/lit/ - Literature

>>16658826
> how is he still taken seriously?
it’s estimated that between 40 to 50% of the global human population are NPCs

>>16658826
>bro just stop suffering
wow this is deep

munks and buddhists are shit. they dont wanna work. they dont wanna do anything. they wanna sit alone in a cushy "sacred" fort on a mountain and get shit handed to them for free. they fucking managed to convince the entire of asia to give them free shit because "ill pray 4 u bro" thats bonkers. and they even managed to make the rest of the world that they're based for cutting of their dicks, living in their priorys basement, subsisting on handouts and fearing anybody telling them they're full of shit because they can't handle bantz or violence. if I did any of this shit then I'd be a virgin loser living with my parents. but then munks do the exact same it is somehow devout and cool

>>16658826
>how is he still taken seriously?
Because if you pretend to believe in it you can become a monk and they let you rape little boys

>>16658911
>>16658924
why is buddhism the go-to for "deep" types then? Why does it have the reputation of this mystical philosophy?
It's literally the most cowardly religion I can think of. Christianity is only worse because in practice it actively harms people. Buddhism just turns people into docile cowards who avoid doing anything that might cause pain.

Is it fitting to describe Buddhism as "just asian gnosticism"?

>>16658826
notice that this buddha on the pic sleeps, literally, which is absurd.

>>16658960
>why is buddhism the go-to for "deep" types then? Why does it have the reputation of this mystical philosophy?
Because it got shilled big in the 60's which made it take hold and created the whole "mindfullness industry" so it's usually the type of eastern doctrine westerners are most exposed to

>>16658960
>why is buddhism the go-to for "deep" types then?
I honestly don't know what you're talking about, all the boodists I know are extremely superficial people

>>16658960
A personal God doesn't make sense to many people but they still have spiritual needs.

>>16658826
>>pain is bad
What? I'm pretty sure "Dukkha" doesn't refer to physical pain in this sense. Suffering or discontentment are more accurate translations of the term.
Buddha did not offer a way out of physical pain because that pain is an inevitable part of being alive. That's like saying you can transcend the need to breathe or to feel cold.

However mental pain, panic, emotional suffering, dread, dissatisfaction with life, etc. are all states of mind.

>>16659541
Bodhisattvas and Buddhas still feel physical damage to the body. They no longer feel sad on Sunday when Monday looms, nor do they fear death. Dukkha is, indeed, not just physical pain, but is all ill feeling derived from the transitory and changing nature of life. Breaking your leg and being scared of breaking your leg are both "dukkha". The first Noble Truth, nidham dukkham, does not mean "Life is suffering", it means "Dukkha is". "Life is suffering" is a poor translation, meaning "Suffering among other things, is a part of life".

>>16658981
No, the dualistic structure of Gnosticism is totally rejected by Buddhism, as is the claim that the world is intrinsically evil. In fact, I can't actually think of ANY religions other than actual Gnosticism which posit something akin to the Demiurge, so even Hindu dualistic schools aren't really "dualist" in the same way that Gnosticism is. The closest analogue to Buddhism in the West is Pyrrhonism, which is literally just Buddhism entering Greece and being understood as a form of Skepticism.

>>16659541
>However mental pain, panic, emotional suffering, dread, dissatisfaction with life, etc. are all states of mind.
yes, Buddha says that these are bad, which is retarded

>>16659803
Do you understand why he says they're bad or did you just read that Buddha thinks they're bad and that's that?

>>16659811
in the dhammapada the reason is that it prevents people from reaching nirvana. Is there another reason that's less retarded?

>>16659852
No, because that's how you reach Nirvana. Mental distractions keep you from enlightenment. I don't see the issue you're having with this.

If you want to reach enlightenment, then those things are, indeed, bad if that is your goal. If it's not your goal, then whatever -- nevermind the cycle of suffering with impermanent pleasure-seeking.

>>16659881
he wants to do the
>buddha was a slave morality KEK
thing, but he hasn't read nietzsche and just knows him as le ebin nihilism man so he doesn't get that the desire to get out of samsara is an active affirmation of the will and only in abrahamic religions is this even something worth considering.

>>16659881
>the reason is because i said so.

>>16659903
counterpoint: you're painfully stupid and can't think your way out of a wet paper bag, so clearly pain gets in the way of thinking. enlightenment requires a lot of thinking, so you want as little pain as possible.

>>16659897
Buddha's philosophy is unironically
>pain is bad
>there are certain things that can cause pain
>avoid these things to be enlightened
It's a religion for cowards.
Also Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist and his critique of Buddhism wasn't that it is a slave morality. It was that it's life denying. Maybe read Antichrist before trying to roast someone else for not having read him.
>>16659909
You said I didn't know why those things are bad. I said I knew exactly why. You said that I am right in knowing why, and the supplementary information is that "these things prevent enlightenment because Buddha said so"
Buddhism is retarded. I went into it thinking it would be what its reputation is but instead the Dhammaprada ended up being one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I know right? Buddhists are like the coal burners of world religions

>>16658826
>>16658898
>>16658903
>>16658911
>>16658960
>>16659852
>>16659948
t. never actually read a Buddhist text or understand anything about it

>>16658826
You are retarded for having such a simp take on Buddhism.

Buddhism isnt retarded, your conception of Buddhism is retarded.

Buddhism
Is what happens when you go black
And your dying to come back
From the ghetto

>>16659967
i read the Dhammapada and according to the guy trying to refute me I understood it perfectly
It's not at all hard to understand or esoteric btw
>>16659970
please feel free to say why

>>16659711
>No, the dualistic structure of Gnosticism is totally rejected by Buddhism, as is the claim that the world is intrinsically evil.
There is scholarship that posit gnosticism as being nondualist, even if only with certain sects. I don't think the traditions are as far apart as is usually considered. You can also make a reasonable case, I would say, for the gospel of thomas being essentially non-dualist.
>[Thom 19] Jesus said, "Congratulations to the one who came into being before coming into being. If you become my disciples and pay attention to my sayings, these stones will serve you. For there are five trees in Paradise for you; they do not change, summer or winter, and their leaves do not fall. Whoever knows them will not taste death."
>[Thom 61] Jesus said, "Two will recline on a couch; one will die, one will live."
>Salome said, "Who are you mister? You have climbed onto my couch and eaten from my table as if you are from someone."
>Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was granted from the things of my Father."
>"I am your disciple."
>"For this reason I say, if one is whole, one will be filled with light, but if one is divided, one will be filled with darkness."
>{Thom 71] Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
>[Thom 89] Jesus said, "Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?"
>[Thom 106] Jesus said, "When you make the two into one, you will become children of Adam, and when you say, 'Mountain, move from here!' it will move."
>[Thom 108] Jesus said, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him."
The whole gospel of Thomas reads like a cryptic christian exposition of advaitan soteriology if you read it in a nondualist manner.

Suffering is bad by definition. No one likes suffering. If you are not bothered by your suffering, then you don't have any suffering.

>>16658826
>The prototypic experience of badness, from which all conception of badness blooms is not itself bad

>>16659948
>>pain is bad
>>there are certain things that can cause pain
>>avoid these things to be enlightened
t hasnt read anything buddhist or even eastern at all
the point isnt to avoid pain but to regard it as "not yourself"
attachment or aversion created by regarding things as yourself is what gives rise to pain
you can boot a jivanmukti in the nuts and he won't feel a thing

>>16660077
That’s not true. You need to suffer to become a great dancer. Look at black guys. Be logical here

>>16660077
>Suffering is bad by definition
lowest of iqs itt
>>16660087
In the Dhammapada buddha literally says to avoid things that cause pain, like passion and lust. He likens them to a breeze blowing through a poorly built house, and says that your house should be built so these breezes cannot enter it.
It's a pretty clear message. Have no passion, never be lustful, never be angry, avoid any emotion that could possibly cause pain.

>every action has, like, a reaction
wow really?

>>16658826
>>>pain is bad
>how is he still taken seriously?
not what he says

why do women and soys can't into buddhism

>>16660142
>>In the Dhammapada buddha literally says to avoid things that cause pain, like passion and lust. He likens them to a breeze blowing through a poorly built house, and says that your house should be built so these breezes cannot enter it.
>It's a pretty clear message. Have no passion, never be lustful, never be angry, avoid any emotion that could possibly cause pain.
Ho I see, hedonists are freaking out. Why women hate renunciation so much? Why women can't have forbearance?

>>16660142
>>Suffering is bad by definition
>lowest of iqs itt
Oh no. Are you that faggot from last week who went around insisting suffering is good because childbirth is painful?

Suffering and pain are not the same thing. Pain can be a positive thing, like muscle strain after a workout, or the discomfort of getting up early, and of course childbirth. Just because a moral system aims to minimize the amount of suffering doesn't mean it wants people to stop exercising or fulfilling responsibilities. That's absurd.

>>16660365
i mean at the time it wasn't really obvious, took anglos until the 1700s to figure it out

>>16660379
It's not a renunciation of hedonism, it's hiding yourself away from anything that might cause suffering. Also it's not the rejection of these things that I am opposed to inherently, it's that the reason for rejecting these things is retarded.
Also it's not self-control. It's like arguing the alcoholic who does not drink because if he does he will not be able to stop has good self-control. Abstinence, when taken as a necessary constant, is a sign of weakness. The people with self-control are the ones who are able to indulge when they want to and stop when they need to.
>>16660447
suffering can create strength and fortitude.It is also a great learning tool and a part of existence, above all else. Suffering isn't good inherently either. But it can be beneficial just as it can be harmful. To say that it is bad is just incorrect.
I never said any of the things you are putting in my mouth though. I just said that Buddha tells you to avoid any emotions that can cause suffering. Which is objectively correct.
Utilitarians get the rope regardless

>>16658826
Make fun of Buddhism all you want but science isn't any better.

>>16660615
> science - shit tier. Only annoying tryhards actually bother to advance it. There overshadowed by woke, cherrypicked experiments that pull in all the brainless zealots
> Buddhism - good. Reminds you that pain and pleasure are equally dangerous if you let them dictate your motivations because you can't control nearly as much as you think you can, let alone your emotional response
> stoicism - great. Buddhism with less complication. Everything falls into ruin. Today's problems will be gone in 10 years. You're going to face hardship every day, lingering on your emotional response to it is useless
> Taoism - enlightenment. Just stop trying so hard. If you can't enjoy life without the next big thing or accomplishment them you'll never be happy

>>16659950
This is true.
T. Buddhist

>>16658826
This board is so extremely disappointing. People here believe they can refute things they haven't read and have not even heard the arguments and explanations for.

>>16658981
Not at all. Gnosticism is dualistic and Buddhism is not. In Buddhism the only defilement is your own delusion, attachment, and aversion. In Gnosticism, the world is inherently evil. In Buddhism, everything is inherently buddha-nature which is good.
>>16660053
If Gnosticism is nondualist then internet 4chins Gnostics are completely wrong about it, which would not be surprising.

>>16659948
The Dhammapada is a tiny piece of Buddhism, and really you got memed into thinking it was all of or even most of the philosophy. The Dhammapada barely touches upon emptiness and I can't even remember if it talks about luminosity and buddha-nature at all. Mahayana isn't even present in the Dhammapada nor Vajrayana, only small Hinayana sayings. It's really just a book you read sometimes to remind yourself "oh yeah I should remember to do this and not that".

>>16660773
Hey, I want to read about buddhism, where can I start?

>>16660893
the only legit buddhist sources are the sutras, none of this pozzed autistic ''buddhist philosophy'' invented centuries later by useless intellectual monks who just ended up introducing vedantist ideas

So read that , if you want the direct stuff stick to Samuyatta nikaya, skip the SN 1 if you want
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/index.html

>>16659950
>I know right? Buddhists are like the coal burners of world religions
Kek

>>16659974
So true
t. Buddhist Monke

>>16660773
>In Gnosticism, the world is inherently evil. In Buddhism, everything is inherently buddha-nature which is good.
Buddha nature is a made crap from Mahayanists.

>>16660944
Thanks man

>>16658826
Death is the real Moksha. It's the esoteric truth of Vedic religions that secretly all sages know. That's why some of Bodhisattvas commit an hero.
Literally proto-pessimism disguised as a religion.

>>16660142
>In the Dhammapada buddha literally says to avoid things that cause pain, like passion and lust. He likens them to a breeze blowing through a poorly built house, and says that your house should be built so these breezes cannot enter it.
Except he literally doesn't. He says that an unreflected mind is like a poorly built house through which rain/wind can pierce through (passion). Passion arises in everyone, the difference is it will overtake the one who is unreflected, or poorly trained in self-reflection/meditation

Will = Nirvana

>>16660773
>In Gnosticism is inherently evil
Not true. In actual non-retarded gnosticism, the world is inherently flawed, not evil.

Do you enjoy pain, OP? If so that's fine, but most people myself included don't like pain

>>16660077
4chan is proof that a lot of people want to suffer

>>16659897
>Seine Weisheit heisst: wachen, um gut zu schlafen. Und wahrlich, hätte das Leben keinen Sinn und müsste ich Unsinn wählen, so wäre auch mir diess der wählenswürdigste Unsinn.
he literally says that it's active nihilism and life denying

>>16660570
>engage in perpetual hedonic pursuits and suffer consequences from it
>eventually learn to develop an ascetic method toward overcoming these effects
>Noooo you can only practice self-control in my specific way.

>>16661856
You are aware that when Nietzsche talks about Buddhism, Islam, Judaims, Christianity, whatever, he's not actually talking about the religion itself, but using it as a stand-in for some broader phenomena, right? In Buddhism's case, it's the desire to retreat from the world, which Buddhism just flat out is not.

>>16660893
What the Buddha Taught, and In the Buddha Words. Pick one, don't read the other, they're more or less the same thing. Then, read the Heart Sutra, by Red Pine.

Ignore the other anon, he's is doing the
>le just read le pali canon and be BASED because it is le buddhist bible XD
meme. This is the Pali Canon, which he wants you to read cover to cover. It's a literary canon. 99% of it is also found in various Mahayana Sutras, word for word. He has no idea what he's talking about. The Pali Canon is composed of three baskets, the first of which is theology, the second is monastic discipline, and the third is Buddhist philosophy either coming from the Buddha or from Buddhist monks within 200 years after his death. Mahayana did not introduce "vedantist ideas", Advaita Vedanta wouldn't be invented until around 800AD, while the earliest Mahayana schools came around in the first century AD and the earliest texts to the 100sAD.

You will not read the entire Pali Canon. Theravada monks do not read "the entire Pali Canon".

>>16661897
what do you think about rupert gethin's foundation of buddhism?

>>16660893
I found this book pretty good

>>16661897
The Abhidharma is seen as a secondary commentary by many. The meat and potatoes are in the sutras.

>>16661897
>Mahayana did not introduce "vedantist ideas"
this

Mahayana can be traced to the Mahasamgika of the second council (70 years after Buddha's death), they already held these ideas before Vedanta was a thing.

>>16662201
My point is that Buddhist Philosophy is not some modern invention. Referring to it as "pozzed" as if it were some later contamination by outside forces is idiotic. According to tradition, Buddhist Philosophy starts with the Buddha himself philosophizing. If we reject that and go by Western academics, it's the monks immediately after the Buddha's death who start philosophizing. If we go by what the Abhidharmins themselves believed, it's simply the factual truth of how reality works, no one invented it, the Buddha is just the wise guy who saw how things worked and explained it to us.

>>16662168
Anything from accesstoinsight is great. They've got good meditation manuals.

>>16661942
I haven't read it, but looking at reviews it appears to be rather academic. This is not bad, but the earliest Western studies of Buddhism were more focused on cataloging dates, lineages, and schools rather than any sort of actual engagement with Buddhist thought, and in my experience academia still hasn't gotten over that.

The formula of What the Buddha Taught and In the Buddha's Words followed by The Heart Sutra is because the first two are Theravada texts written explicitly for Westerners to convey what Buddhism is actually about in English, as opposed to tossing jargon and unimportant minutiae at you. They're simple and down to earth. The Heart Sutra, meanwhile, is a distillation of Mahayana thought, and is a nice intro to bigger topics and themes. It also introduces you to both schools of thought, and lets you decide which you like better (simple asceticism vs big-brain mysticism).

>>16662248
>The Heart Sutra
This is 100% wrong view and In buddhism there is no place for wrong view. The path starts with right view and ends with right liberation.

>>16662254
The overwhelmingly vast majority of Theravadans, and all Mahayanans, would disagree with your stance on the Heart Sutra's validity (ignoring its views on the Bodhisattva Vow). Its core doctrine of Emptiness, which is the single most important part of it, is accepted by all Buddhists in both traditions. The Theravada were rejecting the Abhidharmins around the same time that Nagarjuna was writing, and only Burma actually uses the Abhidharma as the Abhidharmins envisioned it to be used, and even then Burmese Buddhists still teach the dependent origination of all dharmas. They just did it in commentaries and oral traditions instead of explicit texts to be passed around.

Given that all Buddhists accept the validity of the Heart Sutras teachings (again, ignoring the Bodhisattva stuff), I have to ask: who are these "True Buddhists" that are rejecting the basics of what the Buddha taught?

>>16662248
>According to tradition, Buddhist Philosophy starts with the Buddha himself philosophizing
This is false. The Buddha did not philosophize, he only instructed. In fact he frowned upon philosophizing and speculating on metaphysical questions that lead to nowhere but renewed existence, comparing it to a warrior on the battlefield being hit with a poisoned arrow and thereafter rejecting treatment unless he knew the type of poison, the make of the bow, the caste of the archer, where he lived, who made his weapon, etc ad infinitum

However I understand what you meant by Buddhist philosophers, they themselves heeded the words of the Buddha and practiced Buddhism, only transcribing what they learned and not merely speculating about such answerable questions.

>>16659803
Why would this be retarded?

say it with me:

namo amituofo

Buddha is meh. later buddhists like nagarjuna are kino.

>>16662413
>speculators thousands of years after the buddha are the real one who got enlightened

stick to Protestantism

Can a wise anon tell me why people here seem to shit on Buddhism and praise Hiinduism?
I'm well versed on Christian and Islamic thought, but know basically nothing about eastern religions.

>>16663467
there has been a flamewar going on for like 3 years here about this, between various factions and specific posters.

>>16663467
/lit/ larp war