. It makes sense that accepting attachment and suffering as inevitable aspects of life will itself help to reduce suffering. However, I still struggle with the fact that this doesn't provide me with a system by which to operate. If suffering is a part of life, what's even the point of reducing it? How can I say any one path is preferable to another?

        Are there multiple levels to this perhaps? i.e. on one level you accept that you will experience the sensations of suffering and so on, but on a deeper level you don't attach yourself to these sensations and simply appreciate/notice them in the same way you would observe a beautiful sunny day or a terrible storm and see beauty in both. An example of this might be someone who goes through grief when a loved one dies and lets them go peacefully, versus having an unhealthy attachment to the person who died and still hurting/craving their presence decades later.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          In that case, it looks like you are looking at Buddhism as a cult/religion, and perhaps believe it is an exclusive ideology, and cannot incorporate other ideas.

          Personally, I am more of a "Buddha" and not a "Buddhist." I feel like I have learned "The Lesson" that Buddhism teaches, and so I move on, keeping the wisdom in my heart. But as a philosopher, I continue to walk down the path of life and look at other things.

          The fact that you can now freely give up attachments and understand that you are at ZERO purpose allows you to begin building a new purpose.

          All you have to do is look around you and take note of the trees, the birds, the bees, the deer, the little flowers, the flowing river, the powerful mountains, and the glorious civilization of mankind.

          "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him."

          But perhaps I will fight back. Yet if you vanquish me, then such is life, my friend.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism is exclusive. All other religions and philosophies fall into extremist views of nihilism and eternalism which will not lead to liberation from samsara. And the purpose of practicing the Dharma is achieving complete Buddhahood to free all sentient beings from samsara.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is the other religions that forbid interaction with Buddhism, not the other way round. The Buddhist practice, in its purest form, makes no demand of faith (beyond diligence to the method) and does not care whether you think there is a God.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism doesn't demand blind faith, but right view is required for practice to actually lead to liberation from samsara. Believing in a supreme creator god is wrong view.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Buddhism doesn't demand blind faith, but right view is required for practice to actually lead to liberation from samsara. Believing in a supreme creator god is wrong view.

            Buddha has literal debates with brahmā in the nikayas (which would refute the Western conception of God), and later texts also contain refutations of brahmā/ishvara including the Cheng Weishi Lun, which is a Chinese treatise on Yogacara Buddhism, and the Tattvasangraha, a late Indian polemical work criticizing non-Buddhist philosophies. Even the Tibetan forms of deity yoga are not western style God-worship or covenant theology but about integrating or embodying the god as part of one's consciousness

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him."
            That's just a reference to Angulimala

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but the purpose is clear: Do not follow a "master." Any person who is claiming to be enlightened, is likely trying to trick you. Truth be told, I am only enlightened to the point that Buddhism is locked into my mind, but I continue to walk into other philosophies. There is so much more to learn.

            Buddhism is exclusive. All other religions and philosophies fall into extremist views of nihilism and eternalism which will not lead to liberation from samsara. And the purpose of practicing the Dharma is achieving complete Buddhahood to free all sentient beings from samsara.

            This anon here is playing a dangerous game, where he might very well have one foot in truth, and the other foot in a cult of falsity. You cannot really know if what he says is absolutely true, because he is saying "Everything except my beliefs are wrong."

            And then he uses magical words like samsara or Dharma, as if to say, he cannot directly translate these concepts into English words, or even find a path from nihilism to eternalism, with a touch of idealism, and a touch of materialism, and that lovely idea that Buddha would not necessarily agree with him in full, if he was to appear here in this thread at this very moment.

            The more spiritual these ideas become, the further away from applicability they become. In the end, a cult will take the form of "Believe and obey, and get a reward. Disbelieve or disobey, and receive a punishment. And convert everyone you can."

            Truth is the inverse, where truth becomes a dark facet of reality, where death, suffering, misery, and hatred, are intertwined with life, relief, happiness, and love. And you know that love is an attachment that can bring the greatest of pain, for death awaits all living things, and all attachments shall someday be severed, and the severance will be agony.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The difference between the exclusivity of Buddhism and the exclusivity of other religions is that Buddhism's fundamental tenets of impermanence, non-self, and suffering can easily be verified in your own experience. Right view is not making baseless assertions about the nature of reality, such as believing in the existence of a supreme creator.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, but the purpose is clear: Do not follow a "master."
            After attempting to kill the Buddha, he felt guilty and accepted him as his master

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're not to accept "HIM" or "HER" as a master.
            It is the wisdom itself that must be your master.

            The moment you follow a human, then you give that person POWER. And if power corrupts, then that man will at first continue to share good wisdom. Until one day he says, "Well, hmm you're so enlightened, right? Would you mind chopping my wood and boiling my water? You're my follower, so hmmm it'll build character heheh..."

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Itt a bunch of morons who don’t have a clue about Buddhism

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    fixed the OP

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *