I'm interested in Buddhism but I always get irremediably filtered by the denial of self. Are there any authors that can ease me into the concept?

File: 49 KB, 564x606, 1604759107647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:18:46 2020 No.16851866 [Reply] [Original]

I'm interested in Buddhism but I always get irremediably filtered by the denial of self.

Are there any authors that can ease me into the concept?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 02:23:34 2020 No.16851885 >>16851866 This looks like someone stuck a whipped cream can butt plug into my ass and pressed the nozzle

Jesus Mon Nov 23 02:44:35 2020 No.16851972

>>16851866
yes. me. not denial of self, denial of self identification, denial of what you think you are. what you think of yourself, imagine, is just habits, adaptations, words and labels used as shields against manipulation and tools of manipulation. these labels make you into personality, i.e. prisoner. self identification is schizophrenia.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:01:39 2020 No.16852052

>>16851866
>but I always get irremediably filtered by the denial of self.
You are not getting filtered but are correctly being dissuaded from Buddhism because its a nonsense doctrine.

The only other alternative scenario (aside from Buddhism being started by a madman or moron) which is acceptable to reason is that anatta is meant to apophatically point to the Atman, Coomarswamy and some other scholars like Rhys Davids took this position. You can try reading their books and articles on Buddhism for starters.

"Mrs. Rhys Davids now maintains, and I am in full agreement with her here, if not on many other points, that the Buddha never
denied the atta (atman), and that atta is primarily "spirit." - AK Coomarswamy in his review of What Was the Original Gospel in Buddhism? by Rhys Davids

https://www.jstor.org/stable/594383?seq=1

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 03:07:03 2020 No.16852072

>>16851866
you're probably overthinking it. there is no *perduring* self... everything is conditioned and impermanent except the Absolute, ie. that which is unconditioned and permanent
therefore:
>all that dwells upon the earth is perishing, yet still abides the Face of thy Lord

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:05:37 2020 No.16852296 >>16852052 >its a nonsense doctrine. It's the only point I don't agree with though. The rest of the doctrine makes sense

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:08:11 2020 No.16852300 File: 53 KB, 334x500, 1579236680631.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16851866 Vladimir Soloviev debunked Buddhism by observing that it's identical to nihilism

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:12:30 2020 No.16852321 >>16852300 Nihilism has meditation? I’m asking because I don’t know much about it

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:19:17 2020 No.16852346

>>16852296
>The rest of the doctrine makes sense
Do you think that the Buddhist explanation of the existence of the universe being accounted for not by God, but by a beginningless series of transient causes and effects in the form of dependent origination is able to withstand the attacks made against such infinite regresses in the cosmological arguments of Aristotle, Aquinas, al-Ghazali, Shankara etc? Because I don't and I'm quite frankly curious why anyone would

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:28:55 2020 No.16852383 i'm not a buddhist and i believe in God, but i don't see how buddhist teachings are in conflict with my own

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:30:52 2020 No.16852392 >>16852346 Shankara opposed the doctrine of impermanence? Isn't advaita an ontology of becoming?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:50:17 2020 No.16852453

>>16852052
>>"Mrs. Rhys Davids now maintains, and I am in full agreement with her here, if not on many other points, that the Buddha never
>denied the atta (atman), and that atta is primarily "spirit." - AK Coomarswamy in his review of What Was the Original Gospel in Buddhism? by Rhys Davids
Davids got filtered when she got old, because her son died or something. She went full hinduism as copium.

Buddhism is not for the fainthearted, dwt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:51:52 2020 No.16852464 >>16852346 yes intellectuals keep clinging to their ideas that their mental masturbation are not hot garbage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 04:52:41 2020 No.16852467 >>16852453 Why is hinduism cope?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:26:40 2020 No.16852581 >>16852467 bump

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:33:12 2020 No.16852608

>denial of self
>what is self?
>idk my vague and vulgar preexisting understanding of it
you know if you actually study it it lays out definitions and reasoning from them, which likely have nothing to do with whatever this is. doesn't mean it's true or should be accepted, but it is entirely coherent within the goal and assumptions it is working with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:35:22 2020 No.16852621 >>16852608 To deny the existence of self even though it is evidently an observable phenomenon a priori is intellectually dishonest

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:40:03 2020 No.16852631 >>16852621 cite 20 occasions to observe the phenomena that you call ''self''

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:40:18 2020 No.16852633 >>16852631 The last 20 seconds

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:57:46 2020 No.16852694 >>16852621 again again again why are you so intellectually vapid? you can't entertain something that is coherent within its system? you don't even know what this 'self' by your own word let alone the fairly simple self of buddhism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 05:59:00 2020 No.16852701 >>16852694 >the fairly simple self of buddhism. There is no self in buddhism, only a collection of allegedly transient perceptions, educate yourself on the doctrines you're attempting to discuss before engaging in debate

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 07:27:43 2020 No.16852968 >>16852581 Nobody?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:27:33 2020 No.16853140

>>16852968
People prefer some eternal sky daddy or even some fake anatta like non-duality, over anatta so that they can think loved ones never really dies because they are all part of the universe and what not.

>After the death of her son in 1917 and her husband in 1922, Rhys Davids turned to Spiritualism. She became particularly involved in various forms of psychic communication with the dead, first attempting to reach her dead son through seances and then through automatic writing. She later claimed to have developed clairaudience, as well as the ability to pass into the next world when dreaming. She kept extensive notebooks of automatic writing, along with notes on the afterlife and diaries detailing her experiences. These notes form part of her archive jointly held by the University of Cambridge[11] and the University of London.[12]

>Although earlier in her career she accepted more mainstream beliefs about Buddhist teachings, later in life she rejected the concept of anatta as an "original" Buddhist teaching. She appears to have influenced several of her students in this direction, including A. K. Coomaraswamy, F. L. Woodward, and I. B. Horner.

That's just cringe.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:29:52 2020 No.16853152

>>16851866
>denial of self
When are you yourself? When you are born, when you are 1 year old, when you are drunk and vomiting, or crying out the bottom of your soul over some ho you forget about the day after, or when you are some senile old fuck, drooling and shitting yourself while your family pretends you don't exist?
Your "self" is a story you tell yourself to feel good about the absolute horror of being

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:30:07 2020 No.16853154 >>16853140 >sky daddy Stopped reading there, the use of this term is invariably the mark of a dimwit

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:32:55 2020 No.16853161 >>16853154 Awww little christcuck got his peepee stuck in his diapies again when the grownups laughed at his santa clause

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:34:00 2020 No.16853164 >>16853161 Case in point

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 08:37:59 2020 No.16853172 >>16853154 So this is the power of the bodhisattva's boundless wisdom...

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:08:42 2020 No.16853280 >>16853140 This post perfectly illustrates why at the end of the day buddhism really is nihilism with extra steps.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:23:38 2020 No.16853359 >>16852321 You can meditate regardless of religious or philosophical beliefs. Sombe CBT psychologists teach it. Some corps even teach it to help productivity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:31:50 2020 No.16853399 >>16851866 Read Schopenhauer. He's espousing some (not all) of the ideas of buddhism from a western mindset and he's not even trying to. Also, consider reading about warrior cultures associated with buddhism. A lot of them were pretty cool

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:38:48 2020 No.16853426 >>16851866 Ayahuasca !!! It dissolves your "self" (ego dissolution), which in a proper guided, and mentally directed journey can be enlightening.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 09:42:01 2020 No.16853433 >>16851866 Why would you want to be "eased into" something that is obviously false and harmful?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:01:17 2020 No.16853531 What is the best book for learning pali?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:02:36 2020 No.16853539 >>16852300 Based

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:04:36 2020 No.16853550 >>16851866 Just go into Pure Land Buddhism

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:04:54 2020 No.16853552 >>16853433 What makes it false and harmful?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:05:56 2020 No.16853559 >>16853550 Pure land still has anatta, though. You just aim to get first reborn in the pure land and to achieve nirvana there, so the end goal remains nothingness.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:06:34 2020 No.16853561 >>16853559 True, but its less emphasised than other schools, which is why I suggest it

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:09:00 2020 No.16853569 >>16853561 If the problem is anatta, then why not just go into hinduism/advaita?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:11:12 2020 No.16853582 >>16853569 Absolutely, that is an excellent choice. I would of suggested as such OP seemed very tied to Buddhism itself, so I was trying to find some form of compromise for him

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:12:16 2020 No.16853590 File: 252 KB, 1920x1440, 1556215982585.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16853582 *but OP

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:12:18 2020 No.16853591 >>16853559 Anatta is purely buddhism and Pure land is not buddhism, so it can't have anatta.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:13:07 2020 No.16853596 >>16852383 do you ask God for forgiveness? I imagine that non-self makes things like asking forgiveness... odd

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:14:01 2020 No.16853598 >>16851866 Low IQs created Mahayana because they hated the denial of self, so just stay with that and larp as a buddhist like the Mahayanists have been doing for 2000 years.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:14:33 2020 No.16853600 You can't be a chantard and a Buddhist anymore than you can be a Christian and a chantard. You're just LARPing

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:14:35 2020 No.16853601 >>16853596 or put another way: You pray. Who is praying? But more importantly, for whos sake?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:15:10 2020 No.16853608 >>16851885 Fpbp

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:15:14 2020 No.16853610 File: 2.78 MB, 4788x3724, Sects.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why do Therevada have such an utter hatred of Mahayana?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:15:44 2020 No.16853612 >>16853598 Nihilism isn't high IQ.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:16:31 2020 No.16853619 File: 2.58 MB, 3619x5467, 1550703843910.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16851885

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:16:56 2020 No.16853625

>>16852453
what then is that which is aware? that which can be aware of differentiated through self and undifferentiated non-self? What has the realization? What is it that is detached, and is it a fixture that continues for as long as the being lives or is it permanently oblitterated by enlightenment?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:17:08 2020 No.16853626 >>16853598 How does mahayana not deny the self? >>16853591 >Pure land is not buddhism Explain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:20:13 2020 No.16853648 >>16853569 >>16853582 Doesn't Brahman imply non-self as well in hinduism, just less bluntly than in buddhism? Also, I think advaita vedanta is specifically called cryptobuddhist because it's even more obvious in that regard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:21:03 2020 No.16853658 >>16853610 >Dorje Chang is Indra Okay this is based. Although I suspect the Buddhist Indra isn't as badass as the Vedic Indra that goes around slaughtering southrons.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:22:54 2020 No.16853675 >>16853648 >Doesn't Brahman imply non-self as well in hinduism that was very much my takeaway from the bhagawad gita

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:24:13 2020 No.16853681

>>16853648
I imagine it depends as to what you actually mean by non-self. I have always understood that what Buddhists understand from Nirvana is the destruction of the self, you cease to exist entirely. The relationship between Brahman and Atman is that Atman is a part of Brahman, and that transcendence doesn't actually destroy the self as it does in Buddhism, merely it re-joins its greater aspect fully, like a drop of water entering an ocean.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:24:24 2020 No.16853682 >>16853675 What's with dharmic religions and the obsession with destroying yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:27:01 2020 No.16853700 >>16853682 what’s with abrahamic religions and the obsession with degrading yourself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:27:31 2020 No.16853703 >>16853700 Obsessed. I never mentioned abrahamic religions

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:28:32 2020 No.16853711 >>16853681 >Brahman is literally human instrumentality

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:28:49 2020 No.16853713 what happens after non-self? do you return into self again, only with a different view? I mean because people continue existing on earth, and presumably interacting with earth

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:29:07 2020 No.16853715 >>16853713 Nothing, literally

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:30:20 2020 No.16853723 >>16851866 I’m looking for a book that does a brief summary of the history buddhist schools if anyone has a rec for that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:30:39 2020 No.16853725 >>16853723 Second this

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:30:44 2020 No.16853727 >>16853715 permanently?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:31:41 2020 No.16853740 >>16853727 Yes, that's the goal after all, escape the cycle

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:33:16 2020 No.16853754

>>16853682
Isn't it less "destroying yourself" and more "realizing that there was never a self to begin with"?
Beside, Christianity isn't all that far off from this either, is it? Crucifying the old man, "it is no longer I who lives but Christ lives in me", and so on... Not to create some false equivalency between Christianity and Hinduism or Buddhism obviously, but the concept of realizing that things concerning yourself aren't as they seem, the concept of waking up, of being enlightened... are shared by both traditions even if understood very differently.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:33:26 2020 No.16853755 >>16853740 but the cycle goes on, no? just without your attachment to it? or perhaps cycle is the wrong word here, but something continues to live and "do things" is what I mean

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:34:39 2020 No.16853767 >>16853754 Also, I'm only bringing up Christianity to point out that "destroying the self", as you put it, is evidently not unique to Dharmic religions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:34:54 2020 No.16853769 >>16853755 For other people it does, not for you >Isn't it less "destroying yourself" and more "realizing that there was never a self to begin with"? This

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:36:03 2020 No.16853772 >>16853769 >>16853754 Sorry anon, meant to reply to you with that second statement

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:39:43 2020 No.16853796

>>16853769
would you equate this to not acting, or to allowing action along a certain trajectory? since your body will continue doing things I mean, although presumably its reasons have changed (or perhaps that is an illusion, and the reasons are always the same, but in that case their relaitonship to you has changed)

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:41:03 2020 No.16853808 >>16853796 Is your question about what happens to your material form once you have ascended? Cause its it is not the body that ascends, at all. Otherwise I am not sure what your question is

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:43:44 2020 No.16853827

>>16853808
I guess the question is what "your" relationship to the material form becomes, and who this is that has the relationship. Since I am assuming that some form of relationship remains. otherwise the buddhist sage would have to become 100% metaphysics, but if this is so then how can he teach on earth?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:48:36 2020 No.16853860

>>16853827
Well obviously you know that from a buddhist perspective, your material form is not your true self, what is 'self' for buddhists is a very complex question which I wont get into. The entire goal of buddhism is to separate the self from samsara and all that it entails. As a result when, Nirvana has been achieved, any attachment and relationship to the material, including your form at the time, is cut. So in short, there is no relationship between the material form and the self at the point of Nirvana

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:54:37 2020 No.16853899

>>16853860
>the point of Nirvana
I understand or think I understand that the relaitonship between this experience and time is quite different from the relationship between samsara and time, so that saying you move from one to the other can't really make sense, but is it expected that once a self comes to the point of Nirvana, that in every meaningful way it stays there? or does it ever return into a relationship again with samsara? or is it a process where over time you learn to "stay" in that point?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:54:59 2020 No.16853901

>>16853860
Let me put the problem this way for the other anon's sake:

One person attains non-self while another person is observing the first person. What does the second person see? Does the body just fall over like a dead lump? Does the body carry on acting as if there was still the illusion of self, like a p-zombie?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 10:58:44 2020 No.16853930

>>16853901
Ah yes fair enough. The honest answer is dont know. From what I have read, the body would just die there and then, equivalent to brain death. However I cannot say that with certainty.

>>16853899
I think your problem is you are confusing Nirvana with a place. It is not a place, it is a state of existence, which is non-existence. Once gone, its gone for good, otherwise the either premise of buddhism would be pointless.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:12:15 2020 No.16853991

>>16853901
They just see the other person. Buddhist don't "deny" the Self. The Self doesn't exist, so you can't deny it. Rather, Buddhists believe in anatman, AKA "Not-Self". This is a terminological problem in English, the religion is loaded with them (The First Noble Truth is more accurately translated as "Bad things happen" than "Life is suffering"). We can colloquially say "there is no Self', but what we actually mean is "Not-Self is", which is more accurate but clunky.

There is no Self, and yet you function. Find for me the single point in your brain that is "you", the one unchanging piece that if removed and put into a car, would make that car now "you". Despite what Descartes said, it's not the pineal gland (you don't need one to function, but lacking one makes sleeping and dreaming hard, but medication fixes that). There is no part of you that does this. There is no Self to kill. As you read this, you lack a Self. And yet, you function.

>>16853930 is close, but misses the mark. Nirvana is a state. You are currently "in" Nirvana. Samsara is a state. You are currently "in" Samsara. The goal of Buddhism is to "leave" the state of Samsara. You want to "stop doing" Samsara. You do not "no longer exist" or something preposterous like that when you attain Nirvana, that would be ludicrous. Buddhism outright rejects the idea of "nothing" and "non-existence". When enlightenment is achieved, delusion ceases. You don't slump over and die, if the goal of Buddhism was just to commit suicide, why would the Buddha spend 40 years teaching meditation and theory? When you die, certain mental phenomena cease. Other things continue on. When an enlightened being dies, the wheel of karma stops turning, but they do not become "nothing".

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:21:11 2020 No.16854039

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
Both total affirmation or total denial of the self are ignorant views which lead to suffering. This is why the Buddha's teaching is called the Middle Way. It avoids and transcends both extremes.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:21:37 2020 No.16854041

>>16853723
>history buddhist schools
>>16853725

people like this
http://libgen.li/search.php?req=André+Bareau&open=0&res=25&view=simple&phrase=1&column=def
but i can't find the english version. So start here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Buddhist_schools

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Articles/Sects and Sectarianism_The Origins of Buddhist Schools_Sujato.pdf
or
https://sites.google.com/site/sectsandsectarianism/home

and

https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:22:42 2020 No.16854050

>>16853658
No, he's even cooler. Buddhism answered Hinduism's theistic inclinations by just Buddhizing Hindu gods. Brahma (Brahman =/= Brahma) is, in Buddhist cosmology, the reason Buddhism is even a thing. Mara, the God of delusion, sough to defeat the Buddha to keep him from waking people up, but the Buddha wrestled him to submission and made him cry. In a last ditch effort, Mara conceded, but told the Buddha that his cause was worthless as no one would listen to him. The Buddha was just about to agree, and peace out for Nirvana, when Brahma prostrated himself before the Buddha and begged him to teach men and Gods the dharma. The Buddha then did so.

The Buddha gets compared to the Protestant Jesus, who is basically just a girl in a beard, but this is NOT how Buddhists saw him. Buddhist texts make the Buddha out to be the manliest man to ever man. He's a fucking CHAD, and is constantly fending off babes trying to sleep with him. He's bros with all of the Gods, and Hercules and Indra are his best buds. I mean that literally, a lot of early Buddhist art depicts the Buddha flanked by Hercules and Indra. Go look up the 32 Signs of a Great Man, they're basically ancient Pajeets trying to describe Chad from the Virgin vs Chad meme by describing his body parts (it's a very bizarre list). Jaw like a lion, thighs like a royal stag, deep blue eyes.

Buddhism tried very, very, VERY hard in its early days to paint itself as a manly-man warrior religion. The Buddha's position as a Kshatriya, and not a Brahmin, is super fucking important to how Buddhism conceptualized itself.

>>16853648
Yes, that's where the "Advaita Vedanta is Crypto-Buddhism" meme comes from. Retards here on /lit/ treat Advaita Vedanta as this weird Pajeet-Gnosticism dualistic bullshit, but it's not. It's literally in the name, "Advaita" means "non-dual". Advaita Vedanta is one of the least popular schools of Vedanta, with most schools affirming some kind of dualism.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:32:44 2020 No.16854107

>>16853755
>>but the cycle goes on, no?
well no, that's the point

>>16853755 >>16853901
>>16853930

the usual stuff is “One discerns that ‘If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this toward the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that ‘If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this toward the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness… the dimension of nothingness… the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.’ One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything [doesn’t cling to anything] in the world. Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

“If sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns it as ‘inconstant.’ One discerns it as ‘not grasped at.’ One discerns it as ‘not relished.’ If sensing a feeling of pain, one discerns it as ‘inconstant.’ One discerns it as ‘not grasped at.’ One discerns it as ‘not relished.’ If sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns it as ‘inconstant.’ One discerns it as ‘not grasped at.’ One discerns it as ‘not relished.’

“If sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. If sensing a feeling of pain, one senses it disjoined from it. If sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns, ‘I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.’ When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns, ‘I am sensing a feeling limited to life.’ One discerns, ‘With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is experienced, not being relished, will grow cold right here.’

“Just as an oil lamp would burn in dependence on oil & wick and, from the termination of the oil & wick, it would go out unnourished; in the same way, when sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns, ‘I am sensing a feeling limited to the body.’ When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns, ‘I am sensing a feeling limited to life.’ One discerns, ‘With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is experienced, not being relished, will grow cold right here.’

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN140.html
and
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_7.html

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:33:46 2020 No.16854114

>>16854107
hen Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita went to Ven. Sāriputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sāriputta, “With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection], is it the case that there is anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “…is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “…is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”

[Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita:] “Being asked if, with the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Being asked if… there is not anything else… there both is & is not anything else… there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?”

[Ven. Sāriputta:] “The statement, ‘With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is anything else?’ objectifies the unobjectified.1 The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else… is it the case that there both is & is not anything else… is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ objectifies the unobjectified. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact-media go. With the remainderless fading & cessation of the six contact-media, there comes to be the cessation of objectification, the stilling of objectification.”

Note

1. “Objectification” is a translation of papañca. Although in some circles papañca has come to mean a proliferation of thinking, in the Canon it refers not to the amount of thinking, but to a type of thinking marked by the classifications and perceptions it uses. As Sn 4:14 points out, the root of the classifications and perceptions of objectification is the thought, “I am the thinker.” This thought forms the motivation for the questions that Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita is presenting here: the sense of “I am the thinker” can cause either fear or desire for annihilation in the course of unbinding. Both concerns get in the way of the abandoning of clinging, which is essential for the attainment of unbinding, which is why the questions should not be asked.

DN 21 and MN 18 discuss the relationship between objectification and conflict. SN 43 lists non-objectification as one of many epithets for unbinding.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_173.html

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 11:41:15 2020 No.16854151
File: 2.33 MB, 5118x1210, shankara buddhism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16852392
>shankara opposed the doctrine of impermanence?
yes, see pic related where he attacks that view
>Isn't advaita an ontology of becoming?
No, the Absolute reality Nirguna Brahman is changeless

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:03:59 2020 No.16854279 >>16853769 >"realizing that there was never a self to begin with" So what happens to my consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:05:14 2020 No.16854292 >>16853991 >Find for me the single point in your brain that is "you", Are you implying that buddhism is physicalist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:06:41 2020 No.16854303 >>16854292 >Are you implying that buddhism is physicalist? They deny it until they slip back into viewing it as such unconsciously

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:08:04 2020 No.16854310 >>16854279 >It wasn't real the whole time LMAO! >nevermind that illusions are not self-apprehending like consciousness is

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:24:18 2020 No.16854430 >>16853625 Bingo. This BTFOs Buddhists forever. "What experiences the Maya?" There is no response.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:26:00 2020 No.16854444 >>16854430 >>16853625 i love the seething and cope

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:26:57 2020 No.16854449 >>16854444 Nice quads.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:31:09 2020 No.16854487

>>16854310
>>16854430
I'm guessing you're >>16854151 so according to advaita, what becomes of consciousness once maya is lifted and the wheel is destroyed?
From what I'm getting the buddhist stance is to dance around the fact that stopping maya amounts to stopping your existence.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:32:47 2020 No.16854495

I had an experience while meditating that seemed very much like what is described as leaving samsara. Consciousness folded into itself, consciousness without anything in it to destract and a realization that the self was something like a pattern in those distractions. Then I came back, and while my perspective had changed it was very much my experience that I was "again" human.

What do I make of this?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:36:13 2020 No.16854522

>>16853625 >>16854430

>>what then is that which is aware?
awareness duh
>>16853625
>that which can be aware of differentiated through self and undifferentiated non-self?
there is no self in the first place
>>16853625
>What has the realization?
destruction of thirst does not need a what
>>16853625
>What is it that is detached, and is it a fixture that continues for as long as the being lives or is it permanently oblitterated by enlightenment?
huh
once there is no thirst there is no birth and no fixture. there doesn't need to be a fixture in the first place

you think like a hindu, so stick to that

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:40:09 2020 No.16854561
File: 78 KB, 1531x339, screencap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16854487
>what becomes of consciousness once maya is lifted and the wheel is destroyed?
According to Advaita, our consciousness is already the Supreme Lord of the entire universe, and as such is already liberated and intrinsically free, enlightened, omnipresent, unconditioned, pure bliss-awareness. The destruction of spiritual ignorance and the ensuring removal of the superimposition (i.e. the false projection upon) of doership, enjoyership, agentship, bondage etc onto the consciousness by the Jiva leaves the consciousness simply continuing on forever in its blissful, free, eternal nature. There is no dissolution of consciousness in Advaita.

This post gives a more in-depth explanation

>>/lit/thread/S16455508#p16456606

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:40:10 2020 No.16854562 >>16854522 is there perception?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:46:11 2020 No.16854621

>>16854561
If there is one atman which is brahman, why bother distinguishing between those two terms?
I don't understand how samsara fits into this. If you do not manage to awaken in this lifetime, then what happens after death? In buddhism you basically get destroyed and just "give rise" to a process that is another life (like cutting down a tree but then replanting one of its fruits). What happens in advaita?
>There is no dissolution of consciousness in Advaita
There's only one atman, yes? So how are there multiple illusory experiences of maya? Right now you are not having the same experience I am and our consciousnesses can never merge, yet there is only one atman? If that is so, is a merging of consciousness not required at some point?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:49:00 2020 No.16854648

>>16854292
In the sense that all things are a collection of parts, yes, it roughly maps onto physicalism. In the sense that mental phenomena come solely from the brain, no, it explicitly rejects physicalism. The brain is a key part of mental phenomena, but is not the sum-total of it. This is without getting into Nagarjuna's critique of how really "anything" "happens", of course.

I'm just defaulting to the Western physicalist position because it's really easy for people to understand, and 99% of the time the opponents of the Buddhist position in these threads just default to it anyways.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:50:18 2020 No.16854664 >>16854495 Meditate more. >>16854430 Correct. Absolutely and entirely. This is the exact point the Buddha makes, and that all of Buddhist tradition has been making forever. I see you've studied the Heart Sutra well.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:55:14 2020 No.16854704 >>16854664 But heart Sutra is not what the Buddha taught.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 12:59:48 2020 No.16854733

>>16854495
like this?

There he said to the monks, “This unbinding is pleasant, friends. This unbinding is pleasant.”
“But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?”

“Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt. There are these five strands of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire; sounds cognizable via the ear… aromas cognizable via the nose… flavors cognizable via the tongue… tactile sensations cognizable via the body—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire. Whatever pleasure or joy arises in dependence on these five strands of sensuality, that is sensual pleasure.

“Now there is the case where a monk—quite secluded from sensuality,1 secluded from unskillful qualities—enters & remains in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality, that is an affliction for him. Just as pain would arise in a healthy person as an affliction, even so the attention to perceptions dealing with sensuality that beset the monk is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation—internal assurance. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with directed thought, that is an affliction for him.…

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the fading of rapture, remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, senses pleasure with the body, and enters & remains in the third jhāna, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with rapture, that is an affliction for him.…

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the abandoning of pleasure & pain—as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress—enters & remains in the fourth jhāna: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with equanimity,2 that is an affliction for him.…

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of perceptions of (physical) form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not attending to perceptions of multiplicity, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite space,’ enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of space. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with form, that is an affliction for him

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 13:00:50 2020 No.16854737

>>16854733
“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of space, (perceiving,) ‘Infinite consciousness,’ enters & remains in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of the infinitude of space, that is an affliction for him.…

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, (perceiving,) ‘There is nothing,’ enters & remains in the dimension of nothingness. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, that is an affliction for him.…

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of nothingness, that is an affliction for him. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.

“Then there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees (that) with discernment, effluents are completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how unbinding is pleasant.”

Notes

1. AN 6:63 defines sensuality as follows: “There are these five strands of sensuality. Which five? Forms cognizable via the eye—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire; sounds cognizable via the ear… aromas cognizable via the nose… flavors cognizable via the tongue… tactile sensations cognizable via the body—agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, enticing, linked to sensual desire. But these are not sensuality. They are called strands of sensuality in the discipline of the noble ones.

“The passion for his resolves is a man’s sensuality,

not the beautiful sensual pleasures

found in the world.

The passion for his resolves is a man’s sensuality.

The beauties remain as they are in the world,

While, in this regard,

the enlightened

subdue their desire.”

2. In other words, even though the fourth jhāna is characterized by equanimity, the act of taking mental note of that fact would disturb the stillness of the jhāna. This point is also found in AN 9:41.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 13:01:42 2020 No.16854747 >>16854704 Entirely correct. The Heart Sutra would agree with you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 13:06:46 2020 No.16854792 >>16854747 yeah plus it leads to wrong release.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 13:29:51 2020 No.16854951
File: 51 KB, 400x402, p-172.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16854621
>If there is one atman which is brahman, why bother distinguishing between those two terms?
In Advaita they are the exact same thing, but referenced from two different perspectives. In every Advaita text though you can switch the terms when they occur and the meaning of what is being talked about remains the exact same. The Upanishads themselves use both the terms, while affirming at many places the non-difference of the two, such as in

"This Atman is the organs; It is ten and thousands—many and infinite. This Brahman is without antecedent or consequent, without interior or exterior. This self, the all—perceiving, is Brahman. This is the teaching of the Upanishads." - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.5.19.

>I don't understand how samsara fits into this. If you do not manage to awaken in this lifetime, then what happens after death?
The Jiva transmigrates from body to body in a beginningless cycle until it attains liberation in Advaita. The Atman does not actually transmigrate but just observes or is aware of the Jiva doing so.
>In buddhism you basically get destroyed and just "give rise" to a process that is another life (like cutting down a tree but then replanting one of its fruits). What happens in advaita?
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad uses the metaphor of a leech resting on one blade of grass grabbing ahold of another blade of grass and then pulling itself onto the second blade of grass from the first one. There is not a destruction and a reassembly from the pieces as it is moreso in Buddhism. At the same time it is to be remembered that in transmigration in Advaita, there is not a personal soul like Arnold or Susan being transmigrated over and over, but it is the attributeless Godhead which successively incarnates under various forms, without those forms and lives characterizing or affecting the Godhead. The leech which goes from grass to grass is not the Atman, but is a lifeless and insentient object to which the Atman-Brahman (consciousness) observes, animates and imbues with life and activity

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 13:30:54 2020 No.16854960

>>16854951
>There's only one atman, yes? So how are there multiple illusory experiences of maya?
Vedanta recognizes a difference between the mind (thinking faculty) and sentience or consciousness (the Atman). There is only one undivided consciousness which is Itself without juncture, division or separation, but Its association with discrete objects due Its own power of maya causes the Jiva to perceive itself as individualized. The objects of awareness are changing and limited, but awareness itself is unlimited. All the various bodies and the contents of their minds are particular datum appearing within the one omnipotent awareness which includes them all within Itself.

The Jiva is a complex of ignorance which inheres in the given set of "jiva-conditions", So the reason why there can be multiple experiences, is that there is an infinite consciousness inhabiting all the Jivas, but the ignorance inhering in those specific Jivas cause them to perceive themselves as other than the omnipresent awareness which is their very witnessing self. So the consciousness inside you is the same consciousness inside everyone else, but insofar as your consciousness has the contents of your mind (or the mind your Atman observes) presented to It like images on a screen, that is the part of the display caused by the Atman-Brahman's power of maya. But the observing Atman or consciousness which itself witnesses that display is the same observing Atman in everyone else and is similarly without attributes, ungraspable as an object etc.

In the Essay below "Vedanta and the Western Tradition", Coomaraswamy uses the example of a man with 360 degree vision sitting on a throne at the middle of the circle, with that man observing and controlling all the people or puppets in the circle, while remaining the same presence at the center.

http://worldwisdom.com/uploads/pdfs/149.pdf

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 13:31:55 2020 No.16854973

>>16854960
An example given in one Advaita text of how this can be so is that it is similar to how there can be one single moon, which while remaining one and undivided is nonetheless reflected as countless separate moons on the surface of countless puddles and lakes on the earth's surface. The consciousness or Atman is not itself individualized, but is the consciousness which takes itself to be individualized when that Jiva superimposes such things onto it.

You can point to differences in your mind from other people's but you cannot actually point to real differences in your witnessing-consciousness from the witnessing-consciousness of other people, because consciousness is admitted to be different from name and form as their ineffable witness, and only names and forms can be put forward as descriptions of differences in consciousness (which amount to only descriptions of mental activity, not consciousness) but the consciousness of the person who gives those names and forms is inevitably different from those names and forms as the formless thing which cognizes them, so they are not really pointing out any difference in consciousness as such. The consciousness is the medium through which the particular experiences can take place. It is like the one single light of the sun, which permits many things to simultaneously to appear by its light.

>Right now you are not having the same experience I am and our consciousnesses can never merge, yet there is only one atman? If that is so, is a merging of consciousness not required at some point?
There is only one consciousness in Advaita, with so many false layers added to it. Thus, there can never be the "merging" or what exists as one and undivided. The figurative "merging" would amount to the removal of the so many particular layers to reveal the one substratum. When multiple people attain moksha (liberation), and then their bodies die, their Atmans do not merge into the same Atman for example, but rather the one omnipresent Atman which was already liberated and animating both of them simply continues on as such, without the superimpositon of doership and agentship onto it by those two Jivas whom it had been residing within as the Self.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:09:06 2020 No.16855230

>>16854951
>The Atman does not actually transmigrate but just observes or is aware of the Jiva doing so.
Is everything that is experienced while under the illusion of maya lost to the cycles of transmigration? Is that an irrelevant question?
>there is not a personal soul
>consciousness (the Atman)
To put it in another way, "I" am atman because there is only one consciousness that narrows itself down into several experiences, one of which is the life I am currently experiencing.
So once liberation is attained through enlightenment, is it possible to describe what happens? Can it be compared to going from a single point of vision to a much broader one, or something like that? What are the implications for ego and personality?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:14:26 2020 No.16855260 >>16854664 So Buddhism doesn't have a no-self doctrine. I guess the doctrine is whatever it needs to be.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:17:18 2020 No.16855281

reat, a Buddhist thread. Now is the chance to spread Dharma!
Here are some websites that may provide useful for different vehicles.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
This is a website that contains suttas from the Pali Canon, or the Theravadan lineages key texts. It also has study guides and dharma talks from the great sages of the Thai Forest tradition.

http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/library.html
This is a Buddhist library with free pdf's many of which are very useful for understanding the history and philosophy of Buddhism. Has Theravadan and Mahayana texts.

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/
This has Theravadan books and texts that are useful for understanding the lineage.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/
This has many books and dharma talks in the Thai Forest tradition of Ajahn Chah and Bhikku Thanissaro. Great for an introduction to Theravadan thought. Has free physical books for shipping.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:18:25 2020 No.16855295
File: 52 KB, 640x640, 1485880340806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Now, on to Mahayana.
First we have
https://www.amitabha-gallery.org/
A site run by the Venerable Wuling, a Pure Land bhikkuni taught by Venerable Master Chin Kung. Is Chinese Pureland, and focuses on both Other and Self Power.
Has free books and dharma talks on the Pure Land school, as well as introductory books on Buddhism.

https://www.chanpureland.org/
Next, we have a sangha in the Chinese dual cultivation of Chan and Pureland teachings, it's current teacher is Master Yuanghua. Has dharma talks available.

https://zenstudiespodcast.com/
A podcast by Domyo Burke of the Soto Zen lineage. A good introduction to Soto Zen and basic Buddhist thought. Also has an online sangha you can join if you email her.

https://terebess.hu/zen/zen.html
Free Zen and Chan texts and commentaries!

http://cttbusa.org/fas1/fas_contents.asp
This is a sangha first founded by Venerable Master Hsuan Hua of the Pure Land and Chan lineage. Has free dharma talks, books, sutra translations, and commentaries on sutras by Master Hua, as well as physical books for purchase.

https://www.fgsitc.org/
Another Pure Land and Chan sangha, with free physical books (if you pay shipping), and free pdfs as well.

https://www.amitabhalibrary.org/index.htm
Free physical texts on Chan and Pure Land teachings, as well as altar screens which usually run about 25 to 35 dollars plus shipping.

http://www.amtb-usa.org/english_inception.html
Free physical books on the Pure Land and Chan school shipped to you!

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:19:35 2020 No.16855306
File: 977 KB, 1920x1080, wallhaven-4dvloj.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Now to Tibetan Mahayana,

https://studybuddhism.com/
This has an introduction to Tibetan Buddhism that is worthwhile to look into.

https://www.lamayeshe.com/
This has free physical books for distribution in the Gelug tradition, as well as books for purchase.

https://www.dawnmountain.org/
This is a sangha that teaches all lineages of Tibetan Mahayana.

Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche
https://dharmasun.org/

Tsoknyi Rinpoche
https://tsoknyirinpoche.org/

Mingyur Rinpoche
https://tergar.org/

14th Dalai Lama
https://www.dalailama.com/

Khenpo Tsewang Dongyal Rinpoche
https://www.padmasambhava.org

Lama Lena
https://lamalenateachings.com/

Alan Wallace
http://www.alanwallace.org/

Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche
https://ligmincha.org/

James Low
https://www.simplybeing.co.uk/

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo
http://tenzinpalmo.com/

Dzigar Kongtrul Rinpoche
https://www.mangalashribhuti.org/

Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche
https://khyentsefoundation.org/

Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
http://www.ktgrinpoche.org/

Lama Yeshe & Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition
https://fpmt.org/

Thubten Chodron
http://thubtenchodron.org/

Thrangu Rinpoche
http://www.rinpoche.com/

Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche
http://www.dpr.info/

17th Karmapa
https://kagyuoffice.org/

Samye Ling monastery
https://www.samyeling.org/

Sakya Trizin
http://hhsakyatrizin.net/

Orgyen Tobgyal Rinpoche
http://all-otr.org/

That is all. Finally we have:
http://www.buddhanet.net/
This has many pdfs and dharma talks on all three Vehicles.

https://dharmaseed.org/
Has many dharma talks on Theravadan and Mahayana traditions, as well as few on Tibetan Mahayana.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:28:40 2020 No.16855362

So can anyone tell me what Nirvana actually is?
A state of 'non-being'? What does this mean exactly, or is it indescribable with words? So there is no ultimate reality in which ultimate truth and bliss are to be found? Is it just non-suffering? Wouldn't that just be unbearably neutral?

Buddhist bros, help a brainlet out please!

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:33:15 2020 No.16855395

>>16855362
Chan/Pure Land practitioner here. Nirvana, as described in the sutras and texts is a state of total unbinding from the wheel of birth and death, filled with bliss and free from the Three Marks of Dukkha, Impermanence, and Not-Self. It is not conditioned by anything, and transcends all conceptual understanding. The only reason I stated the facts above is that they are what are agreed upon by most lineages in the three Vehicles. For further information, I would point you to:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/
On the site you can find the book "The Mind Like Fire Unbound", which gives an overview of the idea of Nirvana.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:40:51 2020 No.16855458
File: 650 KB, 1920x1440, wallhaven-4ldxer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16855362
Furthermore, I would state that simply non-suffering is not the state of Nirvana, it is one of bliss and peace, a mind free from all restraints. The closer one is on the path to liberation, whether that be the path of the Bodhisattva or Arhat, one finds that as one progresses one becomes more compassionate and blissful. One may still experience dukkha, as one is not liberated yet, but one clings less to it. As one is on the path, one "plays the part of Buddha", until one no longer needs to play and one's innate Buddha nature shines brightly.

>>16853591
Pure Land Buddhism is certainly Buddhism, and it's doctrines are supported in the standardized 15th century Pali Canon. There, one finds the concepts of Buddhasmrti, Pure Lands, and vows for Rebirth in those lands. Pure Land doctrine is simply an elaboration of ideas already seen in earlier texts, and further developed by Yogachara and Madhyamaka, and later, Chan and Esoteric Buddhism.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:44:22 2020 No.16855481

>>16855395
Thanks, but how can one be free of not-self? I thought buddhism taught that not-self was what remains after all conditioning has been unwinded?

Also i've recently been thinking about becoming some sort of Buddhist. But I feel it would be somewhat unwise to dedicate oneself to a tradition without having researched which one seems the most plausible (i.e. debates between vedanta and buddhism).

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:47:10 2020 No.16855500 >>16855395 >filled with bliss this is one of the main reasons I'm a theist. it could have been anything, happens to be bliss

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:47:54 2020 No.16855508

>>16855458
Isn't pure land a bit of a copout? Sorry if that sounds like an inflammatory remark, it's not the intent, but being able to be reborn into a higher realm and avoid the suffering of the lower realms entirely just by taking a mantra to heart and praying a bit seems rather easy.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:52:17 2020 No.16855541

>>16855481
What you have stated is true, but there is also the understanding that one abandons the concept of Anatta when one is liberated, along with the Dharma and all other concepts. Therefore, one is not bound by anything, even the state of Nirvana.
It is good to see someone looking into other traditions, but I would be careful. Deciding a tradition is a big step, and finding a proper teacher an even bigger one. Remember that books and words will only get you so far, you have to practice on your own to see what is conductive for liberation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:52:28 2020 No.16855544 >>16855500 Im no expert, but what would an ultimate reality be constituted of? Suffering? surely not. I don't think any 'ultimate reality' was birthed by happenstance, so I dont see why it wouldn't be categorised by a superlative bliss.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:53:41 2020 No.16855556

>>16853619
How is Hindu/Buddhist imagery and cosmology so incredibly tacky yet so incredibly based at the same time? It pulls off DBZ tier scale but somehow it works.
>>16854050
Chad Buddha is evident in a lot of Chinese folk stories where he moves mountains with a finger and other cosmic scale flexing

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:53:54 2020 No.16855561 If nirvana is literally beyond any and all description, who's to say it's necessarily a blissful experience?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:55:53 2020 No.16855576

>>16855541
For where i'm at now, im sure a multitude of religions would be extremely beneficial for me, regardless of the disputes, between hinduism and buddhism, say. They hold many of the same practices and principles. I would just like to choose the one which resonates with me the most, and one which I truly believe to be more accurate.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 14:58:05 2020 No.16855588
File: 602 KB, 1920x1077, wallhaven-1313d9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16855508
That is because Pure Land practice dedicated to Amitabha Buddha is of the easy variety! All sages of the Pure Land school of Amitabha stated that Pure Land was the easiest Dharma Door to enter due to Amitabha's Eighteenth Vow, which states that he would not become a Buddha until any being who stated his name ten times with a Pure Mind would be allowed in his Pure Land, barring those who commit the Five Grave Offenses. Other Pure Lands, such as those of Akshobya and Vairochana, are harder to reach. They require more practice and diligence. On a side note, I would like to say that Pure Land practice, while easy on the surface, can be very hard indeed. There a hundred methods of Recitation of the Name, and Visualization of the Buddha and his Pure Land. When one recites, one is aiming for a pure and concentrated mind so one can be unified with the Mind of Amitabha. Then, one is indeed in the Pure Land in the here and now, and depending on the lineage, one may be liberated in this lifetime.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:00:39 2020 No.16855617 >>16855561 Because it's characteristics as described in the sutras consists of bliss and freedom from concepts. Bliss is really the only thing that can be put on it.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:01:33 2020 No.16855623

>>16855230
>Is everything that is experienced while under the illusion of maya lost to the cycles of transmigration?
It is lost in the sense that it will never again take place or be experienced as the exact same set of circumstances. In Advaita within the contingent and conditionally-real maya-realm there is a beginningless and endless series series of the universes being manifested during the day of Brahmā and then withdrawn into the unmanifest during the night of Brahmā, before being manifested again at the start of another day, the universes and all things not being completely destroyed but rather withdrawn from their status as manifested possibilities back into the total sum of unlimited universal non-manifested possibilities, and they are not created ex-nihilio but a certain set of the unlimited possibilities are eventually manifested which have never in that exact same way been manifested before. One of the few things which remains the same according to the Brahma Sutras is that the Vedas (which includes the primary Upanishads) are eternal and emerge as the figurative breath or speech of Brahman in every universe, which implies that every cycle of universal manifestation at some point includes a Sanskrit-speaking civilization or species who arrive at and develop that language through their own historically unique process; you could also read this as metaphorical and as only referring to the essential understanding the text conveys though.

>there is not a personal soul
Advaita uses 'person' and 'individual' in a different way then western thought, to Advaita 'person' refers moreso to the fact of the taking-place of experience by the sentient entity, whereas 'individual' refers to things which are delimited and gated off from everything else as isolated entities. And this is even implied in some western languages as for example in English 'individual' does not simply mean a numeric one but specifically denotes the conceiving of something as distinct from other things. To Advaita the Atman is personal, but it is the undeniable reality of the taking-place of the consciousness of sentient beings, regardless of the so many illusory things and layers superimposed onto it. And according to Advaita the truth is that the person in their essential nature is truly not an individual, but individuality is something superimposed onto it. This is why one of the alternative names for Brahman used though Hindu literature, the Purusa, in some explanations just means "the all-pervading person". At the same time, this 'personness' is attributeless self-revealing consciousness, making it distinct from our ordinary conceptions of personhood and so the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita is often referred to as an "impersonal God" even though Advaita uses person and individual in a different sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:01:41 2020 No.16855624 >>16855576 That is good, but I would recommend beginning to search as soon as possible. No one knows how much time we have left on this earth, and the longer we wait before moving towards liberation, the closer we come to an ill birth in the next.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:02:17 2020 No.16855628

>>16855588
>any being who stated his name ten times with a Pure Mind would be allowed in his Pure Land
Since the conditions are so easy to fulfill, why hasn't pure land eclipsed all other schools in terms of followers?
>Akshobya and Vairochana, are harder to reach.
Are they any different qualitatively?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:02:49 2020 No.16855632

>>16855623
>To put it in another way, "I" am atman because there is only one consciousness that narrows itself down into several experiences, one of which is the life I am currently experiencing.
Yes
>So once liberation is attained through enlightenment, is it possible to describe what happens?
Yes, Adi Shankara's writings describe what this is like and explain how the liberated man continues moving around and being able to read and speak in the world while at the same time knowing himself to be the unchanging formless reality in which the world is appearing
>Can it be compared to going from a single point of vision to a much broader one, or something like that?
Yes
>What are the implications for ego and personality?
You are aware of your own ego and personality, they are objects of your awareness. Advaita says that if something like a body or an ego is an object of awareness, then it cannot be your Self or Atman, because it is appearing to your witnessing self as something different from it. The liberated man is unconcerned with egoistic relations. At the same time though it should be remember that traditional Advaita as laid out by Shankara is only meant to be practiced by monks, by Hindus who enter the final ashrama or life-stage of ascetic (sannyasa), this is the direct path to Brahman, but the indirect path taken by people who are not monks does not always involve such a drastic change in how one regards their ego and personality and one's relation to social events and ties etc. There are a spectrum of schools within Hinduism which exist on the spectrum between these positions.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:05:10 2020 No.16855652 >>16855617 >Bliss is really the only thing that can be put on it. Who experiences that bliss?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:06:26 2020 No.16855666 >>16855624 Not the same guy What's the necessity in choosing a specific school? Enlightenment has been given many names by many different cultures throughout history, all of them lead to the same end.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:06:34 2020 No.16855669

>>16855628
>Since the conditions are so easy to fulfill, why hasn't pure land eclipsed all other schools in terms of followers?
Pure Land Buddhism as seen in Tibetan Mahayana and East Asian Mahayana is very large indeed, making up a vast amount of the practitioners in those countries.
As for those that do not practice, that is due in part to one's abilities and karma. Some choose to join other paths because they are more compatible. Simply because something is easy for most does not make it easy for all beings. Some may find it harder to believe in the Path due to karmic hindrances and lack of Faith.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:08:15 2020 No.16855682 >>16855669 Once a being has gotten into a pure land, can they devolve and be reborn into a lower realm at some point?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:14:15 2020 No.16855713

>>16855624
Yes thats the problem. For me to truly grasp and critique metaphysics and characteristics of religions, it would require me to be much more philosophically competent than I am now. It probably sounds ridiculous but my plan was to read 30 odd books from the western philosophical canon, to develop my critical thinking and get aquainted with philosophy, then move on to eastern philosophy, psychoanalysis, etc. Otherwise I feel I wouldnt fully grasp something like the Upanishads for all its worth, or may derive little from it at all.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:14:40 2020 No.16855716
File: 930 KB, 967x900, chinamap1600.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16855628
Are they any different qualitatively?
No, Buddhas are all of the same quality and realization, it is simply that Amitabha's Vows are more encompassing than theirs. All Buddhas are of the highest order.
>>16855652
Who experiences that bliss?
I cannot answer that question unfortunately, as I have not attained the levels of realization necessary to experience that. The sages are often silent on such things, and imply that only the individual practitioner can fully understand it, and it is beyond words.
>>16855666
Choosing a specific school ensures has a strict doctrine to follow that will advance him quicker than picking and choosing from all traditions. Of course that doesn't mean one should have animosity towards any tradition the practitioner didn't pick, but rather the opposite.
Furthermore, when one follows a specific school, one develops greater faith in the practice and greater certainty of the Dharma. It is better to practice one Dharma Door than try many at once. If one simply tries Karma Kagyu Mahamudra practices one morning, and then Chan Esoteric practices at night, and then something different the next day, one is not developing a focused mind. If one does not investigate a school of thought thoroughly, or gives up on it simply due to outwards appearances, one is robbing oneself of potential liberation. Therefore, one should practice a single Dharma Door thoroughly, until one finds the one that is right.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:16:24 2020 No.16855723
File: 140 KB, 690x621, 1589721923715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16855508
This is a common misunderstanding based on exoteric methods. The method of chanting was popularized as the easiest way to encourage the masses to 念佛, meaning "bear in mind the Buddha"... in other words direct the mind toward the Absolute, in the same way that Muslims are required to pray five times a day.

The method is simple and easy but acquiring true faith is anything but. The Pure Land on the esoteric level being understood as a state of mind of total serenity, which is required to attain enlightenment.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:17:30 2020 No.16855730

>>16855260
Oh, you haven't read the Heart Sutra. You should, it answers your question more eloquently than I can. I recommend Red Pine's translation.

>>16855362
Ultimate freedom beyond all limitations. A state of pure potentiality (there's going to be some retard who takes this in an Aristotelian sense, don't be that retard). The Ancient Indians had a theory of fire, that fire exists in a state of pure bliss in another dimension. We draw it from that dimension by binding it to fuel. When the fuel is burnt up, it returns to that pure dimension. It doesn't physically move anywhere (direction is meaningless as it's in a state; where can you walk to leave "drunkenness"?), nor does it stop existing (you can light more fires after all). The Buddha compares Nirvana to this. We're stuck in Samsara, bound by our karma (the fuel). We keep heaping more fuel onto the pyre. When we stop, and the fuel burns away, we return to that pure dimension, that is in truth a state. "Nirvana" means "blowing out", but that's a colloquialism; etymologically, it means "unbinding" (of the fire from the fuel).

This is a state of pure bliss. Another anon recommended The Mind Like Fire Unbound, which is very good. However, Buddhism, like Thomism, ultimately says that reason and conceptuality can only take you so far. Eventually, you'll start running into things that cannot be boxed into neat little words. For Aquinas, it's God, for Buddha, it's Nirvana. Nirvana is a state of ultimate freedom beyond all limitations, words inherently have limits. No conceptual, linguistic framework can ever properly describe Nirvana. Most Buddhist schools say that many things cannot properly be described in this manner, they have to be lived (or obtained through alternative means, which is why Zen masters slap their students with sandals).

>>16855508
>>16855588
Pure Land is only a copout in that it gives you more time to get Enlightened, you still have to do the work. Amitabha can't enlighten you, he can just put you in a place that's really easy to achieve enlightenment in.

>>16855628
It has. It's not really appropriate to talk about "Pure Land Buddhism" as a discrete "thing" like we would with Western religious and philosophical traditions. Rather, we should speak of "Pure Land Tradition". Most Buddhists practice some form of this tradition. It's REALLY common amongst the laity. There's nothing saying you can't do Zen and Pure Land (although there may be practitioners of one or the other who disagree, that would be because of the characteristics of the traditions themselves; if Zen and Pure Land can't mesh, perhaps Zen and Tiantai can, or Pure Land and Shingon)

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:18:50 2020 No.16855749 File: 82 KB, 640x800, 1601413539312.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16853280 I hate Ricky and Morty but this is a funny meme

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:20:10 2020 No.16855761

>>16855682
No, one achieves Non-Regression in the Pure Land, similar to the other Pure Lands and Tushita Heaven.
>>16855713
I would advise against reading the Western texts, as well as the books of philosophy, and instead recommend reading books strictly adhering to the faith you are investigating from an inside orthodox perspective. One can learn all the philosophy in the world and still not be one step closer to liberation. Furthermore, if you focus on Western philosophy, you might have misunderstandings when you read Eastern teachings, which often do not have similar concepts or understandings about the basic ground of reality. Religion in this regard is of more importance than philosophy.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:26:10 2020 No.16855813

>>16855761
So how would I decide on a tradition? By choosing one and practicing it and if it doesn't seem to be working, choose another? Or simply pick the one which resonates the most? Isn't the philosophical perspective critical to work out which tradition you align with? Otherwise someone may become christian because they have a connection to it because their parents were christian, or they like the idea of x concept. This doesn't make x concept true, no?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:27:58 2020 No.16855824 >>16851866 Unironically, Thomas Metzinger's The Ego Tunnel, on libgen thankfully

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:29:56 2020 No.16855842 >>16852300 How does that debunk buddhism/nihilism though?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:30:08 2020 No.16855843

>>16855623
>manifested during the day of Brahmā and then withdrawn into the unmanifest during the night of Brahmā
Is a precise time scale given for this?
>You are aware of your own ego and personality, they are objects of your awareness.
How does this translate after death? What's the equivalent in advaita for parinirvana?
>There are a spectrum of schools
But advaita is quite specific isn't it? Aren't indirect paths less effective?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:31:35 2020 No.16855857 >>16855716 >Choosing a specific school ensures has a strict doctrine to follow yeah but there are so many, trying to become acquainted with all of them well enough to form an opinion seems like a waste of precious time.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:32:03 2020 No.16855864

>>16855813
read widely and contemplate, your own path will reveal itself
don't forget that developing faith is essential regardless of which direction you go in, as in faith in the practice. the reason people fall away is because they lack faith, either in their own abilities, the particular method they've chosen, or in the idea of enlightenment itself

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:33:51 2020 No.16855879

>>16855842
See, if you don't know what you're talking about, and don't read anything about Buddhism, you can just say
>Buddhism is nihilism
and there you go! Of course, you can do this with anything, which is why waffles are nihilism, but that's a minor technicality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:34:39 2020 No.16855888 >>16855716 Do people who enter the pure land still go through the three bardos of death and need to recognize the luminous mind, or is this skipped?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:36:14 2020 No.16855906

>>16855730
Your description of nirvana doesn't even come close to implying the negation of the concept of self as some others have claimed ITT. Where and why did this controversy even start? An average person reading this description would more or less get from nirvana that it is similar to the idea of heaven.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:37:00 2020 No.16855910 >>16853552 It's harmful to him cause he is not willing to give up his preconditioned worldview out of fear of the unknown

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:42:49 2020 No.16855940

>>16855857
That is why you study one and see if the teachings resonate with you, and see if they are amenable to inner faith. There are stories of many teachers and sages spending a lifetime seeking teachers until they found the right path. Even the Bodhisattva Sudhana had many teachers.
>>16855888
When one is at death's door, if one recites ten times with a pure mind, one will see the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas greeting him when he dies. As far as I can tell in the East Asian side of things, there is no bardo stage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:43:47 2020 No.16855949 >>16855940 >When one is at death's door, if one recites ten times with a pure mind So a brutal, sudden death will rob you from that opportunity of getting reborn in a pure land?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:46:17 2020 No.16855964

>>16855949
Not necessarily. If one practices diligently in this lifetime, and recites the name ten times with a Pure Mind before death, one is already in the Pure Land, and recitation at death comes easy, even during violent interactions. The famous monk in Vietnam who burned himself alive as a protest against the South Vietnamese regime is a good example. Even as he was burning alive, most who were in attendance said he was reciting the name of Amitabha.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:48:54 2020 No.16855980
File: 607 KB, 2560x1440, wallhaven-nmdzx8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16855964
I would like to clarify further that this position is only held in Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean forms of Pure Land Buddhism. In Japanese style, one who recites the name ten times, even without a pure mind, is guaranteed rebirth in the Pure Land. Any further recitations are for further going on the path and ensuring a better rebirth in the higher grades of the sea vast lotus pool assembly of Buddhas, Arhats, and Bodhisattvas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:49:38 2020 No.16855987 >>16855964 No what I meant was, imagine you get hit by a car unsuspectingly and die immediately, for example.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:50:52 2020 No.16855996

>>16855949
rebirth in the pure land is an esoteric analogy for acquiring the serenity of mind required to achieve enlightenment

on the exoteric level it's believed by those of lower ability to be a real place, this is merely upaya

so in some sense a sudden, brutal death will surely prevent you from achieving this, on account of you being dead...but on other hand you'll have immediate, direct experience of the absolute and therefore have no need of it

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:52:07 2020 No.16856007 >>16855964 This is always hilarious to me as a Vaishnava. Why bother calling it Buddhism, when it's just Vaishnavism: chant the holy names and go to Vaikuntha

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:52:43 2020 No.16856012

>>16855980
>In Japanese style, one who recites the name ten times, even without a pure mind, is guaranteed rebirth in the Pure Land
Even if the one who does so is otherwise a bad person, as long as they haven't committed one of the five offenses?
The fact that there are so many technicalities and different strands and takes on these technicalities gives me the feeling that the real teachings are underneath all that and that the "fluff" for lack of a better term is not essential. But maybe I am misled

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:56:22 2020 No.16856042 >>16856012 You're exactly right. Stick to Theravada

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 15:57:39 2020 No.16856054

>>16856007
Because Vaikuntha implies a state of bliss still attached to self. We must go further to find the realm of Anatta, and the Pure Land is a stepping stone to realization, not Nirvana itself. I am not insulting you though, please do not take it in this way.
>>16856012
Yes, even if one has done bad deeds in this life, Amitabha is a compassionate being, and wishes to save all beings from their sufferings. Even those who have committed the Five Offenses are allowed to enter Sukhavati if they recite ten times with an unhindered mind at death.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:00:48 2020 No.16856079

>>16856042
It's not like Theravada is the earlier lineage. In it's earlier, pre-15th century form it was still associated with certain forms of Mahayana and even Pure Land ideas. When the movement was reformed later it through out all pretenses to Mahayana, and monks who previously adhered to Mahayana ideals in the Theravadan lineage where re ordained as novice monks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:01:27 2020 No.16856087 Shinran: if a good man can be saved, how much more so an evil man.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:01:46 2020 No.16856091

>>16856012
Also what I said here is applicable to the first part of this post >>16855940
Am I being dumb if I get put off by technicalities in spiritual teachings? Not because they're complicated but because it always makes me wonder, why should such and such methods be necessary for something as great and (as buddhists say) indescribable, removed from our common understanding as enlightenment?
Nirvana is said to be above qualification, so I can only assume that all we concern ourselves with in the "illusion" of life is a grain of sand compared to what nirvana represents. So why are things like chants and rituals, or specific cosmologies (such and such realms, types of beings...) necessary? It just seems like a discrepancy, like if I go into one tradition I'll lose sight of the big picture. Basically that there is a level of agnostic detachment that is mandatory in spirituality in order to not get entangled into any misleading conceptions that could narrow down the absolute into something more digestible but less accurate. Please do tell me if this is a retarded way to look at things since I'm aware most people do not think like this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:01:53 2020 No.16856092 >>16851866 Begome Advaidizd

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:02:38 2020 No.16856099 >>16856054 By this logic, if they manage a mere nine recitations they're fucked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:02:52 2020 No.16856104 >>16856042 Isn't mahayana just theravada made for other cultures though

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:04:16 2020 No.16856114

>>16855996
>you'll have immediate, direct experience of the absolute and therefore have no need of it
In tibetan buddhism at least I think death is much harder to navigate than what you're saying and that having your perception clouded, which is the case for 99% of people, causes rebirth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:05:31 2020 No.16856125 >>16856091 specific rituals and methods are all done with the intention of achieving the same goal. agnostic detachment = a lack of faith. no method works without faith in its effectiveness, that's the paradox.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:06:43 2020 No.16856133

>>16856125
You can have absolute faith in the possibility of enlightenment but not subscribe to a particular doctrine, in theory. Is that kind of faith necessarily weaker? I would argue that it is pure because it isn't hindered by anything exterior to itself

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:10:48 2020 No.16856165

>>16856091
>So why are things like chants and rituals, or specific cosmologies (such and such realms, types of beings...) necessary?
They are the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. See all of these things as helpful understandings on the path to liberation. Some may be beneficial and endearing to you, as previous karmic roots will influence your decision in this life.
>Please do tell me if this is a retarded way to look at things since I'm aware most people do not think like this.
You are not stupid. Do not say such things about yourself! It is fine to have a healthy skepticism of any teachings when one begins, and even when one is more advanced in the teachings one still harbors doubt. What is important is investigating the teachings and seeing if they really are conductive to liberation. Do the practices of the teachings harm other sentient beings? The heavens and earth? Do they adhere to a good sense of morality and hold to a Middle Way of Compassion? Do the teachings seem beneficial to me and to others that I may help on the path to liberation? These are the questions that you must ask.
>>16856099
This is true, if one who commits one of the Five Offenses only says nine recitations, he will fall into the hells for many years until rebirth. Thankfully, even one recitation of the name ensures good karmic roots in the future, so even that person may be reborn in another life with roots that will lead them to liberation.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:12:41 2020 No.16856178

>>16856133
sure, it's like believing in love, but never falling in love. you're right to not fall headfirst into all the narrow sectarian crap that's pushed on here though, by people who tend to emphasize external differences over shared interior truths and aims, that shows good sense... keep reading and thinking and eventually you'll find the one. after all what's the point in believing in enlightenment, if you're not gonna give it a shot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:13:16 2020 No.16856182 >>16856054 I'm not insulted, or trying to insult. But Vaikuntha, or Goloka Vrindivana in Gaudiya school, is exactly this way, the permanent identity separate from Godhead is only in Madhvacharya's school, a minority sect.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:15:50 2020 No.16856200

>>16856182
Ah, I see. Forgive my ignorance, sir, I am not all that familiar with the faiths of Hinduism. Honestly, if what you state is true, then some may indeed go for the path of Vaikuntha, depending upon their karmic roots, or they might be more willing to try Pure Land practices.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:19:16 2020 No.16856229 >>16856200 What I'm saying is that these are different words for the same phenomena. Blue Man takes you to an intermediate heaven until you are reintegrated with the One

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:20:44 2020 No.16856239

>>16856165
>This is true, if one who commits one of the Five Offenses only says nine recitations, he will fall into the hells for many years until rebirth.
this is a superstitious peasant's understanding of Pure Land, not useful upaya for autistic anons, could only serve to turn them against it.

The number ten (十) used in these texts didn't even refer specifically to ten, as in eight, nine, ten, but is used to mean something akin to total, whole. 十念, isn't ten recitations, but utmost focus upon [the Pure Land], or in fact, the trendy word in westernized buddhism is actually quite befitting: mindfulness

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:24:32 2020 No.16856272

>>16856165
>They are the finger pointing at the moon
I guess my worry is that I'd like to find the moon by myself because I have a difficult time trusting any system in the very broad sense to show me the truth. Much like "the tao that can be told is not the eternal tao", I can't help being wary of something that claims to give me information on what the true nature of life and death are. I do feel like this comes off as prideful but I can't express it in any other way
>previous karmic roots
Then do you think that if I keep looking eventually I will find something that clicks despite what I said above?
>These are the questions that you must ask
If a teaching is to be used as a simple tool for liberation and nothing more, is there something wrong with stripping it of its more "ornamental" features and work with the bare minimum?
>>16856178
Enlightenment is not exclusive to buddhism or even to eastern religions, pretty much every religion has alluded to it in one way or another, to me this shows there's a deeper truth to the concept that isn't monopolized by one tradition in particular

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:25:40 2020 No.16856282 >>16856239 Really? That does make sense that the foundation of the practice is the state of the mind of the practicioner.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:29:15 2020 No.16856305 >>16856272 agreed, that's why i'm simultaneously sympathetic to shin buddhism and islam

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:30:35 2020 No.16856312 >>16856272 Read Object-Oriented Ontology books (Graham Harman, Timothy Morton and so on) because you're right, Truth and Knowledge can never be grasped by consciousness. This does not imply what most people think it does, though

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:30:37 2020 No.16856314

>>16856272
>I guess my worry is that I'd like to find the moon by myself because I have a difficult time trusting any system in the very broad sense to show me the truth.
With understanding comes faith, with faith, understanding. You have to look, then practice, then see what your practice is bearing.
>If a teaching is to be used as a simple tool for liberation and nothing more, is there something wrong with stripping it of its more "ornamental" features and work with the bare minimum?
If one does that, one might be stripping away the whole of the teachings for parts that one likes, instead of understanding why the ancients stated that things were in this way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:31:43 2020 No.16856326 Is there a definition of self yet or are you tards still jerking each other? Self (imo) is looking back in time at your actions, looking into the future to what you want to do, and all wrapped up with social conditioning. Am I off?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:32:13 2020 No.16856329 >>16856312 >This does not imply what most people think it does What do you mean?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:36:11 2020 No.16856355

>>16856314
>one might be stripping away the whole of the teachings for parts that one likes,
There could be other factors at play though: tradition could have been altered due to misunderstandings, conflict, political reasons, cultural and historical reasons, and that's not even bringing up how different cultures are necessarily biased in how they choose to apprehend the truth through traditions
However I guess you're right that a system is required in order to work towards truth "efficiently". It just feels restricting and like I'd be leaving behind a part of my understanding that is necessarily separate from human constructs such as religion, is all

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:38:12 2020 No.16856368

>>16856314
>>16856355
Also I forgot to mention it but there's obviously opportunity cost at play.
Intuition should be trusted but to what extent? What if I espouse the teachings of a particular tradition, only to be faced with something entirely different as I move on from this life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:41:46 2020 No.16856390 why haven't there been any new buddhas for centuries now?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:43:42 2020 No.16856406

>>16856390
A Buddha only manifests rarely in any Buddha field, when the teachings of Dharma have been entirely extinguished and there is no longer any teachings left. Then the Buddha is born as a Bodhisattva, becomes a Buddha, and then teaches the Dharma, introducing it into the world system again.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:45:14 2020 No.16856418 >>16856406 but there have been several buddhas who lived at times when the dharmic religions were not extinguished at all

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:45:59 2020 No.16856423

>>16851866
there clearly isnt a self or any other phenomena, entities or concepts that are permanent, independently defined and immutable

in the aggregates that you use to describe yourself - your body, thoughts, perceptions, senses - which of these is not in constant flux?
in which of these does the supposedly independent immutable self exist?

you as a three year old has ceased to exist

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:48:20 2020 No.16856434 >>16856423 Nice nihilism you got there, would be a shame if someone turned it into a religion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:50:52 2020 No.16856450 >>16856434 Read the thread

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:51:11 2020 No.16856454 >>16856423 >permanent, independently defined and immutable Why would these be criteria for reality in the first place? Why would these even be preferable for any object?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:51:35 2020 No.16856461
File: 959 KB, 850x491, 1f269755f96f3d84fc18b96e2c73d0e0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>16856434
its not nihilism.
there is very clearly conceptual self that i conventionally use as a heuristic fo understand the world

to assert nonexistence id have to posit the existence of nonexistence which is nonsense.
negating existence isnt asserting nonexistence - rather it is a nod to the paradoxical ineffability of phenomena

so Nagarjuna taught me

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:52:33 2020 No.16856470

>>16855906
Hair splitting autism and bad translations. Buddhism obviously holds to Anatman ("Not-Self"). There's no Self to negate. The problem arises in that there just wasn't any useful translation of Buddhism into English until like, the 70s, so Buddhism in English is loaded with a lot of REALLY badly worded stuff. The First Noble Truth, nidham dukkham, literally means "This is pain". Dukkha is the unpleasantness of living in a transitory changing reality. It's falling in a ditch and breaking your leg, being skinned alive, getting a tummy ache from eating too much cake, and being sad on Sunday night because you have to go in to work tomorrow. This is translated as "Life is suffering". The intention being "Life is many things, and one of them is suffering, as suffering is intrinsic to life". The problem is that people see that line and think it means "life is ONLY suffering".

Buddhism's stance on anatman ultimately derives from the fact that people THINK they have a Self, and as such, something bad will happen to it (when they die). But in truth, Not-Self is, so there's no Self for anything bad to happen to. This doesn't mean that things don't exist (we can conventionally designate the lump that is you as a "self", small s; the Buddha SAYS TO DO THIS because LANGUAGE DOESN'T WORK IF YOU DON'T), but rather the Platonic maxim that the less something changes the more real it is is rejected.

But English engagement with Buddhism was largely focused on lineages and monastic structure at the expense of actual doctrine and belief, with the earliest stuff coming from translations of Hindu anti-Buddhist tracts. Hindus obviously believe in a Self (atman), and slander the Buddhists as basically being a suicide cult (this is, as we can see, incorrect). This got carried over, so Buddhism is lugging around over 300 years of absolutely non-sensical debates (how can Buddhism be about killing what it doesn't think exists?).

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:52:50 2020 No.16856475 >>16856454 if self were not permanent and ineffable. then there would be a series of selfs in each moment, that are separate from each other

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:53:18 2020 No.16856479 >>16855864 Okay so more of an intuitive response. Or one from my own personal understanding of what I think right?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:53:57 2020 No.16856486

>>16856434
>doesn't deny truth
>doesn't deny reality
>doesn't deny morality
So then... It's not nihilism. By definition. You're just upset that you can't CONSOOOOOM your way into eternal bliss. Eventually, the s()y and videogames have to end, and that makes you sad.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:54:00 2020 No.16856487

>>16856091
I think this is a fine way of looking at things. I would even go so far as to say that this is a form of discernment or wisdom, that is, understanding of the dhamma.

If you're like me, you prefer to have a system or model which, given some first principles, you can derive yourself (similar to a mathematical proof). My understanding of the dhamma (thus far) consists of just three models: the model of suffering, the model of the mind and the model of the path. The model of suffering are the four noble truths. The model of the path are the eight folds. The model of the mind is what I call "mind as committee" and is a conceptualization that I picked up from the lectures of Thanissaro Bhikku (highly recommended).

Both models arise from a simple question: what, when you do it, leads to your long-term happiness? The Buddha basically pursued this question to its end, not giving up until he found an answer. The dhamma and the path it prescribes is that answer.

The four noble truths are the true core of the dhamma and they are in some sense self-evident. The first truth merely states that suffering exists, if this were not true, there is no point in going on. If suffering exists then the question becomes, what causes suffering? Why this question? Because if suffering had no cause, then there is no point in going on. It's like trying to solve a problem with your car, say your car won't start. If you don't know what's causing the car to stall, how can you fix it? And if there is no cause, then it is impossible to fix. So the second noble truth addresses this and says that that the cause of suffering is craving, more specifically craving for sensuality--thinking about pleasures (note, not the pleasures themselves)--craving for becoming--wanting some identity in some world of experience, e.g the identity of an attractive person, the identity of a rich person, the identity of an intelligent person, even the identity of an enlightened person (but, as we'll see, not all craving is necessarily "bad" or unskillful)--and craving for not becoming--wanting to get rid of an identity that you identify with, e.g the identity of a lazy person, or an ugly person, or a stupid person. Having identified the cause, the next question is there a way to fix this cause? If there is no way to fix this cause, then there is no point in going on. The third noble truth addresses this by saying that if you abandon craving, you will no longer suffer. Finally the last logical question is the fix actually feasible? The fourth noble truth says there is a way to abandon craving which he calls the eightfold path. Even better, the fruits of the path are not binary, you don't need to get all the way to the end to derive benefit, at every step you reduce overall suffering.

1/2

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 16:55:10 2020 No.16856497

>>16856487
The path the Buddha described can be summarized as virtue, concentration and discernment. Virtue entails the principle of non-harm. Harming yourself obviously causes suffering. Harming others may lead them to harm you, again causing suffering. Concentration is the practice of meditation and it is both a way to investigate and test the models the Buddha presents (particularly the four noble truths) and a skillful source of pleasure to replace unskillful sources--i.e activities which are pleasurable, but harmful to yourself or to others. Eventually even the pleasures of concentration must be abandoned, as they too are a form of craving, but until then they are a useful substitute for unskillful activities, a useful form of craving. I think of them like training wheels on a bike, the whole of point of training wheels is to one day ride without them. The Buddha gives the example of a raft used to a cross a surging river. Once you have crossed, you let the raft go, but until then, you use it. Finally discernment is understanding of the dhamma itself and moreover, being able to properly judge the skillfulness of an activity, as whether it contributes to your long term happiness or just the short-term (which is to say, suffering).

Finally, the model of the mind as committee, imagines the mind as a collection of competing desires. Some of these desires, if followed will lead to long term happiness, these are the ones which are in accordance with the path described above. The others will lead to short-term happiness (i.e suffering). At any given moment, a particular desire "has the floor" and is dictating your actions to satisfy itself. Once it is satisfied, it gives up the floor and new a desire takes its place. Your identity in any given moment is defined by your desire, likewise your whole world of experience. This is a natural quality of the mind. The famous "man in an ape suit" experiment is a great example of this, but we experience this all the time. For instance, try taking out your phone right now and checking what the bottom left most app is on the home screen. Shouldn't take more than two seconds. Once you've got it, put your phone away. Now, can your remember what time it was on the phone? This is what is meant by "becoming", when a desire limits your perception to only those elements which are relevant to its satisfaction. However the key insight is, while these desires arise spontaneously (something that concentration will quickly reveal) they need not be pursued. The mind has the ability to choose which desire it wants to follow and moreover to reinforce those choices as they are made over and over again. Thus we should choose to follow those desires that lead to long term happiness--the desire to keep the precepts and maintain goodwill towards all beings (ways of practicing non-harm), the desire to meditate, the desire to learn and understand the dhamma--over those that lead to happiness only in the short term.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:00:05 2020 No.16856537

>>16855843
>Is a precise time scale given for this?
A day and night of Brahmā are each 4.32 billion years each, with a total day and night being 8.64 billion years according to the calculations given in the Hindu texts. Advaita Vedanta says that time is only real on the level of the contingent universe sustained by Brahman's power of maya though and that in the absolute reality of Brahman which is the substratum in which the maya-universe takes place, there is actually no time there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

>How does this translate after death? What's the equivalent in advaita for parinirvana?
When the body of the liberated man dies in Atman it is taught that there Atman essentially returns to its true underlying nature as omnipresent undifferentiated self-luminous bliss-consciousness. It is not like going to sleep however because there is the continuance of consciousness but this consciousness is simply unchanging and self-established unsurpassed bliss, freed from any association with any particular limiting adjuncts that might seem to limit or cause differentiation within its all-pervasive sentience bliss.

>But advaita is quite specific isn't it? Aren't indirect paths less effective?
Yes, but some people are not suited by disposition to the direct path and monasticism, which takes mental and physical fortitude. Shankara actually says in his Bhagavad-Gita commentary that it is the dharma (i.e. natural inclination according to the cosmic order) of the Brahmin class to take up monkhood as sannyasin, and that the path of karma-yoga or selfless action is more suited to the other castes; although he affirms elsewhere in his works that all the twice-born castes have the right to study the Vedas and Upanishads, and that the Shudras can study smriti texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and Puranas and learn Upanishadic concepts through them that way (the traditional Hindu rules in the Brahma-Sutras and Dharma-sastras forbid allowing the Shudras to study the Vedas). Advaita is not something which Shankara intended for the majority of society for follow, but in the traditional fashion it is really meant for Brahmins who enter monkhood, and for the occasional member of other castes who feel drawn to jnana-yoga (the path of knowledge) and monasticism over what their caste usually does. In some sense if it was the fruition of someone's previous karma to take up the direct path in a certain birth, then they would most likely either have been born as a Brahmin, or if not then still as someone who would have nonetheless be drawn to spirituality and have a burning conviction that they should take up monkhood. With all that being said though, I personally don't feel drawn to monkhood but I have still regardless greatly enjoyed and been changed by studying Advaita.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:04:16 2020 No.16856568

>>16856461
>there is very clearly conceptual self that i conventionally use as a heuristic fo understand the world
All modern nihilists agree.
>>16856486
>doesn't deny truth
>doesn't deny reality
>doesn't deny morality
>all are conventional
All modern nihilists would agree.
>You're just upset that you can't CONSOOOOOM your way into eternal bliss.
You can neither consooom nor moralcooom yourself into eternal bliss because you lack any sustaining subject to blisscooom after death.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:06:54 2020 No.16856586 >>16856568 If you wish to be a nihilist, that is fine, but do not subject others to your tyranny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:09:04 2020 No.16856599 >>16856586 >n-no u Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:11:22 2020 No.16856611 >>16856475 Why would this be valued as good or bad in either case?

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:27:41 2020 No.16856695

>>16856487
>I think this is a fine way of looking at things
You don't think I should strive to change my outlook then? I do cling onto this impression of pure transcendence as impossible to describe much less contain in a tradition, it feels like a valuable realization to me. Though is this kind of clinging conducive to suffering, or is it good for happiness?

>you prefer to have a system or model which, given some first principles, you can derive yourself
That's more like it, yes. The simpler, more fundamental and basic it is, the better. As long as it makes no attempt to encase the substance of absolute transcendence into systems and rationality.
What you described seems to fit, since the models of suffering, the mind and the path, if they are specific by necessity (you can't have your model be about nothing just because what you're striving for is indescribable, that much I'll concede), are simple, pure and one principle flows from the other, as you've shown. But if these are the basic precepts of Buddhism, I do not think that any specific doctrine simply takes these precepts without adding its own "flavor" on top of them, so there is no tradition to follow if you just take the three models and nothing more.
I have a question on suffering: doesn't the elimination of suffering extinguish the appreciation of beauty at least to an extent? Without falling into the abrahamic stockholm syndrome stance, sometimes the presence of suffering is a prerequisite for the apparition of something beautiful, and vice versa: sometimes there is beauty to be found in what is impermanent, but what is impermanent leads to suffering because the beauty will eventually cease to be. Is this a problem in buddhism, or is it something that nirvana works around because, seeing as it escapes all qualification, it is not subject to the rational deduction that I just made, or to rational deductions in general?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:30:58 2020 No.16856721 >>16856568 >okay so it isn't nihilism but i'm just gonna call it nihilism anyways Then... It's not nihilism. You do realize that this word actually has a definition and doesn't just mean "thing I don't like", right?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:32:40 2020 No.16856732 >>16856611 we act and think its permanent and independent and immutable and from this ignorance suffering occurs understanding nonself, and living in accordance to it, is part of beating suffering

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:33:54 2020 No.16856742 >>16856721 Not the same guy; if memories and identity are discarded from one life to another, is it not the same thing as just creating something from scratch? Can it even be called rebirth?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:34:37 2020 No.16856749 >>16856732 Why would you want permanence anyway? Why is permanence the goal?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:35:56 2020 No.16856756 >>16856749 Permanence, if you don't suffer, is eternal bliss

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:36:35 2020 No.16856762

>>16856742
Reincarnation is the most inconsistent part of any Buddhism.
There's no self of any kind, therefore what is being Blown Out or Ceased is the momentum of material manifestation itself, which is why Buddhism is inherently monastic and celibate at it's core, the concessions to householders are simply pragmatic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:37:26 2020 No.16856768 >>16856749 i didnt say i wanted permanence. i want to relinquish all views and fetters. time is one of those fetters

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:37:52 2020 No.16856772 >>16856762 >what is being Blown Out or Ceased is the momentum of material manifestation What does that mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:38:42 2020 No.16856782 >>16856762 you reincarnate between every moment of existence. "you" are constantly arising and ceasing while doing neither of those things

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:40:06 2020 No.16856794 >>16856782 Except my memories don't get erased at every moment. The keyword here is continuity.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:43:42 2020 No.16856828

>>16856794
your memories do get erased though. what did you dream abojmut 3 nights ago? what did you say to your mother 7 phonecalls ago.

you've died and been reborn between now and being a 2 year old. not even the physical matter of your body is the same and your conscious stream has been punctured every night.

the body will continue in soil or flames and serve to nourish somethibg else
your thoughts will continue to be transcribed on an archive so far as you wrote them
if you take the false eternalist view of these ephemeral things

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:45:09 2020 No.16856840 >>16856828 Did you read the second sentence of the post you replied to?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:49:42 2020 No.16856876 >>16856756 Bliss has no meaning if there is no pleasure. The entire point of all Indian Philosophy is to dissociate and depersonalize. Dispassion and equilibrium as the goal is not bliss, it's prozac without the pills.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:49:49 2020 No.16856879

>>16856840
continuity is a delusion of self. why is the change undergone from being 3 to 5 different to the body in the grave nourishing a tree?
why is forgetting what you were saying mid sentence not a lack of continuity?

there is no continuity, besides what you presently think there to be. things are in a paradoxical state of arising, ceasing, subsisting,.and none of the above in all moments.

recognise "continuity", self, body, thoughts, senses as conditionally dependent and not freestanding

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:51:35 2020 No.16856899 >>16856876 bliss is the lack of suffering. it is not pleasure its to be burning in excrutiating pain and to not flinch or be disturbed

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:54:54 2020 No.16856936 File: 139 KB, 1200x836, Screenshot_20201123-165415.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16856899 Words mean things, bro

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 17:58:03 2020 No.16856968 >>16856879 But there is a transcendent continuity, which is what you fail to understand because you're more or less a physicalist.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:01:58 2020 No.16856999

>>16856968
>transcendant continuity
and this is exactly what Buddhism denies

there is no essence than transcends. all things are conditionally dependent and empty of essence.

there is no thing you can actually point to in yourself that transcends. not physically. not in thought. not on any level - you will only find a fabrication in your mind.

when you understand conditional dependence and the impossible paradoxes transcendent essences present you'll ditch that delusion

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:05:09 2020 No.16857041 >>16856968 Object-Oriented Ontology shits all over this kind of Literalism, Smallism, Physicalism and Anti-fictionalism, while remaining a Realism. Just a side note

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:09:27 2020 No.16857092

>>16856742
Memories aren't, that's how memories of past lives works. Identity is a conceptual fiction, you "lose" and "regain" your identity every millisecond. You're constantly starting from scratch. And yet, there is a continuity. This continuity extends after birth. You are not just a sack of organs and meat, there's plenty of spirit shit (and the physical continuity, which Westerners often reject because of the aformentioned Platonic maxim).

>>16856762
There is no reincarnation in Buddhism, just rebirth. That continuity you mention in >>16856794 is precisely why rebirth works at all. It's absurd to assume that there was no continuity before you were born. Even if we take a hard-materialist point of view it's absurd. Did your mother just generate a bunch of atoms ex nihilo in her womb? No? Then even a hard-materialist will admit that there is continuity with your post-death existence.

The quibble is how that existence manifests.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:13:52 2020 No.16857121

>>16856999
people invent reincarnation because they tried to give an answer to death. and you are saying death is not different from forgetting about my exact conversation with my mother two days ago.
what you are saying is like saying to a butterfly metamorphosis dont exist because everything is changing all the time.
reincarnation as a concept exist because death exist. if you deny death you deny reincarnation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:14:41 2020 No.16857127 >>16857092 >That continuity you mention in Isn't me.

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:17:38 2020 No.16857154

>>16857092
U.G. is right when he says that it is the body that is immortal, that the self dies.
The physical material of the body continues to exist eternally, and transforms into life again when the consciousness you think is yourself has broken down with the form of the body.
Language is immortal so long as men speak it and carry it's memes with them.
That is why consciousness seems to be a spooky ghost, it's saturated in language which has it's own univocality

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:22:53 2020 No.16857206 >>16853610 ok this is straight up superhero comics

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:26:32 2020 No.16857237 >>16857206 It all very much is. Dragon Ball is directly based off of the Buddhist story Journey To The West for a reason. Hinduism is even worse. Ramayana is very Dragon Ballish too

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:43:18 2020 No.16857384

>>16856695
>Though is this kind of clinging conducive to suffering, or is it good for happiness?
It is ultimately conducive to suffering, as suffering is clinging. However, as with concentration, as with virtue and discernment, i.e as with the path itself, there is skillful craving and unskillful craving. First, you should ask yourself, is this outlook relevant to the way I am suffering right now? If it is, is it the most pressing factor? If it is, is it something which, if abandoned, will lead to long term happiness? If it is, abandon it. If not or even if you're not sure, let it remain in the background for now and focus on those things of which you are sure.

>But if these are the basic precepts of Buddhism, I do not think that any specific doctrine simply takes these precepts without adding its own "flavor" on top of them, so there is no tradition to follow if you just take the three models and nothing more.

As before, you should apply the aforementioned questions to these kinds of mental deliberations. The dhamma as it is outlined in the Pali canon are guidelines and heuristics (and models) of the various things that answer that fundamental question of what leads to long term happiness. I used to wonder why there was a profusion of lists in the dhamma for example, the four noble truths, the three perceptions, the five aggregates, the five hinderances, the five precepts, the eightfold path, that factors of awakening and so on. I eventually realized that its perhaps because the lists are merely scaffolds, categories which are supposed to be populated by your own personal experience. The dhamma is only useful when it is contextualized within your own experience, on its own, it's just a skeleton. It describes all the relevant categories then leaves you to fill in the blanks. I think this is partly why so much "flavor" has been added to it over the years. The different cultures filled in the blanks with their own traditions (even the west has added its own flavor). Ultimately though, there is no need to follow or think about traditions that you find questionable or strange. Don't even take my models at face value; build your own, ones based on your own experiences and investigations. That is the only way you can be assured of the truth of any of this. They are called the four noble truths, but how do you know? Is craving really the cause of suffering? Does the path really lead to the abandonment of craving? Why? Just because the Buddha said so? You have to see for yourself (and you will, rather quickly, that's one of the good things about the dhamma, the destination is far but there are plenty of fruits along the way and they are almost immediately available).

1/3

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:44:20 2020 No.16857399

This is true even of the simplest aspects of the path, e.g In the past, I wouldn't want to sit in meditation at all. It was because meditation wasn't very enjoyable, my mind wandered constantly, and I often fell sleepy and tired. Then I started experimenting, what if I breathed really deeply? What if I did shallow breathing? What if I counted the breath? What if I kept my eyes open? (bingo! this solved my sleepiness problem) What if I tried to make the meditation object pleasurable? How? How about focusing on goodwill? How about imagining it as a cooling draft, like the breeze before rain? (bingo! this made meditation extremely comfortable and pleasurable). You keep trying different things and paying attention to their results until something works, always using that central question--does it lead to long term happiness?--to determine whether to pursue it. Again the Buddha gives categories, he tells you to focus on the three fabrications, body, verbal and mental, those are like the parameters of the experiments, the variables you can modulate. Change the breath (body), change the way you talk yourself (verbal), change your perceptions, the images of things in your mind (mental).

Nowadays, meditation is quite pleasant and I look forward to it first thing every morning, but more importantly, I'm starting to see how these experiments can be applied to every other aspect in my life. I used to be addicted to pornography, for example, and nothing I did could get rid of the craving. Then I started paying careful attention to when I had these cravings, when they went away, why they arose and why they passed away, what attracted them about me, and what was unattractive. I didn't try to stop myself from engaging in it, but very quickly I realized that actually the pleasure I got from pornography or masturbation was very short--the orgasm was pleasurable, and even while I could elongate that to several minutes or have many of them in short succession without ejaculating, in the end, I was still thinking about something constantly that actually gave me very little pleasure. Then I saw that the concentration I had developing in sitting and walking meditation could be extended to all activities (albeit in a lesser form) and was a far more lasting form of pleasure. I also got insight into why I watched porn and when (to deal with work-related anxiety) and how often it intruded into my thoughts. Then once I saw that it really was unskillful, saw it for myself, not simply being told, I started experimenting with different reactions to the craving until I found something that worked. I haven't watched porn since, not only that, I don't even have cravings anymore and it was all surprisingly quick, surprisingly painless. It was the like decision to take a shorter route to work, obvious, easy, requiring a little reminder at first, but with no associated stress.

2/3

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:45:20 2020 No.16857409

>I have a question on suffering: doesn't the elimination of suffering extinguish the appreciation of beauty at least to an extent?

Eliminating suffering would require abandoning the craving for beauty. Beauty itself would still exist, and you would still be able to appreciate it--probably even more intensely, because you are trained in concentration, and because you're not distracted by craving, by the thought of "this is going to fade, I wish this would last forever". I used to conflate the abandonment of craving with the abandonment of the thing being craved--but they are not the same, and more importantly, the latter is not conducive toward reducing suffering. As an example, delete all the files on your computer (and phone) that give you short term pleasure--books perhaps, music, movies, games, everything. Have you reduced suffering? Has this contributed to your long term happiness? Or are you craving these things now more than ever? Will you eventually cave and download all these again? Out of sight, is not out of mind, unfortunately and the problem is not so much that things are impermanent but that we want them to be or that we perceive them as such, so we cling to them and when they inevitably fade, we crave them, and then we suffer. But none of this is necessary to enjoy them, and enjoy them better if we don't do these things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:51:46 2020 No.16857459 >>16857409 How Marie Kondo

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:52:17 2020 No.16857464 File: 1.87 MB, 1308x2141, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I read this book and now I am a buddhist. what should I read next?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:55:29 2020 No.16857488 File: 47 KB, 300x400, s-l400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>16857464

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:56:37 2020 No.16857496 >>16857459 I always imagine Marie Kondo in latex thigh-highboots and a kinky BDSM corset or a leather harness, pulling a whip taut

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 18:56:38 2020 No.16857498 >>16853280 Nihilism is the belief there is no afterlife though. Buddhists believe in reincarnation

Anonymous Mon Nov 23 19:06:20 2020 No.16857576

>>16851866
>irremediably filtered by the denial of self.
Don't get too hung up on that. Buddhism is intrinsically contradictory, saying there is no self but also that everything is Buddha and dharmakaya. I think the gist of it is not to get attached to the transitory self of these lives and bodies we have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 19:52:15 2020 No.16857886 >>16857576 Don't care about anything, don't care about anyone, feel nothing. You aren't your body or your mind. Life right now is bad so don't concern yourself. This is Depersonalization and Dissociation. Lithium as a culture

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 23 23:50:26 2020 No.16859156 bump

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:15:10 2020 No.16859288 >>16855260 >>16855730 >>So Buddhism doesn't have a no-self doctrine. Buddhism does have a no-self doctrine Mahayana does not have a no-self doctrine >>16855730 >>Ultimate freedom beyond all limitations. A state of pure potentiality false

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:16:13 2020 No.16859293 >>16855306 >Now to Tibetan Mahayana, >>16855295 >Now, on to Mahayana. not buddhism, sorry

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:17:51 2020 No.16859302

>>16855458
>>Pure Land Buddhism is certainly Buddhism, and it's doctrines are supported in the standardized 15th century Pali Canon.
lol no>>16855458
>Pure Land doctrine is simply an elaboration of ideas already seen in earlier texts, and further developed by Yogachara and Madhyamaka, and later, Chan and Esoteric Buddhism.
okay so not buddhism

and the buddha made up by Mahayanists is completely moronic

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:19:07 2020 No.16859308

>>16855508
>>16855458
Against the view that the Pure Land Sutras are not Shakyamuni’s teaching, but a later invention
by Rev. Josho Adrian Cirlea

>What proves the truth of the Primal Vow, and the Vow maker Amida, and the good news about the possibility of being born in the Pure Land and immediately becoming a Buddha? The very words of Shakyamuni Buddha recorded for our supreme benefit in the Larger Sutra, and the other Pure Land sutras.

>Thus, if someone denies that these sutras were actually taught by Shakyamuni, he or she automatically denies the authenticity of the Jodo Shinshu Dharma, and the reality of Amida, his Pure Land, the Primal Vow, shinjin and nembutsu.

>If Shakyamuni, as a fully Enlightened Buddha, did not actually preach the Pure Land sutras, then nothing in Jodo Shinshu can be trusted anymore, because there is no Buddha to testify to the reality of their existence, whether it be Amida Buddha, the Pure Land, the Primal Vow, the reality of shinjin, or the efficacy of saying the Nembutsu. Such is the tragic consequence of the modern views which deny the authenticity of Shakyamuni’s teachings in the three Pure Land sutras.

>Shinran clearly said that he was able to meet with the Primal Vow of Amida only because of the testimony of Shakyamuni Buddha and the seven Patriarchs who based their teachings upon the teachings of Shakyamuni in the three Pure Land sutras. Shinran was able to come to settled faith (shinjin) and entrust himself to the Primal Vow only because he regarded their words to be true. This was the way that he, as “a foolish person” (his words), entrusted himself to the Vow, and this is the way we too should also have faith in it.

http://web.mit.edu/stclair/www/authenticity_shakyamuni.html

ZENTARDS and their mental gymnastics always trying to cope from the fact that any Mahayana branch is made up crap

>PURE LAND IS TRUE BECAUSE IT"S WRITTEN THAT WE WUZ BUDDHAS N SHEET

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:20:40 2020 No.16859315

>>16855716
>>Choosing a specific school ensures has a strict doctrine to follow that will advance him quicker than picking and choosing from all traditions.
The point is not to advance quickly, but to get the right doctrine and then move on quickly. Moving quickly into wrong views is stupid.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:23:19 2020 No.16859331

>>16855864
>don't forget that developing faith is essential regardless of which direction you go in, as in faith in the practice. the reason people fall away is because they lack faith, either in their own abilities, the particular method they've chosen, or in the idea of enlightenment itself
people fail mostly because gurus aren't enlightened and yet people crave for gurus

>>16855864
>>read widely and contemplate, your own path will reveal itself
the path is the same for everybody, dwt

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:29:58 2020 No.16859369

>>16856079
>>It's not like Theravada is the earlier lineage. In it's earlier, pre-15th century form it was still associated with certain forms of Mahayana and even Pure Land ideas.
huh no, monks lived the mahayana monks larping as buddhists, but that's all

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:35:48 2020 No.16859399

>>16856104
This stems from the confusion of Buddhism w/ Hinduism, Mahayana, ZEN, Vajrayana which are a monistic Universalism: the totality exists &nothing else. There is no multiplicity, everything is absolutely identical. it's ''acosmatic''.
They mix this view with a huge amount of symbols, incantations, rituals, worship, idolatry, mantras, deities, chanting,entertainment with lengthy Scriptures with thousands of verses, sacrifice &sacred objects, &rules for lay people in order to create a religion.
For the Hindus & Mahayanists, people have the knowledge that they have a true nature, but people are misguided on what they take as their true nature. This is why the Hindus say that people are already enlightened, they just do not know about it... The true nature of people is not the 5 senses or their objects, but the mind itself with the world [loka] itself identified with the cosmos, or their deification of this, ie their Brahma or their Buddha or non-duality, & when people realize this they are enlightened. The way to realize this is by relying on lots of sacrifice, chantings &rituals, also on material objects which magically purify the minds for them, like sounds, logic, mantras, little beads, amulets.
Mahayana-Hinduism tries to make a human society, some political system too.

It is only when there is a allegedly good creator [a god or just ''nature''] that it makes sense to ask the usual question ''why the cosmos produce things which do not know that they are the cosmos?'' The Hindus keep replying with their main thesis, ie ''because people do not know their true nature, which is pure being &cannot be described'' &that's their answer...

in Buddhism, there is no non-duality, people do not have a true nature, people are not the cosmos, people are not Brahma, people do not come from Brahma, people are not nibanna, people do not come from nibanna, people are not Buddha, people do not come from a buddha, people are not their mind, people are not loka, people are not born already enlightened. there is only craving for pretty things &the pretty ideas of having ''a true nature'' &there is a lack of craving for pretty things &pretty ideas. People get enlightened when they stop craving for those. The way to get enlightened is to purify the mind, however not with useless incantations &rituals nor with magical objects, unlike the Hindus do, but with the mind itself, ie all the time inclining [with the mind] the mind towards what the buddha calls good qualities &then directly knowing the mind as it really is, which is anicca, dukkha, anatta [contrary to what the hindus say], which is the condition for dispassion, dispassion which is the condition for liberation, liberation which is the condition for direct knowledge that dukkha is ended.
Buddhism doesn’t care about society. Buddhism works in feudalism, republics, empires, monotheism, paganism, whatever non-enlightened people create as political system. Buddhism doesn't try to change society at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:36:53 2020 No.16859403 >>16856125 rituals are useless to get enlightened rituals are not even useful for making merit

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:39:38 2020 No.16859417

>>16856165 >>16856091

>>>So why are things like chants and rituals, or specific cosmologies (such and such realms, types of beings...) necessary?
>They are the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself.
No, the path begins with memorizing and getting right view, not retarded rituals made up by non-enlightened people.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:42:15 2020 No.16859425 >>16856461 >ineffability of phenomena that's a mahayana meme to pass their crap as Buddhism

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:45:16 2020 No.16859439 >>16856695 >sometimes there is beauty to be found in what is impermanent, never once you see it properly impermanence as dukkha and not self

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 00:46:18 2020 No.16859446 >>16856782 >>you reincarnate between every moment of existence. that's the commentary take only

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 02:13:10 2020 No.16859770

>tfw reading this clusterfuck of a thread
I was confused before, I'm even more confused now
>Buddha didn't teach non self
>yes he did but not in mahayana
>but mahayana isn't true buddhism
>yes it is
>rituals are useless
>no they're not
>hindus bad
Nobody even agrees on the fundamentals, what the fuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 02:16:00 2020 No.16859780 >>16859770 Correct. All Philosophy is a cluster fuck, but Indian Philosophy is the most contentious bullshit ever devised

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 02:16:24 2020 No.16859781 >>16859770 you won't find Buddhists on 4chan, just LARPers

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 03:06:17 2020 No.16859988

>>16851866
>I'm interested in Buddhism but I always get irremediably filtered by the denial of self.
Buddhism is so hard to understand for normies that right after the death of the buddha, glorified smartasses created Pudgalavāda Buddhism, Mahayana, vajrayana, non duality and so on only to put back some sort of eternal essence into it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 04:11:00 2020 No.16860202 >>16853767 Christians believe in destroying the ego in a very limited sense. The mind, soul and body of a person all continue in a perfected form after the resurrection.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 04:19:23 2020 No.16860228 >>16856470 >there's no Self for anything bad to happen to. Didn't Buddha just say that the question was irrelevant?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 04:49:13 2020 No.16860359 How are you still able to enjoy things if you liberate yourself from craving?

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 04:53:21 2020 No.16860371

>>16856470
>how can Buddhism be about killing what it doesn't think exists?
Again: what experiences nirvana?
Why do Buddhists reject the idea of Atman? It's much more convenient than just tiptoeing around the concept of self, not recognizing that it exists but not explicitly stating that it doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 05:04:25 2020 No.16860416 >>16859399 >that's their answer... Which makes sense, I'm not sure why you're hung up on this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 05:36:17 2020 No.16860573 >>16860371 >>16860371 >>Again: what experiences nirvana? the thing which experiences lack of thirst and delusion

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 05:37:20 2020 No.16860577 >>16860359 you enjoy the unbinding

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 05:40:00 2020 No.16860592 >>16860573 >the thing It's called the self

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 05:53:46 2020 No.16860633 what's with the lack of serenity in all the buddhist threads, niggas clinging to dharma like you wouldn't believe

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 06:01:34 2020 No.16860661 >>16860633 By /lit/ standards, these threads are very serene

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 06:03:22 2020 No.16860671 Buddhism is a worthless religion only appealing to Eastern bugman and the modern Western bugman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 06:11:51 2020 No.16860709 >>16860671 What is this post meant to achieve?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 06:42:24 2020 No.16860860 >>16860592 the mind is conditioned, deal with it

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 06:42:59 2020 No.16860861 >>16860860 You're not making an argument

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 07:32:53 2020 No.16861116

>>16860371
Nirvana isn't experienced, it's a state. What is in the state of Nirvana? Everything. Everything is constantly in Nirvana RIGHT NOW. The problem is, a lot of that "everything" is also in the state of Samsara. Emptiness (anatman) is precisely WHY Nirvana can be at all. If you had an atman, you'd never be able to leave the state of Samsara, you'd just constantly be suffering because it would be in your intrinsic nature to suffer.

>convenient
This is your problem: you're interested in what's "convenient", not how reality simply is. Emptiness is just a fact of life. Change happens. Deal with it.

>so it's just physicalism?
No, as anons have been saying in this thread, you are not just your brain. Stuff continues after the brain turns off.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 07:47:24 2020 No.16861215 >>16861116 >(anatman) is precisely WHY Nirvana can be at all. If you had an atman, you'd never be able to leave the state of Samsara Why? I don't get the logic >how reality simply is It's a bold thing to claim to know how reality truly operates.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:00:57 2020 No.16861303

>>16861215
Because that's precisely what an atman is: an unchanging eternal thing that has an intrinsic nature. If the atman can change, it isn't an atman. If it was in the intrinsic nature of you to suffer, if "suffering" was one of the properties of your atman, you'd never stop suffering. You'd just be in a constant never-ending state of eternal suffering. The only way suffering could stop is if it isn't an intrinsic property of our nature. We can stop suffering, Nirvana is possible (this is why the Buddha peaces out when he dies instead of remaining on as a disembodied spirit), and can be empirically demonstrated, so from simple empiricism we can just whittle down the things that aren't intrinsic properties of a supposed atman. When we find that there are none left, we're either left with saying that there is no atman, or that the atman exists in such a manner that is identical to it not existing (this is actually something that is an accepted possibility in Buddhist tradition, but such a thing can't be interacted with in any manner so it's really a moot point speculating about them).

We can conceptually designate certain things as "ourself" or "itself", and this works (this is literally how language works, you can't speak without doing this). That's fine, there's zero problem with that.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:02:49 2020 No.16861313 >>16861303 >If it was in the intrinsic nature of you to suffer But it's not, because of maya. Atman does not change, it is filtered by the illusion into something that experiences suffering.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:03:04 2020 No.16861315
File: 17 KB, 400x400, 1510455298341.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Ligotti on Buddhism

>But here is the real catch: If you want to become enlightened you will never become enlightened, because in Buddhism wanting things is just the thing that keeps you from getting the thing you want. Less circuitously, if you want to end your suffering, you will never end your suffering. This is the “wanting paradox,” or “paradox of desire,” and Buddhists are at the ready with both rational and non-rational propositions as to why this paradox is not a paradox. How to understand these propositions is past understanding, because, per Buddhism, there is nothing to understand and no one to understand it. And as long as you think there is something to understand and someone to understand it, you are doomed. Trying for this understanding is the most trying thing of all. Yet trying not to try for it is just as trying. There is nothing more futile than to consciously look for something to save you. But consciousness makes this fact seem otherwise. Consciousness makes it seem as if (1) there is something to do; (2) there is somewhere to go; (3) there is something to be; (4) there is someone to know. This is what makes consciousness the parent of all horrors, the thing that makes us try to do something, go somewhere, be something, and know someone, such as ourselves, so that we can escape our MALIGNANTLY USELESS being and think that being alive is all right rather than that which should not be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:09:15 2020 No.16861348 >>16861313 Then we can change suffering to something else, it doesn't matter, that's just an example that is of importance to the soteriology of Buddhism. If it was in your intrinsic nature to be hot, you could never be cold, for example.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:10:41 2020 No.16861357 >>16861348 Then "to be" is the intrinsic nature of atman.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:13:45 2020 No.16861369

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

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

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

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

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:15:20 2020 No.16861379 >>16861315 >How to understand these propositions is past understanding, because, per Buddhism, there is nothing to understand that's just wrong Why do westerners love Mahayana-hinduism so much and then say it's Buddhism?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:19:01 2020 No.16861391 >>16861369 Imagine being this mad about minor disagreements between two branches of an otherwise relatively homogeneous tradition

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 08:22:05 2020 No.16861405

>>16861379
What about the wanting paradox?

also
>“Millions of people have spent their lives, and some have even lost their minds, trying to win enlightenment without ever comprehending, as they sucked their last breath, what it was they had gambled to get. Had they attained enlightenment without being aware of it? Are there stages of enlightenment (maybe, depending on the type of Buddhism to which one subscribes) and how far had they gotten? In his One Taste: Daily Reflections on Integral Spirituality, Ken Wilber, a widely known and highly influential multidisciplinary scholar and theorist of spiritual traditions, reported that he asked one Zen Buddhist master “how many truly enlightened—deeply enlightened—Japanese Zen masters there were alive today.” The master replied, “Not more than a dozen.” Another Zen master put the number of fully enlightened individuals in the East at one thousand throughout Zen Buddhism’s history. Wilber’s conclusion: “Thus, without in any way belittling the truly stunning contributions of the glorious Eastern traditions, the point is fairly straightforward: radical transformative spirituality is extremely rare, anywhere in history, and anywhere in the world. (The numbers for the West are even more depressing. I rest my case.)” Indeed, enlightenment by Buddhism truly seems to be a well-defended redoubt whose location cannot be triangulated by speech, the only rule being that if you have to ask yourself if you have arrived, then it is certain you have not.”

Ligotti, The Conspiracy against the Human Race

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 09:05:25 2020 No.16861649 >>16851972 Nobody can trust a man that uses so much punctuation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 09:40:15 2020 No.16861870 Any religion that bases its soteriology in fear is missing something. Christianity does it with damnation (Eckhart's answer to this is interesting) and Buddhism does it with Samsara.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:10:23 2020 No.16862048 >>16861870 buddhism is not based on fear, but on disenchantment

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:11:11 2020 No.16862058 >>16862048 People seek liberation because they are afraid of samsara forcing them into more suffering.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:33:19 2020 No.16862189 >>16862058 >they are afraid of samsara forcing them into more suffering. Nothing wrong with being realist instead of deluded.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:35:40 2020 No.16862200 >>16862189 >people who don't agree with me are delusional It's amusing how Buddhists end up resorting to the same vacuous talking points as the nihilists they claim to have nothing to do with.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:42:52 2020 No.16862233

>>16862058
Why are buddhists even afraid of rebirth though
Since they don't believe there's a self, it's pretty much the same as atheism, once they die they'll never "be" again so whatever is reborn after their death isn't them and they don't have to care about it since there's no continuity in their experience at all
Why aim to break free from samsara? You'll just be erased from existence anyway whatever you do

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:45:06 2020 No.16862241

>>16861357
Then we've abstracted atman to such a point where it's meaningless.

>>16861391
Hey man, how else are you going to do the whole Catholicism vs Protestantism thing BUT ORIENTAL AND MYSTICAL OOOOOOoooOOOO?

>>16862058
Not at all, people want Nirvana because they're tired of suffering. There's no "fear", you're already in Samsara. If this is a LE EBIN SLAVE MORALITY thing then yeah sure, Monks scare people into not raping people with the threat of hells and the like, but that's literally all religions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:46:31 2020 No.16862247 >>16853610 >>16853658 >>16857206 lineages are important for them. as are autistic lists of things.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:47:31 2020 No.16862254

>>16860359
It's like when you're sitting on a nice porch on a warm summer evening and someone surprises you with a nice cold lemonade.

You can enjoy the lemonade without having wanted it, na?

Without this desperate itch that needs to be scratched. But in this case you're really going to be getting more joy out of the fact that someone decided to do something nice, so you're happy on that account.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:48:48 2020 No.16862259 >>16859439 You're wrong, sorry, the Pali Canon refuted that directly. >Ananda, these rice fields are beautiful.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 10:49:25 2020 No.16862262

>>16862233
There is a continuity, that's entirely the point. You can carve off some arbitrary point and say "ah yes, this is where -I- start! and the guy before me was someone different" and that's fine, but that's a conceptual figment. There is a continuity of mind, body, and spirit between you, and who you "used" to be. You're literally where you are because of past experiences and karma, how could there NOT be a continuity? How the fuck do memories of past lives and the like work if there's no continuity?

>Why aim to break free from samsara? You'll just be erased from existence anyway whatever you do
No, you won't, precisely because of that continuity. It is precisely BECAUSE of sunyata that this doesn't happen, because of that continuity. When nirvana is achieved, there is continuity. It is not correct to say "you" continue, as "you" are a conceptual figment. But it is appropriate to say that there is a continuity that includes you. What happens when you die, do all of your atoms and your spirit and your actions just disappear? Even a materialist would find this absurd.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:05:44 2020 No.16862349

>>16862262
>There is a continuity
Not that I know of though
Unless somehow once I die I suddenly gain access to the memories of my previous lives like what some new age people say, but that would assert that there does indeed exist a higher self which buddhism denies
>a continuity of mind, body, and spirit
Are you saying that death is basically just a memory wipe and that I continue with the same personality and identity in my next life, just in a different body and with different memories?
>karma
That's the thing dharmic religions use to justify continuity but that karma isn't me anyway, I am not karma, I'm basically just the person through which a certain karmic debt continues because the dude before me did a half-assed job and didn't attain enlightenment
There is nothing that links me to my previous life.
>How the fuck do memories of past lives and the like work
I don't know, haven't looked into that particular subject
>It is not correct to say "you" continue, as "you" are a conceptual figment.
So why should I care? Right now I'm experiencing something and can trace that experience back to my very early childhood, once that experience ceases and assuming my memories disappear, whatever arises will not be me
Either there is a true immortal consciousness or I get destroyed at some point. This debate about what constitutes "you" is dry and meaningless, everyone knows intuitively what they are, the fact that you can't put it into words meaningfully doesn't detract from the realness of your current experience

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:15:13 2020 No.16862408

>>16862233
>>Since they don't believe there's a self, it's pretty much the same as atheism, once they die they'll never "be"
no you need to reach nirvana first

and people believe there is a self, which is why they are deluded and make drones >>16862200
seethe

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:16:20 2020 No.16862414 >>16862247 >>lineages are important for them. Lineage is important for guruism, ie mahayana, jainism and hinduism. In buddhism, there is no lineage which matters, only sutras when there's no buddha...

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:16:46 2020 No.16862417 >>16862408 >hiding behind a smug sense of superiority while you keep repeating the same things and hoping people will stop calling you out on the bullshit Yes, a true crypto-nihilist. Not very "enlightened" of you, by the way.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:17:22 2020 No.16862422 >>16862254 >>You can enjoy the lemonade without having wanted it, na? impossible in buddhism, possible in ''live laugh love'' hippy crap that women love though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:18:24 2020 No.16862426 >>16862422 >you can't enjoy things in buddhism Not life-denying at all, and if you say the opposite you just don't get it, yeah?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:18:29 2020 No.16862427 >>16862259 Yeah, what's the sutra?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:21:08 2020 No.16862447 >>16862426 Yes for hedonists, life is reduced to sensual pleasures. For those people, non sensual pleasure just means life-denying.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:21:56 2020 No.16862455 >>16862408 >you need to reach nirvana first >in order to "not be" How is that not, in the most literal sense, nihilism with extra steps?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:23:00 2020 No.16862464 >>16862447 >enjoyment is purely sensual I sure hope you're baiting and/or retarded and that this is not actually what buddhists think

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:23:23 2020 No.16862466 >>16862455 there is no being in the first place

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:24:25 2020 No.16862472 >>16862466 kek

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:25:23 2020 No.16862482 >>16862464 >>16862464 you are the one equaling non-enjoyment of senses = life denying >>16862426 fucking retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:26:48 2020 No.16862490 >>16862482 No I'm not, you just can't read. Keep seething

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:27:38 2020 No.16862496 >>16862490 ok ESL retard

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:29:24 2020 No.16862506

>be buddhist
>literally lobotomize yourself in order to have no meaningful reaction to anything anymore because attachment bad
>this will allow the meaningless agregates that form your consciousness to be obliterated after death, ensuring that you will never exist ever again
>if you don't want this, you are simply asleep and under the illusion and need to wake up with the help of the aforementioned lobotomy
How truly profound, I am inspired by this eastern wisdom

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:30:57 2020 No.16862512 >>16862496 >he prides himself on being monolingual No wonder a mouthbreather like you would be attracted to "nihilism except it's eastern and exotic"

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:31:58 2020 No.16862519 >>16862466 Then what typed that retarded post?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:33:42 2020 No.16862534 >>16862506 retard

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:33:59 2020 No.16862537 >>16862534 seethe

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:35:27 2020 No.16862544 >>16859770 buddha didnt assert nonself he negated self simple as

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:35:40 2020 No.16862548 >>16862534 Are you sure you should be this easily provoked and confrontational? Doesn't this go against the noble eightfold path?

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:36:04 2020 No.16862553

>>16862349
>the fact that you can't put it into words meaningfully doesn't detract from the realness of your current experience
Yes, that is entirely the point. You want some neat little linguistic package that summarizes all of reality. You will not get it. The Buddha spends entire sutras talking about this. The Buddha spends entire sutras talking about how Emptiness is precisely WHY there is continuity. It is only because "you" are a conceptual fiction that you can have continuity at all. Never dying, never having been born, constantly changing, changing HOW you exist. Some kind of bizarre immortal consciousness would entirely violate continuity, as there would be a time that it did not exist (before it was made) and a time when it did not exist (after it is destroyed). So, the very idea of something being immortal requires it to not be immortal. It's an inherently absurd position.

You can be an edgy materialist and say that okay nothing matters after you die and before you were born, but then you can also say that nothing matters after you've fallen asleep, or after you've blunk, because the "you" that will be in three seconds isn't the same "you" that you are now. It's entirely true. It's also an absolutely absurd proposition. This demonstrates that "you" are a conceptual fiction. What separates "you" from the chair you sit on? Because you don't feel it's part of you? Altered states of consciousness can result in you very well thinking that the chair is part of you. Feelings have causes, after all, unless you're Noam Chompsky. That feeling is part of you. That doesn't mean that that feeling reflects reality anymore than seeing an oar bent in the water actually means that its bent.

You're a materialist, so tell me: did your mother make the atoms that compose you ex nihilo? When you die, will those atoms disappear? No? Then why do you reject the idea of continuity? You're just arguing that you are just a sack of meat, but I say no, you aren't.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:36:42 2020 No.16862557 >>16862544 >he negated self lmao what the fuck does that even mean

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:37:51 2020 No.16862565 >>16862553 >You're a materialist, Won't bother responding to your post since you're basing your argument on false assumptions. No surprise there, every time I talk to a buddhist on this website they end up being the most disingenuous people

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:39:11 2020 No.16862573

>>16862548
The Buddha often told idiots, morons, cowards, and fools to fuck off. You can compassionately tell someone to shut the fuck up and listen. You can compassionately tell someone to go read a book.

There's a reoccuring character, Vacchagotta the wanderer, who actually becomes a monk when the Buddha finally bullies him into understanding.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:39:34 2020 No.16862575 >>16862573 You're not buddha and your posts are dumb

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:41:04 2020 No.16862583

>>16862565
>when my brain turns off i disappear
Yes, holding that view makes you a materialist. That is literally what people are referring to when they talk about physicalism and materialism, your idea that you are just the result of your brain. It's also a completely wrong idea, you are more than just your brain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:42:08 2020 No.16862588 >>16862575 Start with In the Buddha's Words.

Anonymous Tue Nov 24 11:44:11 2020 No.16862602

>>16862583
Who brought up the brain?
I'm me because I have an ego and memories that I can observe, I recognize myself as myself. I'm not my body or my thoughts, but I am my consciousness, no amount of dishonest buddhist weaseling will disprove this because I observe my consciousness and know that it is me.
If my consciousness is interrupted then I don't exist anymore, it's as simple as that. And the sleep argument doesn't hold up because my memories only disappear momentarily.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 12:08:33 2020 No.16862752 >>16862557 showed the idea of a self is not tenable

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 12:09:46 2020 No.16862759 >>16862752 But it is. See >>16862602 You can say no but it doesn't make it any less true. You are your consciousness

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 13:05:41 2020 No.16863142 >>16862759 and since consciousness is conditioned (to you know by what?), it's not the self and so You is not the self woah

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 24 13:08:09 2020 No.16863158 >>16863142 This is utterly meaningless, just buddhist sophistry The awareness that observes itself is the self.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature