/lit/ - Literature

i dont like buddhism, feels like a suicide cult

>>14628549
It really is not for everybody. Originally it was designed as a system of attainment for forest ascetics, those people living in India who had wandered into the forest to fast and perform yoga and meditate in an attempt to attain enlightenment. It presupposes certain attitudes and a certain amount of attainment, or at least familiarity with the idea of moksha. India at the time was an almost unique spiritual landscape, with dozrns of schools of mysticiasm, asceticism and yoga all (more or less) peacefully co-existed. Liberation from delusion and attainment were in the air, it was part of popular culture.
Without this in mind it is impossible to understand Buddhism.

>>14628549
>I don't like something because it reminds me of something it isn't

>>14628470
Wait why did the wanderer have so many heads?

>>14629708
It was a hindu deity.

>>14628470
>Whatever is inconstant is stress.
Is this also not a view that has been brought into being?

>>14628644
That's literally every criticism of Buddhism in a nutshell. Because it is a practice more than a belief system and takes decades to master, people are forced to take a few lines out of context and perform massive strawmans.

>>14629785
feel like i've seen this discussed here before

>>14628470
This sutta was made up by OP, the view of the Self being identical with Brahman isn't stated or referenced anywhere in the Pali Canon. Imagine having to make up scriptures because your idol failed to refute something.

In the one Sutta in the Pali Canon where the Buddha debates anything resembling the Upanishad is when Brahma describes an Absolute consciousness in Majjhima Nikaya I.329 - Sutta, No. 49., but in that Sutta Buddha had to rely on his supernatural powers to win the debate instead of having a clinching argument despite claiming that he was "omniscient" lol

>>14629827
lel probably... did /lit/ solve it though? or did it fall into an endless stream of guenon vs buddhist copypastas?

>>14629838
>the view of the Self being identical with Brahman isn't stated or referenced anywhere in the Pali Canon.

What fucking pali canon have you been reading?

>>14629838
>the view of the Self being identical with Brahman isn't stated or referenced anywhere in the Pali Canon
Yeah I thought it was pretty weird seeing how this Advaitin idea postdates Buddhism by like at least a 1000 years.

>>14629845
yeah it was a mildly productive thread
i think the answer was that it would be ridiculous to say "Is this also not a view..." as it would make the one saying it look like a fool

>>14629845
"
>The other guy could have responded with "well your view is brought into being also" and then the debate would have been at a deadlock
The point of the sutra was that the Buddha had no views. That’s why he didn’t answer directly and arrived at a ‘view of no view’ by demonstrating the futility of fabricated views. Answering your way would’ve made that person a laughing stock instead of a deadlock.
"
>>14429380

>>14628470
Good. Now rewrite it until it reads like that professor and veteran pasta.

>>14629882
>this Advaitin idea postdates Buddhism by like at least a 1000 years.
Why even bother getting into debates about this topic when you have no idea what you are talking about? That concept is clearly stated in the pre-Buddhist Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya Upanishads.

"That self is indeed Brahman" - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5.

"he is my Self and is in my heart. He is no other than Brahman. When I leave this body, I shall attain him" - Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.4.

>>14628470
and then the monks stood up, shouted "Based! Fag wanderer BTFO!" and clapped

>>14628624
I've read that the Buddha had a different style of teaching depending on the audience. Are there any records of his teaching to normies? If not, has some other well-known Buddha done this?

>>14630497
Poetic language does not a doctrine make.

>>14630697
Yes, check out the Sigālovāda Sutra.

>>14630745
>Sigālovāda Sutra
thanks. I just started reading its wikipedia page and noticed this in the Buddha's 14 evil ways one should avoid:
>sexual misconduct (kamesu micchacara)[9]
what's sexual misconduct in this context?
I also noticed this:
> the six ways of squandering wealth:
> indulging in intoxicants
>wandering the streets at inappropriate times
>frequenting public spectacle
>compulsive gambling
>malevolent companionship
>habitual idleness
I don't get it. Obviously I'll understand more when I read the actual scriptures, but as a normie who won't attain enlightenment, what's in it for me if I avoid doing these "bad" things?

>>14630729
the point is that idea had already been circulating throughout India and had appeared in writing several hundred years before Buddha

>>14630829
Dunno why you just don't read the sutta instead of the wikipedia article.
>https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.ksw0.html
>but as a normie who won't attain enlightenment, what's in it for me if I avoid doing these "bad" things?
A good life and a good rebirth.