Where should one even start when studying buddhism. Everyone seems to have wildly different views on it. I'm thinking i'll read Siddharta by Hesse than start with the Dhammapada, am i making a great mistake?
Where should one even start when studying buddhism. Everyone seems to have wildly different views on it.
Enlightenment Now by Stephen Pinker summarizes the Buddhist world view pretty well
Yes you are. Begin (and end) with the Ganakamoggallana Sutta. Then dedicate yourself to the gradual training.
bump
Lotus Sutra for Mahayana basics. After that go to the Diamond Sutra. Which is very important but relies on you already being familiar with terms from the Lotus Sutra.
The Play in Full is what you should read if you want to know the basic life of the Buddha.
If you’re interested in Pure Land then there are the Pure Land Sutras.
Heart Sutra is important but that’s only a page or so long.
With Theravada, you can just jump into the Pali Canon. Just make sure you know how to distinguish between the different parts. For example, the life and later years of the Buddha, commentaries, Jataka tales, etc.
just read the book What the Buddha Taught and yes also Siddhartha. it'll give you a nice high level overview. you can start meditating to get a feel for things. read the free book With Each and Every Breath. If you want a philosophical western account of buddhism you can read Buddhism as Philosophy by Siderits - though I suggest you have some philosophical interest and background before reading. If you want to get straight to the source just look for the Pali Canon e.g. In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (The Teachings of the Buddha)
there is so much information out there.
https://accesstoinsight.org/
https://www.dhammatalks.org/
What the Buddha Taught is a fricking good short intro.
>I'm thinking i'll read Siddharta by Hesse
That's fiction garbage. Yes, start with Dhammapada, it's short and sweet since you're probably a zoomer with a severe attention deficit. Then start reading the suttas, start with Digha Nikaya on accesstoinsight.org, then read the other nikayas in no particular order. You will notice that the suttas repeat a lot, this is because suttas were memorized, and because repetition helps to integrate the doctrines into the unconscious. If you want an overview of Buddhism before jumping into the suttas, read Doctrine of Awakening by Evola or Doctrine of the Buddha by George Grimm.
Don't bother with Mahayana/Vajrayana until you have a grasp of sutta Buddhism.
{Ø,{Ø},{{Ø}},{Ø,{Ø}}
5 aggregates:
Vedana (feeling), Rupa (form), Samjña (evaluation), Vijnana (consciousnes)
4 noble truths
Dukkha: truth of suffering
Sumdaya: truth of the cause of suffering
Nirodha: truth of the end of suffering
Magga: truth of the path to the cessation of suffering
It's a religion all about NOTHING!
[Seinfeld bassline]
1
2
3
4
1+4
2+4
3+4
4+4
Eightfold path comes full circle
2(4)+1
And then 10
Read anything but meditate regularly while doing so. If you don't meditate throughout you will lose interest in the same way that studying chemistry without lab work would be boring.
All the Math You Missed by Thomas Garrity
A==A=/=A
OM SHANTI OM
GATE GATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA
[throat singing solo]
I once borrowed a copy of All the Math You Missed. It was some time ago, but I think he messed up the discussion of the Jacobian. The Jacobian was introduced as being an n x m matrix of partial derivatives, but he routinely took a determinant of this matrix despite it generically not being square, and did not discuss any generalization of the determinant to non-square matrices. Could you check your copy and see if I'm correct?
>All the Math You Missed
the only time he talks about jacobian and determinant is at page 57
Not buddhism, but zen buddhism: D.T. Suzuki's 'Zen Buddhism' is a fantastic initial resource.
Doctrine of the Buddha by Grimm
It depends on what sect of Buddhism you are referring to. Some are vastly different than others.
For me it's Mormon Buddhism with Mahayana characteristics
Mader chod chamar
बूढ़ा आदमी
Share this information with an Indian and you will achieve enlightenment, sirs
Namaste
NO SIR DO NOT REDEEM!
I recommend Bhikkhu Bodhi's discourse translations after you read the Dhammapada. Branch out from there.
Don’t waste your time reading siddhartha.
Read The Foundations of Buddhism by Rupert Gethin
Don't read the Dhammapada, don't read Siddhartha if you're interested in an introduction to Buddhism, it says nothing about Buddhism
The only good recommendation seconded:
>George Grimm. Doctrine of the Buddha.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.70145
ANATTA is not 'lol lmao no soul'
ANATTA is not noun
Mahatma meaning great soul (like what they called Gandhi wow look at these great titles like Buddha and Maha Mogallana) comes from Maha and atman
as in SOUL
ANATMAN (sanskrit)
ANATTA (Pali)
For me Im learning Hindi and gangstalking Indians with spirit rape
It doesn't mean "no soul" it means "not soul", it is used to describe a thing. Your body is anatta, your mind is anatta, your person is anatta, your essence is anatta, nothing that you can point to can ever be the pointer
yes anatta is about the reflexive pronoun
IMO the vast majority of people need a proper mentor or teacher because enlightenment is ineffable. You cannot read what cannot be described in words. If you guys are looking for a good online community, I know one.
I would like a good online community
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/
The Diamond Sutra
Others have suggested good resources, but you could start and end with these paragraphs. Everything else is supplementary. Realistically, you'll probably still go on a long journey seeking in various texts, practices, and experiences. That'll have benefit and some of it might be necessary, but sooner or later, if you go all the way, you'll understand what I mean by starting and ending here.
>"Thus, monks, any [skandha] whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every [skandha] is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html
>"If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification [mental/conceptual proliferation/elaboration] assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the [...] obsessions of ignorance. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html
>"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
>When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then you will not be 'with that.' When you are not 'with that,' then you will not be 'in that.' When you are not 'in that,' then you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of [dukkha]."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html
tl;dr: Perceive directly. Don't let concepts, labels, and commentary/narration add to or subtract from what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized etc. Don't react to experiences/perceptions with a thought and then get lost in reacting to thoughts by thinking another thought.
Start with What The Buddha Taught, and then read The Heart Sutra. Both were made for this purpose.
Best audio resource I've found is Bhante Hye's reciting and explaining the suttas in the original 4 nikayas, go to "English August 2019", the folders are just updated copies of each other:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FfCmorpc_LVoJVqry9wCIsvMSndaPA7_
I've been taking meticulous clips of his talks on the more profound/interesting stuff, here's the cliffs notes for you lazy anons:
https://mega.nz/folder/o10V1YTA#t05Ijm2VHPuW0fzp39CxPw
Currently working through the majjhima nikaya. I got sloppy editing the anguttara Nikaya, I'll have to go back over that one.
All the branches of Buddhism acknowledge the original nikayas (meaning volume, collection etc) as the oldest resource towards what Gotama Buddha actually taught. There are very few, very minor contradictions in the original nikayas (usually one sutta including an additional point not said in another; there is tons of repetition), whereas later schools start saying things that directly contradict the early nikayas, such as a woman being able to become a Buddha (in the lotus sutra), whereas AN 1.15 clearly states "it is impossible monks, it cannot come to pass, that a woman should be an arahant who is a Sammasambuddha".
Also fun fact, Buddha ate his own feces during his ascetic period pre-enlightenment, "such was [his] great distortion in feeding." (MN 12).
>you realize he eats his own shit right?
So when are we bear crawling naked through the forest roaring animal noises at hikers we hide from?
There probably wasn't lot to eat, if he was at the point where his skeletons was showing.
>whereas later schools start saying things that directly contradict the early nikayas, such as a woman being able to become a Buddha (in the lotus sutra), whereas AN 1.15 clearly states "it is impossible monks, it cannot come to pass, that a woman should be an arahant who is a Sammasambuddha".
That doesn't seem clearly stated to me. Assuming it is saying women cannot become Arahants or Buddhas, is it not possible that this was said in the context of the time? Perhaps it was mostly a practical statement?
In any case, women have the same skandhas as men therefore logically they could become awakened too, so is the Buddha rather saying that a woman could become an Arahant but not a full Buddha? Sammasambuddha is specified there, what about becoming a paccekabuddha or bodhisattva, a mere sotapanna? I'm not one to cope if Buddha was unambiguous about women but it does seem odd that he would claim there was something inherent about women that made awakening impossible.
>so is the Buddha rather saying that a woman could become an Arahant but not a full Buddha?
Correct, fyi as best I understand it, these are the definitions for those terms:
Arahant, someone who has attained enlightenment under the tutelage of another enlightened being.
Tathagata, someone who has attained enlightenment purely on their own effort alone, without any true example to follow.
Buddha, a tathagata who also goes forth and teaches what he discovered to others.
Women are totally capable of enlightenment, as Buddha confirms in AN 8.51:
“Lord, if a woman were to go forth from the home life into homelessness in the Dhamma & Vinaya made known by the Tathāgata, would she be able to realize the fruit of stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, or arahantship?”
“Yes, Ānanda, she would.…”
But, it seems for a woman to attain enlightenment all on her own, and then maybe including the teaching of others, is impossible.
It should be noted in another sutta (unsure which but in the early nikayas) the Buddha mention he scanned through the past 91 'kalpas' (apparently equivalent to the birth & death of the universe) and only found 6 other Buddhas. So a man becoming a Buddha is already extremely rare, something like 0.000000001%e1000 vs 0% for a female, mathematically significant but realistically not so much. At least that's my conclusion on the matter, yeah I've thought about it quite a bit.
Regarding women and the path though, there is a much clearer reference of the Buddha's stance in that same sutta above, the 8 cardinal rules bhikkunis must always abide:
[1] “A nun who has been fully accepted even for a century must bow down, rise up from her seat, salute with hands palm-to-palm over her heart, and perform forms of respect due to superiors to a monk even if he has been fully accepted on that very day. This rule is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed as long as she lives.
[2] “A nun must not spend the Rains in a residence where there is no monk (nearby).…
[3] “Every half-month a nun should expect two things from the Saṅgha of monks: (permission to) ask for the date of the uposatha and (permission to) approach for an exhortation.…
[4] “At the end of the Rains-residence, a nun should invite (accusations from) both Saṅghas [the Saṅgha of monks and the Saṅgha of nuns] on any of three grounds: what they have seen, what they have heard, what they have suspected.…
[5] “A nun who has broken any of the rules of respect must undergo penance for half a month under both Saṅghas.…
[6] “Only after a female trainee has trained in the six precepts for two years can she request Acceptance from both Saṅghas.…
[7] “A monk must not in any way be insulted or reviled by a nun.…
[8] “From this day forward, the admonition of a monk by a nun is forbidden, but the admonition of a nun by a monk is not forbidden. This rule, too, is to be honored, respected, revered, venerated, never to be transgressed as long as she lives.
“If Mahāpajāpati Gotamī accepts these eight rules of respect, that will be her Acceptance.”
So it is very, very clear the Buddha expected bhikkunis to take a subservient position to the bhikkus. Later in that same sutta the Buddha explains that his teaching would have remained uncorrupted for roughly a millennia, but with the acceptance of women into the Sangha it will only stay uncorrupted for about half that. And it wasn't until about five hundred years after his death that other schools in Buddhism started appearing. So yeah, thems the breaks.
It should be noted too that keeping women out of the Sangha is just as much for the men's sake, too. There's one sutta where a monk is so distressed by his lust that he cuts off his own genitals ("Foolish man, he cut off the wrong thing"). In another there was a monk being supported by a hunter whose daughter the monk becomes infatuated with, so much so that he stops eating. The hunter gives him his daughter in marriage, the monk disrobes and has a kid with her, and she starts teasing him so much about it he leaves her and goes back to the Sangha.. and so does she. And she actually goes on to attain enlightenment while he doesn't. Chapa in the Therigatha iirc.
So yeah, like any religion you need to digest a wide score of the teachings to really get a proper understanding.
did well with his selection but there's still a lot more necessary to understand. I believe the real summation of what the Buddha taught is 37 total things, my man Ajahn Sona just dropped a video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlCrpgpoBsM
Really anyone serious about understanding Buddhism, find some authentic monks who keep the patimokkha (227 rules bhikkus must follow, 311 for bhikkunis), and listen to them. Same way you'd learn from a wise pastor or Rabbi. Though I've heard Sona and other genuine monks make clear errors before so, eh. A true Buddha is indeed extremely rare. Bhante Hye is the best audio resource I've come across thus far, mainly because he's simply reciting the suttas half the time, and he plainly states he's not an arahant. Ajahn Chah apparently was, his essays are available online, I'll eventually read through them. The path is long and gradual.
Interesting, seems to be more or less how I expected. Thanks for the write-up and references.
My pleasure, good luck in your search.
Okay, but why are women in the position they are?
because women lead the life opposite to he ''holy life''. Women are turbo normies who just parrot the mainstream narrative, and at best when thy don't do that, they end up believing the first eloquent guru they meet.
Then even if they manage to dial down hedonism, they still cling to a narrative where life=good, ie popping out kids is virtuous, precisely because they can't stop spreading their legs and always end up pregnant, willy nilly.
How is the average man any different?
50% of the people are women and women are the capitalists of the sex market. ie they coast thru life thanks to all the orbiters giving them free shit and solving their daily problems free of charge.
50% of the rest is men and men live to compete for women and pay their rent and entertain them and pleasure them. men dont even want to be paid for all this lol. Men literally believes they are the stronger sex because they spend a life of suffering trying to please veganas. They put veganas on a pedestal and they suffer from this.
Men do this because they get depress and commit suicide if a woman doesnt acknowledge them. That's what drive people.
-women are not driven much because women peak at the age of 15 when they understand that no matter how awful they are, men will give them an easy life
-men literally live for women and the few who dont compete and manage to not commit suicide become transparent to society
It's pretty fricking simple: women are hedonistic machines and it turns out that men are infatuated with it. And Men build societies to keep being infatuated with it.
99% of men make up spooks while they live to compete for the female attention, irrespective of the moral behavior of those women. It's women who give meaning and control the lives of all the men you will ever see in your life.
men seek to be valued by women at all cost.
All those men are cuckold sooner or later. As soon as a man values a woman, he will be cuckold. Society is based on men being disposable and replaceable by women & the ruling men. A woman has no problem replacing a lover, a husband or a father, especially when she does it for the kids, as opposed to doing it for her, which would be selfish from their POV.
Same thing with the ruling class. Men will serve them and they be happy to hear about merit or honor lol.
this is the truth about society that you must accept to go beyond it.
-1% of men try to find something else to value
-99% of this 1% go crazy in the woods becoming hermits and failing hard, making up moronic spooks, being a laughing stock for the men in society.
-the 1% of the 1% get good at meditation
-99% of those 1% of 1% confuse meditation with enlightenment
=>so 1% of 1% of 1% of men actually stop being coomers.
That's not true according to Buddhism.
>tibetan
>buddhism
peak one
The best way I've found to frame it is that men are more expendable than women.
It's very clear that ego death is a necessary step on the way to nibanna, that the six sense faculties must totally close (mind being the sixth). Ajahn Chah phrased it as learning to "die before you die." Since women carry the womb this is completely at odds with their genetic (karmic?) predisposition to propagate life, something that is crucial to your own existence, and thus requires your recognition and submission to it. Which might be way the Buddha ultimately did relent and allow women to ordain.
Simply put, it is because men are more expendable in regards to the species at large, that they are better suited to handle ego death. Having women take a lower position ensures stronger guidance from men and better health for the Sangha as a whole. It is simply what is most efficient.
In SN 35.127 Buddha teaches that bhikkus should consider all women as their mother, sister, or daughter. Furthermore acknowledging your parents is a necessary component of right view (MN 117), it is apparently impossible to become enlightened if you have any contention towards your parents. So anyone looking to use the Buddha's teaching to entertain their misogyny is totally missing the point, and likely has unresolved issues towards their mother.
I'm sure there's plenty of suttas of female arahants putting men in their place, and vice versa. Only one I'm aware of thus far is the one I already referenced.
There's also a very tragic/beautiful story involving a pregnant women whose entire family and newborn baby dies over the span of a few days, and she goes mad as a result, eventually meeting the Buddha who helps her regain her sanity. Unsure whether it's a tale or actually happened, but it's worth reading: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.10.01.than.html
>I'm sure there's plenty of suttas of female arahants putting men in their place
Not a sutta and it's from ~1200s Ch'an so you may not think much of it, but this koan came to mind and I thought I'd share for you and the thread.
>When Tokusan was in his own country he was not satisfied with Zen although he had heard about it. He thought: "Those Southern monks say they can teach Dharma outside of the sutras. They are all wrong. I must teach them." So he traveled south. He happened to stop near Ryutan's monastery for refreshments. An old woman who was there asked him: "What are you carrying so heavily?"
>Tokusan replied: "This is a commentary I have made on the Diamond Sutra after many years of work."
>The old woman said: "I read that sutra which says: 'The past mind cannot be held, the present mind cannot be held, the future mind cannot be held.' You wish some tea and refreshments. Which mind do you propose to use for them?"
>Tokusan was as though dumb. Finally he asked the woman: "Do you know of any good teacher around here?"
>The old woman referred him to Ryutan, not more than five miles away. So he went to Ryutan in all humility, quite different from when he had started his journey.
https://sacred-texts.com/bud/glg/glg28.htm
>all the branches of Buddhism acknowledge...
Then surely Chan must not be this "Buddhism":
>I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvāṇa, the true form of the formless, the subtle Dharma gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahakasyapa.
This is the origin of A L L of the Buddha's teachings in Chan, and has been in the Chan historical record for some 1000 years. Chan simply... does not agree with you.
>but women cannot...
From a confirmed Tathagata of the Chan tradition:
>Bankei was notable for the many women disciples coming to hear him, and, cutting against the grain of patriarchy, he encouraged them in full realization: “I understand that women feel very distressed hearing it said [in certain texts and from many teachers] that they can’t become Buddhas. But it simply isn’t so! How is there any difference between men and women? Men are the Buddha-body [Dharmakāya] and women are the Buddha-body, too…. In the Unborn, there’s no difference whether you’re a man or a woman. Everyone is the Buddha-body…. Everyone intrinsically possesses the One Identical Buddha Mind.” To a woman who wondered about any inability to realize buddhahood due to “women’s heavy karmic burden,” Bankei replied, “From what time did you become a ‘woman’?” And in another context he went even further against prevailing attitudes: “Unlike [most] men, women are sincere. It’s true they’re also more foolish than men in some ways. But when you tell them that by doing evil you fall into hell, they don’t doubt it in the slightest; and when you teach them that, … they whole-heartedly resolve to become buddhas…. That’s why women, being sincere, will realize buddhahood more readily than men with their phony cleverness.”
>Then surely Chan must not be this "Buddhism":
Indeed it isn't, you can say it's inspired by Buddhism, but if it contradicts the earlier suttas then it really shouldn't be considered as what the Buddha taught. It would be reckless to do so.
>... does not agree with you.
It doesn't agree with the suttas, not with me. I don't really care either way. Everyone has to work out their own issues, it is impossible to save other people (SN 42.6, oil pot simile).
I was sloppy in that post though, I shouldn't have brought up the womb etc, focused more on male expendability as making them better suited for ego death. There were plenty of female arahants.
I'm kinda humored the thread derailed into brainless sexism, and have to admit I saw it coming. Who the hell would want to be a Buddha? Dealing with this shit blows. SN 6.1:
"This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture [I prefer "mere reasoning"], subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment... And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.
As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma."
Buddha did not deny the existence of a self, only that there is no immortal self/soul, AN 6.38:
“Master Gotama, this is my doctrine and view: One does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition.”
“Well, brahmin, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone holding such a doctrine or view. How on earth can someone who comes and goes on his own say that one does not act of one’s own volition, nor does one act of another’s volition?
What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of initiative?”
“Yes, sir.” .. Continued
Call your mother you hapless twat.
To understand Buddhism, you must begin with the Greeks.
Why would you ever start with westoids?
BORN TO 念佛
末法 IS A FRICK
信心 Reject All Practices
I am 他力 man
410,757,864,530 南無阿彌陀佛 RECITED
You guys see that video of the 109 year old monk who essentially looks dead (but isn’t)? Shit’s pretty fricked up bros.
Dhammapada and Sutta Nipata
Start with shitting on a british street
close the book and come to nepal buddy
t.namaste
You start with the 'Jeets, simple as
If you're interested in Mahayana, Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra. These are widely studied by all kinds of schools, so it's easy to find renditions and commentaries for them that are agreeable to your personality and culture.
Look into writings about laymen's vows ("rules of correct personal conduct") and study some of which school of thought is studied by which lineage etc.
For Chan, I'd recommend Wu-wen's Mumonkan or Bankei's Unborn.
If there's no self, why buddhists think life is sacred?
all living beings are trapped in samsara and worthy of compassion i dont know if sacred enters into it
Well sacred is a western word with western connotations. I am a newbie Buddhist and the reason not to kill seem to very a little between schools. However in general it’s bad to purposefully kill things because it habituates your mind to violence and brings about negative results like bad karma. Also it contradicts the ethics of compassion for all sentient beings who are after all connected do to the laws of dependent origination. So it’s not like in Christian religion we’re there is a transcendent right and wrong moral system set up by God it’s more like a bad idea to the nature of the universe. In a way it’s kind of wrong to kill innocent beings in the same way that it’s wrong drive the wrong direction on the road it’s stupid and will probably get you and or someone else hurt.
Avoid Buddhism. It is a road that leads nowhere, and is wrought with questionable practices more in tune with the occult and the demonic.
Don't be one of those morons that think he's "finding himself" by dabbling in different practices, as if it's some self-help or diet fad. If you want to be more in-tune with your ancestors and the Truth, attend an Orthodox Christian Church. Who's traditions are founded in Christ and the Apostles, and have stood unchanged since the Day of Pentecost 2000 years ago.
cringe
Avoid israelites
very cool Ivan, now go die for access to warm water ports
according to simps, sanna marin can become a buddha on her own.
>ready to become a buddha
With 2 millions per month, you know she knows a thing or two about the middle way.
buddhists don't think life i sacred. It's just is that killing stuff which has consciousness is bad karma
Mahayana is based on unconditional compassion for all sentient beings
mahayana is the anime version of buddhism
Only in the best sense of the word "anime".
Mahayana isn't specifically, originally, orbpredominately Japanese, anyway.