Did he ever explain how rebirth worked since there's no self or soul to move from one existence to another? Which buddhist suttas should I read on this subject?

File: 42 KB, 650x379, 1595392956143.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 13:51:24 2020 No.17084528 [Reply] [Original]

Did he ever explain how rebirth worked since there's no self or soul to move from one existence to another? Which buddhist suttas should I read on this subject?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 13:52:33 2020 No.17084535 there's only a soul as long as you think there's one

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 13:59:14 2020 No.17084589

>>17084528
this is my specialty.
>how is rebirth possible when no self or soul?
most people new to buddhist literature misunderstand what reincarnation is. you as a distinct individual is not born again, because there is no "you" to begin with. the things that make you, however, those things are like waves that rise and fall. how you've lived your life, it leaves traces and affect all other things in the universe because everything is interconnected and interdependent.

when people like buddha talk about their past lives, it not lives they lived as an individual with the same ego, but rather the waves that came before that made the next waves possible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:00:45 2020 No.17084603 >>17084589 sources?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:01:21 2020 No.17084606 I thought the idea of “no soul” was contested in Buddhism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:04:51 2020 No.17084630 >>17084603 i study mahayana, if that counts as source. >>17084606 Theravada and Mahayana may appear to say different things but in the end it becomes a matter of how you draw the boundary of this soul in your mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:11:24 2020 No.17084684 >>17084589 So why do buddhists care about their future lives?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:14:32 2020 No.17084705 >>17084630 >it becomes a matter of how you draw the boundary of this soul in your mind I find that to be an unsatisfactory answer but I suppose I know very little about Buddhism so I’ll concede.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:17:29 2020 No.17084726

>>17084684
maybe compassion? idk (not that guy). I reckon it's all you can really do, you can either create more suffering or less by your choices.
>who is this "you" making choices?
buddhists differ on this I think. in one of these threads some buddhist linked an article that basicallys aid there is no consensus on what free will is. clearly they think it is worthwhile to educate people on buddhism though, so clearly it matters one way or another what people choose to do

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:20:27 2020 No.17084750

There are some suttas where a monk answered questions asked by the Greek king Menander/Milinda. It's nice because it's directed at a westerner.
This sutta has your question and a couple useful similes in it.
https://suttacentral.net/mil3.2.6/en/tw_rhysdavids
Name and form is a term used to refer to the mind and body without calling it a person or individual. Basically your deeds create another existence which inherits all your karma.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:21:24 2020 No.17084758 >>17084726 Yeah I don't know. Without a soul or something similar, caring about the cycle of rebirth doesn't make too much sense. Especially in theravada since they only care about personal enlightenment

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:21:32 2020 No.17084761 >>17084684 misinterpretation and ego.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:28:25 2020 No.17084812

>>17084750
>deeds good or evil are done by this name-and-form and another is reborn. But that other is not thereby released from its deeds
So "I" am my karma, essentially.
Or rather, rebirth isn't my death followed by the birth of another being, but just another change I go through.
How do nirvana and its several stages of attainment play into this?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:29:24 2020 No.17084821 >>17084528 Buddhism is such a load of evil shit. "uh ackthually life sucks so we should die permanently"

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:29:40 2020 No.17084822

>>17084684
i think unless you've actually reached near buddha's level it might be natural to care about life, death, and the afterlife to some degree. buddha actually had this exact conversation with one of his disciples.

>disciple: will i really go to a better place after death?
>buddha: there's nothing to worry my guy. just as this oil floats on water you will find your natural place.

perhaps unfortunately, a lot of people took this as "if you do good things in this life you will be reborn with better luck in the next."

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:30:57 2020 No.17084832
File: 3.68 MB, 1232x2080, 1580702810854.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17084822
But the buddha did teach about rebirth right?
>you will be reborn with better luck
If you have good karma you get to be a deva though so that's not entirely wrong.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:33:26 2020 No.17084849

>>17084684
Why do you care what happens to you tomorrow?

You identify with your future self. Obviously it would be better not to do this, and the moment you manage that is the moment the last fetters are cut and you become fully awakened. Clinging stops and consciousness loses its fuel for further rebirth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:34:30 2020 No.17084857 >>17084821 Dying sucks too. We should want to end dying permanently.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:34:48 2020 No.17084863 >>17084849 If I knew that tomorrow I was going to lose all my memories and move to a different continent, then I absolutely wouldn't care at all about what happened after that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:34:48 2020 No.17084864 >>17084849 >Obviously it would be better not to do this No it isn't, because it'd get you killed dumbass. >Clinging stops and consciousness loses its fuel for further rebirth. Being conscious is good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:35:50 2020 No.17084869 >>17084857 Sounds cool, so let's invent immortality technology.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:37:08 2020 No.17084873

>>17084812
>rebirth isn't my death followed by the birth of another being, but just another change I go through
well put

>How do nirvana and its several stages of attainment play into this?
we're not buddha, so who can say for sure? but supposedly the things you attain in this life, they carry forward or get distributed. the author of heart suttra is said to have died a horrific death in their youth in one life but instead of wanting revenge on their killer they vowed that in their next life they will make people happy instead of suffer. they cycled through many lives and eventually came to the point of being able to write the book.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:38:24 2020 No.17084881 >>17084873 >he author of heart suttra is said to have died a horrific death in their youth in one life but instead of wanting revenge on their killer beta real men take revenge

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:41:40 2020 No.17084897 >>17084832 yeah rebirth is a thing in buddhism but many people today see it as >me as an individual is born again when in reality it's more like >after my wave goes the next will rise in its place

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:42:03 2020 No.17084902

>>17084812
Nirvana can be translated as "cessation" as in the cessation of karma.
But the Buddha didn't teach that all actions led to rebirth, but only those that were performed with clinging to the result.
You can see that on this board, where if you make a well thought out post and hope someone responds, this can lead to great happiness or sadness. When you make a post with no intention, it has no consequence for you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:42:50 2020 No.17084907 >>17084902 Clinging is good.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:44:00 2020 No.17084914

>>17084873
>the things you attain in this life, they carry forward or get distributed
Why do I have zero memories of all the lives I presumably went through during the last few eons? I don't mean this to be a gotcha or anything, but since I am the flux of my karma, all the things that happened in the past shouldn't be lost in oblivion. Consciousness changes, the person I am now is completely different from the person I was twenty years ago, but I still know what it was like even though I changed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:46:07 2020 No.17084927 >>17084902 Err, sort of. All actions of the unawakened are accompanied by clinging, though it may be very subtle. Only the arahant generates no karma.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:47:25 2020 No.17084932 >>17084902 But karma is what keeps you going right, it's like fuel? Without karma, you don't exist. So when a being attains nirvana, by that logic they should stop existing, yet that is not the case.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:51:00 2020 No.17084951

>>17084914
Some are said to gain memories of past lives upon attaining deep powers of concentration.

I understand it is tempting to wonder why you should care about your future lives at all if no memory connects them. But consider this: it's possible that you wondered that very same thing in a former life, ignoring the warnings of a Buddha. And now here you are, in a worse state than you would have been had you practiced. The consequences are very real.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:51:23 2020 No.17084955

>>17084932
the question is what is the relationship between whatever it is that achieves the nirvana, and the human person in front of you. "You" can very well be enlightened while "your" body keeps living. It's more of a matter of a relationship to a process that is playing out. Presumably the process exists regardless of your investment, though I still think there's some muddled process between attachment, free will and outcome.
t. brainlet

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:53:01 2020 No.17084970

>>17084914
>all the things that happened in the past shouldn't be lost in oblivion
buddhism teaches that nothing we do is ever lost because everything is interconnected and interdependent. in avatamsaka sutra they even teach that time and space are not absolute things but rather expressions of this interconnected-ness (what is time if not a measure of change?). therefore, nothing we do in any time and space is ever lost in oblivion. people at buddha's level can see their "past lives" as well as their "future lives" because they can supposedly see the entire universe reflected in everything. for people like us who can't do that, we obviously can't tell for sure what we were like in our "past lives." we fall prey to the idea of separateness and cling to our sense of self. this is only natural.

what you do with this limitation is entirely up to you, however.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:53:04 2020 No.17084971 >>17084932 They do stop existing. To you they look the same as before, but there is no identity there. The body and mind are kept going for a while from their residual karma.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:55:45 2020 No.17084992

>>17084951
>Some are said to gain memories of past lives
If those memories still exist and accumulate while we move from one life to another, how is it really all that different from a soul? Sure it's not immutable but it's there. Like a stream that changes shape as it flows, yet the water is still the same water.
It's difficult to see how extinguishing karma is a favorable outcome if I don't know what nirvana is at all. I know nirvana isn't complete oblivion since the buddha said it wasn't, but that's about the only thing I can say about it, which doesn't really help.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:55:51 2020 No.17084993

>>17084932
>Without karma, you don't exist
No, karma is the fuel that causes you to cling to samsara. When the fuel goes away, so do the chains that bind you to samsara. But you don't go away, you're just unbound. The dog on a leash doesn't get annihilated when the leash is cut.

"Nibbana" means "blowing out", but that's just a colloquialism. It literally means "ni", un-, no-, "bana", -binding. Unbinding. The Ancient Indians believed fire to live in a pure realm of limitless potentiality. When the fire is "blown out", it is freed from the fuel. Literally, it has to be physically touching the fire to stay in our realm. When you blow it away, you physically move it away from the fire, and poof, it goes back to where it came from. But this "where" is just a colloquialism, a turn of phrase, for its true realm is one without place or space. It's a limitless potentiality, free from all limit.

When your karma runs out, you return to your true state (nirvana) that you are already in. You're unbound. You're free from all limit. The limits of existence, non-existence, time, space, conceptuality, consciousness, unconsciousness. It's a fundamentally ineffable state beyond conceptuality (to describe it in words would be to limit it, after all).

Buddhism rejects the idea of anything not existing. All that exists, exists. HOW it exists, that is the question.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:57:46 2020 No.17085003

>>17084970
>people at buddha's level can see their "past lives" as well as their "future lives"
Because the buddha was omniscient, but arahants aren't, so it's not only a matter of attaining nirvana. What is it then?
>separateness
I thought buddhism wasn't a pantheism, maybe I misunderstood what you said.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 14:59:16 2020 No.17085012 >>17084992 I think a soul is by definition eternal and indestructible, no? Nibbāna might actually be complete oblivion. It's a matter of some debate. Either way, it's said to be better than existence in samsāra.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:00:53 2020 No.17085028

>>17084992
>Like a stream that changes shape as it flows, yet the water is still the same water.
Buddhism isn't about denying that the water is there. It's more about knowing that what expresses as water in a specific time and space can be expressed as ice or vapor, or even go through more fundamental molecular changes in different contexts.

>It's difficult to see how extinguishing karma is a favorable outcome if I don't know what nirvana is at all
This is perfectly reasonable, and buddhism is definitely not about forcing people into nirvana. if you like karma and all the waves that come with it, then you can enjoy riding the waves! it's about becoming truly free.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:02:45 2020 No.17085041 >>17085012 >It's a matter of some debate. doesn't theravada say it is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:04:43 2020 No.17085057 >>17085003 >What is it then? It's that you don't need to be omniscient to be truly free and happy (in nirvana)

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:08:18 2020 No.17085084

>>17084993
>a pure realm of limitless potentiality.
I think that's brahman, but buddhism denies the existence of brahman.
>your true state (nirvana) that you are already in.
I might be wrong but the idea that nirvana is samsara is not a view that's unanimously shared by everyone in buddhism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:08:21 2020 No.17085087 >>17085041 It's debated there too. Some people think nibbāna is a transcendent state of eternal happiness. Some think it's simply the extinguishment of existence. See this extremely long debate: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=22409

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:09:32 2020 No.17085095 >>17085057 Why doesn't nirvana automatically grant omniscience since attaining it frees you from all limitations?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:11:14 2020 No.17085110

>>17085028
>Buddhism isn't about denying that the water is there. It's more about knowing that what expresses as water in a specific time and space can be expressed as ice or vapor, or even go through more fundamental molecular changes in different contexts.
I think it's an important point to make that the idea of "I" being born into a new "me" is a pretty anthropomorphic interpretation of a metaphysical process. it lacks some imagination.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:13:41 2020 No.17085132

>>17085028
I only like karma because it's the only thing I know. I don't like pain and sorrow, but I like pleasure and happiness.
I'd like to experience nirvana because it's said to be pleasant. At the same time, the fact that it's explicitly said to not be the expression of an eternal soul (like atman or the higher self) makes it difficult to figure out how nirvana could possibly be anything, let alone pleasant.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:13:46 2020 No.17085134 File: 78 KB, 712x754, buddhachad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17084821

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:15:35 2020 No.17085156 File: 78 KB, 712x754, buddhachad.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17084821 >uh ackthually life sucks so we should die permanently

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:20:00 2020 No.17085193 >>17085132 If you want pleasure from Buddhism look into Jhana/samatha meditation. They're considered extremely pleasant and are like a very small taste of nirvana. As opposed to vipassana/insight meditation which is hard but useful for wisdom

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:21:22 2020 No.17085204

>>17084528
truth is, reconciling samsara and no self has always been the biggest problem in buddhist theology. sakyamuni buddha was no metaphysician, he only built up an ethical system. he is spiritually contemporary with confucius, rousseau and the stoa. naturally as buddhism grew out of its affluent urban begins in india, it had to build up a metaphysics to compete with other religions, be it bon in tibet or the resurgence of advaita philosophy in india

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:22:15 2020 No.17085211

>>17085095
I think you and i have a different understanding of nirvana. to be free from all limitations, to me, means to be truly free. it means to be in a place of sustainable happiness. it doesn't necessarily have to do with attaining godlike powers like omniscience. you could very well argue having those powers is another form of getting shackled.

>>17085110
buddhism doesn't really distinguish "me" from "my" surroundings at a fundamental level. when it speaks of rebirth, it's just an easy way of describing the waves that come and go.

>>17085132
> I don't like pain and sorrow, but I like pleasure and happiness.
same
>difficult to figure out how nirvana could possibly be anything
let's make a distinction here. i don't think nirvana as a concept is difficult to understand. but it appears difficult because it conflicts with your desires and current understanding of how things work. in buddhist terms we call this karmic hindrance. there are practices designed to chip away at your karma.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:22:49 2020 No.17085219

>>17085110
>it lacks some imagination.
The hindus describe the ultimate attainment as realizing the "I" was just an illusion I was playing on my true self all along, like when you pull the strings of a puppet. That's pretty easy to understand. On the other hand, buddhism says there's no puppeteer at all, which is perplexing. I know some people in tibetan buddhism have introduced similar ideas due to how tantra gets a lot of inspiration from hinduism, but buddhism in general is really attached to this idea that only karma goes on, but is attached to nothing.
Things change perpetually, that much I understand. Just as I'm not my body, I'm not my thoughts either, my process of observation/consciousness is everchanging. So what I identify as myself is just as fluid as any other process. When I die, that process will change again and give rise to a new experience of consciousness.
But if there's nothing eternal beyond on this, there's nothing to ground that experience on, so it shouldn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:24:39 2020 No.17085228 >>17085219 no self and metempsychosis cant be reconciled because the former was invented by buddha while the latter was a dogma from hinduism that everyone just assumed was valid

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:24:47 2020 No.17085230 >>17085193 Aren't vipassana and samatha supposed to go hand in hand? I think there's something in the suttas about jhanas not being goals to reach nor things to cling to, but consequences of good practice

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:25:48 2020 No.17085235 >>17085228 I find it hard to believe that buddha would've never clearly said "actually there's no rebirth" if this were the case

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:26:49 2020 No.17085239

>>17085211
>it doesn't necessarily have to do with attaining godlike powers like omniscience
I'm just wondering why the buddha was omniscient but none of his (arahant) students were, despite all of them achieving nirvana and nirvana having no "levels" to speak of.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:27:28 2020 No.17085245 >>17085204 ehhhh i can see why you think that. to me its metaphysics is vastly superior to many other ways of thinking tho. avatamsaka sutra alone covers the entire time space continuum.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:30:35 2020 No.17085260

>>17085235
we can't detach him from his sramana movement which was a violent reaction against iranic influence in india. samsara is characteristic of india, so it must not be questioned. i don't think he really thought about it from a metaphysical perspective, he says pretty much nothing about metaphysical things

>>17085245
buddhism as it's practised today definitely has a sturdy scholasticism, particularly tibetan. i seriously doubt gautama buddha said anything resembling the mahayana sutras, which were mostly written between gandhara and kashmir

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:30:58 2020 No.17085262 >>17085239 maybe he was a prophet :^)

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:33:44 2020 No.17085276

>>17085204
Cultivating the perception of not-self is what frees. To put it crudely: it's the very belief that I have a self that keeps me trapped, as a self, in samsāra.

People roll their eyes and ask why they should worry (read: identify) with their future selves if they aren't going to remember, and the Buddha's answer is that you shouldn't!--except it's much harder to untangle this knot than you realize. You can't start at the end, you have to start at the beginning with the eightfold path. This involves taking the long view, accepting the dangers of rebirth and taking it seriously. After much time and practice, then we can start to let things go.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:34:05 2020 No.17085280 >>17085260 >he says pretty much nothing about metaphysical things I mean he does talk about stuff like higher realms and such, like pic related >>17084832

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:37:07 2020 No.17085296

>>17085239
In mahayana it is said that there's been many buddhas that came before and there will be many buddhas that will come in the future. i don't know fully whether gautama buddha actually had omniscience and i don't think that it actually matters in the grand scheme of things. but maybe that people formed such a long lasting religion and a way of life around gautama buddha's teachings is because he was one gifted with such abilities. doesn't really have much relation to nirvana imo.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:38:42 2020 No.17085305

>>17085276
>and the Buddha's answer is that you shouldn't!
I think a point to make is that this neither negates the existence of the future phenomenon, nor its origin, but it only speaks of a relationship to these processes.

This could be wrong, I bet in a number of ways, but currently the process passing through culminates in the initiative to make this post

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:38:50 2020 No.17085306 >>17084589 if this is the case, how does awakening stop 'you' from being reincarnated? you still leave traces and affect other things in the universe

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:38:59 2020 No.17085308 >>17085276 If there's really no self, what's the luminous mind? IIRC some monks admitted that non-self was a teaching method more than a metaphysical truth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:41:17 2020 No.17085324 >>17085084 It's not Brahman because no school of Hinduism holds Brahman as defined in this manner. >>17085296 This is a view held by the Theravada as well. The next Buddha is Maitreya.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:42:27 2020 No.17085331

>>17085276
what underpins the doctrine of no self is dependent arising, which brings about the problem of first things, which buddhism also struggles with. the indians could deal with no principles since they have a clear theology of Brahman and atman, but again the problem is no self. ultimately the doctrine of two truths is buddhism's best weapon but a two edged sword. for "what is truth?"

>>17085280
these are mostly things he adopted from indian metaphysics

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:42:39 2020 No.17085333 >>17085324 >It's not Brahman because no school of Hinduism holds Brahman as defined in this manner. do they really not, but buddhism does? I got this interpretation from the Gita but what the hell do I, not even an orientalist, know

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:45:20 2020 No.17085350 >>17085308 See my post here: >>17085087 That not-self is just a strategy is a minority view (though one that I am sympathetic with). Either way the mechanics of rebirth remain the same.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:55:24 2020 No.17085437

if (a) deeds are definite and (b) deeds done are not lost then how exactly does samsara function? if there is no self, how can the actions of a previous being affect me in the present? wouldn't that mean karma only operates in a lifetime? if there is no self then where are the seeds stored?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 15:58:36 2020 No.17085464 >>17085308 >if there's no self what's the mind? Buddhism acknowledges the mind only on a conventional level. It's not like there's this unchanging thing called the mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:01:15 2020 No.17085490 File: 24 KB, 700x300, Feels-Good-Man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] mfw /lit/ is a much better place to discuss buddhism and metaphysics than /his/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:01:31 2020 No.17085494 >>17085464 The luminous mind is a specific buddhist concept, not the mind in the usual sense

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:04:29 2020 No.17085515
File: 1.24 MB, 2000x3008, Citipati-buddhist-deity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17085490
/his/ somehow manages to be more pretentious and pseudointellectual than /lit/. for some reason we've always had good discussions on buddhism here, probably because the sanskrit words scare off the people who just want to post memes

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:07:59 2020 No.17085535 >>17084589 >when people like buddha talk about their past lives, it not lives they lived as an individual with the same ego, but rather the waves that came before that made the next waves possible. Aren't past lives mine then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:09:01 2020 No.17085546 >>17085490 /lit/ is a much better place to discuss anything than /his/. People here actually read the things they're criticizing.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:10:18 2020 No.17085555

Didn't Mahayana and Vajrayana come up with a bunch of equivalent concepts to the soul so that samsara would actually make sense?
Mahayana pretty much takes sunyata as a soul-like concept, or dharmakaya, or tatagatha. Buddha nature is exactly that. Am I wrong? Hell, there's even the idea of a formless realm where the pure seeds of karma exist.
Only Theravada clings to the idea of there being no self yet samsara somehow existing.
Why is this so vital to Buddhist doctrine anyway? Isn't it easier to admit there's *something* fundamental, beyond your mind or your ego, that is subject to the cycle of rebirth?
It could even be said that Nirvana is a form of "higher self". I know it's ineffable and all that, but the analogies with literal awakening are very telling. When you deconstruct your false sense of self with anatta, what you "awaken" to is Nirvana. Isn't Nirvana the unchanging and transcendent thing we're looking for, then? While you haven't attained it, you remain inside the illusion of self, in samsara, and once liberated, wake up to the truth.
I guess I'll get called a cryptohindu but this makes sense to me, could someone tell me why I'm wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:13:48 2020 No.17085583 File: 711 KB, 1500x1000, jN39v64.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17085555 quads of dharmic truth

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:14:33 2020 No.17085592

>>17085437
>>17085464
these would seem to be the same question. what is this "personal" karma if there is no mind. In one of these threads the claim surfaced that when Buddha is speaking of consciousness, he really means specifically the mutual arising of the skandhas. Westerners on the other hand, myself included, are meaning to refer to a kind of baseline-pre-requisite for the skandhas, which would "in itself" be empty of any content, but would still have some form of.. well even reality is a word, but you see what I'm getting at? So there's this mix-up in talking. I think the consciousness in the western sense has something to do with the karma being carried through time. I also think this is something like what is meant by "atman". Because it is a recurring conundrum for people new to buddhism that they are told "you only see because you see, if you didn't see then you wouldn't", and I don't think this confusion only stems from self-hood. the self is an aggregate of perceptions, it is a part of the skandhas, so it. unless it arises "in a vacuum", its reality must have some form of basis, and since what happens relative to the self seems to carry personal karma it is close at hand to accept some form of personal something.

Really it begets another question: if there is only mutual arising, then what could accumulate karma? is the accumulation of karma also a mutual arising, but on another level? if so what does it arise with? intent? but where does intent come from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:15:49 2020 No.17085606 File: 115 KB, 700x472, Mister-Rogers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Shankara-fag is kill >did not reincarnate as a Shankara-fag

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:17:05 2020 No.17085618

>>17085592
The more I learn about Buddhism, the more I'm tempted to say 'fuck it', stick to only the most barebones concepts (noble eightfold path, four noble truths, etc) and actually practice.
It seems like thinking about buddhist metaphysics is a pointless endeavor and only brings confusion that can (I suppose) be resolved through actual practice instead of theorizing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:18:21 2020 No.17085628 Reincarnation is not aryan, but dravidian. Aryans would burn the bodies of dead because they believed in reunification with the One.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:20:51 2020 No.17085644 >>17085618 >that can (I suppose) be resolved through actual practice instead of theorizing. yea most likely

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:21:37 2020 No.17085648

>>17085592
the basis for the "aggregates" seems shaky as well. i mean, these are very clearly defined concepts that are assumed to be true a priori. taking "matter" and "consciousness" for granted is a big step, especially if you are already denying Brahman and atman

>>17085628
true, the vedic religion is as aryan as it is dravidian. also, while the mahayana probably spread from around gandhara, it was done so by blue eyed tamil monks

>>17085618
at that point consider another religion. i like buddhism too but its clearly missing a key component.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:21:41 2020 No.17085651 >>17085628 Then what's the point of seeking nirvana if everyone gets it after death?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:22:14 2020 No.17085655 >>17085618 I think with all metaphysics, at the heart there is the question "what is free will", and that question is never resolved. you just have to pick a perspective and run with it, but that means that the whole construct is always shakey

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:22:42 2020 No.17085659 >>17085648 >consider another religion Buddhism is beautiful because it is simple. I haven't come across any other form of spirituality with such a pure view of enlightenment and such a practical take on how it should be attained.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:26:30 2020 No.17085690

I might make a thread later for this but I wanted to get the buddhist take.
All traditions have a concept of metaphorical death and rebirth build into their esoteric backbone, the idea that you must 'die' and rise again in order to attain full understanding.
Is there such a thing in buddhism? The full understanding is obviously nibbana, but contrary to western esotericism or even some hindu sects, this process of destroying yourself to rise again isn't found in the jhanas.
Where is the hero's journey in buddhist spirituality?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:28:36 2020 No.17085706

>>17085655
i think that's our faustian spirit talking. our metaphysics have always been primarily about the debate between primacy of the intellect and the will, from aquinas vs scotus, to calvin vs loyola, to kant vs nietzsche. we have always sought to be able to will freely. compare this with the resignation and "islam" of magian metaphysics.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:39:33 2020 No.17085789

>>17085706
>compare this with the resignation and "islam" of magian metaphysics.
"islam", as in resigning yourself to Gods will, is rejection of the self. they have the exact same arguments. the point being that the only meaningful choice is choosing the divine over the mundane, which in so many words is what thie guy in this thread who feels fine with the karma is on the fence about. The mundane having its own cause and effect, and so being essentially free of choices in itself. I think Islam and Buddhism are the same there. The only meaningful choice is the divine over the mundane, because it does not have a mundane cause. Apart from that, free will is meaningless to me desu. The only question is what causes you to make a choice that is not of the chain of events, and that is choosing the divine. Who makes the choice and how.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:39:48 2020 No.17085793

>>17085690
>where is the hero's journey
i would point you to >>17084873. In Mahayana, the way you attain Buddha-like qualities is not by going after those qualities themselves, but by going the other direction. When you submerse yourself in the sea of karma to help everyone find peace and happiness, you will have already attained buddha-hood.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:41:25 2020 No.17085803

>>17085793
There is an idea of self-sacrifice in mahayana relating to the ideal of the bodhisattva, though I don't know if it can really be called a process of death and rebirth which is usually depicted as much more personal and entirely internal.
What about theravada though?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:46:58 2020 No.17085851 >>17085789 if you asked a sufi he'd be likely to tell you that clinging to anything other than God is polytheism, and that God is inherently unknowable

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:51:20 2020 No.17085884

>>17085555
>Mahayana pretty much takes sunyata as a soul-like concept
Im not quite sure what you mean by this. Emptiness just means everything is constantly changing and interdependent. It doesn't mean "emptiness is a thing that is real and unchanging".

>Isn't it easier to admit there's *something* fundamental, beyond your mind or your ego, that is subject to the cycle of rebirth
Is it easier for you to believe in something fundamental because there's actually something fundamental out there? or because you want to believe in something fundamental and ground your life around an immovable object? this "lack of a center" isn't a concept unique to buddhism either. postmodernism has a similar view.

>Isn't Nirvana the unchanging and transcendent thing we're looking for, then?
This might make you more confused, but nirvana itself is not an absolute thing. In modern terms, it can be described as "a place of sustainable happiness and freedom." what exactly it is and how we get there is entirely dependent on your context. a lot of practitioners cling to this idea of nirvana and they chase after it like it's some absolute destination. only when they realize that their pursuit is misguided can they reach one step further.

think of nirvana as the rainbow. you try to get to where it starts but you get frustrated because you can't then you realize the rainbow has no beginning and end. that's your place of happiness.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:54:40 2020 No.17085901

>>17085789
>>17085851
catholic grace too, is ultimately about being able too freely will which is to say, the freedom of god, which is the only true freedom. vice is slavery, they are all in agreement here. meister eckhart said the goal was to be rid of self

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:58:29 2020 No.17085919 >>17085803 >death and rebirth can ego death count? i feel like the story of death and rebirth are symbolic representation of ego death and life after ego death anyways.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 16:59:46 2020 No.17085927 >>17085919 Yes, that's more or less what I meant.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:02:20 2020 No.17085945

in these threads you often get the impression that the only goal of buddhism is liberation. maybe it is. but it seems that at least some part of the way has to do with the karma you accrue, and that even toward liberation the accumulation of good karma is a good thing. what I want to know is- how does buddhism relate to a thing like charity? what are the deeds of a buddhist, insofar as the method has a deeds-dimension?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:07:50 2020 No.17085983 Did Siddartha Gautama teach ontological nihilism?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:15:47 2020 No.17086048

>>17085945
Karma isn't some linear scoring system. It's got more to do with cause and effect. You want "good" things in your life? Well you better start planting good seeds. Not all of those seeds will bear you good things but some will. Sending money to charity could be considered as planting these good seeds.

Karma also influences how you perceive the world. There are many highly politicized issues in American politics today. How you feel about these issues is also a result of karma. All the events that happened in your life and all the events that happened before your life all contribute to how you perceive the world, how you feel about things, etc.

Because most people live bound to this karma, there is little room for right and wrong. But suffering is very real. Deciding to help people suffer less and find peace not because it's the right thing to do but because you find it in yourself to choose to do so is called compassion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:18:56 2020 No.17086071 >>17086048 >but because you find it in yourself to choose to do so would other choices have a similar ontology, or is compassion unlike them?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:36:34 2020 No.17086191 >>17086048 So karma is just causality?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:47:02 2020 No.17086262

>>17086071
You're making me flex my buddhism muscle real hard anon. But to elaborate, compassion in Mahayana is explained like this:

>All the sufferings others have, they are rightfully mine. I will take them back.
>All the happiness that I have, they are rightfully others. I will give them back.

Seen this way, compassion is the default choice when you no longer believe in the notion of self. But because many people have a strong sense of self, they will have to exert varying degrees of effort even if they choose to be compassionate. Not sure if this answers your question.

>>17086191
Mostly yes. It's the cycle of cause and effect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 17:49:53 2020 No.17086280 >>17086262 from whence do cause and effect arise?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:04:06 2020 No.17086369

>>17086280
depends on which cause and effect you're talking about from which context. you can say the apple was dropped because i dropped it. i chose to drop the apple so i have a direct involvement in creating the cycle. if the apple becomes pissed at me that's probably my fault.

but if we dial back and try to determine why i dropped the circle to begin with, then we can go back to the fact that i came to hate apples when i ate a spoiled one many years ago.

we can infinitely dial back until we get to the beginning of the universe. then we get to the part where most buddhists will say they don't know because they're not near omniscient. people can make guesses however because time in buddhism is cyclical. so you can make the pretentious sounding "the beginning is everywhere and nowhere at once" argument or you can say this universe is like a cell in a sea of universes all interconnected and interdependent like everything within this universe.

but really, most just try to stick to science and not make any wild claims.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:05:40 2020 No.17086379

>>17085945
There's the bigbrain answer, which posts below yours have stated, but for householders and the laity the goal is to 1) maintain a human rebirth and 2) get as good of a human rebirth as possible. Ideally, you want to be reborn as a monk (or rather someone who becomes a monk). A Buddhist thus seeks to accumulate merit, not good karma, as good karma can take you to the deity realm, but merit will keep you human. As others have said, there is no external "scorer" for karma, there's just some actions that cause you to be reborn in some places.

This gets into charity and compassion, as you do want to be a good person even if you're laity. There's a larger dimension to monks begging (it's a spiritually "aggressive" act, it's not passive), but that's sort of secondary.

It's worth noting that maintaining a human rebirth is actually rather easy. Having said that, this does not mean that you are guaranteed a NICE human rebirth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:08:51 2020 No.17086398 >>17084589 Sounds like a brainlet version of the forms.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:11:05 2020 No.17086415 >>17086398 then i love the brainlet version of the forms

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:12:10 2020 No.17086422

How do you deal with the extreme neutrality of Buddhism? Since it preaches detachment above all else, how can there be compassion rather than indifference?
It sounds corny but my ideal is to be able to unconditionally love all beings, and perceive the inherent beauty in all of existence. Detachment just sounds like it would make me numb to this.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:15:30 2020 No.17086440

>>17086422
It's cravings that makes you incompassionate. Detachment is a tool. It's not the thing that causes dukkha, it's the craving for it. Compassion is the result of a lack of craving. There isn't really some kind of galaxy-brain logic behind it, it's sort of just axiomatic. Someone who does not crave, who does not bind himself to things, is compassionate. That's just how the world works. A monk is allowed to eat cake, the feelings of eating the cake aren't bad. It's the craving for them that causes the problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:17:08 2020 No.17086448 >>17086440 When you are compassionate, aren't you attached to the well-being and welfare of beings? If you're detached, why would you care?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:27:48 2020 No.17086520 >>17085919 Isn't ego death part of the jhanas?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:28:22 2020 No.17086523 >>17086448 True compassion is only capable when you aren't attached to their welfare. That's sort of the point. The Lotus Sutra and the Flower Garland Sutra both go into compassion (karuna in Buddhism).

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:35:55 2020 No.17086588 >>17086369 But I mean ontologically, not cause and effect extended in time. Why are there sentient beings rather than not

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:36:26 2020 No.17086592

>>17086422
Extreme detachment is said to be a side effect of misunderstanding Buddha's teachings. Mahayana is actually all about diving straight into the world and making people suffer less. When a Buddhist says to detach, what they're actually saying is to detach from your ego.

To elaborate, let's look at the famous Christian teaching "love thy neighbor." The message is pretty simple, but in reality, not many Christians actually practice it because when they come home and look at their neighbors they see
>people belonging to a certain race group they don't like
>people supporting a political figure they don't like
>people doing annoying things they don't like
>etc.
i.e. their ego gets in the way and they become resentful and rigid. In Buddhism, through meditation and other practices, you learn to notice when your ego and karma act up and stir up these emotions. You can work your way to a point where you can effortlessly and willingly detach from your ego and see the world as it really is.

And as you learn to see the world as it is, you become aware of its sufferings and how to help people suffer less. In the process you become more and more compassionate because you realize there's no reason not to be.

>>17086448
>Don't you have to be attached to do these things?
This is actually a common question that people have when they first into buddhism. Most people at first find it impossible that people can be motivated without being attached. There are many such seemingly ironic aspects to buddhism e.g. you must strive to reach nirvana but nirvana itself isn't a fixed thing. So I like to compare buddhism to chasing a rainbow. You try to get to the place where the rainbow begins but the whole point is that you learn that the rainbow doesn't begin anywhere. with things like this, it's better to just dive straight in and begin practicing to chip away at your ego and karma.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:38:15 2020 No.17086607 >>17084528 When you die, your atoms don't just vanish. They get reconstituted into other living things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:41:25 2020 No.17086638 >>17086588 Im afraid im not smart enough to understand the question fully.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:46:45 2020 No.17086677

>>17086638
Think of a car engine. Irregardless of when the engin was put inside the car and when it was first taken for a test drive, if the engine wasn't active in the present the car wouldn't work. When dependent arising began is not the question, but rather why it occurs right now, since if it didn't, samsara wouldn't turn and the world would kind of break. Why are there beings when there could potentially not be.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:49:29 2020 No.17086697

>>17086379
>maintain a human rebirth
reading the rest of these posts, there's no such thing as *your* rebirth, rather these rebirths belong to everybody at the same time and your consciousness doesn't actually migrate as popular conception of buddhism would have you think

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 18:59:16 2020 No.17086765 >>17086697 Yes, I am aware. That is why I said what I said. It's called the Two Truths doctrine, anon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:06:27 2020 No.17086812 >>17086697 According to the Tibetan book of the dead it does

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:10:47 2020 No.17086841

>>17086677
>why are the things the way they are
>why are we born when we dont have to be
In Mahayana they say the world is like a fleeting dream. there's not really a reason why things are the way they are. they simply are. there's no anthropomorphic purpose or reason behind this world. we just need to live it out peacefully, happily, and freely. A lot of people find this to be nihilistic but buddhism at its core is distinctly anti-nihilism.

I view that it's a unique experience to be born with our human flesh and consciousness -- it allows us to experience what we call the mind and the world through this mind.

maybe this was closer to what you were looking to hear.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:35:09 2020 No.17086960

>>17086262
>compassion is the default choice when you no longer believe in the notion of self
this answers all my questions. my understanding is that this is what Jesus preached also. how it all adds up metaphysically- I don't know. I just wanted to know if there was a similarity there

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 19:53:26 2020 No.17087075 >>17084750 Even this fails to get at what he's asking, because this merely seems to imply that there is a constant "it" but that this it is purely abstract and impersonal, with no permanent identifying markers.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 20:34:32 2020 No.17087344

>>17085306
>how does awakening stop 'you' from being reincarnated?
When you awaken you realize there was never a "you" to begin with. It's just endless waves coming and going and things expressing differently in different contexts. Seen from this way, how is it possible that you reincarnate at all?

>>17085535
>Aren't past lives mine then?
Something is only yours if you cling to the idea of self. Once the self is gone so does your past.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 20:57:17 2020 No.17087485

There seem to be people itt that actually know their buddhism, so I have a few questions if you'd be so kind to answer
>Is Nirvana the ground of being?
>Why is Samsara a thing in the first place?
>If it's all cause and effect with no inherent good or evil, why is it such a huge unforgivable act to kill an arhat or even disparage the dharma and the buddha to the point you're guaranteed rebirth in hell?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 21:39:54 2020 No.17087686

>>17087485
>Is Nirvana the ground of being?
I don't understand this question. In modern terms nirvana can be described as a place of sustainable happiness.
>Why is Samsara a thing in the first place?
Reincarnation as Hindus believe it was never preached by Gautama Buddha himself. In Buddhism, reincarnation is merely a name for describing the cycles of changes you go through as a system. Even in this life, you go through numerous cycles. For example, when you chase after a woman and you end up getting her, you feel happy. Then when she leaves you, you feel sad. This is a cycle, a reincarnation. Of course, after death you go through more reincarnations, changes of cycles. In Buddhism nothing is still. Everything is interconnected and everything is changing. Therefore you reincarnate because you as an individual is something that changes as well.
>If it's all cause and effect with no inherent good or evil, why is it such a huge unforgivable act to kill
Buddha teaches that killing is bad because he observed that no animal enjoys dying. Because Buddha is against suffering he told people not to do what he viewed as something that would almost always lead to suffering. But this is far from being the absolute law. In Mahayana especially they teach that even Buddha's words themselves are in the end empty. They are merely prescriptions given to people in that specific time and space to help people. They are not unchanging.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:09:34 2020 No.17087860 >>17087686 Not that guys but that's at odds with actual Buddhist theology. I understand modernization is required for all religions but go ask a monk if rebirth isn't literal (even with no atman). You're preaching false dhamma.

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:19:41 2020 No.17087925

>>17087860
>at odds with actual Buddhist theology
not really, but i can see why you'd think that. there is indeed literal rebirth, but it should be understood as a conventional concept. most people confuse it a process where you as an individual is born again and again with the same ego and soul. but tell me, if all is empty and you as an individual is also empty, what is being rebirthed exactly? there is a wave and another wave that comes after in its place. you can all it a rebirth, or a reincarnation, but the core message is that you go through a transformation. life and death are merely just another steps in this transformation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:34:41 2020 No.17088001 >>17087925 You're oversimplifying things too much and you know it. That's not even upaya.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:46:42 2020 No.17088060 >>17088001 Anon i understand you dont like the things i said and i respect it. Perhaps the monk i listen to is quite the progressive. If you have issues with a specific part let me know. Perhaps i am indeed oversimplifying.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 22:51:00 2020 No.17088087 >>17088060 I have a single question for you. If it comes to a disagreement between the suttas and your understanding, which is wrong view?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:03:21 2020 No.17088152

>>17088087
When buddhism became this huge thing after Gautama Buddha's death, there was a period where many different sects formed and competed against one another for more following. It's kind of ironic but they were forced into a situation where they each claimed they have the "best" teachings. Throughout history, Buddhism has transformed into many different things for many different people. For many, it's a religion. For others, it's a philosophy. For some, it's a worldview.

The monk that I follow has stressed that there is no right or wrong view. Each has been formed through karma and each tries to point to the same mountain from different sources. Although one can criticize another, it's not to say that "the other" is wrong. In the end, it comes down to your choice. What do you find to be more valuable? What is the more sustainable, applicable path? What can make us truly free and happy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:04:25 2020 No.17088160 Rebirth cannot be explained in the realm of space-time and logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:06:25 2020 No.17088167 >>17088152 Do you consider yourself a secular buddhist?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:07:37 2020 No.17088175 >>17088167 I hesitate to even call myself a buddhist, though i study it and practice it a lot. I just want to be happy and share what i know about how to get there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:08:34 2020 No.17088181 >>17088167 Secular buddhist supposes Buddha had a concern for a theology or was himself a god.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:09:42 2020 No.17088192 >>17088175 Perhaps people's autistic tendency to categorise things is folly and people are perfectly able to learn from a wide array of wisdoms and prophecies without consigning themselves to some sort of boring institution. t. Jasperfag

Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 Mon Dec 21 23:11:40 2020 No.17088205

I mean, before this is even discussed you have to ask what is the relation of karma, desire/skandhas and what you call an I and your stream of consciousness. Various sects have different interpretations based on how they interpret these things.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:17:14 2020 No.17088236 >>17088152 Sorry anon, but it doesn't really sound like you're following the path. Just taking what you think "works" and filtering it all trough a post modern western lens.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:23:16 2020 No.17088274 >>17088236 What's wrong with that? Buddha asks for total commitment but what's wrong with learning about the Buddha and then moving on to do think further in the expansive world?

Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:29:37 2020 No.17088311

>>17088274
Nothing. You're a cool guy that just wanta to do good. Don't listen to that guy, it sounds like he's some kind of literalist/fundamentalist. Believe it or not there are buddhist nazis on fucking /pol/. Anytng to feel superior to others, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 21 23:34:57 2020 No.17088342 File: 72 KB, 929x570, 1608338103862.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17088236 >the path The path is not mean to be an object of clinging. The path is doing whatever gets you enlightened. This is the way.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 00:01:57 2020 No.17088502

>>17088160
Sure it can, as long as you aren't a Kantian or a Newtonian. I find Bergson useful for helping a Western mind grasp some Buddhist ideas. We imagine a homogenous space, then we project time into it; these are useful to us since they help us organize the sensations and memories we have. We start using language to give permanence to these things, again because it is useful. Consciousness as a process keeps all of these things before it but they really only "exist" for the consciousness, symbolically given in space. So in that sense it is possible for the symbols we have to be transformed since they are largely arbitrary. Now of course, Buddhism stakes bigger claims than this since it is religious in character, but even if you wanted a more physical explanation, there is no matter created ex nihilo and everything that is has been something else, i.e. it is reborn. Your mother ate plants and animals to turn them into you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 00:05:09 2020 No.17088529 >>17084528 you only need MahaPrajnaParamita-Sastra by Nagarjuna to understand everything about Buddhism

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 02:00:56 2020 No.17089084 >>17086520 Interested in this

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 02:19:10 2020 No.17089167 File: 551 KB, 2400x1800, bhagavadgita-6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Buddhist metaphysics unironically made me a vedantin

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 02:38:04 2020 No.17089279 >>17088529 >you only need MahaPrajnaParamita-Sastra by Nagarjuna to understand everything about Buddhism *about hinduism

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 02:42:11 2020 No.17089305 >>17089167 Why

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 02:56:48 2020 No.17089374

>>17086422 >>17086440
>>17086592

>It sounds corny but my ideal is to be able to unconditionally love all beings, and perceive the inherent beauty in all of existence.
Brahmins created mahayana just for this. Ofc that's not buddhism, but hindus just want to feel enlightened without putting any effort into it, so they don't care about being wrong.You can't reach the truth with compassion, but you still will be better than unenlightened people, most of the time.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:00:26 2020 No.17089389 >>17089374 Are you saying enlightenment is impossible with Mahayana? What about Zen or Tantra?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:08:54 2020 No.17089411

>>17084993
>It's a limitless potentiality, free from all limit.
>
>When your karma runs out, you return to your true state (nirvana) that you are already in. You're unbound. You're free from all limit. The limits of existence, non-existence, time, space, conceptuality, consciousness, unconsciousness. It's a fundamentally ineffable state beyond conceptuality (to describe it in words would be to limit it, after all).
this is the opposite of buddhism

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:14:49 2020 No.17089436 Any legitimate guides on how to become a stream-entered as a layman?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:16:42 2020 No.17089445 enterer*

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:42:11 2020 No.17089513 personhood isn't soul, something does move on but exactly what and how differs between buddhists being as they are far from monolithic. the reason for this is consistency is because they all believe in some understanding of karma and rebirth.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:48:53 2020 No.17089539

>>17087344
>When you awaken you realize there was never a "you" to begin with. It's just endless waves coming and going and things expressing differently in different contexts. Seen from this way, how is it possible that you reincarnate at all?
Then what's the point of awakening at all if the end result is the same

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 03:49:57 2020 No.17089542

>>17089513
it's probable that the buddha himself believed in soul but the point of his teachings wasn't trying to discern truth at that level of thought, which would be fruitless, but achieving a goal. buddhism is more of a plurality because of the attempt to intellectualise this basis. the original intent was to avoid this fruitless intellectualisation but it had the opposite effect as things were unclear in that regard and scholarly men can't help but think.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 04:00:52 2020 No.17089587 Not sure where the influx of Buddhism threads came from, but I'm enjoying them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 04:01:36 2020 No.17089589 >>17089587 People got tired of gnosticism, I guess.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 04:57:54 2020 No.17089731

Here's my brainlet take. Debrod said that cycle occurs because of fixation, he probably borrowed it elsewhere. Existence means you are fixated to this world. Once you're fixed, life cycle occurs, which goes on to be historical cycle. The idea of reincarnation is quite like some of Borges's stories. Somewhere in time, be it the past, or the future, there will be a person who's connected to you. It can be through repetition of circumstances, or the logic of some chronological events (what they call karma), or it can be a thread entirely meaningless to characterize. It is through this 'connection' that they can be said to be your 'incarnations'. At this point you can rightly argue that if you cannot characterize the connection, you might as well say there's no connection at all, which is precisely the point since even this connection can be seen as an 'illusion'. Just like what the other anon said, it's the wave of things that conspire to be 'you' and every other 'you' here after, but they are not really you, nor you they. But if you're currently suffering, then those 'you's' in the past and future are also suffering, unless you can break the cycle. But by doing so, you'll also be breaking the cycle for others, and since you cannot really say those other people aren't 'you', you can see how it ties back to the 'one is whole, whole is one' thing. When they say they can see into the past or future, what they mean is that they're able to 'see' karma better than others, so that by following the logic, they can 'deduce' the cause and effect, and thus 'see' farther into the past and future. The so called 'enlightenment' is when you're able to perceive karma, so that you can 'make' decision knowing full well the effects. But then it's actually not a decision, since knowing karma is the same as following a logic to its very conclusion. There will then be no reason to not be compassionate. But it doesn't mean you will do what is commonly considered good or bad (for they are also illusory).
I'm no buddhist, and I've only been reading into zen buddhism, so I can be completely wrong. I still haven't figured out what it means by 'knowing thyself' = nirvana, other than some blurry grasp thanks to Hegel. But I do think that if you want to read into it, you shouldn't focused too much on what is written, since the juicy part is, imo, what wasn't written at all, and I think they did it deliberately, since if everyone attains nirvana, the order of the world will be pretty fucked if you think about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 05:15:59 2020 No.17089791 File: 161 KB, 1200x700, 1603598624413.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Nirvana is just CHIM, Samsara is the Amaranth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 06:03:52 2020 No.17089942 >>17089436 Don't you have to be a monk for this?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 06:27:48 2020 No.17090011

>>17087075
>with no permanent identifying markers.
if it had permanent identifying markers it would mean it had relative existence to all things, and that would mean it itself would be implicated in the creation of karma. the point, I think, is that there is a stream of karma that somehow relates to it, but of which it is, in fact, independent if it manages/chooses to be, but this would be impossible if it itself generated karma.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 06:37:34 2020 No.17090041

On the one hand you say that if you don't reach enlightment then you'll ripple outwards, but it's not as if those ripples have conscience.
the buddha clearly says he 'lived' multiple lives, hell, he remembers them. If you are 'reborn' as ripples then you're not reborn as a full being - a smattering of them, all over the universe. What is this BS that you can somehow organize all this ripples together and remember them like the buddha did

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 08:53:20 2020 No.17090585

Buddhism is basically a whole collection of different teachings with different cultural baggage. You can't follow all of it, you have to make your pick.

The reincarnation thing is contradictory. There's no way around it. I think reincarnation is an Indian traditional belief that the Buddha incorporated in their teachings even though it conflicted with the other stuff.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:06:47 2020 No.17090662 >>17090585 If there is reincarnation, the question is "what gets reincarnated" If there is no reincarnation, the question becomes "why seek nirvana if there's no cycle of rebirth"

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:08:25 2020 No.17090671

>>17090585
There is no reincarnation in Buddhism, just rebirth. Rebirth working the way it does is a result and a necessity of the entire system of Buddhist thought. I'd recommend starting with What the Buddha Taught, and then reading the Heart Sutra (get the Red Pine translation). Both are on libgen. This serves as a decent introduction to Buddhism for someone who has no prior knowledge of the subject.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 09:12:00 2020 No.17090694 >>17086697 then how do you explain those people having clear memories of their past life

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:03:34 2020 No.17091280 >>17090694 To add to this: how can you be sure a lama reincarnated as a human and not as an animal or a ghost?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:06:33 2020 No.17091295 >>17084589 So this contrasts with hindus who seem to really believe their gurus are reborn from the same personality right?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:32:46 2020 No.17091439

>>17091295
Correct. While Buddhist tradition holds that an individual is mostly composed of the "stuff" from a single prior individual, in theory (as held by both the Theravada and the Mahayana) a person can be made up of multiple "prior" people. Right now, in fact, you are composed of some influence of literally everything in existence, in varying amounts. So, in a sense, every single person ever, in the past and future, was reborn as you, but only one (or a small handful) of people compose anything more than the most absolutely minute percentage.

It should be noted that Hindus don't just believe that gurus, but EVERYONE, has an enduring soul that does not change or break apart. Jains take this a step further, in that even karma isn't "in" the soul, or a property of the soul, it's colored fuzz that gets caught on the outside of the soul (in Jainism, the various types of karma are described by their "color"). In the Buddha's time, it seems that this belief was extended to more than just living things, such that rocks and chariots had souls. Some Hindu schools still hold to this, but most are unconcerned with this. Hindu philosophy is supremely focused on the relation of man and Brahman.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 11:50:10 2020 No.17091546 >>17084832 >that pic While it'd be sweet to be liberated, I'd also like to experience some of those higher deva realms or formless realms. How do I ensure I get reborn in one of those without fucking up my chances at liberation?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 12:56:31 2020 No.17091937 >>17091546 Once-returner

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 13:10:59 2020 No.17092038 who here is actually enlightened raise your hands o/

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 13:11:51 2020 No.17092042 File: 5 KB, 225x224, download.jpeg-7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17092038

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 13:29:01 2020 No.17092193 >>17084535 Descartes was right all along

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:07:08 2020 No.17092527 File: 48 KB, 300x400, 1580608458197.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17092042 Based

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:12:38 2020 No.17092578 >>17089731 nice anon. zen buddhism is pretty big on "experiencing" the truth more than "studying" the truth so what you said makes sense. any western philosophers that kinda say similar things besides hegel?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 14:50:22 2020 No.17092858

>>17092038
The prospect of enlightenment or just buddhism in general stresses me out a bit. The end goal is that I'm supposed to be unaffected by the world? I won't enjoy the things I currently enjoy, nothing will elicit strong emotion anymore, I'll just be in a constant state of disinterest and tranquility? Maybe I'm a brainlet but isn't that a bit depressing? I don't think of myself as a mindless consoomer, but still, there are people I feel affection towards, experiences I like to have, emotions I like to feel, if only the very simple ones I get from a walk in nature or listening to music. I don't see the appeal in being above all of this.
Is that really enlightenment?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 15:18:26 2020 No.17093092 >>17092858 Why do people assume that becoming enlightened suddenly makes you incapable of feeling emotions?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:11:03 2020 No.17093533

>>17092858
As >>17093092 says, becoming enlightened doesn't mean you're suddenly not human anymore. As you meditate and practice, you become MORE aware of your feelings, not less. The point is that you become so aware, able to see the world with such clarity that you are not bound by your karma, your ego, etc. You can still choose to ride the wave if you'd like.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:17:55 2020 No.17093586

>>17093533
>you become MORE aware of your feelings
Isn't the end goal to let go of everything?
Identity view; attachment to rites and rituals; doubt about the teachings; sensual desire; ill will; attachment to the jhanas; conceit; restlessness; ignorance.
These are the things you apparently need to get rid of in order to become enlightened. If you have no identify and no desire, can you really feel anything?
Maybe I'm getting influenced by the western idea that buddhism is very close to stoicism and that people who are advanced in the eightfold path don't care about anything anymore. Still, Gautama abandoned his family, didn't he?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:23:47 2020 No.17093627

>>17093586
That you care about attaining anything at all or maintaining certain pleasures as they relate to your aesthetic experience means that no, you are not enlightened. It is very hard to become enlightened. You will probably not become enlightened in one lifetime. Compassion and no-self are important cultivations from the perspective of most Buddhist schools because they promote non-attachment to passing phenomena. Also stoicism is just Buddhism without soteriology, both have equanimity and askesis however.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:25:37 2020 No.17093640

>>17084528
Rebirth = new births, no souls/selves involved.
Reincarnations = teleportation of souls into a body.

The idea of selfhood has been dunked at the core of Buddhism via concepts like skandha to explain how foolish the idea of self is.

What's left connecting between rebirths are connections between past/present/future via karma. Aka causality . Its not a linear causality nor a simple causality of A->B. Buddha explains in various ways that karma cannot be understood simply as line of "good people doing good things get good rebirth or bad people doing bad things get bad rebirths" its not a reward system, there are no book keeping mechanisms or book keeper for karma. Only thing that can connect karma is the idea that causality has both cause and effects yet these two do not have a simple (this is cause or this is effect) explanations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:27:42 2020 No.17093660 >>17093627 I know that, I never claimed to be. >your aesthetic experience Yeah this is, more or less, the main thing that makes existence worth it for me. If there is no experience of emotion and aesthetics, I don't see the point.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:28:28 2020 No.17093668

>>17093586
>Isn't the end goal to let go of everything?
The goal, if you can call it that, is to be free. You don't become free by denying your emotions.

>These are the things you apparently need to get rid of in order to become enlightened
You don't need to deny any of the things you mentioned. You simply need to recognize that there's no need to cling or fixate on any of them because nothing in the world is fixed. Everything is always changing and everything is interconnected and interdependent. What expresses as your identity today may express as something else after you die. Enjoy these things as they are. See these things as they are. There is no reason to deny it or detach from it.

>Gautama abandoned his family
It's a matter of point of view, I guess. Gautama later returns to his family and his entire family minus his father decide to follow him.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:29:19 2020 No.17093674 >>17093640 If I don't exist, what reaches nirvana?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:29:34 2020 No.17093676

>>17092858
>The end goal is that I'm supposed to be unaffected by the world
No, the end goal is to see that "I", the entity that you assume exists, is merely a delusion of the mind.

Before enlightenment, chop wood/carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood/carry water.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:34:17 2020 No.17093713

>>17093674
No one reaches nirvana, there are no place to reach to.

This is not a trick answer/koan/paradox but rather requires the understanding that buddha teaches about both the world of mundane and the world of the ultimates. They are the one and same, yet perceived differently.

First, to get started on the path, we have to go with the standard assumptions of life. "I" exist. Suffering exists. Escape to Nirvana exists. My hate exist. My love exist. My various assumptions that make up the world exists. From within this "reality" or assumption of reality, we have to wake up from this illusion-like state that. The awakening process leads to the matter of "I" disappearing. Thus suffering and sufferer both become irrelevant. Yet nothing has fundamentally changed. Awakened ones will still chop wood and carry water.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:41:04 2020 No.17093771 File: 36 KB, 560x292, Shankaracharya_Jayanti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >blocks your path >refutes anatta nothing personal nihilist

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:42:18 2020 No.17093785

>>17093668
What about desire? I thought it was seen as a hindrance to liberation because it causes attachment and suffering.
>there's no need to cling or fixate
I understand this as a concept. I still can't manage to wrap my head around how I'm supposed to realize the futility of clinging/attachment while still at the same time being able to get the emotions I'm getting from the experiences I currently cling to.
I acknowledge that everything changes and that maybe, someday, my priorities will have shifted and I won't care about what I currently care about anymore. This, however, does not stop me from currently valuing those things.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:44:11 2020 No.17093802 >>17093713 >nobody reaches nirvana because reaching nirvana makes you aware there was nobody to reach it in the first place It makes sense but it's really counter-intuitive.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:48:01 2020 No.17093843

>>17093676
So what happens when I fully realize that my ego is illusory? Presumably my awareness still exists, but it is now untied from certain limitations that used to confine it. How does this express itself, what is awareness like when anatta is realized?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:48:05 2020 No.17093845

>>17093802
Yeah its counter intuitive as saying "Your self doesn't exist" etc. Its jarring to most people, so thats why Buddhism taught to beginners/initiates dont go that route. But since we have the internet, Buddhism could essentially be boiled down to core tenants at the risk of being "offputting" to many.
You have to understand that the entirety of humanity operates with the assumption of self existing. Our whole language/culture/law/society system depends on it. So its not an easy "pill" to swallow for most.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:49:08 2020 No.17093850 >>17093713 >Awakened ones will still chop wood and carry water What's the point then? Sure, they're not suffering anymore but there was no one to suffer in the first place. I'm not trying to be a cunt, but shouldn't something supernatural happen then?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:49:29 2020 No.17093854 >>17093845 >Buddhism taught to beginners/initiates dont go that route. IIRC theravada drops you headfirst into this philosophy of non-self until you either get it or quit

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:50:31 2020 No.17093862 >>17093850 >shouldn't something supernatural happen then? The jhanas at a high level are pretty much astral projection if you're into that.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:53:09 2020 No.17093878

>>17093843
Its completely different that's for sure. Many people get a "taste" of what enlightenment is like. They've written their accounts but these are temporary as many haven't prepared their mind to have that state permanently. This is why life long meditation is requirement for proper buddhism or atleast until the practitioners can maintain the meditation state even while doing mundane things.

>>17093854
Theravada is a monastic only teaching. Even then, these core truths are only understood years into their practice after many meditation sessions. The consumption of theravada teachings in not the same theravada teachings for general public. For general public, teachings like Dhammapada go down the slow/steady teachings.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:54:47 2020 No.17093891

>>17093862
I'm not into that, just curious. Why doesn't something else happen that affects the world other living beings perceive? I know the Buddha frowned upon displays of supernatural feats, but they would certainly be useful to liberate more beings.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:54:50 2020 No.17093892 >>17093850 >>17093862 Yeah. Higher Jhana states/meditative states can get you those "magical" powers, although its more of mastery of their mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:55:51 2020 No.17093898 >>17093891 >The consumption of theravada teachings in the west/internet*

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:56:52 2020 No.17093905 >>17093898 Meant to quote >>17093878

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:57:41 2020 No.17093908 >>17093802 Buddhists just mean ego when they talk about self, but the same sentience from before nirvana continues into nirvana which is how one is aware of being in nirvana, that sentience is really the self

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 16:58:48 2020 No.17093914

>>17093891
Because the goal of Buddhism was never about magic powers. It was about everyday people alleviating their suffering. Attraction through magical powers/thinking/delusions only further makes it harder for people to understand the simple truth that these things don't bring an end to suffering.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:00:53 2020 No.17093929 >>17093914 On the same topic of magic/highs of jhana (yes its real). Many meditators can get caught up in the jhana states that they forget the real goal. This is a problem that plagues many shitter meditation gurus.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:03:47 2020 No.17093953

>>17093914
But there are no beings who suffer, at least not how they think they do, so why bother even if compassion is the default action with no-self right view? Wouldn't it be better to just show everyone the truth at once or turn the world into a buddha field? This brings me to the question of what gets liberated at Nirvana or what dissolves and what decides to abandon delusion in the first place to cut the karmic chain.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:06:58 2020 No.17093979 >>17093908 >Buddhists just mean ego when they talk about self, Source? I'm pretty sure they mean everything, the mind, ego, soul, consciousness, etc

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:09:35 2020 No.17093997

>>17093878
>life long meditation is requirement
I read it was a matter of steps. What you're talking about (getting glimpses of nirvana) is part of the four steps of enlightenment, once you reach one of them, you can't regress. That's how it's presented at least. Enlightenment or the action of becoming an arahant is similarly permanent.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:09:47 2020 No.17094001

>>17093785
>What about desire?
Desires can be hindrances but you may not be hindered by your desires. Think of it this way. When you're drunk you can't really think clearly. The few thoughts you have kind of run your body blindly. Only when you're awake can you notice what you're thinking and more. Can you still have those drunken feelings and thoughts after you awake? Absolutely. But will you be controlled by them? Well, that part is up to you.

>This, however, does not stop me from currently valuing those things.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Buddhists feel love for their family, community, country, etc. too. But they also see that everything is like a beautiful dream. In the end, there's nothing to be sad about if you tried to build a castle in your dream and you have to wake up before its completion.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:14:21 2020 No.17094028

>>17093878
>Theravada is a monastic only teaching
More or less, it's not like you can't get taught as a lay or even ordain for a couple years and then leave. An Ajahn whose name I don't remember said six months spent among a monastic order was enough for the average person to get a good grasp on the basics
I'm not sure what you mean by the consumption of theravada teachings in the west being different. It's mostly mahayana that's denatured (especially zen)

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:15:45 2020 No.17094037

>>17093929
>Many meditators can get caught up in the jhana states that they forget the real goal.
I'm guessing this is how we get so many people fixated on things like lucid dreams, out of body experiences and all that, who don't ever go further. Detachment from the jhanas isn't part of the core teachings for no reason, it seems like a dangerous pitfall

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:16:19 2020 No.17094041

>>17093953
>But there are no beings who suffer
To an enlightened one, there is no individual who suffers. To people like us, suffering is real.
>why bother
Because people suffer! And it would be dope if they don't suffer as much.
>Wouldn't it be better to just show everyone the truth at once
Gautama Buddha spent his entire life showing everyone the truth and practicing the truth. What people make of that is up to them.
>turn the world into a buddha field
it takes time!

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:16:41 2020 No.17094042
File: 260 KB, 1080x1036, NEXT FUCKING LEVEL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17093845
This gets brought up a lot on /lit/, how nirvana is ultimately ineffable, because it's beyond conceptuality. This is particularly a problem with, ironically, Hindus and Westerners, both of whom traditionally adhere to religious doctrines that have as a core doctrine the idea that the world literally works according to the principles of Sanskrit and Hebrew (respectively) grammar. The idea that a word is just a tool is something that is completely alien. I've argued with people on this board before who throw a fit when you imply that a chariot is just an assembly of parts because, although they do not know Sanskrit or Hebrew, there is a word for "chariot" in Sanskrit or Hebrew ergo it must have some ontological reality outside of just the assemblage of parts.

Westerners sort of just don't get how to handle this idea. It's one that has been stifled ever since Plato. It's very telling that Post-Modernism (yes faglord, I get that this is a loose term, I know what I mean, you know what I mean, go pop your zits somewhere else), and independent touching on what much of Eastern thought gets at, almost always results in the Post-Modernist having a mental breakdown, offering "?...?uh?...?communism?...?uh?...?" as a solution to the fundamental problems of language and knowledge, and then killing themselves.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:17:35 2020 No.17094053 >>17094028 >It's mostly mahayana that's denatured why are theravada folks so bitter :p

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:17:51 2020 No.17094058

>>17093953
>But there are no beings who suffer
The take on both mundane and ultimate reality is both are "real" in a sense, or atleast relevant to discussion. This is why the pursuit of Buddhism/escape from suffering is even a thing. If suffering wasn't a big deal in mundane world, if there were no beings in mundane world, then the teachings of Buddha doesn't make sense in any way.

>Wouldn't it be better to just show everyone the truth at once?
The path of Buddha is a personal path at core. A journey of self-cultivation and self-discovery (yes I know, but keep in mind mundane/ultimate). Others cannot walk the path for you. The teachings of Buddha is just a Buddha's personal teaching with regards to how to get to where he is. There maybe other methods to get people to the state but that's another topic.

>what gets liberated at nirvana/dissolves and what decides to abandon
This is talking about the transition period between mundane and ultimate. However there's also a slight understanding/emphasis to be made here. When buddha/ism talks about mundane reality of beings, they're talking about the mundane understandings of beings who believe they have a self-identity/entity existence. So to answer is straight-forward, the mundane becomes liberated at nirvana and is dissolved (keep the mundane/ultimate distinction in mind at all times).

>>17093997
Yes but its a matter of semantics here. If there was a buddhist school that gave ranks, if the ranker or the supervisor makes a mistake, you can get demoted. Similarly, an unstable mind can still believe themselves enlightened but revert back. However with proper/dedicated steps, the idea is real enlightenment is permanent.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:18:45 2020 No.17094067

>>17094053
But it's true, I didn't even realize this was up for debate. Don't even get me started on vajrayana
It's not bitterness, just observation. Mahayana is more complex, has more open interpretations of the concepts, so naturally it would get denatured

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:20:26 2020 No.17094082 >>17094067 Anon let's not cling to one particular path

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:21:25 2020 No.17094087

>>17094001
>Can you still have those drunken feelings and thoughts after you awake?
Yeah but why would I?
If this analogy translates, then I would not see the point of desiring anything after enlightenment?

>In the end, there's nothing to be sad about if you tried to build a castle in your dream and you have to wake up before its completion.
This I can grasp intuitively, yes. There are many beautiful things I'm attached to, and I am aware that one day they will all disappear, or I will move on to something else, and that's fine. In the meantime I enjoy them. Being able to enjoy things in general is not something I'd be ready to give up right now is what I meant.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:21:39 2020 No.17094091

>>17094042
im not familiar enough with some of the language spoken here.

> I've argued with people on this board before who throw a fit when you imply that a chariot is just an assembly of parts because, although they do not know Sanskrit or Hebrew, there is a word for "chariot" in Sanskrit or Hebrew ergo it must have some ontological reality outside of just the assemblage of parts.

can you elaborate like im 5?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:23:33 2020 No.17094110

>>17094058
>If there was a buddhist school that gave ranks
I'm talking about the actual four steps: sotapanna, sakadagamin, anagami, arahant. If you become an anagami, it's impossible to revert to sotapanna.
Beginners can definitely believe themselves enlightened when they've barely scratched the surface, but that's not what I'm referring to.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:28:21 2020 No.17094139 >>17094058 If the mundane disappears into the ultimate this either means the moment one being is liberated then all are and the samsaric phases out or that there is a real distinction between beings.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:30:45 2020 No.17094157

>>17094091
Take a bicycle(modernized chariot) for example. Are the wheels a bicycle? What about the frame? Or the leather seat? Or the chains? Or the paints? etc. The idea is individually these parts aren't Bicycle. Together they make the "idea" of bicycle, but there are no "bicycle" as a inherent essence/core/etc. This breakdown can be applied to any conditioned phenomena (humans/selfhood/planets/sun/rats/cats/chair/car/bicycle/chariots/etc).

The chariot argument is arguing the same thing. Which is basically a boiled down argument for Buddhist argument against self-hood.

This triggers people who really believe in the existence of an core/essence of things, aka 99.99% of humanity if not 100% of it. The argument, if accepted, breaks down the commonly assumed reality and leads to a Buddhist understanding of the world.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:33:56 2020 No.17094187

>>17094091
There is a very popular interpretation of Jewish and Christian thought that the Hebrew language literally describes reality. That is, the principles of Hebrew grammar can be used to describe how the world works. A certain grammatical construction in Hebrew is also evidence of mechanisms in reality. Very popular interpretations of Hinduism also imply this, albeit with Sanskrit. To give you an English example, English has three grammatical genders (a mechanism for classifying words based on their sound that, in Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages corresponds with words taking a "masculine" or "feminine" form), meaning that something can be a "he/it", or a "she". This means that anything that is not explicitly feminine is masculine. Similarly, English has two numbers, the singular and the plural. This means that there can either be one of something, or multiple of it.

The problem with this is that, as I noted, the entire concept of linguistic gender can very easily be different. There are some Indo-European languages with up to five linguistic genders (true masculine, masculine-neuter, true neuter, feminine-neuter, true feminine). There are many languages without linguistic gender at all (Mandarin, Finnish). Bantu languages don't use linguistic gender, they actually use noun-classes which, traditionally, are said to be different trees. Central Asian languages use various forms of animate-inanimate distinctions (Sumerian did this, albeit in a weird way). Likewise, up until a certain point, all Indo-European languages actually had THREE numbers, singular, dual, and plural, meaning that there can be one, two, or multiple of something (Ancient Greek and Sanskrit did this).

None of this is a problem, languages are tools. The problem results when you think that because language describes something in some way, that this mechanism then applies elsewhere. For example, the idea that existence operates off of a scheme of nouns doing verbs to objects. Buddhist (and Taoist, to a degree) thought rejects this idea, saying that instead of nouns doing verbs to objects, you just having doings, with the noun and the object both playing a role, but not actually being real. These are helpful ideas to let us communicate, but just because we can make a statement in language doesn't mean that reality has to reflect it. We can talk about something that doesn't exist or make objectively wrong statements ("a woman with a penis", "a murderer who has killed no one", "1+1=3"), but that doesn't mean that they have to reflect reality according to the rules of "the game". If this is the case, why should ANY statement be given this privilege?

When you throw a rock, where was the throwing before you picked it up? Where did the throwing go after it landed? When you take apart a car and lay the parts out on the floor, where did the car go?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:36:08 2020 No.17094210

>>17094157
Not him but what bothers me about this is that things are more than the sum of their parts. If you hear someone play a song, this can be indeed deconstructed into a bunch of components which do not carry a core essence individually, but it is unarguable that they come together to form something that you wouldn't have recognized as valuable if it has just been disparate elements. From the assembly of those separate elements arise other things, such as beauty (or indifference) which is not inherently contained in the components, yet undeniably exists when they are brought together.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:38:38 2020 No.17094235 >>17084832 What the fuck is up with the top four? >NANANAYAYANANAYANANAYAYAY

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:39:44 2020 No.17094247

>>17094210
There's no argument of musics not existing, let alone bicycle/chariots/etc. Everyone understands that these exists. However what doesn't exists is the core essence that is independent of the parts. There are no extra parts added once you assemble the parts. There's no secret essence/entity/etc flying outside/above/under physics that jumps inside the music that's composed. Its all the parts there is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:40:27 2020 No.17094255 >>17094235 They're what new agers would call the seventh density, the highest and purest possible levels of existence So they had to have weird names to set them apart I guess

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:46:29 2020 No.17094297 >>17094157 thanks anon. that was helpful. >>17094187 the language part is pretty interesting. what is the field called?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:47:00 2020 No.17094305 >>17094247 So, the parts when put together produce an effect because they interact together in a certain way, not because of an inherent essence?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:48:16 2020 No.17094316 >>17094235 >>17094255 if buddha could see the future how come he didn't name the top four something like >MEMAY or >PEPAY

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:48:34 2020 No.17094318 >>17094305 Yes. That's the same conditioned phenomena everywhere. We can assume and we frankly assume there exists some underlying essence that exist, but if you take apart any of these conditioned phenomena there are no extra secret sauce.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:49:22 2020 No.17094325 >>17094305 not him but this is basically what emergence is. emergence is a huge thing in complexity science as well. systems cannot be explained in terms of their components alone.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:49:51 2020 No.17094333 Namo Medicine Master Buddha of Pure Crystal Radiance Namo Buddha of Infinite Light and Infinite Life. Namo Vairocana Buddha. Pure Land is a good tradition.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:53:40 2020 No.17094360

>>17094318
It's a strange thought. If I see a nice painting I never think about how all the pigments came together on the canvas as individual components, I see everything as a holistic system and that system only gives me an impression. And if a few components are removed, I still get the same impression for the most part. Which has always led me to think that all complex systems automatically acquired a kind of superior essence when put together, compared to when they are taken as separate components.
I write like a retard but I think my post is understandable

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 17:57:17 2020 No.17094381 >>17094360 Buddhism calls this the idea of fixation on permanence which causes confusion/suffering.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:00:20 2020 No.17094407

>>17094381
How am I supposed to think in another way? When you eat a cake you taste the cake, not the flour, eggs and sugar, you know? Even though the cake in itself might not exist and be just an amalgamation of separate ingredients put together, that's now what you perceive. This holistic perception is unavoidable.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:00:47 2020 No.17094410

>>17094360
You might need to look at it from a different perspective. When one sees a painting, one can see its underlying emptiness. One can see that each color and pigment came from a brushstroke, which is dependent upon the artist, his food intake, his water intake, his talent and ability, and many other phenomenon related to its production. It also needs light and darkness to see the various shades and colors, as well as the sun and moon to be in there proper place so that light can be provided.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:03:13 2020 No.17094421 >>17094407 You only need to recognize that the cake is a model, not a fixed entity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:05:27 2020 No.17094435 >>17094410 Not him, but none of that or the cake example make them less real imo. You can see then as transient but definitely real.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:05:52 2020 No.17094441

>>17094407
Its unavoidable to those who do not understand what is causing these perception.

How do we unravel this sort of thinking? We try to understand. Before science was a thing, we could not understand why weather behaved the way it did in the manner we understand today. Thus we attributed weather to God/divine powers because did not understand electrical charges, pressure differences, solar radiation, evaporation, condensation, etc. Now a days, a well established science person can point out any of these things during a formation of a thunderstorm.

In similar ways, you can break down the fixture of permanence by trying to identity what makes the parts and compositions and keeping that in mind. Ofcourse our language/society/culture would not allow these sorts of thinking as it would lead to breakdown of those.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:06:20 2020 No.17094447
File: 3 KB, 207x243, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>17094157
>The chariot argument is arguing the same thing. Which is basically a boiled down argument for Buddhist argument against self-hood.
The argument sucks and doesn't refute self-hood because the chariots don't have sentience, only sentience beings have selves, so analogies based on insentient things like chariots cannot refute the self.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:06:31 2020 No.17094451

>>17094410
This means that in order to be perceived the way you perceive it, many things come into play, not the painting in itself as a standalone object. I get that. It's just that all those things coming together create an impression that is not absolutely dependent on the precise arrangement of its components, you could change the lighting, the artist's diet, a bunch of other stuff, it's likely the painting will remain mostly the same and elicit the same reaction from you, no?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:10:19 2020 No.17094477 >>17094441 fwiw im making youtube videos trying to introduce this line of thinking for westerners but it's so much fucking work.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:11:51 2020 No.17094488 What are you guys even talking about? The doctrine of the pre-existence of souls was formally condemned as heresy in the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553. The metaphysics is settled.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:12:03 2020 No.17094490 >>17094058 Seconding this >>17094139. You seem to imply the moment one person attains liberation it all retroactively comes crashing down and it's like samsara never existed, which we know it still does.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:12:11 2020 No.17094491 >>17094447 I don't know where to start with you. Really other than to go back to the basics with Buddhist cores. Which have been discussed thoroughly in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:14:16 2020 No.17094505 >>17094491 come on anon, it's obviously a bait post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:17:48 2020 No.17094532 >>17094139 >>17094490 Sorry, my wording was bit unclear. By "mundane dissolving/liberated" I meant for the mundane individual being not the mundane world as what other beings in mundane perceives.

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:17:51 2020 No.17094534

>>17094421
>>17094441
>if you take something, it is made of other things
>these other things are also made of other things, et cetera
>in the end, this applies to everything: everything is made of other things that are made of other things
>all of these things are changing and transient, none are fixed
>so you have an interconnected 'mesh' of transient things
>as they interact together, they give rise to other identifiable things which we usually take as monolithic objects
>this is an illusion since those objects are just transient interconnected things temporarily linked together
>however since we assign particular meaning to those objects, and they give us particular impressions, we tend to perceive them as abstractions that exist in themselves instead of malleable systems
>but the impressions they give us are just as transient and interdependent as the objects themselves
Am I getting it? Brainlet greentexting makes it easier to formulate it more succinctly

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:19:23 2020 No.17094544 >>17094534 Roughly. >>17094477 Good luck. Its a very hard topic to get into and most wont understand it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:19:47 2020 No.17094545 File: 22 KB, 640x480, spoon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>17094534 i think you got it. remember, there is no spoon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:21:57 2020 No.17094560 >>17094544 >write scripts for hours and hours avoiding any "difficult" language >script recording is 40 minutes long, fuck >start fresh, aim for 15 min videos without losing too much organization kill me

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:22:37 2020 No.17094564 >>17094534 I'd change "everything" to "conditioned things" or conditioned phenomenons. Parts are only a thing for conditioned things. >what about unconditioned We do not talk about the unconditioned

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:23:33 2020 No.17094570 >>17094532 His point still stands tho, then there is a definite distinction between sentient beings and they in some sense exist independently of ultimate liberation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:23:53 2020 No.17094574 >>17094545 Buddhism is so antithetic to the commonly accepted Platonist way of seeing the world, it's really hard to not automatically default back to the latter after a while

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:24:19 2020 No.17094578 >>17094570 Mundane distinctions stand in mundane.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:24:56 2020 No.17094582 >>17094564 What is unconditioned aside from Nirvana?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:27:30 2020 No.17094599 >>17094574 I actually think people will pick up buddhism as a worldview more and more in the near future. our world is becoming increasingly connected and messy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:28:43 2020 No.17094604 >>17094599 There's a resurgence of classic platonist worldviews too with the rekindled interest in western esotericism lately

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:31:37 2020 No.17094622 >>17094578 But then the mundane world has a distinct existence from the transcedent, being no less real if i can exist apart from a being's delusions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:35:40 2020 No.17094653 >>17094622 Mundane world has suffering, sufferer, beings, these are all distinct things in mundane world. The delusion part comes once you start to examine and see that these mundane things lack coherency in mundane world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:37:26 2020 No.17094662 >>17094653 >MUNDANE MONDAY IN A MUNDANE MONKEY MON WORLD ah, i have reached enlightenment

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:38:27 2020 No.17094668 >>17094662 Yeah I know. Thats why talking about things only get you so far. Meditation is the real key. Gapping the bridge between the mundane/ultimate is a tricky business.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:41:01 2020 No.17094697 >>17094604 interesting. anything i can look at to see what's going on in that world?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:41:52 2020 No.17094702 >>17094653 Once again, if they lack coherency or an inherent essence then they shouldn't even exist once someone transcends. I'm not arguing for platonism, it just seems buddhist metaphysics have some holes that haven't been fully explained.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:49:00 2020 No.17094762 >>17094702 >if no inherent essence then they shouldn't exist >not arguing for platonism ok i havent read any of the discussions but it kinda sounds like you're arguing for platonism?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 18:50:43 2020 No.17094773

>>17094702
>then they shouldn't even exist once someone transcends
Transcendence part includes washing away the "being", "suffering", "sufferer" part. This means there is "no one" that transcends, no one that is transcending and no place to transcend towards in the ultimate sense. These phenomenas are part of mundane world. You have to keep the mundane/ultimate problem at all times. These aren't a paradox/problem/hole.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 22 19:09:10 2020 No.17094919 >>17094297 The study of languages is called linguistics. >>17094305 Yes. A crude way to look at it is "there are no Platonic Forms".

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 19:18:00 2020 No.17094978

>>17092578
>zen buddhism is pretty big on "experiencing" the truth more than "studying" the truth so what you said makes sense.
Paraphrasing Dogen:
-If you wonder what the state of "it" is, you are already a person who is "it". So why worry about what "it" is?

Anonymous Tue Dec 22 21:12:24 2020 No.17095822

>>17084589
I agree but I want to add to this statement. The one thing every life form has in common is a sense of awareness, and that is what supposedly reincarnates after you die. So all of your past memories are gone since they reside in a physical brain, but that awareness still remains, and the karma I guess? Who knows,

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