/lit/ - Literature

>>17531911
Start with the Greeks.

>>17531911
Start with Zen. Ignore the surrounding ritual and religion its not necessary. Sit down and shut up. There. Perfection

>>17531915
The Greeks failed.

>>17531937
You're right. Start with the Christian Bible.

>>17531976
Why would I study Hellenistic Judaism?

>>17531911

The pali canon
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/index.html
Saṁyutta Nikāya is the best one.

DN+MN+SN+AN+Snp+Dhp+chinese parallels https://suttacentral.net/sa-2 and https://suttacentral.net/sa-1 can be read in a month is you are a neet.


Don't read any mahayana sutra nor the Upanishads and you'll understand buddhism way better than 99% of all the people.

>>17532058
>Don't read any mahayana sutra
Why not?

>>17531911
What's the point of this thread? There's one up just like it.
>>17525361
Same fucking comments too
>>17531915
>>17532058

>>17532140
Yes it is spam

>>17532058
Dumb hyperprotestant poster

>>17531911

>>17531911
>Where do I start with Buddhism
Pali Canon
>how did it manage to retroactively refute Advaita Vedanta?
Buddhists don’t care about AV since it’s just Buddhism with Brahman instead of Sunyata. Hindus were actually the ones who refuted Advaita.

>>17531911
The best redpill I ever heard on Buddhism was that the reincarnation stuff was there to stop you just killing yourself when you accept the 'truth' of Dependant Origination (which is just infinite determinism). If you take out the reincarnation stuff then there's no point doing anything and you would just sit down and die.

>>17532786
There is no reincarnation in buddhism

>>17531932
>just ignore the dharma bro, trust me

>>17532786
>Dependant Origination (which is just infinite determinism)
that's wrong tho

Buddhism is interesting but if you actually think about it, it's entirely reliant on its cosmology.
If there is no rebirth (at least not how it's pictured in Buddhism), if the four noble truths are wrong or incomplete, even part of a larger picture, then everything collapses. And since any system based on rationality can never be proven to encompass the full scope of things, you're really taking a gamble.
I think Buddhism goes very far in its analysis of existence, but it is still bogged down by its axioms, its entire system being predicated on their truthfulness. If there is more to it than the 4NT, Buddhism is wrong.
What do Buddhists think of this? Has this been addressed at all?

>>17532844
how is it wrong?

Ironically, it was this picture that partly led me to this conclusion >>17532865

>>17532865
All religions are like this, if there no is afterlife Christianity and Islam crumbles.

>>17532872
Buddhism is much more reliant on the soundness of its philosophy; the belief in an afterlife is not something that can be ascertained by analysis, but the Buddhist system is based on an apparently rational examination of existence.

>>17532786
>heh if it weren't for x wouldn't that mean you just kys
This always says more about the person saying it than what they are saying it about. DE is about realizing the futility of attachments and how they lead to suffering. It is not a suicide prevention hotline. The fact that you need to be handheld and told not to off yourself is sad.

>>17532872
>>17532885
Also, Buddhism has a much higher "opportunity cost". In Christianity or Islam's case, you're (basically) required to have faith and be a decent person, but Buddhism is extremely demanding on a purely material level.

>>17532872
Buddhist "afterlife" is a really broad concept vis a vis Christianity and Islam. You could just as well say your body and actions will give rise to a new body and that would be true or Buddhism or say there are literal heavens and hells to be reborn in and that would also be true of Buddhism, whereas for the monotheists there is a heaven requiring you check in with the security desk and fill out a form swearing you believed in the one true god.

>>17532899
Don’t mind him, he’s the Hindu autist from yesterday who didn’t know the difference between circularity and infinite regress (probably the same guy who started this thread to say ‘see buddhists are shizos too’)

>>17532865
The Buddha was born into a society where belief in cyclic existence was seen as a brute fact. Hindus, Jains and other dharmic orders also accepted this. For the Buddha however, to liberate oneself from the cycle required one to halt the process that makes rebirth possible and he simply ‘reverse engineered’ that process. This is why you see the pratityasamutpada found scattered in other places like the Vedas and Upanishads. In this regard, Buddhism is not a set of axioms but a reaction to it. You are right that Buddhism is more reliant on its philosophy for this very reason, a fact which lends credence to its order, but I don’t agree with the idea that it becomes wrong if there is more to it than the 4 noble truths because the locus of Buddhism IS the 4 noble truths. As the Buddha himself said ‘I teach only the arising of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha’. Anything further won’t add or remove from this analysis.

>>17532899
DE means nothing matters. Neither you or >>17532932 seem to be able to refute this

>>17532994
>belief in cyclic existence was seen as a brute fact.
Yes; therefore, if the dharmist view of reincarnation/rebirth is wrong, Buddhism has no reason to be.
>because the locus of Buddhism IS the 4 noble truths.
Buddhism takes the 4NT as standalone, absolute truths. Therefore, if the 4NT are false or made irrelevant by another undiscovered principle, the system falls apart. Sure, Buddhism only teaches about the cessation of suffering, but it presupposes that this cessation is the most noble goal in the first place.

>>17531911
>retroactively refute

Buddhist Monk: Come on Acharya! You too teach the unreality as cause of suffering and grief and pain. The world is nothing but an idea – a dream-like construct where nothing is real (Idealism in Buddhism/Vijnanavada). And now why do you criticize our unreality while professing yours?

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advaita then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”. The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists?

I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!

>>17533022
>Yes; therefore, if the dharmist view of reincarnation/rebirth is wrong, Buddhism has no reason to be
Hinduism and Jainism also cease to be. Like the other anon said, all religions are contingent on the afterlife being true, it’s part of the reason why religion exists in the first place.
> Buddhism takes the 4NT as standalone, absolute truths. Therefore, if the 4NT are false or made irrelevant by another undiscovered principle, the system falls apart. Sure, Buddhism only teaches about the cessation of suffering, but it presupposes that this cessation is the most noble goal in the first place.
This is not true. Buddhism posits that the four noble truths are truths that lead to liberation, it doesn’t presuppose that cessation is the most noble goal, only that it is the end of spiritual journey. In many instances the Buddha lectures certain Brahmins and householders the practice that leads to a better rebirth, to which those people were content with and likely considered it the most noble goal. Buddhism is this sense is offering a cure, it is up to the person if he wants it.

>>17533110
>all religions are contingent on the afterlife being true
The possibility of an afterlife itself doesn't bother me, but there's just really no way to know if the very specific claims about the afterlife made by the various religions are true. I mean, how likely is it that things have been figured out by a specific religion (or group of religions) and that the actual afterlife isn't completely different and unimaginable?
>This is not true.
You didn't address my first point. There is no way to tell if the 4NT aren't part of other, larger, undiscovered truths which would make them relative instead of absolute. Therefore, the claim that Nirvana is the end of the spiritual journey is contingent on the absoluteness of the 4NT. If they can be relativized, what becomes the point of Nirvana?
It's the same thing for the three marks. Direct observation tells us they are probably true, but can we trust our rational judgment? It may be that the distinction between conditioned and unconditioned is not actually real.

>tfw reading the majjhima nikaya and it's a slog
I liked the dhammapada and the few basic suttas I read previous to tackling the MN but honestly most of the suttas end up repeating themselves, once you've got a good hang of the fundamental principles I don't see the point in reading the same thing dozens of times again
Is it really necessary to read the samyutta afterwards?

>>17533129
The possibility of an afterlife is really what gives life to most religions and their wider metaphysical beliefs, although it isn’t the only factor but a major one. In the case of Buddhism, there is as you said previously a this-worldly analysis that at least leads to the view that new becoming after death, whatever that may be, but the Buddha takes it as a fact that there are other worlds when he says:
>Since there actually is another world (any world other than the present human one, i.e. different rebirth realms), one who holds the view 'there is no other world' has wrong view...’Majjhima Nikaya i.402, Apannaka Sutta

As to your second point, Nirvana is only absolute when it comes the cessation of dukkha. That is the scope of Buddhism im afraid, anything can ‘relativise’ other concepts but Nirvana is the only path that leads to cessation according to Buddhism. Although the Buddha said that what he teaches should be put into practice and experience for yourself to affirm his teachings, there is always a degree of trust and faith that has to be take. This is why Buddhism is for the most part just a religion and not a science.

>>17533178
The samyutta is better than the MN. It's equally repetitive though.

Anyway, there are mp3 of all those

https://www.paliaudio.com/samyutta-nikaya

http://www.suttavinaya.com/list-of-topics/

>>17533213
Also forgive me for the typos I’m phone posting atm

>>17533215
samething

1) Bhante Hye Dhammavuddho (English) – Google Drive
tinyurl
.com/y32dw3m5

2) Bhante Hye Dhammavuddho (Hokkien) – Google Drive
tinyurl
.com/y4aykhxs

2) 慧光師清凈自在系列: (Mandarin Version) – Google Drive
tinyurl
.com/yym8vncf

3) Youtube Channel (English)
tiny
.cc/juu8xy

4) Youtube Channel (Hokkien & Cantonese)
tiny
.cc/xru8xy

https://www.youtube.com/user/WarmFreedom/videos?disable_polymer=1

https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/videos

>>17533215
>The samyutta is better than the MN
is it really necessary to read it though
I understand dependent origination (intellectually obviously, not experientially)

Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]

Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement? – Who is it that who sees and says Everything is impermanent – That entity has to be present, existent and permanent”)

Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved. (This is one of the greatest sources of Pramana – Arthapatti as used by the Acharya)

>>17533235
SN is drier than MN, more to the point, so if you already managed to memorize DO you can skip it, or just read it in dilettante and in random order.

If you want a tiny change of style, read the chinese SN in random order
https://suttacentral.net/sa-2 and https://suttacentral.net/sa-1

>>17533213
Yes, I agree. I just think it requires a huge leap of faith to go "the conception of the afterlife provided by [some religion] is the right one among infinite possibilities". To stick to Buddhism's example, there may be other worlds and modes of existence, but it's a leap to assume there are specifically six realms, that rebirth happens through karma and destroys the previous aggregates, etc.
>Nirvana is the only path
>what he teaches should be put into practice
I'm pretty sure the Buddha himself admits that all of the things he said are just conceptualizations of a truth that cannot be expressed. So from there, the assumption that the Buddhist system is the only path, or that the practice it provides is the only legitimate one, really is a matter of faith entirely.

>>17533256
>if you already managed to memorize DO
Is there anything to memorize aside from the twelve links?
and yeah I was thinking of just skipping to the sutta nipata and stopping there with the pali canon

>>17532799

>>17533296
Explain
What does Mu even mean

Url for the chinese sutras by analayo is
https://suttacentral.net/sa1-100

>>17533306
We'll have to ask Zhaozhou, because I don't know either.

OH LORD BUDDHA I AM SUFFERING HELP ME REALIZE THAT I DONT EXIST

>>17533333
Surely you must have an idea of why you used it as a response.
Is it just about the two truths doctrine?

>>17531911
Hello there guenonfag

>>17533213
In Buddhism, the highest devas don't have any dukkha, so it's established that some realms don't actually have suffering
So really you have to trust the assertion that anicca is true and applies to everything

How do I develop more coooompassion? I'm kind of an asshole honestly

>>17533452
Be compassionate or u go to bad buddhist hell and soooofer

>>17533452
Metta meditation
jsut askowledge that whatever happens to you is also hapenning to others, and that whatever happens to other people could happen to you. Ie that your consciousness and perceptions are not special and you're not a snowflake, just like other people are not snowflakes.

>>17533536
Is that the whole extent of it? I thought compassion was about love

>>17533548
Nah bro just stop being a bitch

>>17533576
Why is it called compassion then?

>>17533578
Cuz buddha said so bitch

>>17533362
Mu means: It is neither the one nor the other that flutters around, it is your mind that flutters.

>>17533623
How is this related to
>>just ignore the dharma bro, trust me

>>17533629
Ignoring the dharma is ok. Ignoring practice is not ok.

>>17533645
What's the difference

>>17533659
In one variant you meditate, in the other you read books and do not meditate. If someone can read books and meditate, then of course that's okay.

>>17533730
So meditation > books but what if you meditate wrong?

>>17532865
>it's entirely reliant on its cosmology.
like any other religion and philosophy in the world

>>17533884
Philosophies aren't reliant on cosmology

>>17533886
yes they are

>>17533886
hegel need the absolute, descartes, the res, kant the noumenos, locke the primary and secondary attributes etc etc

>>17533939
Cosmology and metaphysics aren't the same thing

>>17533771
The best meditation is one where you can easily practice it.

>>17534010
Higher states like jhanas can only be reached by specific meditative practices though

>>17534053
I deleted my post because I disagreed with it after posting it. It's very important to choose the right meditation practice. But the unfortunate truth is that there is a lot of noise out there about which is best. It's better to do one than none, I would guess, unless you're doing that binaural beats shit. I like mantra meditation myself.

I just have NO impulse towards Buddhism. To me, it just feels like a giant cringe LARP. I have literally never met a Buddhist who did even a somewhat thorough investigations of their own traditions before moving on to Buddhism. You are welcome to tell me why I’m wrong.

>>17534109
I've investigated my traditions, they're jew larp made up to cover roman traditions

>>17534109
I did a thorough investigation of Christianity, concluded it wasn't for me, and turned to Buddhism. Then realized it wasn't for me either, for different reasons.

>>17534109
The people who you're referring to aren't Buddhists. This isn't a meme, there's a bare minimum qualification to "be a Buddhist", and they don't meet it. There's plenty of "cultural Buddhists", and some of these take weird forms like how Social Justice is just a form of "cultural Christianity", but the type of people you're referring to just aren't Buddhists in any way shape or form.

>>17533452
Sit down, do some breath meditation. Then, go through a list of people you know, and wish them good will. Dance with each person, and ask yourself: why do you dislike them? Why do you like them? Why do you cling to these things? Come to terms with each, and genuinely feel compassion for them. There isn't some rational ego process behind how to feel compassion for someone, you either can or you can't. If you can feel compassion AT ALL, then you can feel compassion for anyone or anything. Unless you're literally braindamaged, you genuinely can do this, for anyone. Remember, compassion =/= being nice.

>>17533420
The highest Daevas do experience dukkha, especially when they die. Their dukkha is just far smaller than ours on a day-to-day basis such that they THINK they don't experience dukkha. They are deluded.

>>17534190
>The highest Daevas do experience dukkha
Pretty sure the formless realms don't have much suffering, if any, and either way as you said it's so much smaller than here that they're effectively in paradise.
>when they die
Which is why I said you have to trust that anicca is true and applies to everything.
I like Buddhism, but in the end it is a religion like any other: it makes unverifiable claims which you have to take for granted. My issue with it is that the "spiritual opportunity cost" of being a Buddhist is far too high considering the immense sacrifices it requires, especially since most (all?) schools admit that your ego-consciousness is obliterated at death and what is reborn has nothing to do with the previous awareness.
So being a Buddhist is a huge gamble in terms of how demanding it is, except maybe in some Mahayana schools like Zen and Tendai, but I really don't know enough about them to say for sure.
Maybe all dukkha stops after you die. Maybe Nirvana is attained by everyone. Maybe there is no Nirvana, or maybe the Buddhist idea of it is just a higher state among others. Or maybe Buddhism is right and I'm deluded. But in the end, it doesn't really change anything.

>>17534262
>it makes unverifiable claims which you have to take for granted.
all the claims are verifiable

>>17534272
Yeah I used to think that too but that's really not true. Rebirth after death is not verifiable, the existence of the other realms is not verifiable, the existence of Nirvana is not verifiable, the specifics of Buddhist metaphysics are not verifiable.
You can just use the "you'll see it's true if you meditate" copout, but I'm unconvinced by this. Many religious traditions have many similar practices that lead them to higher states. It's definitely possible to delude yourself via meditative practices. Buddhists, hindus and taoists all meditate, and they all come to different conclusions regarding the nature of reality.

>>17534262
>your ego-consciousness is obliterated at death and what is reborn has nothing to do with the previous awareness
How does this not make Buddhism irrelevant
Why should I care what happens after I die if my consciousness will die with my body?

>>17534439
Also the Buddha says consciousness is not yours. What the fuck is mine then? If my consciousness isn't me, what is? When my consciousness dies, what is identified as me dies with it, so there's absolutely no reason to care

>>17532865
coming up with a comprehensive system of metaphysics is unconducive to the liberation effort, ultimate rational understanding is an addiction, I get it I really do I am the same but you need to be able to let go of that and you'll see the benefits

>>17533452
you don't, it won't be genuine and you'll know it, at best you can manage pity but that's it

>>17534859
This really doesn't convince me. Buddhism makes claims about reality that are unverifiable, but when it is stated that these claims might not be true (not because they don't make sense, but just because it's just a possibility they could be false), the answer given is "just follow the path, don't think too hard about it". That way of thinking really isn't all that far from abrahamic religions.
I'm not looking for rational understanding. I readily admit that the world is impossible to understand. As such, there really is no indication that any of the truths stated by Buddhism are, in fact, truths.

>>17534936
then whats the problem?

>>17534946
Buddhism says you shouldn't think too hard about things and that the reality of everything is unknowable, but it provides a system that is based on rational assertions (4NT, three marks, etc) and unverifiable claims (rebirth, karma). If Buddhism weren't as life-denying I guess it wouldn't matter and it would be a religion like any other, but given the monumental effort the Buddhist path implies, it doesn't seem worth it to take the aforementioned statements as truth.
I would much prefer a system that is more coherent in its skepticism: starting from the same idea that the nature of reality is ineffable and inexpressible, but simply going with that instead of building a system reliant on potentially false statements.
Also, >>17534439 makes a good point.

>>17534981
I see I see, ever heard of the great venerable Pyrrho?

>>17535008
I have but I've never read anything about/from him. Should I?

>>17534936
>Buddhism makes claims about reality that are unverifiable,
The claims are still verifiable.

>>17535080
See >>17534284
There is absolutely no way to know if Buddhism is true. Therefore, denying life itself for something that might turn out to be false is a bad move IMO.

>>17534284
Yes you can't verify anything if you don't follow a procedure to verify the claims.

Just like with any other claim by any other human who ever lived. I guess you have verified all the maths claims, all the physics claims, all the chemical claims and all the retarded claims in politics and journalisms too.

>>17535088
By the way, did you verify the claim that ''
There is absolutely no way to know if Buddhism is true.''?

>>17535104
In Buddhism's case the "procedure" is to first accept it on faith, then to meditate until you supposedly realize it's true. Sorry but I don't buy it, and I already explained why in the post you quoted, I don't get why you're pretending not to get it.

>>17535109
Now you're just being a hypocrite. I clearly stated why I was skeptical of Buddhism and you're playing word games instead of addressing my point. It's like I'm talking to a Christian.

>>17535088

I would start with contemplating impermanence and suffering because thats something you can immediately work with, you don't need faith to understand this. When you take these concepts to heart you'll understand the validity of karma and rebirth.

When you comprehend these truths Dharma will be the only path left.

>>17535254
I'm not a complete newcomer when it comes to Buddhism, I've tried to put things into practice before but in the end it just feels like convincing myself of something, adding something unnecessary to the "purity" of my simple experience of existence. Most religions have principles that, once "felt", reaffirm your faith. But these principles are all ultimately relative.
Anicca, dukkha and anatta are easily applicable to daily life, but that does not make them true.

>>17535254
>Dharma
Which Dharma?

>>17535254
But there is also impermanence and dukkha in the hindu worldview

>>17535254
>Dharma will be the only path left.
Not really because >>17534439

theist: Yeah we I've never physically observed God so it's likely that he's not real.
Theist: Okay cool. Well I have never physically observed an ape evolve into a human, so it's likely that evolution cannot be true.
Atheist: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO THATS DIFFERENT BRO YOU CANT
Why are atheists like this? If we're going to say that God's not real because we've never physically witnessed him manifesting himself, why not apply that same standard to...anything else?
It seems like atheists only believe in things they haven't seen when it fits seamlessly into their worldview and will otherwise reject it entirely.


VERIFICATION IS AN ATHEIST MEME

>>17535431
>here are the noble truths and eightfold path, they're the only way to liberation, I know there's no way to know that but just abandon all attachment and renounce life entirely and you'll see I'm right
Is it that hard for you to imagine that this may not be convincing for everyone?
By the way, I'm not an atheist.

when was the last time you verified the tautology (AvB)->(AvB)?
when was the last time you verified the number \pi^{e}?

when was the last time you verified a black hole?
when was the last time you verified an W boson?
when was the last time you verified np+e^−+\overbar{v}_e ?
when was the last time you verified the gene C14orf4?
when was the last time you verified a dinosaur?
when was the last time you verified the planet mars?
when was the last time you verified a non-flat earth?

>>17535450
Why do you refuse to address my arguments and insist on deflecting? I've shared my doubts in good faith and you hide behind pointless sophistry.

>>17535305
>I've tried to put things into practice before but in the end it just feels like convincing myself of something, adding something unnecessary to the "purity" of my simple experience of existence.

Ah I see, trying to convince yourself is really not a good idea and it will lead to an unfulfilling practice like you say. Can you explain a little about your experience of existence and why you think it might be "pure"? you've said Buddhism seems life denying what does that mean to you?

>>17535463
>your experience of existence and why you think it might be "pure"
Things just are. This is all I can tell. When I was younger, I simply had a powerful intuition that the nature of reality was a wonderful mystery, and I felt no need to investigate further or to grasp the incomprehensible, because to know the beauty of the world was enough.
I got into philosophy and religion later, which kind of sullied this very pure impression and made me disregard it and put it aside because it wasn't intellectual enough and didn't bring me to any realizations. But the more I think about it, the more I get the impression that might've been a mistake. The reason why no philosophy or religion I've learned about has managed to draw me in is because it never came close to this kind of purity, so it might've been an exercise in futility.
To put it more simply, there is no need to assert anything. The truth of reality is impossible to grasp, so we should just live.

>what does that mean to you?
Buddhism has a very well articulated philosophy and metaphysics, but in the end, its core principles are relative intepretations of the ineffable. From the four noble truths and three marks of existence, Buddhism provides a very comprehensive system that aims to eliminate suffering, but that requires complete detachment from the world itself: all that is sensual, all that is mental, all that is emotional is considered a fetter, to be destroyed and done away with. When I say it's life-denying, I don't mean it as an insult, I just have no other way of qualifying it.

>>17535568
Well I'm only a mediocre practitioner and not a well read intellectual but it sounds like Dzogchen or Mahamudra practices might be of interest to you if you havent already looked into them.

I don't really know anything about them though so I might just be barking up the wrong tree.

>>17535741
>Dzogchen or Mahamudra
Do they somehow do away with the relative truths I mentioned? I've looked into schools like Chan and Zen and even though I found them closer to my ideas than Theravada, I still thought they ran into the same issues in the end. I think Vajrayana would add the headache of guruism on top of it all, but I might be wrong, I'm not well versed in tantric Buddhism.
Frankly the worldview I'm trying to get back in touch with is so simple that I think becoming a practitioner of anything might be completely unnecessary. Maybe Taoism but I haven't looked into it yet.

What do you practice? What drove you to become a Buddhist? I'm asking out of curiosity.

>>17535568
Non enlightened intellectual monks living comfortably in their monasteries have create Mahayana with the same thoughts, but they always wanted to pass as buddhist since they couldn't become brahmin anyway, even though the brahmins themselves have the same view.

>>17535809
What's your point?
>the same thoughts
Mahayana retains all of the core teachings and most definitely does not do away with the axioms (4NT, three marks, cosmology...) presented by the Buddha.

>>17535568
In buddhism, reality is not important, what matters is the aggregates and their understandings which triggers dispassion, then liberation.

>>17535828
Then I guess I disagree with Buddhism.
I see the aggregates and liberation as constructs, ideas. They are a part of reality insofar as they are an interpretation of it, but it isn't necessary to interpret things, or to add a layer of abstraction to pure experience in order to be able to describe it.

>>17535411
only in the upanishads which postdate buddhism

>>17535568
>Things just are.
>The truth of reality is impossible to grasp, so we should just live.
Can someone tell me how this is different from Zen?

>>17536416
Zen is still Buddhism, it's not just "things are what they are". It has rituals, specific practices like shikantaza, koans and nianfo, rules for the monastics and laity, it follows the principles laid out by the Buddha like the four noble truths and so on... Zen is an established religion.
Something as barebones as "the truth is impossible to grasp so we should just live" could never be made into a religion without adding a bunch of shit on top that would defeat the entire purpose of the statement in the first place.

>>17533771
How do you meditate wrong? You sit and exist. How do you fuck that up

>>17536571
there are different forms of meditation and higher states are hard to reach

>>17536571
>>17536661
and that's not even getting into vajrayana by the way where meditating wrong will actually fuck you up badly

THEN A CERTAIN SHITPOSTER, IN THE FAR EXTREME OF THE NIGHT COMES DOWN IN GAYDIANCE UNTO THE BASED ONE

I still don't understand what is meant by reincarnation. If your memories, personality, and identity are gone, then what exactly is there to reincarnate that discerns you from any other being?

>>17537030
In buddhism it's rebirth since there's no soul
And you're completely right

Am I the only one that prefers to read academic introductions on religion? Seems like everybody jumps straight into primary literature of thousands of pages...For Buddhism I liked "an introduction to Buddhism" by Harvey, but I see everybody recommending the Suttas. How do you even get through all those pages that you can barely meaningfully understand and interpret?

>>17537544
It's not that hard anon
You've already been introduced to buddhism so you can start with the majjhima nikaya, honestly they're not difficult to understand and the bhikkhu bodhi translation has a lot of explanations so you'll be fine
Jumping straight into the MN if you don't know shit about buddhism is dumb though, an introductory book is necessary for sure. If you want an intro to the suttas that isn't thousand of pages long and contains detailed explanations, check out "in the buddha's words"

>>17537544
>How do you even get through all those pages that you can barely meaningfully understand and interpret?

It is naive to think that everything can be understood the first time. Over 2500 years, Buddhism has created a huge number of texts on a variety of topics.
I do not understand a lot of things (I have been studying Buddhism for over 15 years, I don’t remember exactly), some I remember and they become clearer to me later, perhaps when I read another text: "ah, now it’s clear how it is!" There are many things I do not understand now and I will not understand in the future, because my mental abilities are insufficient. I've come to terms with it.

>>17537544
Most translations of the primary literature into English are fitted with introductions and copious endnotes

>>17537689
>I have been studying Buddhism for over 15 years,
Are you a buddhist or do you just like the philosophy?

>>17532786
If this were true, then there would be no accounts of enlightened individuals killing themselves. There are actually a few, here's one example

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.87/en/sujato

The reincarnation stuff is actually extremely important and a core part of the belief. If you are annihilated when you die, where is the motivation to achieve enlightenment? Enlightenment can be described as a sort of suicide of the soul, and there's no reason for this if a true death of the soul is inevitable. (soul being a metaphor, there is no-self in Buddhism)

>>17537780
I really don't want to answer a question about me. Usually no one is interested in me except me.

I did not formally take Refuge. Vows in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha are taken there. I am not ready to take a vow in the Sangha. This is a very serious matter for me. I either cannot say: "just like the philosophy", I think this is not a suitable term.

Probably so. I practice Buddhism intellectually. And it really improves my mental state. But I cannot take part in the religious life of any community.I'm allergic to religious gatherings.

>>17537872
>soul being a metaphor, there is no-self in Buddhism
So isn't achieving enlightenment practically worthless then if every other living thing didn't become enlightened along with you? Since every living thing shares the same existence and the same primordial "soul," that is. It would be incomplete if only a few living things achieved enlightenment wouldn't it?

>>17538043
I mean, there's no obligation. Pretty sure you can practice on your own and don't need to actually belong to any community

>>17538073
Yes something like that.
The lay people, if they agreed with the Buddha, simply said, "I take refuge, let the Buddha consider me a lay follower." Shakyamuni did not even answer them, as if silently accepted.
Now, some believe that this is just a mental attitude and there is no need for any ritual.
But there are also those who believe that only "after the ritual of taking refuge in the presence of a monk" can a person be considered a Buddhist.
In the local Theravada community I know, they generally believe that a monk (he is of the same opinion there) will "grant" refuge, in the sense that he can refuse. That is, the "monk" decides whether you deserve to be a Buddhist. I think it's cringe, something already in the style of baptism. But it is their right to think so.
I just approach the question formally and answer formally.

Advita fag here
what Buddhist texts should I read to convince me of Buddhism over Advita vedanta

>>17539919
Bump

>>17539919
Sadly, there are none. Buddhism was irrevocably refuted after the birth of Shankara, so it’s pointless to look for a text to cope with.

>>17540981
All arguments for God were retroactively refuted by the critique of antinomies of Nagarjuna and of his later incarnation, Kant. Thus Shankara and other thomists were completely enveloped by these refutations and there is no need to take their "i can conceive of god so he is" drivel seriously.

>>17541041
>"i can conceive of god so he is"
What? You cannot conceive of God, you are God.
>All arguments for God were retroactively refuted by the critique of antinomies of Nagarjuna and of his later incarnation, Kant.
Kant was refuted by non-Euclidean geometry, and Nagarjuna was refuted by Shankara.

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advaita then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”. The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists?

I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!

Namo Amituofo. Namo Bhaishajyaguru. Simple as this. There is nothing more necessary.

>>17541093
Get in the Atmangelion, Shankara-kun

>>17541196
Simple. As.

>>17541196
enjoy the buddhist hell

>>17540981
ok puthujjana

>>17541242
I am Lilith.

>>17541305
Pilot no one, not even yourself

>>17537544
There's nothing big to interpret in buddhism. It's in guruism that you need to ''interpret'' (ie make up a wrong story) precisely because the guru are also interpreters and not even enlightened.

>>17536560
There is nothing buddhism in Zen lol.

>>17541347
Based koan poster

>>17541196
Pure land is pretty cool

>>17541347
What makes you say that

>>17542008
uh something something atman, uh

>>17531937
Everyone who tries fails

>>17531911
Okay I read in the Buddha's words and the Dhammapada. Now what else do I need to read to understand Nagarjuna? I'm familiar with Hinduism and the Upanishads by the way.

>>17542595
I'd recommend reading the heart sutra first and then getting into all the madhyamaka literature

>>17531937
Buddha failed
>>17531915
based graecobactrian
>>17531976
One true answer

>>17542632
>start with the jews
I'm fine thank you

>>17542632
The jefferson bible

>>17542595
The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Buddhahood is the true self.

>>17542687
>Buddhahood is the true self.
That's quite the hot take, tell me more

>>17531911
nowhere.

>>17542615
Thanks anon, that's a helpful pic.

What are the most abstract and "out there" scriptures in buddhism? I'm looking for stuff that strays from the teachings themselves and present a new way of looking at things. Maybe some tibetan tantras?

>>17533659
this is what buddha destroyed, the practice of meaningless rituals
like sit down and meditate... meaningless and a ritual

>>17543021
Like lay down and sleep

>>17543015
>What are the most abstract and "out there" scriptures in buddhism? I'm looking for stuff that strays from the teachings themselves and present a new way of looking at things.
you cant have hudnreds of ways to explain dependent origination. This is why all the buddhist sutras say the same words in the same order, over and over and over.
The 2 big variations you can find is nirvana as the cessation of outflows, ie asavas, or cessation of the 10 fetters.

>>17543557
There are plenty of sutras that don't focus on dependent origination

>>17542693
It's a direct quote of the mos important sutra in mahayana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāyāna_Mahāparinirvāṇa_Sūtra

>>17543565
How is it possible that Mahayana has several contradicting sutras? Take this for example
>“The tathāgatagarbha is without any prior limit, is nonarising, and is indestructible, accepting suffering, having revulsion toward suffering, and aspiring to nirvana. O Lord, the tathāgatagarbha is not a substantial self, nor a living being, nor ‘fate,’ nor a person. The tathāgatagarbha is not a realm for living beings who have degenerated into the belief of a substantially existent body or for those who have contrary views, or who have minds bewildered by emptiness.
This is from the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra. The Buddha himself utterly rejected and refuted all notions of a permanent Self or Soul, both in the Pāli suttas and several Mahāyāna scriptures.

https://puredhamma.net/myths-or-realities/boy-who-remembered-pali-suttas-for-1500-years/

>>17542687
>>17542693
>>17544079
This passage from the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra should be always be posted in response to claims that the tathāgatagarbha is somehow equivalent to an “ātman” in Mahāyāna canon:

Mahamati asked the Buddha:

>Similarly, that tathagatagarbha taught in the sutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings. When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, ayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?
Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as 'A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable.'

The Bhagavan replied:

>’Mahamati, my teaching of tathagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagata, Arhat, Samyaksambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathagatagarbha. Mahamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahasattvas enlightened in the future or presently. Mahamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort. Mahamati, similarly, although Tathagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajña and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that, Mahamati, the demonstration of Tathagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists. Mahamati, the Tathagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"


>O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as anātman.

>>17544079
It is true that the Buddha repeatedly taught that against clinging to a doctrine of self, so the doctrine of atmavada within Buddhism has very weak foundations. According to most mahayana practitioners, the use of 'ātman' is an upāya (provisional teaching) implemented to benefit those who cling to heterodox views, this is explained in no uncertain terms in, like the other anon said, the Laṅkāvatāra sūtra:
>O Mahāmati, the tathāgatas thus teach the garbha in so far as they teach the tathāgatagarbha in order to attract those who are attached to the heterodox ātmavāda. How can people whose minds fall into the conceptual theory bearing on an unreal self attain quickly the complete awakening in the supreme and exact sambodhi, possessing a mind comprised in the domain of the three gateways of emancipation? O Mahāmati, it is because of this that the tathāgatas teach the tathāgatagarbha [....]O Mahāmati, with a view to casting aside the heterodox theory, you must treat the tathāgatagarbha as not self (anātman).

Bhāviveka demonstrates the proper way to view buddhanature:
>The statement "The tathāgata pervades" means wisdom pervades all objects of knowledge, but it does not mean abiding in everything like Viśnu. Further, "Tathāgatagarbhin" means emptiness, signlessness and absence of aspiration exist the continuums of all sentient beings, but is not an inner personal agent pervading everyone

Atmavadins will contend that the upaya is the reverse, ie that the myriad times that Buddha preached non-self was but a stepping stone into an eternal Self'. However there is not much widespread support for this view since it seems counter logical to say that the Buddha and Buddhism hammered the idea of non-self to its practitioners, only to say in the end 'actually there is a self lol'.

Are there any schools that actually consider reality to be unreal/a product of the mind, aside from dzogchen?

>>17544210
>Atmavadins will contend that the upaya is the reverse, ie that the myriad times that Buddha preached non-self was but a stepping stone into an eternal Self'. However there is not much widespread support for this view since it seems counter logical to say that the Buddha and Buddhism hammered the idea of non-self to its practitioners, only to say in the end 'actually there is a self lol'.
In mahayana all this stuff about non-self is indeed an upaya and leads to a partial liberation, ie of the arahant, only the teaching about the true self as the buddha nature is the real teaching leading to the final liberation.

>>17544351
The majority of mahayanists seem to disagree and consider the minority of atmavada verses to be upaya.

>>17544351
>99% of the Agamas are upaya
lol

Do you really need an altar/shrine to start practicing buddhism like they do on r/buddhism?

>>17544423
No

This was all refuted by Guru Laghima.