/lit/ - Literature

>>17487881
They want the exact opposite afaik. This world is inherently limited, thus your life in it is also limited - you are mortal. What they're trying to do is reach a place where limits don't apply.

>>17487881
It's not death bro, for them death is the product of the desire-enslaved conceptuality.

>>17487881
>why do buddhists want to die so badly?
Because they hate life and they hate themselves
Also, Buddhism appeared in a time where life on earth was literal hell, so it was kind of needed, there is no excuse for being a disgusting buddhist today

Dalits wouldn't understand.

>Buddhism is the desire that states that you should extinguish all desires
Buddha bros... how can I ever desire to reach Nibbana if that is a desire I need to extinguish?... I think I just refuted 2500 years of philosophy bros.... hold me pls.....

>>17487881
Wonderful world? Like Konosuba?

>>17487881
>>17487920
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html
You don't understand what nirvana means

>>17487993
This is irony that is actually addressed many times in Buddhist thought

The more you try and grasp at understanding it, the more it slips from your reach
It is by not grasping that you grasp
It is by grasping that you don't grasp
And so it is, this is the way

>>17488203
I'm also trans btw, not sure if it matters

>>17488211
means you were a sinner in a previous life

>>17488203
Based
Buddhism will eternally filter midwits

>>17488203
why do it all if not for desire? that makes no sense. these writings would not even exist if not for desire to create them.

>>17488130
It means to not care, thats literally all that it is, to the point of not caring about not caring

It isn't rocket science lmao

>>17488239
Have you ever read anything about buddhism? All your criticism is directly addressed by entry level books.
Desire is not universally bad.

>>17488246
Absolutely wrong

>>17488247
who/what makes the distinction of what is bad desire?

>>17488251
enlighten me then, because I dont think I'm wrong

>>17487881
but there is no self in the first place

>>17487993
>the path is the result of the path
classic Mahayanist mistake

>>17488256
If a desire leads to nirvana, it's not bad, but skillful
Look up the raft analogy
>>17488264
This is not what the Buddha taught, he said "not self", not "no self"

>>17488261
It's not just "not caring"
It's bliss and more than that

>>17487881
>Decide to learn Buddhism
>"Don't make any value judgements bro, everything should be equal"
>Okay
>*Breathes*
>Wait I just decided breathing is better than not breathing, therefore I made a value judgement
>Realize Buddhism just got refuted by the mere act of existing

Do not bother with a religion made by Nhilistic Apus that lived in an era with no toilet paper

>>17488285
>>Decide to learn Buddhism
Obviously not lmao

>>17488272
how do you know if something leads to nirvana? isn't it fair to say everyone is doing this already?

>>17488295
>how do you know if something leads to nirvana?
The Buddha explained what led to nirvana and what didn't in the suttas. The satipatthana sutta for example lists the right foundations of mindfulness through which nirvana can be attained
But more generally, any action that corresponds to the noble eightfold path is skillful; any action that goes against it is unskillful.
>>17488285
>>"Don't make any value judgements bro, everything should be equal"
This was never stated by the Buddha or any of his students, you have completely misunderstood Buddhism
Start with In the Buddha's Words or What the Buddha Taught

>>17488305
>The Buddha explained what led to nirvana and what didn't in the suttas.
how is this any different from what moses said with his tablets?

>>17488261
>>enlighten me then, because I dont think I'm wrong
More precisely, it is abandoning what is not yours

The Buddha said: “Monks, abandon what is not yours. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Now, what is it that is not yours? Form is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Sensation, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are not yours; abandon them. Abandoning them will lead to benefit and happiness.

“Here is an example: suppose someone were to cut down the grass, wood, branches, leaves, and foliage here in the Jeta forest, or were to take it away or burn it, or do whatever he wished with it. What do you think? Would you think, ‘That person is cutting us, or taking us away, or burning us, or doing whatever he wished with us’?”

The monks answered, “Of course not, Venerable Sir.”

“And why is that?”

“Because this forest, Venerable Sir, is not ourselves; nor does it belong to us.”

“In just the same way, abandon what is not yours. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. In just the same way, form is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Sensation, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are not yours; abandon them. Abandoning them will lead to benefit and happiness.”

>>17488309
He never said you had to follow his system
If you don't want to that's fine. He always told the people who followed him to never trust anything blindly and test it out for themselves.
The entire system is to be tested out so you can figure out that it actually works
Also the eightfold path is not a set of commandments, it's a guideline on how to reach nirvana. If you don't want nirvana that's fine, you can keep hanging out in samsara, no god is going to punish you for rejecting the Buddha

>>17488285
If that truly is the extent you have 'learned' Buddhism, you might well be Catholic.

>>17488295
>>how do you know if something leads to nirvana?
knowledge of the path to nirvana is part of the insights, you can't know until at least stream entry

>>17487881
suffering really bugs them

>>17488320
>Also the eightfold path is not a set of commandments, it's a guideline on how to reach nirvana.
and the commandments are a guideline to get to heaven. it really isn't any different.

assuming you're a buddhist, why do you want nirvana? what do you hope to gain? i don't see the upside in it. why go through all of these hoops to effectively achieve death when death can be achieved in much easier ways?

>>17488364
> it really isn't any different.
it is. The Buddha also teaches how to get to heaven but says it's not the best thing you can possibly achieve.
>why go through all of these hoops to effectively achieve death
Your entire reasoning is based on a false assumption. Read >>17488130

>>17488305
>>17488272
i remember a time ago a buddhist saying to me there is no good/bad values in buddhism because they are all created. so the desire to reach nirvana, to meditate on the absolute/sunyata/God or whatever you call it is just as valid as the desire to cum to the most vile pornography? i mean if that is the case. but now we have what is ''skillful'' and what is ''unskillful'' that basically goes on the same direction of good and bad, right or wrong...

If you think life's pleasure outweighs it's suffering contemplate on one animal, currently eating the other - Bropenhauer

>>17488382
>there is no good/bad values in buddhism because they are all created.
That's a really misleading way to put it. The point made by the Buddha was that all truths that can be expressed through words are meaningless or inferior to the truth that is expressed by direct experience.
It's neither valid or invalid, Buddhism at its core is just the four noble truths. Suffering exists and there is a path out of it and towards eternal, unconditioned bliss. If you think this is worth it, follow the path, if you don't think it's worth it, then don't bother. That's it
Skillful just means leading to nirvana, unskillful means not leading to nirvana. Buddhism relies on the assumption that you want to stop suffering. If you don't, it has nothing to offer you

>>17488382
>>i remember a time ago a buddhist saying to me there is no good/bad values in buddhism
That's in Mahayana, not in Buddhism.

>>17488376
>According to the ancient Brahmans, when a fire was extinguished it went into a state of latency. Rather than ceasing to exist, it became dormant and in that state — unbound from any particular fuel — it became diffused throughout the cosmos.
>To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment — calm and unconfined.
this is literally death. the same could be said for the buzzards that eat your corpse, shit it out and fertilize the land. death frees you of the mind, but that is something would only be attractive someone that sees having a mind at all as a prison. why you use your agency at all if what you ultimately want is to be nothing?

>>17488419
No, it's not, and the Buddha said as much by clearly stating several times that nihilism and annihilationism were false.
Nirvana is absolute freedom. The link I posted was really straightforward, I don't get how you can miss the point.
>death frees you of the mind
You are not your mind. The five aggregates are "not self". Some monks have said nirvana is the self but it's a controversial topic.
>why you use your agency at all if what you ultimately want is to be nothing?
Another false assumption.
Look you're free to mistakenly assume nirvana is nothingness, but why keep asking me the same questions if you've already made up your mind?

>>17488427
Because all conditioned phenomena are insufficient and cannot please you. You feel craving and suffering

>>17488407
but don't all beings want what is good, or, as you said and i agree what is beyond the expression of being good and that all beings yearn for? there is no option for beings, they all want what is the best even though they seem to choose what is bad purposefully. btw im glad to see a buddhist describe nirvana as eternal and unconditioned bliss.

>>17488435
>but don't all beings want what is good
Yes, but the point is we're bad at judging what is good and rely on transient and ephemeral pleasures that lead to suffering rather than strive for the ultimate "goodness" that is nirvana.
There are two options: either the temporary pleasures of samsara, or the eternal bliss of nirvana.
>im glad to see a buddhist describe nirvana as eternal and unconditioned bliss.
That's how everyone describes it, the nihilism meme is a common misunderstanding from people who don't bother reading about the core tenets of the doctrine

>>17488417
>That's in Mahayana, not in Buddhism.
You know, being a seething faggot rambling on /lit/ 24/7 really isn't doing anything to promote your authority on liberation anon.
Gate gate
Para gate
Para sam gate
bodhi swaha

>>17488453
Not the guy you're responding to; are you a mahayanist?

>>17488457
I think it's based but don't hold them accountable for my foul mouth if that's what you're going for.

>>17488464
No, I'd just like someone who knows what they're talking about to explain to me the value of the bodhisattva path.
As I see it, the theravadin view of the path gives you a level of "security" by guaranteeing liberation from stream-entry onwards, but mahayanists don't have anything of the sort and what they call enlightenment seems very vague to me.
The sotapanna is valuable because it relieves a being from the stressful possibility of being stuck in samsara forever. What does mahayana have in that regard? By vowing to become a bodhisattva, aren't you purposefully condemning yourself to suffering for eternity? What "insurance" do mahayanists have of eventual liberation since they do not seek stream entry or even nirvana itself?

>>17488453
>>17488453
>Gate gate
>Para gate
>Para sam gate
>bodhi swaha
That's useless crap in buddhism, sorry. Buddhism is not for the masses and Voodoism is better for midwits anyway.

>>17488435
>>but don't all beings want what is good, or, as you said and i agree what is beyond the expression of being good and that all beings yearn for?
So? you think you will get something because you wish for it in your wet dream? That's how liberals think and it's stupid.


People are not born with an innate knowledge of what is good nor with the knowledge of how to reach it.

>>17488427
>The link I posted was really straightforward, I don't get how you can miss the point.
perhaps i didn't miss the point but didn't come to conclusion you wish i did.
>You are not your mind. The five aggregates are "not self".
how so? is all of our agency not made and justified by these things?
>why keep asking me the same questions if you've already made up your mind?
i've never asked you the same question twice. im just curious of the reason why people engage in these cults of nothingness when the same could easily be achieved through death. based on these writings, death sounds like the greatest freedom.

>>17488453
>Gate gate
>Para gate
>Para sam gate
>bodhi swaha
I read this only once when I read the heart sutra and it's been regularly stuck in my head ever since. I don't even remember what it means.

>>17488503
>didn't come to conclusion you wish i did.
I suppose. You're free to think that you are the aggregates. I won't try to convince you otherwise. Realization that these things are not self is only available through direct experience, which you won't reach without accepting a leap of faith anyway.
>all of our agency
What is conditioned is not self.
> cults of nothingness
See, another false assumption. I've told you several times nirvana had nothing to do with nothingness. In the formless attainments of meditation, nothingness is only the third of four attainments, ranking below the base of "neither existence nor nonexistence", and that fourth base itself is not even nirvana.
From there you're free to believe in your mistaken idea of what nirvana is. You seem like you really want to think of Buddhism as seeking nothingness when this is verifiably completely false. That's fine.

>>17487920
this applies more to christniggers.

>>17488499
i'm not saying that everyone knows what is good and worth dedicating their lives to, but that everyone knows that they want what is good. what im trying to say is: there is an objectivity here that can be expressed in good/bad terms.

>>17488531
>Realization that these things are not self is only available through direct experience, which you won't reach without accepting a leap of faith anyway.
the same can be said of born again christians who "see the light" and come to the same "realizations". what makes them wrong and you correct except faith? really what makes you the decider of what is self rather than people themselves?

>What is conditioned is not self.
you're using your agency to condition yourself to go through the eightfold path. this is all based around conditioning otherwise you have reached nirvana the moment you desired it.

>You seem like you really want to think of Buddhism as seeking nothingness when this is verifiably completely false.
verified by what?

>>17488572
>the same can be said of born again christians who "see the light" and come to the same "realizations"
Born again christians are based though. I wish I could suspend my disbelief and be one.

>>17488572
>the same can be said
No, it can't. Your insistence on comparing buddhism and christianity is tedious. Buddhism is just a system to get out of suffering. Stream-entry erases doubt through direct experience of the path towards the end of suffering. It is not needed to be a faith follower.
>what makes you the decider of what is self
Not-self is one of the three marks of existence alongside impermanence and suffering. It's a tool to get to realize nirvana.
>this is all based around conditioning
Yes
>verified by what
By reading introductory texts about Buddhism instead of making up your own idea of what it is and arguing about it here. The books mentioned here >>17488305 should help clear things up

>>17488584
>Buddhism is just a system to get out of suffering.
same goes for the commandments except they promise an end suffering once you reach heaven. really the same promise is given for nirvana after going through the buddhist regime, however so few people actually achieve it.
>Not-self is one of the three marks of existence alongside impermanence and suffering. It's a tool to get to realize nirvana.
that didn't answer my question, unless you're trying to imply you're now omniscient.
>By reading introductory texts about Buddhism
i also read on /pol/ that the bible is the only book you need in life. which dudes should i just trust? really though you're the one that's telling about buddhism. why can't you convincingly something you know so well? what has all the meditation really brought you?

>>17487881
buddhism is as far as human philosophy can reach without God's revelation.
It identifies original sin and attempts the only reasonable answer to it you can have without Jesus: disappear and enjoy the quiet of the grave.

>>17488636
Fuck off with your guilt tripping garbage, christcuck.

>>17488636
if I wasn't a Christian, if Jesus had never come, I'd be a Buddhist.

>>17488639
no, truth is truth.
escaping your conscience will do nothing.

>>17488631
>same goes
You're not going to get anywhere by comparing abrahamism and dharmism, I told you this already. You can keep going if you want but it's pointless. One is faith-based, the other is purely experience-based. Look up the kesamutti sutta and read it.
>that didn't answer my question
I don't decide anything. What is laid out in buddhism is a set of methods, they're all upaya, not absolute intrinsic truths in themselves.
>which dudes should i just trust?
Whichever you want. It doesn't matter to me.
It's obvious you don't want to learn about Buddhism, so you should go for something else.

>>17488636>>17488647

there is no philosophy in buddhism, contrary to the thousands of years of mental circuses made up by the christian scholars and low iq neoplatonists addicted to following a jewish fiction.
Stick to jews, it's better for you and you will lose your pea sized mind if you follow something else.

>>17488647
I'm not escaping shit. I'm just not intimidated by your dead jew telling me I've "sinned". Fuck off.

>>17488504
it means >be hindu and merge you true self with buddhanature

>>17488680
lol look at him seethe
buddhism is 100% Philosophy and it's good phyposophy it gets as far as you can go.
>>17488684
you have sinned, we all have, our relatio ship with the universe and God is compromised forever and we can't repair it ourself. You believe it and know this because you know the nature of suffering.

>>17488653
>One is faith-based, the other is purely experience-based.
but its not purely experience-based because the reason anyone is bothering to go through all of this buddhist doctrine is out of faith of nirvana or really just plain peace. the fact that you trust these books is faith itself.
>not absolute intrinsic truths in themselves
if they are not absolute truths than why do they get to decide on what self is? why have any definitions at all? definitions would only keep attached to earthliness. same with writing.
>It's obvious you don't want to learn about Buddhism
debate is one of the best ways to learn about anything. im learning a lot by talking to you. i appreciate you.

>>17488697
>You believe it and know this
I don't believe in your jew garbage, no. You're unable to guilt trip me and this makes you seethe uncontrollably.

>>17488699
>the reason anyone is bothering to go through all of this buddhist doctrine is out of faith
It's because other people aside from the Buddha have followed his teachings and realized it worked.
>if they are not absolute truths than why do they get to decide on what self is? why have any definitions at all?
Yes, that's it. Truth is only realized through experience. But until you get experience, you need relative, provisional truths to guide you.
>debate
I don't like debating, it's pointless. Let's stop here.
If you really want to learn and not just debate, read one of the books I recommended earlier. I'm not an authority on Buddhism.

>>17488572
>the same can be said of born again christians who "see the light" and come to the same "realizations".
they don't come to the same realization. Go back to r8ddit with your clichés. Here is the circlejerk for you
reddit.com/r/Buddhism/new/

>>17488706
I'm am litteraly more peaceful than the Buddha when he died and asked for help as the fires of hell appeared around him.
Jesus surely saved him when he went to hell to save the virtuous pagans tho.

>>17488721
lmfao

>>17487881
Its cause they can't reconcile their child-like views of the world with reality.

>>17488732
Ask dilawar or furuta if they see the first noble truth as childlike
You sound sheltered

>>17488739
You sound retarded. Go back

>yeah bro, some jew who was a human but also god came to save us from what he was going to do to us if he didn't save us from it and that's why you should worship him
Makes sense

>>17488750
It's good that you haven't suffered much in this life, but your view of things is narrow

>>17488753
Now its you who sounds sheltered retard. Go back and suck buddha's dick.

>>17488762
I hope you keep living a pleasant and comfortable life

>>17488711
>It's because other people aside from the Buddha have followed his teachings and realized it worked.
a lot of guys say a lot of things. so what? matthew, mark, luke, and john all agree that following the teachings of christ is the one true way.
>But until you get experience, you need relative, provisional truths to guide you
so it's only true if you already believe in buddhism?
>I don't like debating, it's pointless.
its not pointless. i just told you im learning a lot by debating you. you're being very selfish which might knock off your path to nirvana.

>>17488766
I will. Stay mad in your "suffering"

>>17488751
it does.

No matter what I can't bring myself to believe in christianity. It's so weirdly specific and makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't feel it, I don't feel that I've sinned or that I should feel guilty, I don't think Jesus was anyone special and ideas like eternal paradise or hell are so fucking ridiculous I can't take any of it seriously.
I honestly wonder how anyone can believe in this if they haven't been raised in a christian environment.

reminder im lurking lit all the time to click on threads about buddhism because im still waiting for them to explain the duality nirvana-samsara

>>17488768
It is pointless. You're overthinking everything. If you're interested in Buddhism, go learn about it. If you think it doesn't make sense, go do something else. It's not complicated.
>>17488777
Mahayana says there is no duality, Theravada says it doesn't matter
There you go

>>17487881

10 Year practicing Vajrayana Buddhist here - no self no eye no ears no more no mind - Nirvana is the beginning of the journey not the end

>>17488783
>You're overthinking everything
how so? im just putting these ideas under scrutiny like i would for any other idea. im being as fair as i possibly could.
>It is pointless.
i've told you two times already im learning by speaking to you. i had never heard of the eightfold path or the 5 aggregates before talking to you. why dont you believe me? im a guy like all the ones you trust in those books.

>>17488697
>buddhism is 100% Philosophy and it's good phyposophy it gets as far as you can go.
False, it was exposed as illogical and nonsensical by the Hindu philosopher Adi Shankara

>>17488828
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

>>17488827
You'd learn more by reading those books. I'm not good at explaining things.

>>17488841
i understand. thanks for trying to explain things for me.
hope you have a blessed day.

>>17488859
Thank you, likewise

>>17488818
>no self no eye no ears no more no mind
oh yea? How you’d write that post then?

>uh oh looks like I read Wikipedia summaries of secondary literature on vastly abbreviated mnemonic poems and now I'm an authority on what Buddhism teaches

>>17488783
and mahayana goes back to advaita's ajativada and theravada just dogmatic dunno just accept it brah. inspiring doctrine!

>>17488958
>goes back to
No, it has its own view on things.
>dunno just accept it
More like it doesn't matter.
There's one thing you need to understand in order to stop making dumb posts like these: Buddhism is not about providing truth. It's not about metaphysics (despite Nagarjuna's efforts), or giving answers about existence, or finding the truth of the universe, or providing meaning. It just asks a question: do you want to stop suffering? And if the answer is yes, gives you a system that you can follow.
Buddhism doesn't give a shit about existential questions and quest for meaning, if that's what you're looking for, go for abrahamism or hinduism or whatever else. There are a bunch of questions Buddhism doesn't answer and doesn't seek to answer. Why? Because they don't lead to the end of suffering.
If you find this unconvincing, then it's not for you. This is neither a good or bad thing.

>>17487938
>Dalits wouldn't understand.
Why did Buddha preach to Dalits then without distinction? You can't be a consistent elitist about an egalitarian religion
>>17488272
Buddhism will always remain a mess until it forcefully rejects the "no self" interpretation, as it is right now the vast majority of Buddhist schools seem entirely content with that interpretation and indeed autistically argue for "no self"

>>17488986
>until it forcefully rejects the "no self"
It already has, because this doctrine was never taught in the first place.
>the vast majority
Mahayana as a whole sees anatta as a provisional teaching. The thai forest tradition does as well.
"No self" is mainly peddled by people who don't understand Buddhism, like /lit/

No self just means devoid of essence.
People afraid of it are just afraid of dying. But since a self does not exist it can't die.

>>17488992
>Mahayana as a whole sees anatta as a provisional teaching.
This seems like a lie, every time I glance through any of the Mahayana or Tibetan works I see them all arguing for no-self with maybe 1 or 2 small exceptions regarded by the rest as heretics/wrong, they don't say that it's only provisional and that they don't take a position on the ultimate reality of the Self.

>>17488984
>it has its own view on things
sure but im saying that it ends up having the same problem of the brahman-maya duality of advaitins.

>buddhism just gives you a system that you can follow to end suffering
yeah antinatalists do the same, mainlander did the same, suicide apologists do the same.

>>17489016
Buddhism does not affirm the absolute reality of any creator god so it is not the same as advaita vedanta, wherein Brahman is causing ignorance

>>17489016
Calling someone antinatalist has no power here bro.
Except for Vimalakirti chads.

>>17489016
>same problem of the brahman-maya duality of advaitins.
There is no problem of duality in Advaita, they resolve it by having maya and duality emerge from and then resolve or dissolve back into the absolute reality of non-dual Brahman alone.

>>17489012
No-self is far more contextual than /lit/ makes it out to be. Are we denying that there is a self produced from the aggregates? ... a self within the aggregates? ... a self in the sense of the Hindu atman? ... a self as subtle object of clinging by an afflicted mind? ... a self of cosmic infinite proportions whose nature is emptiness?

>>17489043
buddhism affirms the absolute reality of an unconditioned state and the absolute reality of a conditioned one just like advaita. creation alone resolves these problems.

>>17489049
who did i call antinatalist? just saying their practical advice are all terrible and its funny they do nothing but give practical advices without foundations.

>>17489064
yeah this is the problem the duality, illusion emerges from Brahman, making both two opposite absolutes

>>17489082
Buddhist and in particular Mahayana and Vajrayana writings attempt to refute the existence of all of those selves. The only self they admit outside of Shentong schools/thinkers who accept an unconditional Paramatman is the conventional sense of self which is really just the ego or egoistic identity, and for Buddhists this only exists conventionally and not ultimately, except for Gelug where as I understand it they don't even admit that it exists conventionally either.
>a self of cosmic infinite proportions whose nature is emptiness?
Since most Maha-vajra Buddhists insist on the claim that empty of self-nature or sunyata is synonymous with selflessness this one would appear to be a contradiction, if that self was empty they wouldn't admit it as a self.

>>17489156
>creation resolves a problem
Yes it's called justifying a priestly caste's claims to dominion over serfs. Philosophically it just says the infinite regress of causality stops when I say so.

>>17489012
>they don't take a position on the ultimate reality of the Self.
Yet that's how it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions
>Am I?
>Am I not?
The point is that these questions are useless, as mentioned here >>17488984

>>17489156
>making both two opposite absolutes
That's incorrect, one is contingent upon and is subsumed into the other. Things can only be opposite absolutes if each are both absolute, maya isn't absolute. The very words you are using betrays your misunderstanding of the topic.

>>17489185
Yes there are a diversity of opinions on the intensity of a self which is where the term no-self appears. That there is no permanent individual self to be hypostatized is the usual understanding. But again you have esoteric schools like Shingon for instance which affirm a cosmic Vairocana self, which while assimilated to emptiness, is still called a great self. On the other hand this is very heterdox compared to a nikaya only reading of Buddhism, at least superficially. If the goal is to teach the dharma expediently then there are in practice few limits as to which aiding constructs one may use.

>>17489228
Isn't Shingon some kind of esoteric pure land buddhism?
All those branches of mahayana and vajrayana are confusing but they sound interesting too.

>>17489187
this political reading of yours shows how your resentment and bias corrupt any philosophical, metaphysical and symbolical understanding of it. you're not motivated by truth, love or anything noble.

>>17489196
maya is brahman's nature. end of discussion.

Why not just be a daoist? Metaphysical speculation never solved anything

>>17487881
Those who achieve nirvana are free from rebirth in ANY world, not just this one. There are thought to be other worlds that are hellish. You may feel that this life is wonderful but thats probably because you have a "nice" birth (you're a human from this dimension and not a blind, black, or extremely poor one). Being out of the pleasure/pain of attached existence is more "wonderful"

>>17489240
Daoism and Buddhism aren't all that far from each other, are they?

>>17489192
>Yet that's how it is:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unanswered_questions

I'm talking about Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, not the Pali Canon anon. Buddha never stated that there was no Atman. Despite this, most Buddhist schools interpret him as teaching that there was no Atman. Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu, Dharmakirti, Santaraksita, Tsongkhapa, Mipham etc, all the major Mahayana and Vajrayana thinkers when you actually read their writings they all attempt to refute the existence of Atman's and their writings all contain justifications for why the "no-self" interpretation of Buddhism is correct. They all depart from the Pali Canon in doing so, although they would all undoubtedly claim that this is what Buddha really meant.

The idea that Mahayana Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism decided to not take a position on the existence of the Atman following Buddha's example in the Pali Canon is completely false and ahistorical and most scholars of Buddhism and Buddhist clergy would tell you that's flat-out wrong.

>>17489257
>I'm talking about Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, not the Pali Canon
Mahayana and Vajrayana take the Pali canon as authoritative scripture, they just add their own stuff on top of it.

>>17489248
Huh no, the dao has no dependent origination which is the core of buddhism and actually the only thing which matters

>>17489240
daosim is 100% metaphysics, ie intellectual ramblings passed as reality towards the aristocracy lacking critical thinking and of course peasants

>>17489233
Later Shingon under Kakuban tries to doctrinally assimilate Pure Land. BDK has English translations of him bundled with their translations of Kukai.

>>17489248
Daoism isn't cucked out by hindu metaphysics about rebirth and dukkha. A daoist life is happy.

>>17489237
>maya is brahman's nature
No it's not that's false, Advaita doesn't claim that in their writings. Maya is non-absolute and contingent in Advaita, Brahman and Brahman's nature are neither non-absolute nor contingent.

>>17489279
>the only thing which matters
The only thing that matters in Buddhism is Nirvana, the rest is just means to get to it and can be abandoned depending on the circumstances
>>17489284
Daoists believe in rebirth as far as I know

>>17489010
>No self just means devoid of essence.
No, that's the intellectual takes because philosophers can't stop wanking off over muh essence, muh true reality.

>>17489237
>god is truth, love and nobility
>noooo you are being political

>>17487920
No, it doesn't matter at all how "nice" the world is, or how much progress humanity has made since Shakyamuni's time (with modern medicine etc.) That would only make rebirth in this dhatu a somewhat more privileged birth for beings that had relatively more merit. Obviously things are going to continue to be shitty for beings born into the hells

>>17489279
>daosim is 100% metaphysics, ie intellectual ramblings passed as reality towards the aristocracy lacking critical thinking and of course peasants
Are you the buttmad christlarper?
>lacking critical thinking
Must be pretty sad to be so desperate

>>17489283
All those fucking branches man

>>17489012
Mahayana have sutras saying there is a true self and insights into anatta is for losers who can't into mahayana.

>>17489262
>Mahayana and Vajrayana take the Pali canon as authoritative scripture, they just add their own stuff on top of it.
Yes, I know, but they depart from the Pali Canon in explicitly and repeatedly asserting that "no-self" is true in 99% of their writings, which Buddha never asserted.

>>17489289
so maya is not brahman's power? maya is not emerged as naturally as rays of light from the sun? i can find shankara and gaudapada writing these and or quoting these from the upanishads.

>>17489295
i'm glad you have nothing to say anymore, thank you for proving me right

>>17489294
No that's literally in the first parable about the wagon and it's parts.

>>17489292
Some later sects who syncretised with buddhism maybe. It's absent from early texts. Zhuang Zhi laughs about people fearing death.

>>17489308
>>17489312
Ok so which is it?

>>17489312
Wrong.Annata and sunyata are already well established in the pali canon

>>17489333
A portion of the Mahayana Sutras (mostly those belonging to the Tathagatagarbha class of sutras) speak of a true Atman. Some of these texts attempt to synthesize it with anatta and sunyata by saying things like this Atman is just symbolic for all beings inherent potential to become Buddha's, and things like that. Other of the texts seem to indicate that it's real. However all of these are anonymously-composed apocryphal texts which Maha-vajra schools just pick and choose from and interpret in sundry ways. The vast majority of Mahayana and Vajrayana schools in their actual writings composed by the thinkers of those schools interpret this true self of the Mahayana Sutras as being not a really existing Atman but as being a heuristic device to aid in enlightenment but as not actually being real. Some smaller schools of Buddhism like Jonang Buddhist interpret these texts as meaning that there really is an ultimately existing Atman in Buddhism, but the vast majority of Buddhist schools disagree strongly with this take. The ruling establishment in Tibetan tried over many centuries to eradicate and censor the works of schools and thinkers who espoused this position, but they failed.

>>17489398
Why can't they just accept the Buddha's non-answer instead of making all these complicated assertions?

>>17489343
>Annata
Annata means "not-self", I am speaking about the "no-self" position. "no-self" in Pali is Nathatta, not anatta. Mahayana and Vajrayana (and most of Theravada it seems) depart from the Pali canon in asserting a Nathatta position, which is never espoused in the Pali Canon.

>>17489412
it's easier to make up BS and not tell people who provide for them that they are not enlightened.

>>17489421
What the fuck does enlightenment even mean in mahayana? It's not nirvana so what is it

>>17489412
I don't know, I personally believe that Buddha just wasn't a clear enough of a teacher and was too autistic about his apophaticism such that the whole religion founded in his memory misunderstood that teaching aside from fringe schools. It didn't help also that the main competitor of Buddhism in India taught doctrines of Atman, which could have influenced some Buddhists to interpret it that way.

>>17489440
>just wasn't a clear enough of a teacher
A lot of people became arhats while listening to him though

>>17489416
An atta is a negation of atta soul. You make up a distinction between not self and no self that is not in the texts. And shooting in the dark I think you still cling to a self and thus fear of losing it.

>>17489309
I would start with the Nikayas and a mix of Madhyamaka and Yogacara before going into the later sects that develop ex-India. They are always in dialogue with previous thought

>>17489324
>so maya is not brahman's power?
It is, but Brahman's power is different from Brahman's nature. Brahman's nature is to be omnipotent etc. Brahman's power is dependent upon or contingent upon Brahman and his nature. A woodcutter possesses intelligence as his nature, but he wields his axe to cut wood. That axe and the act of wielding it are different from the fact of the woodcutter possessing the intelligence that is his nature. The axe being wielded to cut wood depends on the woodcutter possessing intelligence as his nature being there to wield it.
>maya is not emerged as naturally as rays of light from the sun?
Maya emerges as manifested power from Brahman, while not being identical with Brahman/Brahman's nature. Brahman wields maya, but Brahman doesn't wield his own nature.
>i can find shankara and gaudapada writing these and or quoting these from the upanishads.
Yes, but you appear to be interpreting them wrongly as I explain above. Neither of them ever claim that maya is Brahman's nature like intelligence, bliss, omnipotence etc are.

>>17489477
How long does it take to become acquainted with all the various sects of buddhism?

>>17489425
A sort of transcendent omniscience wielded for the sake of liberating others. Mahayana schools do not deny nirvana but reinterpret it, c.p. Nagarjuna, Asanga

>>17489498
Buddhism isn't concerned with orthodoxy but orthopraxy. Just start out and when you reach a conflict you can look up how different sects engage with it

>>17487993
Its compared in the suttas to using a thorn to pull out another thorn stuck in you. Also compared to food, they didnt get up eating entirely.

>>17489498
Too long. There are sects that don't even exist anymore that you'd be learning just for genealogical reasons. Wouldn't bother unless you are extremely interested. It would be something like being a polymath. But who knows, if you adequately learned all the different schools and were able to explain them forwards and backwards you could be reborn somewhere that everyone already knows them as well and debate one another in autistic bliss.

>>17489515
*Give up food. Typo sorry

>>17489511
Ah sweet summer child. Look into Tibetan doxography

>>17489494
brahman's omnipotent nature is expressed by the very expression of its omnipotence: its power. there is no nature separated from power/energies this is a metaphysical necessity. there is no nature of sun separated from its heat and its light. end of story.
you are probably the same anon i discussed last year about the same things. you persist in error. may God bless you.

>>17489523
I meant all the main schools listed in >>17489309, not literally every school that has ever existed.
>>17489511
I'll do that, I've already started with the nikayas anyway

>>17489504
>A sort of transcendent omniscience wielded for the sake of liberating others.
That's literally buddhahood

>>17489457
>An atta is a negation of atta soul.
No, that's not what it means in Pali, the term anatta just refers to the lack of Atman in the specific thing to which the term anatta is being applied to. Anattā is a composite Pali word consisting of an (not, without) and attā (soul). Buddha in the Pali Canon only ever applies the term anatta as an adjective to things like saying memory and eye-conciousness are without atta, he never says "this is my doctrine of anatta which means there are no existing Atmans".

>>17487881
Because sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. Loss, bereavement, betrayal, war... Aging, sickness, death. To mention some reasons why.

>>17489544
This
The three marks of existence only make sense when applied to an object. They are intrinsic characteristics of all conditioned phenomena, not immanent absolute truths.

>>17489544
Anatta is described in a sutta:
One cannot say to Matter (feelings...etc), be thus and do not be thus,
Matter is subject to affliction,
Therefore it it anatta.

>>17489544
>>An atta is a negation of atta soul.
>No, that's not what it means in Pali, the term Anattā is a composite Pali word consisting of an (not, without) and attā (soul).
Fham...
>Buddha in the Pali Canon only ever applies the term anatta as an adjective to things like saying memory and eye-conciousness are without atta, he never says "this is my doctrine of anatta which means there are no existing Atmans".
The Suttas present the doctrine in three forms. First, they apply the "no-self, no-identity" doctrine to all phenomena as well as any and all objects, yielding the idea that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhamma anatta).[64] Second, states Collins, the Suttas apply the doctrine to deny self of any person, treating conceit to be evident in any assertion of "this is mine, this I am, this is myself" (etam mamam eso 'ham asmi, eso me atta ti).[65] Third, the Theravada texts apply the doctrine as a nominal reference, to identify examples of "self" and "not-self", respectively the Wrong view and the Right view; this third case of nominative usage is properly translated as "self" (as an identity) and is unrelated to "soul", states Collins.[65]

Hopefully you will shed your clinging to the false notion of self.

>>17489534
If you look at the messy genealogical chart with all the Tibetans at the bottom closely you'll see a big green knot of Madhyamika and Yogacarin lineages in the middle. The root texts of these traditions are mostly given here
>>17489477

>>17489552
Then, they really are retarded. By eschewing all that is good in life they hope to escape the bad. But the good makes the bad endurable.

>>17489627
Way to miss the whole point brainlet

>>17489627
Fuck off Nietzsche we went over this already

>>17489533
>brahman's omnipotent nature is expressed by the very expression of its omnipotence: its power.
You are confused about the language you are using. The very word expression, taken not in the sense of verbal expression but in the sense you are using means "something that manifests, embodies, or symbolizes something else". That which is expressed is different from the thing being expressed, and this is shown by what the word expression means in the English language. You are using the word incorrectly without realizing it, but when we pay attention to what the word actually means it shows that what I'm saying is correct.
>there is no nature separated from power/energies
This is false, for the reason that it erases the distinction between the wielder and the thing wielded without any justification, which results in logical contradictions. Non-intelligent entities don't wield things, but if their intelligence is not different from the thing being wield, who is wielding what? It makes no sense. The inherent nature of something is inherent in that thing always and does not need to be manifested in some way. Powers and energies are manifested and depend upon their manifestor.
>this is a metaphysical necessity.
No, it's instead just sloppy thinking in my opinion.
>there is no nature of sun separated from its heat and its light. end of story.
Yes there is, fusion reactions occur inside and sustain the sun, but fusion reactions don't occur inside in the light that the sun emits to faraway planets
>you are probably the same anon i discussed last year about the same things. you persist in error. may God bless you.
I don't consider myself in error. Thank you for saying God bless you though. Now that you understand what the position of Advaita is, it would be good on you to stop falsely repeating that in Advaita Brahman's nature is the same as Brahman's power, as you did in this thread despite having it explained to you earlier that this is not the position of Advaita. You can say that you disagree with this claim of Advaita, which anyone is free to, but don't continue to say that the position taught by Advaita is that Brahman's nature and power are the same, because that amounts to deliberately telling lies.

>>17488130
>nibba
ayy lmao

>>17489309
fixed version, removed all the non-buddhist parts

>>17489684
Dangerously based

>>17489309
even better

>>17489693
But theravada admits the existence of Dipamkara, he's one of the 28 Buddhas.

>>17489688
Sanskrit is the language of the universe

>>17489867
I thought it was hebrew

>>17489879
That's the Jewniverse

>>17489917
>muh hebrew grammar
>muh sanskrit grammar
Same shit honestly

Worship Amitabha
Worship Shakyamuni
Worship Bhaishajyaguru
Worship Boddhisattvas
Be respectful to all future, past, and present Buddhas
Treat the dharma respectfully
Recite the Buddha name
Simple as.
>>17489693
>>17489688
No need to disparage the Dharma and engage in sectarianism, that will get you farther from the Path.

>>17489989
I was just memeing, I have nothing against mahayana. I just find that chad/virgin pic funny.

>>17489989
If you're a westerner why would you worship buddhas instead of Christ? Isn't it just orientalism?

>>17490013
Because christianity is just wrong. And Christianity is oriental.

>>17490047
>christianity is just wrong
Why?

>>17489659
i'm using simple language because this is tiring. see what you do, you repeat yourself all the time with the same dogmatic axioms.
>That which is expressed is different from the thing being expressed
I really didnt understand this.

>distinction between the wielder and the thing wielded
so there is or there is not a distinctin after all? without the wielder there is no thing wielded, without the thing to be wielded there is no wielder.
so you are just confirming the dualism inherent.

>The inherent nature of something is inherent in that thing always and does not need to be manifested in some way.
How is an intelligent nature manifested without intelligence/intellection?
>Powers and energies are manifested and depend upon their manifestor.
manifestor of what? again, there is no manifested power without powerful manifestor.

>in my opinion
contrariwise nothing i say is my opinion.

>fusion reactions occur inside and sustain the sun, but fusion reactions don't occur inside in the light that the sun emits to faraway planets
do you know what power-nature relation is in metaphysics? read some aristotle, jesus. what you said has nothing to do with my point, at all.

>in Advaita Brahman's nature is the same as Brahman's power
I'm not saying this. I'm saying that they have a relation to each other and can't be separated like you advaitins like to do ending in the very dualism you critique. Either Brahman chooses to create (and everything is literally perfectly resolved) or there will be a dualism and your doctrine will be incoherent as it is now. Simple.

That you think I'm enforcing an interpretation on what Advaita Vedanta is shows how you can't understand me. I'm just saying it is incoherent.

>>17490013
I worship (venerate) the Buddhas because Christianity no longer appeals to me and I find it too inconsistent and bellicose to enjoy it's doctrine. I have nothing against Christians though, they produce some wonderful texts and thoughts, it just doesn't hit the right spots for me. I don't worship because I consider it exotic and foreign, but rather because the doctrine appears sound and logical to me.
>>17490002
I would still not post it, as it might lead others to thinking you are serious about disparaging the Dharma, and that engaging in wrong view and speech is good.

>>17490069
Ok anon, my bad. I won't post it anymore.

>>17490105
No problem sir. It's important that we evaluate our speech, thoughts, and actions in a way that benefits all other sentient beings.

Does anyone here have a favorite sutra? Mine is the Vimalakirti sutra. It's very comedic and thought provoking, as it shows that laymen can achieve the same heights as even the arahants without engaging in monasticism.

>>17490054
Christinaity is just worship like in hinduism , mahayana and vajrayana. They also have wrong concentration... Even Jainism is better than all those.

>>17490128
I'm not too advanced yet and haven't read many suttas/sutra but I think the Kalama sutta is extremely valuable in how it urges us to remain down to earth and pragmatic regarding all forms of doctrinal claims.

>>17490069
What are the main inconsistencies of Christianity?

>>17489989
>No need to disparage the Dharma and engage in sectarianism, that will get you farther from the Path.
Even if I were buddshit, mahayana is not the dharma, so I can disparage it all I want without suffering much consequences, contrary to the mahayanists who keep saying their wrong views are actually what the buddha taught in super secret.

>>17490159
>>I'm not too advanced yet and haven't read many suttas/sutra but I think the Kalama sutta is extremely valuable in how it urges us to remain down to earth and pragmatic regarding all forms of doctrinal claims.
Atheists struggle a lot on this one. Like Thanissaro says, they think it's carte blanche to cram anything they like in buddhism and realize their intellectual fantasy of being a free thinker.

>>17490128
>>No problem sir. It's important that we evaluate our speech, thoughts, and actions in a way that benefits all other sentient beings.
Leading people in wrong view and deluding yourself you're a good guy doesn't benefit anybody and actually is bad karma

>>17490170
I simply view the doctrine as speaking of eternal hells, eternal heavens, and a creator diety that is omnipotent and in charge of the heavens. I cannot find myself to believe in this, as all things are truly changing and inconstant. Again, I will not disparage the Christians though, as that would be wrong speech.
>>17490172
If that is what you believe, then do so. I would simply state that the majority of Buddhists are Mahayana practitioners, and they would not believe as you believe.

>>17490170
I'll take First Cause Gymnastics for 800

>>17490280
wait but a lot of buddhists here pointed out how nirvana is eternal bliss.

>>17490379
Nirvana according to the Buddha is free from Three Marks. Dukkha, Not-Self, and Impermanence. It is also a state that is neither eternal, non eternal, neither non-eternal or eternal, etc. It is a paradox that the mind cannot truly grasp until it is enlightened. Whether this is eternal bliss or not I do not know. More than this he did not say, as far as I know.

>>17490213
Thanissaro is really good, I haven't found any dharmatalks as interesting and informative as his yet

>>17490063
>I really didnt understand this.
One thing (a) is the thing being expressed, the other (b) is the expression. They are two separate things, just as the sign and the thing being signified by the sign are. The definition of the word expression in the English language uses that distinction.
>so there is or there is not a distinction after all?
Yes, there is a distinction between the wielder and thing being wielded, the swordsman is a living being who wields the inanimate object known as the sword.
>without the wielder there is no thing wielded, without the thing to be wielded there is no wielder.
This is just pointing out that the concepts implicitly reference and assume their counterpart, this is not the same as demonstrating that those counterparts are the same. Heat and cold and happiness and sadness similarly presume each other as their counterpart, that doesn't mean that heat and cold are the same.
>so you are just confirming the dualism inherent.
That's incorrect, because the dualism is not absolute, it is contingent and completely subsumed into non-duality in Advaita.
>How is an intelligent nature manifested without intelligence/intellection?
An intelligent nature includes intelligence already by default, it is intelligence, it does not require another intelligence for the first included in the intelligence nature to be manifested
>manifestor of what? again, there is no manifested power without powerful manifestor.
The manifested, i.e. the power or energy. That the manifested power is ontologically contingent on the manifesting source does nothing to establish that they are the same. Let's take the example of a musician. The musician is the manifestor of the music, and when the music is manifested, the manifestor and the manifested exist at the same moment as two different things. One is a breathing, living, intelligent organism. The other is non-sentient, non-intelligent soundwaves floating through the air. At the moment when these both exist, they are two separate things. There is no logic that holds up that can show that they are the same thing, because if an entity were to possess mutually contradictory attributes (both living and non-living) that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Applied to the example of Brahman and maya, your logic violates the law of non-contradiction.

>>17488130
>posting Thanissaro eternalist cringe

>>17490054
For example all mighty godcreator of the universe sits there like Uri Geller on the Dick Cavett show after people in his hometown call Yeshua's bluff

in buddhism this "wonderful world" is basically an endless cycle through 31 realms of visceral torture (literally being burnt alive and stabbed with stakes and shit). human life is seen as good because if you're born in god realm it's too pleasurable to motivate you to end it, and hell realm is too viscerally bad to not make kamma. the actual cosmology of buddhism is horrific

>>17490013
Because religion has to do with what is true or not. It's not just an expression of one's ethnicity or native culture

>>17487881
>in this wonderful world?

kys yourself

>>17490464
He knows more about Buddhism than you ever will

>>17488285
Try learning about that question a little more before you post it in every buddhism thread, be honest anon are you really trying to "learn buddhism" ?

>>17490491
>religion has to do with what is true or not

Coulda fooled me. I thought it had to do with what you were willing to believe or not.

>>17488285
>Nhilistic Apus
Buddha explicitly says in the sutras that he does not teach nihilism.

>>17490474
>>17490491
If christianity is false why did roman christians let themselves get persecuted and tortured rather than renounce their religion?

>>17490922
The fuck kind of argument is this? Because they didn't know better?

>>17487881
Buddhists are hipster faggots, sir.

>>17490969
in hoc signo vinces
There are too many coincidences

>>17490594
>Christianity explicitly teaches that the Trinity is not polytheism

>>17491011
God christlarpers are so cringey

>>17491019
not an argument

>>17487881
>Why do Buddhists *insert thing Buddhists don't believe or do*

>>17487993
When you attain Nirvana, you will no longer desire it qua desire. There is no contradiction.

>>17487881
>wonderful world

Speak for yourself, this place is a nightmare

>>17491079
I see trees of green

My face seeing this thread again

>>17487881
Meditating 24/7 is comfy. Why is it life denying?