/lit/ - Literature

>>11383976
According to westerners who can't into Buddhism, yes.

life is an illusion
denial is an illusion
buddhism is an illusion

Just to nip the majority of the shitposts in the bud:

>In the Madhyamika (“Middle Way”) school of Mahayana Buddhism, the concept of dependent arising is also taken to mean that everything exists in dependence upon its own parts, and that everything exists in dependence upon the thought which designates it. In all these cases, the notion of dependent arising implies that phenomena lack independent existence. This implication is often expressed in terms of the doctrine of emptiness (sunyata): all phenomena are empty of any independent, separate essence of their own. This lack of inherent existence, however, does not imply that things do not exist at all. They do exist—but their existence is a dependent, not an independent, existence. The doctrine of dependent arising, therefore, avoids the extremes of substantialism (i.e., things exists as independent, separate essences) and nihilism (i.e., things do not exist at all).

Buddhism is just Daosim for people who are desperately trying to avoid having a life-changing existential crisis.

>>11384033
Hardly, considering Siddhartha himself was motivated to embark on the path by a life-changing existential crisis

>>11383976
Not this thread again. If you want to make a thread about Buddhism at least make a question that can actually be used as a basis for discussion. I think I'm expecting too much from this board, specially at this time of the year. My bad.

>>11383989
>>11384003
This is the correct answer to OP's question by the way.

>>11383976
Yes. Anything that rejects the divinity of Christ and rejects the holy trinity is life denying.

>>11384209
it's a dumb question but it attracts the peeps who actually know what they're talking about and you usually get some good discussion.

>>11384003
>the notion of dependent arising implies that phenomena lack independent existence.
I'm almost certain this is Asian thinkers projecting their insectoid psychology onto metaphysics

>>11384227
what do you mean

>>11384220

>>11384236
it makes sense that they would structure their metaphysics this way, making it into a macrocosm of their own shame/honor society

>>11383992
illusion is an illusion desu

>>11384236
He's saying asians are less independent / more collectivist and that rather than the doctrine of dependent origination being something discerned logically he thinks it's just them assuming reality as a whole is collectivist because that's what they're personally biased towards.
I never really like arguments like that since they avoid the question of whether the proposition itself is valid and turn it into a psychoanalyzing insult game.
The motivation for making a claim is irrelevant to whether the claim is valid.

>>11384003
Lol, in the thread on Shankara's rebuttal of Indian Buddhism a week ago all the Buddhists on /lit/ were angrily denying that dependent arising was an important or valid part of Buddhiam.

>>11384248
that wouldn't necessarily refute it

>>11384283
I agree

>>11384284
It's almost like different schools of thought exist. Weird.

>>11384248
Whitehead came to the same conclusions and he's a white Westerner

>>11384296
>something is Buddhism when it refutes the notion that Buddhism is life-denying but when someone points out the ways that thing contradicts with other aspects of Buddhism it's no longer valid and is superseded by the thought of later Buddhist schools

>>11384315
>DURR WHY NOT AM SEVERAL THINGS ALL JUST ONE THING???
It's almost like... different schools of thought exist. Weird.

>>11384315
To clarify, you are aware Nagarjuna is a different guy from Gautama Buddha, right?

>>11384319
I just found it ironic that you were bringing up something as an example to prove OP wrong when very recently there was a large thread full of Buddhists arguing that the concept was wrong or superseded by other ideas etc.

>>11384327
Yes, I'm fully aware although it shouldn't be denied that when all the various Tibetian, Chinese and Japanese Buddhist thinkers introduce new concepts into their strain of Buddhism they are all either implicitly or explicitly presenting it as being totally in accordance with and part of the truth of Buddha's teaching, almost equivalent to saying it was something that he was aware of and just chose not to teach. So yes, there are various influential Buddhist thinkers who were not Buddha but most of them present their ideas basically as being part of Buddha's.

>>11384335
That's not really ironic, it's just the existence of multiple different schools of thought.
It's like calling it ironic that my wrist watch is so much smaller than Big Ben yet both are clocks.
Buddhism and the concept of clocks are high level generalizations, not specific instances of something.

>>11384220
I’m actually starting to enjoy all this christ-posting

>>11384315
but sunyata isn't life denying concept

>>11384353
All of them present their ideas as being part of Buddha's.
That doesn't mean all of them agree with each other.
I mean, am I disproving Christianity if I point out Catholics believe in the holy trinity but Protestants don't?

I'll use this thread for a question I have on buddhism.

>Life as we know it is samsara. Desire and suffering dancing with each other
>The enlightened path leads to nirvana, in which clinging to desire ceases
(correct? no? how would you rephrase those?)

But does nirvana lasts forever? If we were once not here in samsara, does that mean one could rise and fall out of nirvana? Doesn't that make it part of the cycle itself?

>>11384390
being "in" nirvana - extinguishing desire at its roots - precludes falling back into samsara. samsara and nirvana are the same anyways

>>11384402
I can accept that as the definition of nirvana, but does it "exist" then? Is it really possible to not fall back to samsara? Or is it just a horizon that we ought to seek even if we don't reach it?

It's antithetical to modern Western existence if that's what you mean.

>>11384390
You can't accidentally fall into rebirth if you're snuffed out buddha-style.
Some sects believe there are buddhas who voluntarily go back into the world because they've taken a vow not to rest until they've helped snuff out every last sentient being in the entirety of reality:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva_vow
Though arguably they're just really close to nirvana to where they could get it if they wanted but decide on not going all the way rather than them coming back post-nirvana.

>>11384414
nirvana is samsara dissolved of our situationality in it, and everything that implies: identification with our facticity, desire, etc.

it's not possible. it is the Limit. beyond that is parinirvana.


we don't asymptotically approach it, it can be eventually achieved

>>11384358
Yes, but in order for a doctrine or body of thought to be taken seriously it has to be somewhat internally consistent. Otherwise it just becomes a total grab-bag where you can pull out any contradictory argument you want to defend yourself while simultaneously arguing that any aspect of Buddhism isn't genuine when people point out the flaws or contradiction in it.

>>11384364
Nobody in this thread said sunyata is specifically why Buddhism was life-denying, people in this thread were just arguing against the accusation that it was generally.

>>11384367
Other eastern doctrines like Hinduism, Daoism and even Islam are generally more internally consistent than Buddhism, I'm not making any value judgements in this post about Buddhism but it remains true that it's more disorganized and there is much more disagreement over what is orthodox.

>>11384435
>Hinduism
>Internally consistent
Ah, so you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>11384451
>doesn't know that whether something is in accordance with the Vedas has always been the test of orthodoxy in Hinduism
>doesn't know that every major development in Hinduism since the Aryan migrations into India have always in one way or another been rooted in the Vedas.

Try actually reading a book instead of relying on Buddhist descriptions of Hinduism.

>>11384466
why don't you make a specific claim about where buddhism is internally inconsistent

no buddhist would reject the four noble truths

>>11384466
So you're fine with the Hare Krishna version of Bhagavad-Gītā?

>>11384419
>>11384426
I see the point, but what is the argument that it can be achieved? I understand that there is a certain degree of "blindness" from our part, since we are in samsara, we cannot possibly understand nirvana, just like a fish can't think much of the sky. But if the precepts of buddhism are that there is suffering, suffering is caused by desire and there is a way out of it in the buddhist path, I think the first two are easy to see and understand, whereas the last one appears to be just floating there. Why would there be a way out of samsara? What buddhist text goes over this?

I'm not even arguing against the buddhist way, as to say "this method is wrong, here is a better one". But if there is any method on this at all.

>>11384474
because if suffering is a function of desire then theoretically the extinction of desire would be the extinction of suffering

you can force yourself to give up a habit that you look forward to every day that maybe is keeping you a little too locked into the same pattern (like drinking after work), nothing impossible about that, now apply this in the most radical ontological way possible

>>11384474
Gautama Buddha straight up says he won't explain metaphysical shit like the nature or nirvana because by analogy you're like a guy who was bitten by a venomous snake and Buddha is trying to cure you, not trying to give you an education about the underlying chemical reactions that are causing you to die.
Like what if you had a few minutes' time for a doctor to save you from a snake bite and instead you spent that few minutes trying to get the doctor to explain how exactly the venom is going to inhibit your neurons' ability to maintain ordinary intracellular functionality leading to systemic nervous system arrest?
Buddha referred to this shit as questions that 'don't further.' They don't help with the immediate, serious problem of cyclic rebirth and suffering and you will probably horribly misinterpret anything he might say if he did answer these questions.
Also RE:
>I think the first two are easy
Buddha explicitly makes a point of saying if you think what he's saying is easy or simple then you're severely misunderstanding it.
There's this one passage where he just goes on an exrended tirade and repeatedly insults a monk for saying he gets what Buddha's saying and thinks it's clear and straightforward.

>>11384220
advanced shotposting

>>11384474
>>11384526
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow
>It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

>>11384472
I'm not in this thread to argue that it is. Shankara did so for 8th-century Indian Buddhism and I'm familiar with that argument although I know Buddhism changed a lot since that and I don't care enough to study every school of Buddhism in depth to figure out how all of them are. Without me specifically explaining all the areas where it's contradictory though it's pretty undeniable that Buddhism is less coherent when it comes to orthodoxy than Hinduism for example, there is nothing like the perpetuity of the Vedas in Buddhism, many schools can't even agree on a ton of basic stuff despite the Pali Canon supposedly providing a common base. I only started posting in this thread because I thought it was funny that someone was relying for an arguments sake on a Buddhist doctrine that many Buddhists reject. I don't have any huge problem with Buddhism, I enjoy studying it and I appreciate some of its teachings but I'm also willing to admit the other stuff I said is true.

.

>>11384435
You have to be specific when you try to argue about a religious doctrine.
The existence of multiple disagreeing factions is standard to major religions, not unique to Buddhism.
Does Christianity subscribe to determinism?
Stupid question, you need to be specific or else you'll be left wondering why Christianity both subscribes to determinism and doesn't subscribe to determinism.
It doesn't mean Christianity is contradicting itself, it means Calvinists and Catholics both exist.

>>11384526
I think what the Buddha really wanted people to understand is that his teachings are only signposts, and it's pointless to argue about the specifics (like in this thread) since you can only really know by experiencing them yourself. It's an incredibly solid world view, no doubt, but until you realize them they're not going to be much more helpful than any other stable set of beliefs.

>>11384586
No, I don't think that's the case.
He's saying he discovered we're all in a really fucked up situation and he's also discovered the way out, and that he isn't trying to teach you metaphysics, he's trying to save you from a bad time.

>>11384526
>>11384539
That makes sense, so is that then the limit of rational thought when it comes to buddhism? I mean, a doctor may stop me and say "there is no time, let me cure you" and still not be able to cure me or perhaps even make things worse. Is this the moment where I just cease on asking and just join a buddhist sangha because buddha said so?

I'm sorry if I sound like a prick, I would only ask it like this here. It's just that I've been disenchanted with buddhism. My personal believe is that there is samsara and that's all there is, no solace or solution apart from momentary ones.

>>11384473
>So you're fine with the Hare Krishna version of Bhagavad-Gītā?

Hare Krishna is considered with good reason by many Hindus to be heterodox and thus outside the bounds of orthodox Hinduism. Hare Krishna are to a large extent seen as weirdos in India and is only really popular in western countries, it's largely sustained by western converts that don't know better. The core teaching of the Vedas and Upanishads is generally that of non-dualism, pure Advaita non-dualism, qualified non-dualism and all the other ways of expressing or teaching the idea of non-dualism are all for the most part orthodox ways of expressing the same general understanding. Pure dualism (dvaita) only arose as a school of Vedanta in the 12-century and is heterodox in that it is completely contradicted by the Vedas which are overwhelmingly non-dualist. Dvaita has historically had very little influence or popularity in Hinduism because of it's heterodoxy, also almost all of the dvaita sects that are presently active incorporate ideas from qualified non-dualism and are not pure dualist.

Hare Krishna arose out of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which adheres to the Vedanta school of Achintya Bheda Abheda "inconceivable oneness and difference", which teaches that the individual souls is both simultaneously one with and different from the supreme godhead Krishna and that the exact nature of this relation/contradiction is inconceivable to someone who has not attained moksha. This can be considered partially orthodox in that it teaches non-dualism in some sense and leaves itself room for adjustment by stating the exact nature of the relationship is inconceivable. However it's also heterodox by contradicting fundamental ideas expressed in the Vedas, namely that upon death one who has attained moksha is merged in or returns to the formless Self/godhead/Brahman which is everything. Achintya Bheda Abheda from what I understand teach that one just abides in eternal bhakti upon reaching the supreme state. I think that Achintya Bheda Abheda has the potential to be orthodox within certain subsets of it that teach in it a way so that the dvaita aspects refer more to from the ignorant perspective of manifested beings and the advaita aspect being from the perspective of the godhead itself, but Hare Krishna does not hold this view and by doing so fundamentally disagrees with the Vedic texts which over and over describe someone realizing Brahman as the Self and then merging with It. So TLDR: it originated out of an unusual and potentially heterodox interpretation of Hinduism and by the time of its formulation into the modern Hare Krishna sect it was pretty solidly heterodox.

>>11384003
Isn’t that literally Berkeley

>>11384259
ur mum an illusion desu senpai

No, it's more life embracing really

>>11384614
buddhism cuts the circle of discursion that produces attachments to what are fundamentally impermanent things, momentary structures that emerge out of flux and return again


no one said it was supposed to be easy. there is no doubt the pull of these forces can be minimized if not outright extinguished, i myself can tell you that

>>11384620
what? no

>>11384615
I don't know about this. I spent a year of my life, which I wish I could be given back, learning hindi and studying the vedas, and the only way you can make it work is with a vedic understanding of dualism. theres a trend to be all "yeh well in 800 bce these guys worsipped frogs so thats the REAL path to buddha," but in realityland, the buddha just wants you to be a good dude, help others when ya can, and understand that you being a dick in the present makes you a dick in the cosmic sense. so said "look bro, ima be real, our religion is dying thanks to yoga courses, so just read them books and make an effort" shamanistruffort or whatever

>>11384657
>I don't know about this. I spent a year of my life, which I wish I could be given back, learning hindi and studying the vedas, and the only way you can make it work is with a vedic understanding of dualism.

What are you talking about? Non-dualism is basically almost all that the Upanishads talk about (which themselves are part of the Vedas and are regarded as infallible sources in Hinduism) and even the pre-Upanishad portions of the Vedas contain non-dualist passages which clearly indicate that all the gods are to be understood as being manifestations within the undivided One.

>>11384284
No, they were denying momentariness. At least I was.

Buddhism is generally structured on levels of less important to more important structures of ontology. For example, on one level you see all human beings as nothing but a heap of cells, but then when you analyze further, you see them as nothing but a heap of atoms. So that's why momentariness is taught at a lower level, but not a higher one.

Anyway, as far as life-denial goes, since most posters here are familiar with Madhyamaka, they should look into Tiantai Buddhism. It's a similar way of thinking, but presented in a much more positive way. Its general tones seem much more life-affirming, perhaps due in part to Chinese Taoist influence.

>>11384597
How is it not the case? With enlightenment comes the knowledge of existence itself, and by extension all metaphysics. The point is that speculating over what these might be is a waste of time since you can only truly know by taking up the practice, entering the stream, and watching it happen yourself. It's true that the metaphysics isn't the main focus, but people understandably want the system to make sense before they devote years to it. What the Buddha cautions us of (I believe) is getting caught up in the logistics of it and mistaking your idea of the experience for the real thing. If your interest extends beyond mere intellectual curiosity, at some point you have to push beyond the books and try it for yourself.

>>11384720
>No, they were denying momentariness. At least I was.

I remember what was said and you can find it on warosu, people were both arguing against momentariness and that dependent arising wasn't actually genuine Buddhism, that it was a false exoteric teaching sold to plebs, that it was negated by sunyata (which isn't even accepted by many schools) or that it was superseded by a totally contradictory later view of everything as spontaneously arising. I'm not trying to shit on Buddhism or anything but it remains true that there is a lot of disagreement between Buddhists over core aspects, they can't even agree on whether two of the major aspects of Indian Buddhism he criticized are themselves genuine doctrine.

>>11383976
Watch Angel Beats. tldr you must throw yourself into life and deny a selfish version of it. That's not life denying at all.

Why do many westerns have the idea that buddhism is just a philosophy and even fashion it as a "hobbie"? Its a creed, in its most traditional forms include cult of ancestors and animal sacrifice to some extent. People say buddhism is not a religion because "it has not God" (limiting to their judeo-christian concepts), but of course acknowledge the concept of the sacred.

On a somewhat related note, how based is Sanskrit? Is there a ton of interesting stuff to read in it? (Difficulty isn't an issue btw, just not sure if it's an efficient use of my time).

Why do many westerns have the idea that buddhism is just a philosophy and even fashion it as a "hobbie"? Its a creed, in its most traditional forms include cult of ancestors and animal sacrifice to some extent. People say buddhism is not a religion because "it has not God" (limiting to their judeo-christian concepts), but of course Buddhism acknowledge the concept of the sacred.

>>11384758
I think the posters framed their arguments in misleading and edgy ways (i.e. "false teaching for plebs"), but I think the idea of dependent origination being "false" really means that it's a lower level of the ontology. Eventually you realize that dependent origination, too, is an empty idea that's only dependent on false conceptions of the way the world works. But you need to have a conception of dependent origination to get there.

Not saying I agree with every poster in that thread, but that's how I understood it.

A good read:
https://my.mixtape.moe/ftyhrj.pdf

>>11384814
western buddhism is just not very rigorous, it's been diluted into "mindfulness" and the ontology has been either jettisoned or sanitized

They might argue that you get more suffering through trying to obtain the life you want.

>>11384526
>There's this one passage where he just goes on an exrended tirade and repeatedly insults a monk for saying he gets what Buddha's saying and thinks it's clear and straightforward.


Link pls.

>>11384814
it took hundreds of years for westerners to drop Christianity for consumerist materialism. It took a few decades for ~99% of self proclaimed Buddhists to do the same. Either tech has gotten more powerful in terms of persuasiveness or Buddhism was the weaker religion. you don't just drop something that's important and useful to you on the ground in a second.

Buddhism is just sugar coated atheism.

All Buddhist will get sent straight to hell for denying the existence of a God. If they can't come forth to accepting Jesus Christ as Lord, then then they don't have coverage for their sins. No coverage for your sins equals condemnation.

Those who are "born again" throught Christ, have the promise of eternal life.

Heaven and hell are very real, bros. Please, for the sake of your eternal destiny, repent of your sins and let Jesus Christ into your heart. Do this and you will be saved.

The beauty of our God is that he's a personal God. He'll make himself known to you eventually. It could be through repeatedly answer prayer or a direct vision.

With Buddha, you get none of these things but a bunch of philosophical non-sense that further confuses a person. He doesn't show you the way because he never knew THE way.

What is THE way? See John 14:6

>>11384435
>Yes, but in order for a doctrine or body of thought to be taken seriously it has to be somewhat internally consistent.
>Philosophy is wrong and stupid because it says X
>Actually my philosophy says Y
>Why no internal consistency

>>11384993
Your post isn't interesting, informative or even relevant to the thread

>>11384808
very

>>11384451
>>11384466
Both Hinduism and Buddhism must be considered as Hinduisms and Buddhisms.

>>11385376
This.

>>11384614
No. You don't understand anything in Buddhism intellectually, except for guidelines that assist you, any legitimate understanding comes only from the experiential and the lived. It's not about intellectual discussion/understanding, it's about slow internalisation and reflection, you will see the deeper nature of the ideas and much more if you simply practice the Eightfold path. Of course, a certain degree of faith is required to pursue this.

>>11384993

Plot twist: God is a trickster and sends christians to hell and atheists to heaven.

>>11385376
fucking this

>>11384033
Daoism is interesting, but it doesn't really begin to approach the depth of insight that Buddhism has of suffering and desire.

>>11383976
It denies a category of life, that being the ego.

Life is life-denying, or rather, simply denying. A particularity only is inasmuch as it is not another particularity. All the aspects of your personhood and phenomenal experience are negations of other personalities and phenomena.

>>11383976
Yes Buddhism is an evil life-denying annihilationist religion of self-erasure. On the plus side they don't view women as truly human so you'll have more harmonious gender relations.

Note how Japan has a fertility crises similar to the West despite not having J-Left anti-nationism control academia and the cultural highgrounds, and are not being programmed to self-loath. Blame Buddhism and it's denial of the value of fecundity and life.

>>11384239
Not an argument

>>11383976
It's a religion for pseuds & brainlets

>>11384435
>>11384573
>Dude Buddhism is big lmao
But we can talk about general trends in it, ideas which were in it from seemingly the very start and similarly diffused through different schools. Admittedly it IS usually important to talk about what school of Buddhism you’re referring to when you bring up a certain interpretation of an idea or certain terminology, but if we were so strictly scholarly and nitpicking on every such point, this wouldn’t be an entertaining and illuminating discussion where we could discuss various holistic concepts from the history of Buddhism.

Basically, I see the point you’re making, but it’s an extremely uninteresting and trite one, people are having an interesting convo about various Buddhist concepts and you’re just saying “How can we respect or talk coherently about Buddhism when it’s such a massive and disparate religion?” The answer to that is: like this.

>>11384220
t. being caught in samsara

>>11384814
Buddhist philosophy is not necessarily Buddhist religion, you midwit hack. One can appreciate Thomas Aquinas — in fact, think he’s a genius, be fascinated by him, learn from his thought, and reverence his huge influence on subsequent Western philosophy — without being a Catholic. In various older Asian cultures many interesting philosophers developed various interesting philosophical concepts within the framework of Buddhist religion. This was because pretty much the only way to be an intellect and get some book-learning, in many of these cultures, was to join a Buddhist monastery. However, just because they were in the framework of the Buddhist society and religion doesn’t mean their thoughts are totally unique and exclusive to that religion. We can appreciate the Scholastic philosophers without taking communion.

Your post is as dumb as saying, “Why do philosophers study Aquinas and the Scholastic philosophers as some watered down ‘hobby’ without realizing there’s a bunch of religious rites behind it like going to Mass and receiving the seven sacraments?”

>>11386628
I've legitimately never read a more retarded post on this board

>>11386709
actually pseud a better analogy would be if there were a bunch of Asians running around claiming Aquinas is all there is and all the church and sacrament stuff was basically irrelevant

>>11386719
1.) Religions change, migrate, develop over time. To say “This isn’t valid Buddhism!” suggests you think there’s valid Buddhism, suggesting you have the correct interpretation of Buddhism, have reverence of Buddhism. Basically, by making this value judgment, you’re implicitly giving a value to Buddhism. If you don’t care about Buddhism, why should you care to see it perverted?
2.) You’re irrelevantly strawmanning. There are indeed a lot of pseudo-Buddhists or people irrationally enthusiastic about it, but there’s also a lot of interesting debates and discussions that have been initiated by the spread of Buddhist philosophy to the West. While scholars and philosophers seriously discuss certain ideas from Buddhist philosophy, you puff up your own vanity by shooting at the easy targets.

A better analogy would be if some Asian intellectuals were interested in concepts from Aquinas’s and Scholastic philosophy and you came in and said, “You idiots, there’s a bunch of rites behind that!”

Not to mention most pseudo-Buddhists in the West don’t come at it from a philosophical perspective, they just like the idea of a religion without a deity which seemingly says “Just be nice and you’ll become enlightened :)”. There’s actually a comparable translation of Christianity to East Asia with unorthodox Protestant Christian churches and sects rising up, without much philosophical underpinnings behind them, they just seem to like the symbolism and imagery and emotionally attractive power of Christianity, but of course it wouldn’t come to your mind to make fun of that.

>>11386719
Except in Buddhism you can verify things for yourself, so if you can attain enlightenment without magic rituals then it is still valid Buddhism. You don't have such luxury in religions that are verifiable after death only.

>>11386709
And I never said you cant study buddhism, you stupid fuck. Im talking about the ones that proclaim to be buddhists without committing to the whole thing.

>>11386758
>To say “This isn’t valid Buddhism!” suggests you think there’s valid Buddhism, suggesting you have the correct interpretation of Buddhism, have reverence of Buddhism.
Ehh... What about no? You are just jumping into conclusions too quickly about that other anon and definitely projecting.
>If you don’t care about Buddhism, why should you care to see it perverted?
Yeah, let's talk about apples. This is a tomato that looks like an apple and this thing over there is an actual apple. For the sake of the discussion we have to define what's an apple.
However, you say that you don't want to eat apples anyway so it doesn't matter that it's actually a tomato! Wow, really strong argument right there my friend.

I don't know if you are naive, collecting (You)s or actually dumb. There is a very clear definition of what Buddhism means. All traditions have had dialogs between each other to decide what 'Buddhism means. They agreed upon a number of concepts like the Four Noble Truths and the Three Characteristics.
If we take the religious authority aside, there are several renowned scholars of Buddhism that give a very specific definition of what Buddhism is and isn't.
So saying that a particular thing isn't Buddhism is not in any way suggesting that one tradition is more true than the others.

I hope you can at least understand the apple analogy. I'm still not sure if you are just dumb.

>>11383992
WOOAAAH THIS IS THE ILLUSION!!! ;)

>>11386758
>Religions change, migrate, develop over time
And they all possess the rite and the notion of the sacred. There is philosophy in religion, and religion can contribute to philosophy, yet are different things. You can study buddhism, but you cant call yourself buddhist until you fully commit.

>>11388999
>>11389013
>Dude stop misinterpreting Buddhism there’s only one true Buddhism lol
>lol what no I’m not a Buddhist
>lol what there’s Tibetan Buddhism and Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism and other types of Buddhism?

There’s a difference between types of tomato and types of religion. American Buddhism is itself a new phenomenon, you can’t say it’s not a valid new form of the religion you absolutely arrogant faggot. The religion has changed in a different place and culture. I’ve tried not to resort to flaming until now but good grief are you one dense flaming homosexual.

>>11383992
illusions are spooks

>>11383976
why redditors use vague words like life

>>11389016
>you can’t call yourself a Buddhist until you fully commit
Yes you can you fucking homosexual nigger-cock-sucker. It’s accepted classic Zen doctrine, and a facet of various Mahayana Buddhist philosophy in general, that the precepts are not necessarily worthy in themselves but just traditionally accepted ways to gradually reach enlightenment. Enlightenment (as, to put it as simply as possible on a certain level, a real direct realization of various concepts like sunyata/emptiness, anatta/no-self, dependent origination, etc), can be realized apart from rites and forms, there is even a word in Buddhist terminology for people who may have never even heard of Buddhism and who may unintentionally become enlightened simply by reflecting on and understanding such concepts. Enlightenment as the Buddha taught it is not bound up to some religion, enlightenment could happen to anyone.

Are there any good apologetic works for Buddhism? I always had the impression people just assume what they want to be true is true because I never hear any explanations or reasons to believe they're actually true. If everything is an illusion then okay, you believe that but why should I?

>>11389027
>Implying anyone is saying there is one true buddhism
Why do you keep insisting on this?
>"Studying buddhism without tradition is contradictory to your previous post"
Really?
May I ask how old are you?

>>11389105
>Dude stop saying you’re Buddhist without following the Buddhist rites it triggers me lmao
>lol no I’m not a traditional Buddhist either

The essence of faggotry, getting mad about something which doesn’t concern you

>>11389055
>"Enlightment = being buddhist..."
>"...Enlightenment as the Buddha taught it is not bound up to some religion, enlightenment could happen to anyone"

>>11389128
And you cant grasp the most basic concepts, it seems

>>11389073
You're mistake is assuming that Buddhism is a "set of beliefs" akin to Christianity or Islam. It's not. Rather, it's simply the metaphysical and practitional framework for realising nirvana for yourself. One of its basic tenents is to even not cling to any one idea or teaching about reality, since nirvana exists beyond the frame of conceptual thinking.

So you don't have to "believe" everything is an illusion, rather you try and cultivate the conditions for you to realise that yourself. For what it's worth, I think "illusion" is a poor translation anyone, especially for a western mindset that assumes it's taking about non-existence. I personally prefer the term "falsehood", since a falsehood is still "real", but belies what's *actually* going on in any given situation.

If you'd still like a book to help make sense of these things though, I'd recommend Why Buddhisms Is True by Robin Wright, he explains buddhist concepts from a modern evolutionary psychological point of view.

>>11389130
>>11389136
It’s Zen doctrine, not modern Zen doctrine either, but found in writings from hundreds of years ago. You’re not supposed to get attached to the Buddha personally or the form of the Buddhist religion at the expense of enlightenment. This is the doctrine of an accepted version of Buddhist religion. There’s a tradition of Bodhidharma himself saying building temples and doing rites is useless and irrelevant in attaining enlightenment. Stop your ego-game, it’s pathetic.

>>11389144
>A religious tradition has at least three essential elements, each handed down and
developed in the multitude of ways traditions transmit. One element is a mythic,
philosophical, or theological cosmology defining the fundamental structures and limits of
the world and forming the basic ways in which cultures and individuals imagine how
things are and what they mean....
A second essential element of religion is ritual. Rituals are a finite set of
repeatable and symbolizable actions that epitomize things a tradition takes to be
crucial to defining the normative human place in the cosmos. Early layers of
ritual epitomize the hunt, nurturing of agricultural fertility, acknowledgment of
political authority (worship of gods as lords), acts of commitment to other
individuals, and so forth....
The third essential element is that a tradition have some conception and practical
procedures for fundamental transformation aimed to relate persons harmoniously
to the normative cosmological elements, a path of spiritual perfection. In theisms
this usually means salvation, a right relation to God. In Buddhism it means
transformative enlightenment about the truth of change and suchness.... (Robert
Cummings Neville, in Foreword to Rodney L. Taylor, The Religious Dimensions
of Confucianism)
>"You're mistake is assuming that a Dharmic religion is a "set of beliefs" akin to Abrahamic religions"

>>11389105
>>11389136
This. The dude doesn't understand what we are talking about. He is just dumb. Blinded by his own ignorance. Filled with his own shit up to his neck.

>>11389154
You are the only one who is pathetic here though. What point are you even trying to make? Why are you using Zen examples? It's completely irrelevant if not contradictory.

>>11389194
Drown in boiling shit you sycophantic (let me dumb it down for you, that means ass-kissing, suck-up) cocksucker.

Faggotnigger One says “Lol why do Westerners try to be Buddhist without following all the rites.” I say you can appreciate and appropriate Buddhist philosophy without appropriating Buddhist rites, that there are many forms of Buddhism with different rites and even some which discount the need for rites and say enlightenment can be outside of traditional forms and rites, and, finally, that religions change over times and places and it’s bizarre to criticize people somewhat altering a religion when you yourself are not of that religion and have no reason to be invested in it. What’s behind it? “WHOOOOOO look at me I’m such a faggot cocksucker, let me satisfy my ego by making a stupid comment about something I know nothing about and haven’t thought through. Now let me backtrack when I get caught as the little cocksucker I am!” Then Faggotcuckniggers Two, Three, Four, and so on (all identically automatons with no capacity for critical thought) jump on the bandwagon. “LOOOOL making fun of Buddhists in the West!!! LOOOOL IM SO COOL!!! CANT BE A BUDDHIST IF YOU DONT FOLLOW THE RITES!!! LOL WHATS ZEN WHOSE BODHIDHARMA?!!??” All in all you can all kiss my ass and let me shit in your mouths you toadying dweebs.

>>11389174
Yes, clearly both Buddhism and Christianity share a vast body of devotional and ritual practices. The difference is in Buddhists these are seen merely as a means to the end of ending dukkha; in Christianity, these rituals are exalted and strongly clung to. Buddhism is specifically using personal effort to and try and to see through the falsehood of the ego into an infinite reality beyond. Christianity states that to do so heresy and that we are totally dependent on YHWH and Christ.

Please do not mistake form for essence.

>>11384037
there was no Buddha you fucking idiot, there are literally no records of his life from within 100 years exactly like Christ. He was made up by antinomian autist brahmins.
>>11384364
it very much-so is, but so is the idea of heaven
>>11384731
there is no existence, no one in this thread even takes Buddhism seriously lol you’re all such nigs
>>11384758
someone from thr traditionalist school who has only read Thervada buddhist scriptures quoted by guenon and shankara said that. There is absolutely no reason to believe its not taken seriously
>>11386642
no its easily the highest iq faith considering Asians, Jews and liberal whites follow it
>>11389048
its not vague if you’ve taken biology or studied philosophy

lol /lit/ is so pleb

>>11389238
Those arguments are the same arguments some Islamic terrorist cell would say. You are delusional. You don't even understand the importance of context. You want to stripe something of all its surrounding circumstances to apply it to your own comfort zone. This, by the way is completely against whatever version of Buddhism teaches. Before you sperg out, let me explain to you why.
>even some which discount the need for rites and say enlightenment can be outside of traditional forms and rite
Sure, all schools have a text that says that. The point you are missing is that the only logical and inescapable result is that the moment enlightenment happens, that enlightened being automatically becomes Buddhist and every time he farts he is teaching Buddhism. The argument is circular by necessity. It wouldn't make sense if it didn't end where it started. To say that people who are not Buddhists, let's say
Zen Buddhists, can get enlightened goes against the whole concept of enlightenment. To be enlightened leads invariably to be someone who walked the path of that particular school of Buddhism from which we are taking the definition of enlightenment.
This self asserting dogmas are found in all religions. Buddhism is a religion NOT A PHILOSOPHY.
I'll repeat it for you. Every school has a definition of enlightenment where being enlightenment leads to the realization of whatever path that same school preaches as the true path. Even if the person was not a part of that school when he walked through the path, at the end of it, he will realize that the path he was following was in fact that school's path.

>it’s bizarre to criticize people somewhat altering a religion when you yourself are not of that religion and have no reason to be invested in it
This is just stupid. It's irrelevant whether one is part of a particular religion or not. What you just said there is the definition of ad hominem.

>>11389303
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

>>11383976
Yes, according to Miyazaki's Nausicaa vol 4.

You should go impregnate the nearest woman, doing anything else is life-denying.

>>11389320
The entire point of the Gautama Buddha nibbana story is he rejected both extremes of hedonism and self-mortification.
He literally decides not to be an emaciated living skeleton and accepts food instead.

>>11389320
based vitalust
>>11389362
no Buddhists akshually do this shit frequently, before death they dessicate and mortify the body to become Living Buddhas, which are enshrined as mummified corpses forever

>>11389297
>t. pseud, brainlet & pleb

>>11389238
i'm not a buddhist because i'm not a life-denying pussyboi but i'm pretty sure you shouldn't be getting this upset about dissenting opinions

If Buddhism was life-denying wouldn't there not be any Buddhists around any more

well, no more than life affirming... it is rather life-accepting.

but then, organic life continues so you have to do something as it lasts. there are no isms for that...

sneed

it's basically a method for committing suicide