/lit/ - Literature

I really wish you Orientalist-wannabe-niggers would fuck off forever and refrain from diminishing traditions you know nothing about with your "intellectual" belching.

>>16778496

>does it have to do with shankara refuting theravada?
If the east Asians could have read Shankara's arguments against the proto forms of Theravada he attacked like Sarvastivada and Sautrantika they would have simply became Hindus instead of going for a slightly less bad form of Buddhism, since in refuting anatta or no-self (pic related), Shankara also refuted virtually every school of Buddhism which holds to anatta except for the few ones which smuggle in the Atman under other terminology

>>16778522
do you know about the history of buddhism spreading into east asia?

South Asia had less people than North Asia
As a result southern buddhism has less adherents than northern buddhists

No. No one really cares about shankara outside of /lit/

>>16778522
>proto forms of Theravada
>Sarvastivada and Sautrantika
lol

>>16778496
It wasn't overtaken, it never spread into it. China didn't get Buddhism from India, it got it from Gandhara. One theory as to why Mahayana spread quicker than Theravada is that the Mahayana's usage of the Sutra as discrete "packets" of teachings allowed them to more easily proselytize by spreading single texts around (either in written or oral form), whereas the Theravada had to import an entire textual tradition and an entire literary canon along with it. The Heart Sutra summarizes Madhyamaka, and thus essentially all of Mahayana thought, and you can fit it in a single 4chan post.

>>16778496
We have this thread every week. I know full well that you're going to post that tl;dr infographic with Shankara saying "You made this? I made this."

>>16778522
could someone fill me in on why these retards keep posting this? only a third of it is related to buddhism, and the argument made is that "it's not in the vedas so it's wrong". the rest of text isn't even related to buddhism.

or did these idiots actually just take some spammer's garbage and run with it without reading it?

>>16779767
It also completely talks past what Buddhists actually believe. Nagarjuna (pre-emptively) shits all over Shankara's "lamps reveal themselves" argument.

>or did these idiots actually just take some spammer's garbage and run with it without reading it?
Yes. The fact that it totally bungles both the Yogacarin AND Madhyamakin positions is a demonstration of that. At least I assume that that is who the "idealist" he's responding to is supposed to be, although as said he doesn't actually know what they believe so he's not really talking to them.

>>16779767
>or did these idiots actually just take some spammer's garbage and run with it without reading it?
kinda based ngl

>>16779767
Any time you see that poster just remind him that Kantacharya and Sri Schopenhauer retroactively refuted the Sanskrit translation of the cosmological argument

>>16779767
>only a third of it is related to buddhism,
that's not true, it argues against the general buddhist position on self, first against the buddhist realists and then against buddhist idealists, people representing the later yogachara of dharmakirti and dinnaga
>>16779813
>Nagarjuna (pre-emptively) shits all over Shankara's "lamps reveal themselves" argument.
The reason it's included is that it's an analogy to the position of late yogachara or svatantra-vijnanavada who he happened to be arguing against there. Dharmakirti argued for a theory of mind there there were a stream of temporary self-revealing vijnanas without there being any self observing then.
>totally bungles both the Yogacarin AND Madhyamakin positions is a demonstration of that.
He doesn't attack the Madhyamika doctrine in depth there, its mainly of the buddhist realists and idealists but his refutation of there being no self applies to them all the same.

Shankara elsewhere rekts Dharmakirti in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya

>It cannot be argued that just as in illusion or dream consciousness assumes the form of the object and projects it as objective, without there being any real object, similarly in waking state too consciousness itself appears in the form of objects, for the simple reason that dream and waking states cannot be placed on a par. Things seen in a dream are sublated in waking state. Their falsity is realised when the dreamer awakes. But world-objects are never contradicted in empirical life. Moreover, the projection of the object in illusion or dream is possible because of our experience of the real object in waking life. Without the object being ‘given* to us in waking state, even its form cannot appear in illusion or dream. Again, illusion and dreams are private, while waking life is public. Even if this world is an illusion, it is a transcendental illusion, and even if it be a dream, it is a cosmic dream. It is wrong to treat dream and waking states on the same level on the pretext that both are experienced through consciousness. Even the Vijnanavada Buddhist realises the difference between the two and what is directly experienced cannot be refuted by intellectual jugglery.1

>Again, the difference in ideas is due to the difference in objects. The idea of a jar is different from the idea of a cloth, because ajar is different from a cloth. This means that an idea is different from an object. The Buddhist assertion that the plurality of ideas is due to the plurality of impressions and not due to the plurality of objects is wrong, because if objects do not exist then impressions themselves cannot arise. Moreover, impressions are mental modifications and they need a self to inhere. But in Vijnanavada there is no substratum where impressions may inhere. Alayavijnana too which is held to be momentary cannot be, like individual cognitions (pravrtti-vijnana), the substratum of impressions.

>>16780117

>Those Vijnanavadins (Svatantra-Vijnanavadins like Dharmakirti) who uphold the reality of the momentary vijnanas only make the position worse by degenerating into solipsism. Shankara says that his criticism of the theory of momentariness also applies to Vijnanavada. Momentary ideas cannot ideate themselves. They can neither apprehend nor be apprehended by themselves. There must be a permanent self to synthesise the fleeting ideas and give them unity and meaning. If the Vijnanavada Buddhist replies that the idea is self-conscious and is self-shining like a luminous lamp, he is wrong, for to say that the momentary idea illuminates itself is as absurd as to say that fire burns itself.

>Infact, it is only the eternal Self which is self-luminous and self-proved as the undeniable foundation of all our knowledge. A momentary idea which arises and falls cannot be treated as self-shining. An idea is apprehended by the self. An idea is just like an object in relation to the knowing self, who is the subject. If the Vijnanavadin Buddhist says that by idea he means pure consciousness and that we Vedantins too who accept the ultimate reality of pure consciousness accept his view, he is utterly mistaken because for us an idea is only like an object to be illumined and known by the self.

>It is the self, not a momentary idea, which is pure consciousness. Again, if the Vijnanavadin rejoins that our transcendental Self which is self-shining and self-proved is only his idea in disguise, he is wrong, because whereas his ideas are many and momentary and are no better than scattered objects originating and dying away and depending on the self for being illumined and known, our Self, on the other hand, is non-dual and eternal and is the transcendental Subject, the foundation of all knowledge and experience, which synthesises these scattered ideas into a unity and illuminates them and makes them known. If the momentary vijnana were the only reality and there is no self, then there would be no experience at all. And all empirical life, morality, spiritual discipline, bondage and liberation, etc., will crumble down.

>>16778496
>why was theravada (orthodox) buddhism overtaken by mahayana and vajrayana buddhism in east asia?
It can all be attributed to 1 man

>>16780142
based

>>16778496
your left buddha is sleeping

>>16778522
>If the east Asians could have read Shankara
They likely did, the silk road was a trade fest of religious texts. They probably, like most Hindus at the time, instantly recognized his Advaita as a cryptobuddhist offshoot of mainstream Hinduism, one in which it tried to 'atmanize' and anatmanic framework. Obviously they weren't swayed by this self declared refutation, which is why they chose to stick with an already established force (mahayana buddhism). This tells you a lot about Shankara and his propaganda, his followers talk him up in their own texts about going around India converting people yet none of his texts had any profound effects outside of India, furthermore he got easily refuted by Ramanuja and Madhva later on and remains a footnote in religious history.

>>16780088
>Sri Schopenhauer
the same guy who kept a latin translation of the Upanishads by his bedside and who read them every day and who said that they were the solace of his life and the solace of his death? that guy?

> Kantacharya
The same guy who near the end of his life published a less well-known work where he postulates the existence of an ether or caloric matter as a necessary pre-condition of our existence?

>In this chapter I turn to Kant’s Opus Postumum, the text in which his relation to Spinozism is at its most puzzling and intriguing. In this final text, Kant appears to affirm a single material substance produced by the subject’s self-positing. This substance, the ether, is at once a material and transcendental condition of possible experience, and goes some way towards satisfying Maimon’s and Deleuze’s demand for a genetic condition of real experience. Moreover, a number of cryptic references to ‘Spinoza’s transcendental idealism’ are out of line with Kant’s usual antagonism towards Spinozism.

>>16780211
this

it is also worth mentioning that Hinduism did make its way into southeast asia as early as 800 CE, more than enough time for Shankara's commentaries to trickle down into that region, yet the inhabitants chose theravada buddhism instead.

This is /lit/ not reddit dumbass.

Pick up Christianity or read UG Krishnamurti. Don't follow Buddhism if you are a westerner, you will end up feeling like shit. It is not compatible with your upbringing.

>>16780283
>It is not compatible with your upbringing.
Truth is Truth regardless of upbringing.

>>16780215
None of that has anything to do with assuming a deified Brahman has to exist becuase you think he has to exist.

>Truth is Truth regardless of upbringing

>>16780294
Not true moron.

Buddhism cripples men who have had a Western upbringing. A small, small fraction of people can figure out how too eek out a half way decent life with Buddhism but it will never be your truth. I highly encourage Western men to not adopt Buddhism as a practice.

>>16780283
You know, if someone's 'western upbringing' has led them to discard Christianity it sure doesn't sound like it's compatible. In fact, the very attitude that religion is a good to be church-shopped for is the final, atomized, small-souled degradation of render unto caesar, the original subversion of religion as participation in public life.

>>16778496
BUDDHISTS SPIT ON BLIND PEOPLE IN THE STREET YOU'RE SO *FUCKING NAIVE*!!! ~ Father James

>>16780341
Americans have deeply perverted Christianity, as well as Vatican 2. Christianity isn't perfect but it's much easier for a Western man of some intelligence to live a fulfilled life with Christianity. It requires some reading.

A Western man has little chance finding happiness with Buddhism. I'm sorry to break this to you.

>>16778496
The idea that Theravada is analogous to any sort of orthodoxy is nonsense. Your poor reading of Wikipedia likely encourages you to view the 'later' Mahayana as some sort of additive deviation. (And that same logic would discredit Shankara as an exponent of Hinduism anyway). Besides the Theravadins have their own additions to the Pali being privileged as a sola scriptura, the vast corpus abhidhamma literature, which in many ways Mahayana was a reaction against. Vasubandu for instance was an abhidharmika before adopting Yogacara (Mahayana).

>>16780356
Your opinion that Christianity is easier doesn't carry any weight if you have nothing to back it up with. And on that note, are you familiar with "The Benedict Option"? Because the argument there is that Christianity is in fact radically incompatible with contemporary Western culture and that to practice Christianity would require a certain sort of... detachment from the world... almost in a monastic sort of way...

>>16780441
I live in the Bay Area, Buddhism is huge over here. I know a lot of Buddhists and former Buddhists. Western culture was borne out of Christianity. It is a product. Western culture may be perverted, but the original foundation is still there.

Let me break it down for you silly. Let's say you are American and learn to speak French in your 20s. You become proficient and you end up moving there. 10 years of French and you start to pick up the nuances and what have you, but you still are not a French speaker. You are an American that speaks French. You will never be able to truly appreciate French humor because you are not rooted in it. It will be a second language and you will always be an American.

I am in no way trying to bad mouth Buddhism. As I said, I know plenty of Buddhists and they are all wonderful people and I find it to be very enriching for some. However, Western men who approach it are usually crippled by it. Every once in awhile you have that man who adopted Buddhism in his early 20s, picks up the nuances, and builds a semblance of a foundation. Even so, they are still not fully rooted in it.

>>16780533
>Even so, they are still not fully rooted in it.
Because Buddhism is founded upon falsehoods; whereas, true paths of Tradition are all founded upon Truth and thus accessible to anyone who devoted themselves to that path.

>>16780533
Christianity is 99% crappy addons on judaism, made up by muslisms and christians larping as greeks

>>16780533
What are you so smug about? Yes, I'm sure a bunch of hedonistic yuppies from San Francisco would make awful Buddhists. They would also make awful Christians, or Muslims, or whatever else. All religion is a second language, so to speak, and acquisition is challenging. I'm sure people who heavily study Christianity pick up bits of Greek and Latin or even Hebrew which alter how they think about things. And anything one studies is something learned outside of upbringing by the very act of committing to such study. For instance I would expect that a lot of the tradcath and begum orthodox people are not coming from those backgrounds but have adopted them. And there is nothing necessarily wrong with that if it comes from sincerity. Some people are born in poor soil and have to uproot.

>>16780616
Tradition everywhere at all times merely refers to things the traditionalist likes.

>>16780617
>>16780616

Look again, I am not specifically advocating for Christianity. I just said if you want an alternative to to Buddhism, try picking up Christianity or U.G. Krishnamurti.

UG Krishnamurti... Look him up.

My original post was advocating against Westerners adopting Buddhism or any other Eastern tradition. It is very sad.

>>16780633
And we only like the Nectar of Wisdom.

>>16780142>>16778522

>>16780146
This, non-enlightened people mental masturbation and deluding themselves they are enlightened, they hate practice and right view.

>>16780627
Buddhism works on fundamental principles that most Westerners never fully grasp. If you want to try Buddhism, go for it. It's an uphill battle, and you will most like come out a crippled man. If you do decide to adopt Buddhism, find a reputable teacher please.

The Westerner is much better suited for Western activities. I can't stress it enough.

Western culture is borne out of Christianity, so no, therefore it is not a second language but rather are mother language.

>>16780659
what do you mean by crippled?

When this was said, the elder monks said to Ven. Channa, “Form, friend Channa, is inconstant. Feeling is inconstant. Perception is inconstant. Fabrications are inconstant. Consciousness is inconstant. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Fabrications are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All fabrications are inconstant. All phenomena are not-self.”

Then the thought occurred to Ven. Channa, “I, too, think that form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant; form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self; all fabrications are inconstant; all phenomena are not-self. But still my mind does not leap up, grow confident, steadfast, & released [alternate reading: firm] in the pacification of all fabrications, the relinquishing of all acquisitions, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, unbinding. Instead, agitation & clinging arise, and my intellect pulls back, thinking, ‘But who, then, is my self?’ But this thought doesn’t occur to one who sees the Dhamma. So who might teach me the Dhamma so that I might see the Dhamma?”

“Face-to-face with the Blessed One have I heard this, friend Channa. Face-to-face with him have I learned the exhortation he gave to the monk Kaccāna Gotta [SN 12:15]: ‘By & large, Kaccāna, this world is supported by [takes as its object] a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it has come to be with right discernment, “non-existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it has come to be with right discernment, “existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one.

“‘By & large, Kaccāna, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on “my self.” He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, only stress is passing away. In this, one’s knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.

“‘“Everything exists”: That is one extreme. “Everything doesn’t exist”: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

“‘Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.’’’

>>16780332
>Buddhism cripples men who have had a Western upbringing
W*sterners live in a soulless culture which desperately tries and fails to ignorance impermanence and suffering for some hedonistic bugman life, no wonder it destroys them. They’re eternally in samsara

>>16780659
You keep heaping western on top of western as if it were something other than a broken kaleidoscope of competing narratives. Do a bunch of empty churches prove western people are suited to Christianity? If you're not going to define it in any way it is useless to keep repeating Christianity=western. Christianity is fastest growing in Africa and China; does that make those places western and suitable for Christianity?

>>16780711
Nietzsche basically said that Islam and Hinduism are closer to the European soul, just to expand upon your point. It’s also worth noting that the Catholics and Orthodox churches needed to hammer Platonism into their theology to keep it afloat.

>>16780668

Forgive me for my language. Many Westerners I talk to lose their sense of self, and not in some enlightened way. They have trouble finding pleasure, solace or happiness. This happens because they remove themselves from their feelings. I'm not sure what is occurring, but I believe it to be because it is in direct opposition to their upbringing, or they are not rooted in it culturally. They no longer have interests or a drive to day anything. Most become nihilistic and depressed. They are little crabs that walk around the city. Annoyed at everything, annoyed at the most minuscule things. They squander any chance they have developing meaningful relationships. They remove themselves from the experience of life.

>>16780726
gotcha, i notice people who grew up playing too much video games have the same problem, which is interesting. maybe them identifying themselves with various false identities (video characters/avatars) leads to a similar process?

>>16780711

I said try picking up Christianity or UG Krishnamurti. The latter who does not believe in Christianity. My point is that I think people raised in Western society have a better time with Christianity than Buddhism. A lot of Westerners have a good time being rooted in their body, a la UG Krishnamurti. Even Westerners into Islam is okay.

I just don't like see so many Westerners ruin their life by failing to understand Buddhism. They are not cut out for it. There are better ways.

>>16780741
I think people who play too many video games are just avoiding their life, and that is why they become depressed. It is an addiction like any other.

>>16780748
The only books that can ruin your life by reading them are Hegel and Harry Potter.

>>16780748
What about Hinduism?

>>16780283
>implying Buddhist views are not more in line with most westerners today
There are probably more westerners today that believe in rebirth and karma than the core Christian dogmas such as eternal heaven/hell, original sin, adam and eve, Jesus being worthwhile in any way.

>>16778496
Abhidhamma is mostly retarded and for whatever reason it got accepted as orthodox dogma in Theravada. It is not difficult to understand why a movement that rejected it would prosper.

That and Theravada remained full on ascetic which doesn't really appeal to laypeople. Laypeople need worship, ritual, and myths and heroes.

>>16780795
What I think that guy is trying to say is that Buddhism is more nuanced than that much like his shitty French analogy. You may think you understand them but your “id” doesn’t know how to compute them. The practice doesn’t mix with your conditioning.

>>16780641
I like Guenon and Dante but doing the face merge thing is too much for me rn even while sober.

>>16780815
I've lost track of how many instances of "this doctrine is not for stupid people" I've come across in Buddhist and also Platonist literature. Plato says it about the demiurge, Asamga says it about the alayavijñana. And I assume other religions say similiar. But the western problem is in my view the so-called moralistic therapeutic deism that pervades all religious thinking, which in short is that all religion is a cope, like going to see a psychiatrist. That is why whether it is Buddhism or anything else there will be difficulty grasping it. Because as soon as you hit the askesis that is necessary to achieve any progress, should you have been prepared to seek religion as a coping mechanism, you are brutally filtered and kicked back into your base nihilism.

>>16780088
Based, but how did they do it?

>>16780859
I haven't completed the mimesis. Would need to screencap pages from the CPR and the WWR that no one will read.

Is Buddha nature just Brahman re-termed?

>>16780283
the most bluepilled post I've read in weeks
>>16780282
>800 CE
stop using the Christian Era you fascist

>>16780984
no

>>16778496
Because Theravada is not orthodox. Its a complete misunderstanding. Pure schizo shit.

>>16778496
is Vajrayana Buddhism philosophically distinct? I thought it was just Mahayana + a sincere belief in magic spells

>>16780984
Yes. The last 2000 years or so of Mahayana is basically nothing but trying to say Brahman while not saying Brahman.

>>16780984
Nope.

>>16780984
>Is Buddha nature just Brahman re-termed?
Yes.

>>16781025
>>16780984
None of Mahayana is the original Buddhism. Even Theravada is more original than Mahayana.

For Vajrayana, their s o y creators say it is Mahayana with a quicker method to reach Brahman, i mean Buddha nature.

why is your vehicle so small, anon?

>>16780984
no it isn't lol

>>16780120
>If the Vijnanavada Buddhist replies that the idea is self-conscious and is self-shining like a luminous lamp, he is wrong, for to say that the momentary idea illuminates itself is as absurd as to say that fire burns itself.

This doesn't make any sense. The way I understand it, the idea itself is illumination. It doesn't illuminate itself. He has created a separation between idea and illumination where there was none. Then he refutes the Buddhist by saying, look there you have make a separation. Am I too low IQ, or is Shankara just strawmanning Buddhism?

>>16778511
Pajeet here. This, computer science, and H1B1 visas are the few things I have any qualification to discuss.

>>16780332
>It will never be your truth
Ok postmodernist

>>16782428
>The way I understand it, the idea itself is illumination. It doesn't illuminate itself.
What is the difference? If an idea is luminous it provides its own illumination or is self-illuminating

>>16780697
> From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
non-conscious entities cant mentally fabricate things to begin with to, so this one is a non-starter. I can’t believe Buddha was so dumb as to teach that

>>16782630
Mental fabrications can form regardless of your conscious desire for them, this is one of the first things you learn in meditation.

>>16782618
An idea which illuminates itself would be like a lamp which illuminates itself or a fire that burns itself, it doesn't make any sense. In this definition, the idea is performing the action of illumination on itself.

An idea which is illumination is more like the light itself or the heat itself. In this definition, the idea is illumination. It does not need to perform any action.

I'm not an expert in this, but AFAIK Buddhism is using the second definition I gave. Shankara has assumed Buddhism uses the first definition, which obviously doesn't make any sense.

>>16782754
>Mental fabrications can form regardless of your conscious desire for them,
You are still citing the example of yourself, a conscious being endowed with sentience as proof of this. Buddha said that consciousness arises from fabrications, which is clearly backwards and illogical, because it implies there being a conscious entity who can be the subject who is fabricating before they exist as a conscious entity.

>>16782755
To put it another way. Shankara has assumed a duality between subject and object, however Buddhism has no such duality. He then says that this duality makes no sense. He is right that the duality makes no sense, but he believes Buddhists believe in this duality. This supposedly refutes Buddhism, but he has only refuted a strawman.

>>16780984
No.

>>16781025
Mahayana is, essentially, the Buddhism that went west and then northwest, while Theravada is the Buddhism that went south east and then east. There is no hard doctrinal split like there is in Christianity where THE OTHER GUYS are poopoo peepee doody heads. There are differences, but it's not like there's some singular difference, it's just two traditions developing from the same source. Textually, they hold the same texts as canon. The Mahayana has a different outlook on HOW Buddhism should be done, however. Part of that "how" is that summarizing the Buddha's teachings or restating them in more useful manners is acceptable. The Theravada disagree with this.

Vajrayana is the result of Tibetan kings and sorcerers sponsoring expeditions out of Tibet to find Buddhist texts. However, these kings and sorcerers aren't monks (they later get retconned to be monks). They want out NOW, by any means. They don't want to do the hard work. That's fine, of course, they aren't monks after all. This outlook colors all of Vajrayana Buddhism, which can essentially be viewed as a scholastic religion of treasure hunters. Vajrayana pushes the Mahayana idea of finding "novel rafts" and Skillful Means to its absolute limit. "Skillful Means" is tactically doing something that may seem bad in order to have a good end. Simple examples are the Buddha using reflexive pronouns ("yourself", "itself") to convey a point, when in fact, there are no Selfs. A more elaborate example is the Buddha wrestling Mara, or Bodhisattvas seducing queens in order to get them alone to teach them the Dharma.

This is expressed in Vajrayana, where some groups do practices involving alcohol, meat consumption, and sex. It should be noted that monks renounce their vows and become lay-monks in order to do these. There's a Sutra where Shariputra (an important monk from the Buddha's day) gets turned into a girl to teach him a lesson about Emptiness. When you realize the conditioned nature of all things, you realize that even bad things too are Empty, that is, conditioned. This is reflected in the scholastic nature of Vajrayana, wherein largescale intellectual systems are crafted to be used as tools, even though they're obviously Empty.

And of course, there's PLENTY of push back from within Vajrayana and outside of Vajrayana about any given practice

>>16780984
Other way around

>>16782893
Why is it clearly backwards and illogical?
Humans have eyes so we have eye-consciousness. We don't have electromagnetic sense organs like sharks, so we don't have electromagnetic sense consciousnesses.
Thoughts are no different, we have thought consciousness because we have the ability to perceive thought (the prefrontal cortex).
Consciousness is built on top of the ability to perceive a sense, including thought. If you don't have the ability to perceive a sense you don't gain consciousness of that sense.

>>16782901
>>16782755
It's well known that Shankara didn't actually know what Buddhists thought. The entire portion where he responds to the "Idealist" is a good example of this, as it's just not about what Yogacara actually says. Yogacara is an epistemological position (tl;dr you can never get out of your own head to see the world), not an ontological one. The line "We deny it absolutely" is a glaring fucking testament to this, as no, they don't. Yogacara takes no position on the idea of an external world, that's the entire point. If there is an external world, you cannot access it via anything but your mind (this is purely a conceptual dualism, Buddhism rejects a body-mind duality as having any ontological validity). You can't leave your own head to confirm that there is or isn't an external world.

The whole lamp part is silly, as he's (supposedly) talking to a Madhyamakin, and as an anon upthread pointed out, Nagarjuna already tore the idea of a lamp illuminating itself (or even illuminating anything at all) to shreds centuries earlier.

>>16782984
What books should I read to get started with Nagarjuna?

>>16783082
The vedas.

>>16782942
>Textually, they hold the same texts as canon
Not at all.
>>16782942
>There are differences, but it's not like there's some singular difference, it's just two traditions developing from the same source.
No, Mahayanists reject the sutras in pali, chinese, tibetan, sankrit, gandahri because their novelty of buddha nature is not found in them and the sutras do not say arhats are still deluded so they would need to hear about mahayana to get fully enlightened.
None of this fan fiction is found int he sutras.

Stop reading this retarded shit fuck you

>>16783082
His most important work is the Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way. I read the Siderits translation+commentary (commentary is necessary). He also wrote several other works, but these are generally less important and more him just engaging with the nitty gritty of various philosophical issues in both Buddhism and Hinduism (he attacked the categories of Nyaya philosophy, in the triumphantly named text "Pulverizing the Categories").

>>16783142
All Mahayana schools hold the Pali canon as canon. I'm not sure how you could possibly think that the Chinese Mahayana reject the Chinese canon, given that they wrote the fucking thing and hold it as canon. Likewise, I'm not sure how you could hold that the Tibetans don't hold the Tibetan canon as canon, given that they're the ones who wrote it and hold it as canon.

You're trying to do the Protestantism vs Orthodoxy vs Catholicism thing, but that's not how Buddhism works.

The mahayana bugmen created their own parinirvana fan fiction where they crammed their buddhanature crap in it because they seethed that their circle jerking is not found in original sutras

>According to Sallie B. King, the sutra does not represent a major innovation, & is rather unsystematic, which made it "a fruitful one for later students & commentators, who were obliged to create their own order & bring it to the text". According to King, its most important innovation is the linking of the term buddhadhātu with tathagatagarbha. The "nature of the Buddha" is presented as a timeless, eternal "Self", which is akin to the tathagatagarbha, the innate possibility in every sentient being to attain Buddha-hood & manifest this timeless Buddha-nature. "[I]t is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, & indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so."

>>The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman). Its precise metaphysical & ontological status is, however, open to interpretation in the terms of different Mahāyāna philosophical schools; for the Madhyamikas it must be empty of its own existence like everything else; for the Yogacarins, following the Laṅkāv


>The existence of the tathagatagarbha must be taken on faith:
>>Essentially the Buddha asks his audience to accept the existence of buddha-nature [tathagatagarbha] on faith [...] the importance of faith in the teachings of the Nirvana Sutra as a whole must not be overlooked.


Origins & development

>According to Shimoda Masahiro, the authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra were leaders & advocates of stupa-worship. The term buddhadhātu originally referred to śarīra or physical relics of the Buddha. The authors of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra used the teachings of the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra to reshape the worship of the śarīra into worship of the inner Buddha as a principle of salvation: the Buddha-nature. "Buddhadhātu" came to be used in place of tathagatagarbha, referring to a concrete entity existing inside the person. Sasaki, in a review of Shimoda, conveys a key premise of Shimoda's work, namely, that the origins of Mahayana Buddhism & the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra are entwined.

>The Indian version of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra underwent a number of stages in its composition. Masahiro Shimoda discerns two versions:

>>a short proto-Nirvāṇa Sūtra, which was, he argues, probably not distinctively Mahāyāna, but quasi-Mahāsāṃghika in origin & would date to 100 CE, if not even earlier; an expanded version of this core text was then developed & would have comprised chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the Faxian & Tibetan versions, though it is believed that in their present state there is a degree of editorial addition in them from the later phases of development.

>>16783168
Mahayanists never ever read the pali canon. Their canon is 1% some chinese sutras, which they barely read, and 99% mahyana sutras which they read over and over. Same thing for the tibetans.

And the difference is also conceptually, with the nirvana à la Mahayana being accessed with the knowledge of ''interdependence'' which is only in mahyana sutras and 100% retarded, and the knowledge of dependent origination in buddhism.

>>16783185
>and the knowledge of dependent origination in buddhism.
only found in buddhism.

>>16780640
>humans are born with a burden of bad
>humans inevitably commit bad while alive
>bad leads to endless suffering after death
>but a man came to teach us the right way
>he was born of a royal bloodline
>he gave up a temporal kingdom for spiritual truth
>he resisted the temptations of supernatural evil
>he gathered a small group of disciples. Less than thirteen I'd say, but more than nine
>he taught them the right way; they founded institutions to pass on his word
>he sacrificed something personally important to save us from our bad
>should you believe in him and perform ritual practices your bad will be washed away
>then your afterlife will be great

How is Christianity an alternative to Buddhism, or vice versa?

Is this buddhism in atheist society?

>paying for stuff I don't even own
>letting them milk me every month
>depend on perfect connection on both sides to get shit for them milking me
>dealing with limited library and shit UI
>pray they don't change their TOS/prices

>>16783168
huh?

>>16782984
>Yogacara is an epistemological position (tl;dr you can never get out of your own head to see the world), not an ontological one. The line "We deny it absolutely" is a glaring fucking testament to this, as no, they don't. Yogacara takes no position on the idea of an external world, that's the entire point.
That’s not true, why are you trying to gaslight people by lying about what Buddhist philosophy actually teaches? Is it because you are embarrassed? Dharmakirti held that there was no exterior world but only a stream of momentary vijnanas which combine to form our experience of consciousness. He was a subjective idealist.

>The whole lamp part is silly, as he's (supposedly) talking to a Madhyamakin,
No, he’s attacking the views of Dharmakirti and Dinnaga then

I dont read more than OP post here in this thread but Ive always been frustrated at u guys like WHY ARE U ALL ALWAYS DEBATING THIS STUFF LIKE THIS?!

When I think of the words "buddhist thread" or "hinduism thread" I imagine maybe something like someone posting a buddha discourse and anons discussing it or someone posting excerpts from upanishads and anons discussing jt but no NO ITS SHANKARA ADVAITA IS CRYPTOBUDDHIST BLA BLA HERE IS REFUTATION HERE IS REFUTATION OF REFUTATION BLA BLA LOOK I DONT WANNA SEE THIS SHIT

AAAAAA

>>16783308
If we're going that simplistic, it isn't. There's a lot of parallels between Buddhism and Christianity.

It's worth noting that Buddha had thousands of disciples in his lifetime, but only had Ten Principal Disciples. There's also ten female principal disciples, who are important in Buddhist tradition but don't do as much to proselytize the religion as the male disciples.

>>16783456
Start with In the Buddha's Words, or what the Buddha Taught. Then, read the Heart Sutra.

>>16784046
>It's worth noting that Buddha had thousands of disciples in his lifetime
What was The Sermon on the Mount?

>>16784046
>There's also ten female principal disciples
Who were the Marys?

I'm not saying it's the same, but it's pretty much the same. Buddhism and Christianity are astonishingly-similar savior stories painted on top of a pre-existing theology. Both are a solution to the same problem: a practically inescapable cosmic judgement against the individual.

>>16783142
The Buddha taught multiple paths and the different sects are the ripening of that fact as filtered through the problems of translation and interpretation. There is little reason to privilege Sri Lanka or Thailand over anywhere else on the purported seniority of their texts or traditions. Simply because something is older does not make it more accurate anyway. A good example is the Abhidharma additions to the Pali Canon. Since protestantized Westerners like to privilege Theravada as the "original Buddhism" they overlook that this corpus is not the Buddha's words and are ignorant that Mahayana was in part reaction against creating a system of atomistic definitions of truly existing building blocks of reality (e.g. Nagarjuna). This was done by citing other areas of the Pali Canon and through innovative arguments. Theravada has its own changes over time and the assumption that it is the pure and Mahayana is the altered does not hold water.

>>16784294
There are some basic similarities but Buddhism does not call you to love the creator of the universe, nor his only son who is also himself, who was allegorically sacrificed to cleanse man of his sins. And Christianity does not teach that you can transcend heaven and hell to reach an ineffable state. In Buddhism, 'cosmic judgement' is something that ripens against you inevitably to determine your future births and conditions. In Christianity it is punishment or reward allotted by a regulator god.

>>16784026
Shut up

>>16784549
The same pattern vapor-deposited onto different surfaces will appear different until you're looking directly at it.

> Buddhism does not call you to love the creator of the universe
Hindu mythology didn't already have a creator God who's constantly getting involved in local politics and commanding worship.

>nor his only son who is also himself
They had Krishna for that.

>Christianity does not teach that you can transcend heaven and hell to reach an ineffable state.
Because they didn't already have the concept.

>In Buddhism, 'cosmic judgement' is... In Christianity it is...
Again, these were the pre-existing doctrines.

so you've become enlightened and are now in non-action
still there is an animal though
what do you do with the animal? is its purpose now only to keep you in enlightenment, or is there some other purpose inherent in being a man that also needs to be expressed? so that it may be that you are now acting without intent, but still there are some things which are the things you ought to do with the man you are stuck with?

in other words: is the endgoal of all actions enlightenment, or do they have a meaning of their own too? And does enlightenment need to be sustained by continued action (or non-action)?

>>16784549

>Buddhism does not call you to love the creator of the universe
Fair enough

>nor his only son who is also himself, who was allegorically sacrificed to cleanse man of his sins
Buddha is Vajradhara in nirmanakaya who gave up his wordly life and sacrificed his clinging to his self at a tree. The names are changed - Yaweh, incarnation, and physical self instead of Vajradhara, nirmanakaya, and clinging to self, but the basic plot is nearly spot on.

>who was allegorically sacrificed to cleanse man of his sins
And Buddha sacrificed his identity as "Siddharta" to bring the limitless compassion of the dharma to those trapped by negative karma.

Christianity and Buddhism are not the same, no, but both *are* stories of a young man with spiritual ideals who left his home, wandered in the desert/forest for however long, was sacrificed (physically or metaphorically) at some kind of tree, confronted the Devil/Mara, and returned to spread the good news of salvation from endless suffering to mankind. They did this in the context of a preexisting religious system at a time of tremendous socio-religious upheaval. Their doctrines later splintered into 3 sects, one of which is highly ritulaistic, one of which is stark and simple, and one of which is esoteric and weird to the other two. Each had a uniquely, intimately close disciple who formed the foundation of their mission immediately after their death.

The doctrines are quite distinct but the archetypes and details of the stories are very very similar.

>>16784294
The situation is different because at the time of Christ's death, the Apostles were held to be the ONLY followers of Christ. This is obviously ahistorical, but the narrative that Christians have crafted around this posits that Christianity flows out of the Apostles. This obviously gets more complicated with Paul, but the point still stands. Buddhism doesn't do this, such that no one region's Buddhism is said to flow out of a single man (again, this is obviously a massive simplification, but that's still the narrative). While monastic lineages DO flow out of individuals, there are far more individuals it flows out of.

I urge Westerners in this thread to deeply reconsider following Buddhism and Hinduism and stick to more traditional Western paths.

Your Western constitution is not compatible with those philosophies.

>>16785319
Oh but the 'Western constitution' is compatible with all those empty churches?

>>16784985
>no one region's Buddhism is said to flow out of a single man
Sariputra and Theravada
Upali and the Vinaya school
Mahakasyapa who founded many pre-sectarian schools
Likewise Maudgalyayana and Ananda are considered the founders of distinct philosophical branches.

The Christ & Buddah patterns are identical in the abstract particulars of biography and theological doctrine: A prince gave up his birthright to teach the masses about a cosmic refinance scheme. He also had supernatural powers which he passed on to some members of his inner circle. This is how you know he was legit. They also weren't motivated by politics or money. So you –really– know it's on the up and up.

They differ in the substrate of their host cultures. How do we conceive of our cosmic debts and what's the usual penalty for default? How do we organize poltically around teaching these doctrines? This is where the Christ and Buddah stories differ. What relationship do we expect a savior figure to have with divinity? What kinds of personal struggle will make the bio compelling? Again, this is the stucco the portrait is painted on.

Where this gets weird is that both men existed and there's better evidence for their biographies than nearly anyone else up until that time. It's exactly the same pattern on two different continents just three centuries apart. What happened? Did everyone figure out sin accounting in the same era and realize their debts were basically unpayable? Was the Demiurge facing a giant default crisis and worried the loosh remittances would stop coming in? Did Sidartha just get a really good rundown on Christianty and decide to adapt the passion play for local audiences?

>>16785319
I found Buddhism specifically because I wasn't compatible with the Western constitution.

>>16785467
If they were identical they would be identical. Since they are different they are not identical. I don't know why so many people leap from similitude to sameness as if there was no separation between the two. This is the problem with all comparisons, that the intent is invariably to either minimize difference or prove difference. But there is difference! Also the Buddha lived hundreds of years before Jesus. He is more contemporary to Pythagoras or Heraclitus. Buddhism is in no way an adaptation of Christianity to India as you imply. Even the codified varieties of Buddhism under its councils that post-date the historical Buddha are earlier than the codified Christianities which were ordered by the Romans

>>16785467
>>The Christ & Buddah patterns are identical
yeah you have the rich socialite understand of buddhism.

>>16785365
I am not saying that. My point is that you are conditioned by Western society and that is deeply learned and cannot be unlearned. Buddhism is not compatible with that conditioning. For example, If I was an English speaking American and decided that I wanted to learn Amharic and move to Ethiopia. Forget color of skin. It would take me years before becoming adept at the language. Even more time to understand nuance and humor, I may never even be able to decipher such subtleties, because I my learning simply plateaued. When I speak, native Amharic speakers would here a non-native speaker. Would think that my verb usages and syntax was odd at times. It would be an anomaly for me speak Amharic flawlessly as a Westerner.

Buddhism and Hinduism and various other religions are similar. Culturally, are upbringing is so different. When you adopt these paths you are at major risk of plateauing and becoming lost. So many Americans plateau on Buddhism. I see it everyday in Zen communities.

Your constitution doesn't speak the same language.

>>16785490
Good luck. There are traditions in the Western philosophy that may be more in tune with your constitution.

I know, Buddhism is attractive and exotic. That does not make it compatible for you. I admire Buddhist philosophy as well, but understand the practice is not compatible with my constitution. Many Western men learn this the hard way, and are completely crippled by it. Most Westerners that are happy with Buddhism or Hinduism are the ones who are selling it to you. The average Western Buddhist typically becomes depersonalized and has joy stripped from their life. Personal relationships go down the tube. They become royal cranks and so on.

Again, I have no issue with Buddhism. Please just know the results are for most Westerners.

>>16785467
I already mentioned this. Monastic lineages are attributed to specific individuals (Sariputta does not found the Theravada, he founds the Abhidharma), but Buddhist practice as a whole is attributed to collections of nameless monks.

>>16785760
The Jung quote you're referring to is him saying that Westerners must make a "Western Buddhism", not just crib Eastern forms. This is exactly what Buddhists in the West have been doing (especially in France). You might as well say that no religion except your local ethnic polytheism makes sense, as after all Christianity is a foreign religion too.

>>16785825
No issue with taking ideas from Buddhism and forming your own path.

As far as "Western Buddhism", I do not see that practice as very successful among Westerners. I think you would be better off adopting a different practice.

As far as adopting local ethnic polytheism... look, America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophies. Whether or not you agree with them, that is the foundation for the United States and the predominant philosophy for most Western countries. This is not a value judgment, I am merely stating "You are borne out of a Judeo-Christian philosphy and are conditioned because of it." This conditioning is not something you remove. I believe, as do others, that Buddhism is not compatible for most Western men. Your attraction to Buddhism doesn't mean you should be a Buddhist, or that it will work for you.

>>16785723
>>16785757
>>16785825
Good work missing the point, guys. I guess there's only so far people can go.

>>16785319
I practice Vajrayana in groups exclusively for the mystical and magical aspects and generally don't give two shits about the Buddhism. Although I do enjoy good-natured chats about doctrine with students and teachers.

>>16785915
>>16785896
>I practice Vajrayana in groups exclusively for the mystical and magical aspects and generally don't give two shits about the Buddhism
So you literally actually LARP, that is, do Live Action Role Play, and are telling others that just because YOU are a fedora tipper who doesn't believe any of this hogwash, that no one else does. Have you considered that other people are not you, and do not think like you? Just because you reject the possibility of religious experience doesn't mean that everyone does.

Is the Pure Land just heaven?

>>16785896
>tells Westerners they don't understand Buddhism keep off muh traditions
>proceeds to lecture Westerners about their traditions, which he misunderstands

>>16786084
Are you not aware of the magical effects of meditations, mudras, mantras, and dharanis? Do they not make themselves evident to you as you practice them?

Perhaps it is you who are larping.

>>16785467
>Did Sidartha just get a really good rundown on Christianty and decide to adapt the passion play for local audiences?
but Siddhartha is circa 400 BC

>>16786244
I am not saying Westerners can't understand Buddhism, it's just that it is not compatible with their psyche.

I am not telling anyone to keep off any traditions.

I am not lecture anyone about their traditions. I am merely telling Westerners they should think long and hard before adopting Buddhism. The practice emotionally cripples most Westerners leaving them very hollow. They are generally very miserable people to be around. Again, I think like most of the board... you are missing the point I am making.

>>16785915
>Buddhism isn't good for you
>why yes I do practice Vajrayana Buddhism
Oh I get it, you are just poorly arguing for esotericism

>>16786293

I think you are conflating two anons. I am the one advocating against Westerners adopting Buddhism. The man practicing Varjrayana is not per se.

>>16786286
>The practice emotionally cripples most Westerners leaving them very hollow. They are generally very miserable people to be around. Again, I think like most of the board... you are missing the point I am making.
Ah but that *is* the famous western upbringing you keep referring to!

>>16786314
There are plenty of Westerners who lead happy and fulfilling lives. The Western Buddhists typically do not end up happy. The large majority of them end up not fulfilled.

Again, this is not a value judgment. I am not saying Western culture is better than Eastern culture or vice versa. I am advising Westerners to not adopt Buddhism.

>>16786286
That's a very respectful way of saying it.

To reciprocate that honesty, let me help you out. When it comes to the claim that America and most western nations were "founded on Judeo-Christian philosophies": they weren't. "Judeo-Christianity" isn't real. The term itself is less than seventy years old and was invested by jews to help them insinuate themselves into our culture for hostile purposes. Western Christianity as expressed in practice and identity has been locked in a viscous struggle with Judaism —both theologically and poltically— for two thousand years.

Likewise the West isn't made of proposition nations. Christianity is integral to them, but the nations were founded on ethnicities. Much like your own.

>>16786293
>Buddhism isn't good for you
Where did I claim that?

>arguing for esotericism
I'm not arguing, I'm boasting.

do you think matter and no-self have the same origin? it is one thing to think of no-self as having to do with consciousness, that is somewhat intuitive. so self-hood comes from a kind of partitioned no-self reacting to the world as it perceives it. but this world it perceives: where does it come from? if the self is constituted ultimately of consciousness, then what constitutes it?

>>16786350
>The Western Buddhists typically do not end up happy. The large majority of them end up not fulfilled.

It's likely the ones you meet are that way by predelection and would have that personality regardless. People who travel far outside their own cultures are generally trying to get away from bad memories.

As an anecdotal counterpoint: I'm good pals with a white guy who's deeply devoted to bhuddist practice, and he's literally always cheerful. He's also a Nazi.

>>16778496
Just Cha’an-ce I guess.

>>16786415
it needs to be pointed out that every form of a relationship to anything "real" IS an illusion. whether or not the "outside world" exists is another question, but the idea that there "is" matter is an illusion. You may retort that it seems to be a well shared illusion, to which an adequate reply is simply "yes".

>something is abstract
>it's fake
Is this the power of Buddhism?

>>16786511
If everything is an illusion, including the self, what is doing the deceiving, and whom is being deceived?

>>16786558
as jjvjv lkqwekqkwekqkwekkqwkekqwkewe aksdkaksd qwkekqwekkaskdk kaksdkaskd qwekkqwekasdk
this was an abstract way of "speech". what was said?
>>16786572
the one being deceived is the atman or the heart. the one doing the deceiving is God. afaik, really I'm not the man to answer, but afaik buddhists settle before they come to this problem, because they figure resolving it is impossible, and that what they have already is enough. This is the question of what the inherent motions in everything are.

>>16786244
Have you considered that the reason that Buddhism doesn't make you and the rest of your foam-bopper wielding group happy is because you aren't doing Buddhism, you're just trying to gain magical powers?

>>16786558
Empty =/= Fake.

>i'll slap at the keyboard, claim it's words, then imply language isn't real
Is this the power of Buddhism?

>>16786407
Whatever you want to call the "thing" Western Cultures is borne out of is fine by me as it does not change my argument

>>16786485
Could be that Westerners who seek out Buddhism are often crippled before Buddhist practice. My point remains, the Buddhist practice is not helping these Westerners.
.

>>16786623
Did you post this in the wrong thread? No one in this thread has made this claim.

>>16786621
You've got a lot of grumpy western psueds living in your head.

The Buddhism isn't real. Only the magic expressed through it.

>>16786244
>>16786641
evola only said that westerners should stick with christianity because no one had come up with solar imperial heroic neopaganism yet, and he wasnt the guy to do it. christianity was still a satanic inversion of Tradition, the forces of darkness and anti-Tradition just hadnt gotten good at their jobs yet, so christianity only inverted a little bit of Tradition instead of all of it. evola wasnt concerned with buddhism, or any religion for that matter as the true religion of the west was solar imperial heroic neopaganism, and was only trying to get the Tradition out of existing religions.

sitting in on tibetan ceremonies and then turning around and saying that actually you should become catholic (even though america was founded on protestantism, not catholicism, so you should actually take up the actual religion of your forefathers, methodism, or quakerism, or southern baptism) is fundamentally disingenuous.

>>16786633
Eh, I was just making a tangential point.

Probably nothing is going to help those miserable Westerners short of God himself. Westerners of good disposition get a lot out of Buddhism. Easterners of good disposition get a lot of out of Christianity. Just not the same things.

>>16786686
>evola wasnt concerned with buddhism, or any religion for that matter as the true religion of the west was solar imperial heroic neopaganism

Is a good point but

>sitting in on tibetan ceremonies and then turning around and saying that actually you should become catholic
If I said that it's news to me.

>>16786201
I like how the "Buddhism is too special and unique for whitey to grasp" guys just sidesteped this one.

>>16786350
It's not supposed to make you 'happy;' it isn't psychiatric drugs. This is the western conditioning speaking, that everything needs to give me a calculated tangible reward I can jot in my ledger or it isn't worth it. I would agree with you that many westerners are poor vessels for Buddhism, but they are poor vessels for any religion on the whole. As noted earlier in the thread even 'traditional' Christianity would be alien to your western moralistic therapeutic deists.

>>16786686
>the true religion of the west was solar imperial heroic neopaganism,
Based elagabalus poster

>>16786920
Not him, and I agree with you that many people are approaching Buddhism like psychiatric drugs. But it literally is psychiatric drugs. It promises that by practicing it you get freedom from attachments and happiness and bliss and often good health and better habits too. Hell, you might even get to go to a demiplane where everything is fucking perfect and amazing and you'll have eternal enjoyment forever.

That shit is all in there. And in Christianity too. Both religions promise the same thing as psychiatry, even with the same caveats. Which is no shocker because psychiatry is religion's secular replacement. No one is making a categorical error. Not Buddhanon nor the miserable whiteys he dislikes.

>>16786920
Westerners who want to make their lives more miserable should seek Buddhism.

How do you want to splice this moron?

>>16782950
>the followers of Madhva argued that Shankara championed monism because he was so stupid that he could only count to one.
Shankara retroactively BTFOd.

>>16780815
>The practice doesn’t mix with your conditioning.
What makes you think that you can't be reconditioned? Are westerners incapable of cultivating right view?

>>16788595

Anon, only a small fraction of Westerners can make Buddhism work with their conditioning.

I am simply saying, Westerners should deeply consider adopting Buddhism. There are far more fruitful paths for the Westerner.

>>16788682
What do you know? How much have you really read bitch

>>16788995
I have read a lot. Not a lot of Buddhist texts, but the amount I have read is beyond the point.

I am talking about lived experience with Western Buddhists. The only ones that are happy are the ones selling it or living off of it. There are a few other Western Buddhists who get by with it.

But most Western Buddhists become crippled by it simply because it is not compatible with their Western upbringing. They become waddling little cranky men who are annoyed by everything. This is not a value judgement of Buddhism. I think it is a fine Philosophy.

>>16789080
I think westrons are better off practicing Roman Stoicism.

>>16789080
>doesn't read just bases his opinion on something off other people who didn't understand it either but claim they have
See, now we are getting somewhere. 'Western' Buddhism is garbage because anything these vapid and disturbed people touch becomes damaged. Think about all the mental illness and toxic consumer culture these people have and then imagine them trying to not only become contemplative but also convince other people they are worthy of their latest purchase. But this isn't just a Buddhism problem. I think the people who are always proselytizing for online Orthodoxy are also going to summon something very unpleasant into their churches: people who want to collect icons and talk about how based their theology is.

>>16789105
We are as far from Roman stoicism as anything else. There were Greek Buddhists at the same time there were Roman Stoics.

>>16789275
Moron, I am not critiquing Buddhism.

I am advocating that Westerners not adopt a Buddhist practice.

>>16789314
You are literally saying Buddhism cripples people.

>>16789327
No, he's saying whites can't into Buddhism because of their racial soul. Which is laughable because whites are superior to all other races and can encompass within themselves all of the human spiritual and intellectual domains. There is literally no artifact beyond our grasp.

Indeed, it is the little brown and yellow people who cannot fathom the fullness of us. I wish them well. Poor monkeys.

>>16789327

Westerners are not compatible with Buddhist practice. There is nothing wrong with Buddhism. Not a value judgment.

Let's say I wanted to learn Amharic and move to Ethiopia. It would take me years before becoming adept at the language. Even more time to understand nuance and humor, I may never even be able to decipher such subtleties, because my learning and desire to understand cultural intricacies may have simply plateaued. When I speak, native Amharic speakers would hear a non-native speaker. They would think that my verb usages and syntax was odd at times. It would be an anomaly for me speak Amharic flawlessly as a Westerner.

Think of Buddhism as a language. It is not a Westerners native tongue. They will never be efficient at the practice. Best to practice something else.

>>16789362
I don't see how anyone believing in such strict determinism could have the gall to suggest Buddhism cripples people. This is like asking a blind person to describe a painting.

>>16789347
>racial soul
Yes I am wondering about his angle here, whether perhaps he is either of an Asian Buddhist background trying to do gatekeeping against unprepared white people, or a white person who got filtered by other white people pretending to understand it who themselves should have been filtered by an actual Buddhist doing proper gatekeeping.

Mahayana is a piece of shit, no wonder all the flies are drawn to it

>>16789516

>>16786201
Related note, Pure Land Buddhism is its most admirable brand. It's the best Heaven and salvation doctrine I've ever read about. It's simple, compationate, humble. I don't like Buddhism (or any Actually Existing Religion) that much but I very much admire this.
It's interesting to consider it was seen as a sect for illiterate peasants in Japan until not so long ago. It really angers retarded elitists to be told their gesticulations and doctrines don't and shouldn't matter to the salvation of their soul.

>>16790111
Pure Land Buddhism is the most preposterous religion made up by non enlightened people

>>16790111
huh?

>>16790128
>retarded elitist who thinks his gesticulations and doctrines matters to the salvation of his soul
>>16790153
Just recite the nenbutsu Anon.

>>16790111
>>16790216
You probably think jingling keys in front of a baby is the highest form of education.