/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17515663]

Which work of literature will help me figure out who is worth following?

[Anonymous No.17515673]

The Bible
and
The Big Book of Buddha

[Anonymous No.17515678]

>>17515663
the pali sutras

[Anonymous No.17515683]

City of God Against the Pagans

[Anonymous No.17515693]

>>17515673
>>17515678
I already read the main scriptures
Buddhism is more convincing, Christianity is more simple

[Anonymous No.17515694]

>>17515663
Shankara’s writings will help explain and make clear that Buddhism amounts to a sophistic form of nihilism and that it’s metaphysics make no sense. For Christ try reading the Bible, Clement of Alexandria, Meister Eckhart, Nicholaus of Cusa, Pseudo-Dionysus, Eirugena, Maximos the Confessor, the Cloud of Unknowing and St. John of the Cross. I’ve heard that Christ the Eternal Tao is good too

[Anonymous No.17515704]

>>17515694
Fuck off guenonigger, I'm not looking for advice from you

[Anonymous No.17515799]

>>17515704
Okay, but you’ll eventually see that I’m right about that, one way or another

[Anonymous No.17515807]

>>17515799
I already know you're wrong, now go shit up another thread with your eternal samefagging

[Anonymous No.17515864]

>>17515663
Scripture?
Dude, just breathe and listen to the World/Self/God/Time and rejoice in it's call! The answer is always right in your face.

[Anonymous No.17515869]

>following
not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.17515924]

>>17515869
fuck off nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17515948]

>>17515663
I prefer Buddhism for its internally consistent metaphysics and lack of contradiction. But Christianity is also alright in my books as well.

[Anonymous No.17516011]

>>17515948
Does Christianity make contradictory claims?

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17516025]

>Pregnostic ignorant basking in one's own internal abundance.

>Gnostic revelation of the reality of the world, and of true life, and provision of the way to escape, of the keys to excellence, and of the door to return to home.

I wonder...

[Anonymous No.17516033]

>>17516025
Ok schizo

[Anonymous No.17516042]

>>17515948
>prefer Buddhism for its internally consistent metaphysics and lack of contradiction
This was disproven by Shankaracharya (pbuh)

[Anonymous No.17516050]

IS THE ADV*ITIN GETTING UPPITY AGAIN?

[Anonymous No.17516060]

>>17516042
lol the parasite moves from thread to thread. ignore this brainlet

>>17515663
Read the Diamond Sutra.

[Anonymous No.17516065]

>>17516050

[Anonymous No.17516074]

I presume you at least know to look into the Bible, Augustine, and Aquinas for Christianity. See below for some Buddhist literature

[Anonymous No.17516078]

>>17516060
>Read the Diamond Sutra.
Why? Recommending scripture is nice but all it'll do is give me the take of the particular religion it's from, not assert which one is superior.
>>17516074
Thank you but my above comment applies.

[Anonymous No.17516140]

>>17515663
The Big Bratty Book of Bart Simpson

[Anonymous No.17516154]

>>17516078
>all it'll do is give me the take of the particular religion it's from, not assert which one is superior
So you are looking for polemical works of comparative religion? I don't know that too many of those get written or taken seriously since it's all my woo versus you

[Anonymous No.17516167]

>>17515663
Both of them are alright, but Buddhism's metaphysics makes the most sense.

[Anonymous No.17516196]

>>17516154
Well maybe not directly but I'm looking for something that'll make me go "yeah the other guys are wrong, this is definitely the right path"

[Anonymous No.17516232]

>>17516167
>Buddhism's metaphysics makes the most sense.
It’s been retroactively refuted dozens of times what are you talking about?!!??

[Anonymous No.17516267]

>>17516232
Honestly everything just makes perfect sense if you read Nagarjuna. Unless you're a disingenuous faggot of course. But let's not get too deep into that or the schizo will start seething.

[Anonymous No.17516269]

>>17515663
I grew up Christian so I'm comfortable with it, but I've been reading Buddhism and it is actually a ton more sophisticated in terms of philosophical insight. It doesn't quite have that feel good verses that you can quote in the Bible freely but it is far more analytical and big brain. I'd go with Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17516281]

>>17516269
>It doesn't quite have that feel good verses that you can quote
Wait till you get to the Heart and Diamond sutras

[Anonymous No.17516291]

>>17516167
>Buddhism's metaphysics makes the most sense.

> "There is one Creator and everything is the way it is because He made it that way."
or
> "It is like Hindu religion, right, but they don't speak about elephant-headed gods, you see, but in the end it is the same thing, if you convince yourself you don't suffer anymore you can stop the oh so terrible curse of eternal life through reincarnation. Now pass the bong bro."

[Anonymous No.17516293]

>>17516281
He talks about buddhism tho.

[Anonymous No.17516292]

<3

[Anonymous No.17516304]

>>17516291
the latter obviously

[Anonymous No.17516310]

>>17516293
>muh king james tripitaka

[Anonymous No.17516316]

>>17516281
I'm still reading the Nikayas, I'll probably get to the Mahayana sutras in the next few months but so far it is reading like a textbook. Thanks for letting me know though, the sutras sound exciting.

[Anonymous No.17516317]

My spiritual advisor has recommended the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X to me, and I should have begun there long ago.

Does any fool know himself to be a fool, or do they all call themselves wise? The more I wrestle with the basics, the more I realize how foolish I've been.

[Anonymous No.17516335]

>>17516291
>sensible depiction of Christianity
or
>completely retarded strawman of Buddhism that has nothing to do with that the religion is about
You're right the choice is tough

[Anonymous No.17516347]

>>17516316
Are you gonna read all of them? I'd say just read the Dhammapada, MN, SN and Sutta Nipata then move on unless you feel like you missed something and want to delve deeper into the Pali canon (but considering you'll have read about 3500 pages of suttas by then I doubt you'll find that necessary)

[Anonymous No.17516366]

>>17516317
>The more I wrestle with the basics, the more I realize how foolish I've been
How's that?

[Anonymous No.17516409]

>>17516347
I'll read the sutta pitaka and abhidhammas in full if I can, but yes I'll probably move on when it gets repetitive, not that its already quite repetitive even with the '...' filler but I suppose it was necessary in their time.

[Anonymous No.17516424]

>>17516409
>I'll read the sutta pitaka and abhidhammas in full if I can
Why would you spend years reading thousands of pages of dry debates and commentaries? Reading the abhidhammas is useless

[Anonymous No.17516427]

>>17516366
The errors I have fallen into, the consequences they've had on my actions and my soul, the poor arguments I've wielded that, rather than bringing people closer to God, have pushed them further away from his grace. How much I gloried in my mind, dreaming such empty victories, while my life was dust and waste. Vanity of Vanities. All is vanity.

[Anonymous No.17516439]

>>17516366
Isn't this sort of flagellation common to the Christian apologetic genre?

[Anonymous No.17516473]

I feel like the track record of their historical followers should paint enough of a picture to figure that out.

[Anonymous No.17516479]

>>17516473
Not really, what are you thinking of?

[Anonymous No.17516493]

>>17515663
one causes you to think you can reach GODhood yourself, whilst the other teaches that you need a divine mediator to reach heaven. Idk about you, but I, along with many others, don't believe that I am worthy or capable of achieving GODhood.

Good luck on your journey anon.

[Anonymous No.17516499]

>>17516493
The point of Buddhism is not to achieve godhood. Educate yourself before giving advice.

[Anonymous No.17516506]

>>17516493
Anon, are you a Christian?

[Anonymous No.17516518]

>>17516499
I am a different poster. What is the purpose of Buddhism?

[Anonymous No.17516521]

>>17516518
Nirvana, the ultimate cessation of suffering. Or Buddhahood, depends on the branch. Either way, it has nothing to do with becoming a god.

[Anonymous No.17516573]

>>17516499
the whole point is to achieve nirvana.

[Anonymous No.17516590]

>>17516573
More like realize, but yes. It has nothing to do with being a god.

[Anonymous No.17516603]

>>17516590
correct me if i am wrong, i truly want to learn, but isn't the whole point of nirvana to achieve a heavenly-like state?

[Anonymous No.17516607]

>>17516521
>>17516573
>>17516590
What is nirvana?

[Anonymous No.17516618]

>>17516521
Technically you could be reborn as a god if you do really good deeds on earth, but you're right that it's not seen as a worthwhile goal in Buddhism. Buddhist gods still age and die.

[Anonymous No.17516629]

>>17515663
Depends on whether you want to put your faith in someone else, like a woman, or if you want to strive like a man.

[Anonymous No.17516631]

>>17516603
It is to achieve the end of suffering. It is described above the realms of gods themselves, as it is purely unconditioned.
>>17516607
End of suffering, eternal bliss

[Anonymous No.17516640]

>>17516629
Buddhists put their faith in the dharma, the Buddha and the sangha
And let's not even get into pure land

[Anonymous No.17516649]

>>17516631
I still don't think I understand what you mean by the end of suffering or eternal bliss; could you explain?

[Anonymous No.17516669]

>>17515663
If you want a really reductive answer, Christ is offering you a strong imperative that comes with salvation. As in, you would regret following Buddhism if Christianity was right all along, but you wouldn't regret as much following Christianity if Buddhism was right; less is at stake in Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17516674]

>>17516640
Buddhist faith is not even remotely similar to the faith I'm talking about so don't even try and make a shitty comparison, sissy boy.

Keep bending your knee for grace, slave.

[Anonymous No.17516678]

Unironically Nietzsche. I spent too many years of my life as a life-denying cuck coping with theologies.

[Anonymous No.17516683]

>>17516631
End of suffering? I mean, suffering varies from person to person, could a mentally deranged person that has no remorse or suffering from their actions, along with a disabled person unaware of their situation, or maybe even a newborn baby, who possess no suffering, achieve nirvana? I apologize if I am reaching here.

[Anonymous No.17516685]

>>17516669
So the argument for Christianity is ultimately one of bad faith because you were bullied?

[Anonymous No.17516695]

>>17516669>>17516685

That's all correct, but the methods by the Christians are sterile and don't improve the lives of the christians. Christians are very very poor meditators, w.r.t to christian meditation and completely shit at buddhist meditation, and before this, they can't even keep up with basic precepts.

[Anonymous No.17516697]

>>17516424
>Why would you spend years reading thousands of pages of dry debates and commentaries?
I just feel like it, wish me luck.

[Anonymous No.17516703]

>>17516683
Yes suffering applies to any conscious.

[Anonymous No.17516705]

>>17516631
I am sorry if my words are difficult to understand, I think I would explain my thoughts and questions better in a person to person convo, but people today are touchy about religion so yeah.

[Anonymous No.17516723]

>>17516703
but how are those incapable of meditating and the like able to achieve nirvana? I assume the gods have mercy upon them, right? and what is the punishment for those who trangress and commit evil in this world?

[Anonymous No.17516747]

>>17516723
Gods neither show mercy nor punish. They have their own shit to deal with.

[Anonymous No.17516750]

>>17516573
>>17516590
>>17516603
>>17516499
>>17516640
>>17516631
>>17516618
>>17516695
>>17516697
>>17516705
>>17516424
>>17516409
I am still confused. You all seem to use the same word Nirvana, and describe it as the end or cessation of suffering, but none of you seem to mean the same thing? Is there one buddhism, or many buddhisms? Is there one way or many?

[Anonymous No.17516787]

>>17516674
Amitābha proves you wrong

[Anonymous No.17516817]

>>17516750
It's not a matter of memorizing a catechism. That's not to say Buddhists lack dogma. But very basically, the Buddha taught a method to transcend pains (dukkha) of existence and that method resolves with the realization of nirvana, cessation. "But what is the end of pain?" is itself an almost impossible question for discursive thought because everything thought in the first place by the unenlightened mind is motivated by some sensation or other that has previously made, is presently making, or is anticipated to make an impression on us, driving us to think and act one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.17516838]

>>17516817
Did Buddha teach one method, or many methods? What is the proof of the method, or methods? What are the plains of existence, and how do we know of them?

[Anonymous No.17516864]

>>17516267
>if you read Nagarjuna.
Nagarjuna's attempted refutation of other views was shown to be sophistic and false by Richard Robinson (pic related). Nagarjuna is not worth reading except as a case study of the spurious use of logic.

Also, Nagarjuna never solved the infinite regress in Buddhism of how can pratityasamutpada exists when it depends upon its constituent parts for its existence, which themselves depend upon pratityasamutapada for their existence. And any doctrine with an unresolved infinite regress is false.

[Anonymous No.17516874]

>>17516864
I forgot to post my picture refuting Nagarjuna, my apologies

[Anonymous No.17516894]

>>17515663
Read the Buddhist philosophers like Dharmakirti. Buddhist nominalism utterly destroys the philosophical foundations of Christian theology.

[Anonymous No.17516913]

>>17516838
I recommend reading some texts. People also recommend Rahula's What the Buddha Taught as he was an ordained Theravadin monk but I haven't read him. I would avoid any pop-lit, look for stuff published by actual Buddhists or academic presses if you want a different bias than the practitioner's, though a lot of the academic writers are themselves sympathetic
>>17516074

[Anonymous No.17516922]

>>17516864
>>17516874
Go back to your thread
>>17513308

[Anonymous No.17516924]

>>17516747
so individuals like Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. have no punishment. Where is the justice?

[Anonymous No.17516932]

>>17516913
If you know, why can't you teach me? Why can't anyone express what Buddhism is or what it teaches in a clear and concise way? Do you know, or do you not know?

[Anonymous No.17516934]

>>17516894
>Buddhist nominalism utterly destroys the philosophical foundations of Christian theology.
How?

[Anonymous No.17516966]

>>17516649
I don't think I can be any clearer, anon.
Read this https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nibbana.html

[Anonymous No.17516976]

>>17516669
Huh? If I'm a virtuous pagan I'll go to heaven anyways, but if you don't follow buddhism you keep getting reborn.

[Anonymous No.17516990]

>>17516924
They get reborn in hell
The only difference is that the buddhist hell isn't managed by the christian god
>>17516838
He taught one method that gets interpreted in different ways. The proof is direct experience of the method yielding its fruits when you apply it to your life. The planes of existence are pic related

[Anonymous No.17516998]

>>17516934
Because the Trinity doesn't work if you're not a realist, since what makes the divine persons one is that they share in a universal divine nature. Most of the traditional proofs for God's existence don't work either. They all assume realism.

[Anonymous No.17517000]

>>17516976
no, you won't. That is one of the problems I, as a Christian, acknowledge we have. I, along with many other Christians believe that in order to reach Heaven, you must believe and repent of current and ongoing sins.

This is limited knowledge, but I do not think most Buddhists believe in reincarnation, only Hindus do.

[Anonymous No.17517006]

>>17516932
>what Buddhism is or what it teaches in a clear and concise way
There is suffering
Suffering comes from craving
There is a way to the cessation of suffering
The way to the cessation of suffering is the noble eightfold path
That's Buddhism in a nutshell.
If you want to add Mahayana: form is emptiness, emptiness is form

>>17517000
Buddhists believe in rebirth, not reincarnation

[Anonymous No.17517014]

>>17516990
do you guys have a common scripture that points out what is evil, or do you all have your own versions of morality. I can see someone like Hitler justifying his actions, thinking he was doing good.

[Anonymous No.17517024]

>>17517014
There is no duality of good and evil, just causes leading to effects
Trying to view Buddhism through a Christian lens won't get you anywhere

[Anonymous No.17517028]

>>17516932
Sir this is a literature board. All these general questions are answered in depth by many different writers.

[Anonymous No.17517030]

>>17517006
>Buddhists believe in rebirth, not reincarnation
The same

[Anonymous No.17517032]

>>17517030
No

[Anonymous No.17517036]

>>17516966
So you do not know what you believe?

[Anonymous No.17517047]

>>17516990
So it is not one method? Or did he not teach it clearly? How are the planes of existence known? What is the fruit of the method? What is the method?

[Anonymous No.17517055]

>>17517006
Is the desire not to suffer a craving?

[Anonymous No.17517063]

>>17517024
Is there a way to keep track of your good and bad actions? What if someone lived an entirely "evil" life, but ended up doing good near the end? Do their previous transgressions affect their rebirth more than their regret?

I understand you are not a scholar, and neither am I, but I don't know any good places to asks these questions.

[Anonymous No.17517064]

>>17517028
But why should I read any of these writers, if none of them agree with each other, and no one who reads them can agree on what they say?

[Anonymous No.17517067]

>>17517036
I just told you. Why are you being needlessly obtuse? Nirvana is the blissful end of suffering.

[Anonymous No.17517079]

>>17517036
He is just providing you a source so you can learn and understand his religion. That doesn't mean he doesn't know what he believes. He just doesn't want to type whole paragraphs answering the same questions over and over about his beliefs.

[Anonymous No.17517082]

>>17517047
He taught one method that is interpreted in two equally valid ways by the two main branches. It's not an issue of clarity.
The planes of existence are known through meditative absorptions.
The fruit of the method is the elimination of suffering with the ideal of arahantship in mind in the first case, and the ideal of buddhahood via the bodhisattva vow in the second case.
The method is the noble eightfold path.

[Anonymous No.17517089]

>>17517067
Is Nirvana a place? A state? An attribute? What is Nirvana? You have said that nirvana is the blissful end of suffering, but I do not understand what you mean. When I ask you what you mean, you either do not or cannot say. If nirvana is as you say, then is it not needful that we be precise and clear and singular in our way?

[Anonymous No.17517109]

>>17517055
Yes, absolutely. Desires that lead towards the end of suffering for sentient beings are skillful, and those that only lead to more suffering are unskillful. Abandoning all desires from the get-go is impossible: the last desire, the desire to reach Nirvana, is abandoned last.

>>17517063
Yes, right action, right speech and other branches of the eightfold path lay out simple principles by which it can be known which actions are skillful and which are not.
Someone will yield the result of his actions: actions yield results that are similar to them, so "good" leads to "good" and "evil" to "evil". It's circumstantial and there is no point system or anything of the sort if that's what you're asking about. The inner workings of karma are unknowable and that is not the focus of the practice: to aim for skillful actions for the benefit of others and oneself is the goal.
No problem, I try to answer all of this as well and as succintly as I can but I'm nowhere near an expert on the subject either. If you are genuinely interested I can recommend some good books.

[Anonymous No.17517118]

>>17517079
But he says he knows the way to the end of suffering. So do many people in this thread. And even though they all profess that they know the same way, the disagree about the way. When I ask to try and know which way is true, none can explain their way. All tell me to go learn from someone else. But those others they tell me to learn from, they also disagree with one another. If there is one way, and it is true, then why cannot it be agreed upon and explained simply? Certainly others have asked the same questions I have asked; why are there not simple answers for my simple questions?

[Anonymous No.17517129]

>>17517089
Nirvana is one of the most extreme cases of apophatism. This is why I recommended you read a more official source on the subject, because I'm really not qualified to say what Nirvana is or isn't.
The two most frequent ways to describe Nirvana are those I gave you: the unconditioned end of suffering, eternal bliss.

>You have said that nirvana is the blissful end of suffering, but I do not understand what you mean
What don't you understand? When there is no suffering or afflictions of any kind, there is Nirvana.
Nirvana is always described in cryptic ways, I urge you to read suttas or explanations by actual monks. I'm just an anonymous dumbass who has never experienced even a glimpse of it.

[Anonymous No.17517131]

>>17517082
How can it be one method if it has two different ends?

[Anonymous No.17517140]

>>17517129
how is that different from god on divine simplicity?

[Anonymous No.17517141]

>>17517064
There are a plurality of schools yes. Doesn't mean literally no one agrees. It's like a language family or a class system or anything else that emerges when people speak to one another.

[Anonymous No.17517143]

>>17516894
>Read the Buddhist philosophers like Dharmakirti
Dharmakirti was completely destroyed and BTFO forever by Shankaracharya (pbuh) as is shown by the second half of pic related which summarizes Shankaracharya’s (pbuh) incisive refutations of Dharmakirti

[Anonymous No.17517145]

>>17517118
There are no disagreements, what are you talking about?
If you point me towards them, I'll clear them up.

>>17517131
The original method laid out by the Buddha is the first one I mentioned, the ideal of arahantship, that is reached by realizing Nirvana.
Mahayana expands on this rather than diverging from it. They are not two different ends as much as one of them goes farther.

>>17517140
I don't know, I'm not familiar with what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.17517156]

>>17517129
This reminds me of Saint Augustine searching the Manicheans; can you not quote these better explanations or the writings of these great monks? If you have read them, don't you remember how they edified you? The end you promise would be good for all; for my sake, why can't you edify me?

[Anonymous No.17517173]

>>17517156
I linked you to an explanation earlier.
Let me ask you this before we continue: are you asking about Buddhism out of genuine interest, or do you just want to compare it to your own religion to "debunk" it?

[Anonymous No.17517175]

>>17517089
nirvana is the cessation of any craving

>through revulsion from what is liable to cease, from dispassion (concerning it) and the cessation (of it), one is liberated without any clinging.

and the mechanics is this

>"Thus in this way, Ananda, skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

[Anonymous No.17517195]

>>17517145
>there are no disagreements
Throughout this thread, so many are saying to go read this and go read that; is it fair if I ask you to read this thread for yourself and clear up the disagreements? As I have said from the beginning, I do not understand. No one has explained, only repeated phrases which mean nothing to me, and told me to read elsewhere.

If I ride my bicycle halfway to my house and stop there, it is a different end than if I ride my bicycle all the way to my house. If one end is further than the other, it is not the same end. So you say that they do not disagree, but then you show me that they do not agree.

What's more, what do any of these things mean? What are they?

[Anonymous No.17517201]

>>17517195
I don't see what you find so hard to understand from reading this thread. I've very clearly laid out the principles of Buddhism for you.

>I do not understand
What don't you understand?
>what do any of these things mean?
Which things?
Be specific and I'll answer as clearly as I can

[Anonymous No.17517214]

>>17515693
They both have their merits, take from both what you can. Read the Upanishads and Qur'an if you have not already.

[Anonymous No.17517230]

>>17517173
I am genuinely interested in your explanation. I know next to nothing, and I thought it better to ask about it from those who profess it than to form my own opinions from the outside. Can you consider how it might be unreasonable, if someone asks me what the Christian faith is and I simply tell them to read the Bible? Or if they ask me what we teach, to ask them to read the Summa? Certainly, there are many writers who can do it better than I, but if I cannot even explain the basics, then how could I stand before any man and say that I profess what I cannot explain?

So after all this, how could aim to "debunk" Buddhism, when I've hardly heard and hardly know what Buddhism is?

[Anonymous No.17517234]

>>17517145
If you showed those quotes about nirvana to anyone without saying what it's about, they would immediately assume it's talking about God.

[Anonymous No.17517248]

>>17517201
I have asked--
What is nirvana?
What is the method?
How is known?
Why is there disagreement?
Is the method one or many?
So on and so forth. Each question is met with statements just as full of unmeaning to me. That is not to say they have no meaning, but they are impenetrable to me. To be honest, I hardly know which poster you are; how can I know what principles you have laid out for me, as opposed to some contradictory teaching some other poster has shared?

[Anonymous No.17517259]

>>17517143
>The world is empirically real and transcendentally unreal.
Massive cope. At least Kumarila is consistent.

[Anonymous No.17517314]

>>17517230
The thing about Buddhism is that there's no "orthodoxy". There are various branches with some minor divergences in how they choose to interpret the Buddha's words, but this is not a problem. Not only do they all agree on the fundamentals, but their goals ultimately align with each other and, more importantly, are not conflicting.

>>17517234
Maybe so. But Nirvana is never described as a god of any kind.

>>17517248
>What is nirvana?
The realization that comes at the end of the path. It is the end of suffering and described by several monks who have realized it as blissful. It is unconditioned and above existence and nonexistence. Therefore it is hard to describe, and most agree that it can only be fully understood by being experienced.

>What is the method?
The noble eightfold path, which consists of eight practices (they need not be consecutive): right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right meditation.

>How is known?
How is what known? The method? It was laid out by the Buddha who figured it out on his own. The four noble truths (that I listed earlier) can be realized by anyone in theory, which is why Buddhism is not predicated on the person of Shakyamuni Buddha. The Dharma has arisen before, and it will arise later, when someone realizes these truths for themselves.

>Why is there disagreement?
Because the Buddha's teachings are not seen as a monolithic set of absolute truths, as Christ's teachings might be seen. The truths laid out by the Buddha are representations that only serve to come to higher states of realization, not describable with words. A common simile is that the Buddha's teachings are a raft: you use the raft to cross the river, but once you arrive to the other shore, the raft is not needed anymore.
Therefore, disagreements don't really matter in Buddhism, as long as whatever new principles you're introducing are useful to reaching the goal. This is called upaya.

>Is the method one or many?
There are many methods, though the differences between the methods are less profound than you might think, and they all tend to adhere to some core principles.

>they are impenetrable to me
If you tell me why, I can try to help.
I am this poster: >>17516966, >>17517006

[Anonymous No.17517327]

>>17517109
I just got back to my computer right now. If you're still here, I would be happy to get some book recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you for also explaining your beliefs very well, with little hostility. Whenever I get into discussions as a Christian, I usually get bombarded by others for being one.

idk if you still wish to discuss at all, but if you don't, GOD bless and good luck on your journey in this life.

[Anonymous No.17517336]

>>17517327
Loool, just checked and saw you were here.

[Anonymous No.17517362]

>>17517327
>book recommendations
For an introduction to the basic principles of Buddhist doctrine and understand what it's about, you should pick up What the Buddha Taught by Rahula. In the Buddha's Words by Bodhi is also recommended, you can't go wrong with either.
After this, I recommend the Heart sutra (get Red Pine's translation and commentary) which is one of the most important texts of Mahayana Buddhism, as well as the Dhammapada, which is a small collection of teachings spoken directly by the Buddha.
Rahula's book, the Heart sutra and the Dhammapada combined amount to about 400 pages, so it shouldn't take up too much of your time. They'll provide you with a solid foundation and from there you'll be able to explore things further if you're interested.

>idk if you still wish to discuss at all
If you have any other questions I'll do my best to answer them, but keep in mind I'm not an expert and I'm still learning. I wish you the best as well.

[Anonymous No.17517371]

>>17517248
>What is nirvana?
The Unbinding.
>What is the method?
The Eightfold Path
>How is known?
Three marks of existence together with the principle of causality–that all things arise and exist due to certain causes (or conditions), and cease once these causes (or conditions) are removed.
>Why is there disagreement?
Such is the nature of Samsara.
>Is the method one or many?
See previous answers.

[Anonymous No.17517375]

>>17517314
If there is no "right way" there is no way, no?

>the realization that comes at the end of the path
>It is unconditioned and above existence and nonexistence
>It can only be understood by being experienced
Can you see how this not meaningful to me? And how do you trust that those monks actually achieved what they cannot explain?

[Anonymous No.17517417]

>>17517314
>and described by several monks who have realized it as blissful. It is unconditioned and above existence and nonexistence. Therefore it is hard to describe, and most agree that it can only be fully understood by being experienced.
this always get me. how people can be so naive?. you listening to junkies?. they almost always say the same thing. muh, you have to experience it. we all experieced it but junkies refuse to believe their heaven is just a feeling, they want to live in it but is just a common feeling to us all. i dont understand this unnecesary dogmatism and secretism. they want to feel that way?, ok. they make a method to feel that way most of the time?, ok. but all the "above existence and nonexistence" is always the same people idealizing their feels and make the conversation impossible.
i can understand you, you are addicted to feel detached from the world, its ok, but dont aggrandize it. i say this only because buddhist, (at least western buddhist ) tend to view buddhism as some kind of philosophy, not a religion. is all too human.

[Anonymous No.17517421]

>>17517375
I don't think we're understanding each other. The right way isn't rigid and inflexible: if you can figure out methods that take you to the goal more quickly, then they are in accordance with the Dharma. Anything that leads to the goal is a skillful means and does not go against the Dharma.

>Can you see how this not meaningful to me?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're asking for a more specific description of Nirvana, I'm afraid that nobody on the planet can help you. The only things that can be known for sure about Nirvana is that it is unconditioned/above existence and nonexistence, blissful, and the end of suffering. As I said, the Buddha was extreme in his apophatism.

> And how do you trust that those monks actually achieved what they cannot explain?
There is a sutta in the Pali canon that describes how you can "test" someone to know if they have reached higher states of realization, but this is not really relevant. Monks who attain arahantship generally do not tell others about it, and someone who brags about his spiritual accomplishments isn't likely to actually have attained any of them.
If you're talking about a way to verify the truth of the path, the Buddha more or less said: apply the noble eightfold path to your life, and see the results for yourself. Don't believe anyone at face value, test things out.

[Anonymous No.17517433]

>>17515663
The God Delusion

[Anonymous No.17517438]

>me watching this intellectual chess match

[Anonymous No.17517442]

>>17517417
You're describing your personal hangups here, I'm not sure I can help since you sound like you've already made up your mind and have strong beliefs on the subject. I understand apophatic theology can be frustrating, but there is no other description of Nirvana.
What I'm telling you is not "western" Buddhism, it's Buddhism. And yes, Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17517446]

>>17517362
Alright awesome. I think that's all the questions I can think of for right now, I'll probably keep the tab open for a little while. I'm feeling a little drained right now haha.

[Anonymous No.17517447]

>>17517371
What is the unbinding?
What is the eightfodl path?
I understand causality, but how does that demonstrate multiple planes of existence?

[Anonymous No.17517462]

>>17517442
Sorry anon, this (>>17517417) isn't me (>>17517248, >>17517230). I responded here (>>17517375). I'll respond to your reply in a minute or so.

[Anonymous No.17517485]

>>17517421
>the buddha more or less said
What did he say exactly? And what is the eightfold path? And if I apply the eightfold path in order to feel less pain and more bliss, have I not still kept my cravings?

[Anonymous No.17517486]

>>17517447
I am sure you have the capacity to google these things. Start with the eightfold path.

[Anonymous No.17517526]

>>17517486
After some 130 posts in this thread, it is starting to appear that the eightfold path is the central component of the religion. Why can't you tell me what the eightfold path is?

[Anonymous No.17517538]

>>17517485
Sorry, I don't have the exact quotes next to me. The issue of skepticism towards all doctrines and figuring things out with your own power of investigation and intuition is addressed in the Kesamutti/Kalama sutta.

>what is the eightfold path?
I explained it here: >>17517314
It is eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right meditation.

>And if I apply the eightfold path in order to feel less pain and more bliss, have I not still kept my cravings?
Yes, you have, but that's fine, because there are skillful forms of desire and unskillful forms of desire. See the first part of this post >>17517109
You're not supposed to abandon all your desires from the get-go, this is impossible. You're supposed to use those desires skillfully in order to arrive at the destruction of suffering.

>>17517447
>What is the unbinding?
A name for Nirvana. If I'm not mistaken, it's called that because of its etymology which amounts to "extinguishing a flame" in the sense of "unbinding" it.

>What is the eightfodl path?
See above. A set of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right meditation.

>I understand causality, but how does that demonstrate multiple planes of existence?
Planes of existence can be directly experienced through meditative experiences. Higher planes are accessed through the four jhanas and four formless attainments, which are a consequence of samatha meditation.

[Anonymous No.17517560]

>>17517259
>Massive cope. At least Kumarila is consistent.
How is that inconsistent in any way? Dreams are also empirically real while you experience them but are revealed to be transcendentally unreal when they are sublated when you wake up

[Anonymous No.17517562]

>>17517089
>When I ask you what you mean, you either do not or cannot say
Teaching someone in matters you aren't yourself fully versed will condemn both yourself and them to the same hells. If I can't answer a question, means I can not answer a question

[Anonymous No.17517563]

I feel the need to chime in, but I am an unqualified idiot, so bear with me.

Isn't Nirvana/Nibbana said to be 'Acinteyya', completely imponderable, and something that can not be explained through logic or reason? That its descriptions is one of the 4 imponderables that brings nothing but vexation?
>>17517526
Right View, Right Resolve, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration. This is the N8FP. It would be good to learn exactly what each of these entails. They can be simple or quite demanding.
Right Livelihood is quite lovely because it's very blunt. For the laity, this is to avoid business in harming things. Trading in meat, living beings, weapons, poisons, intoxicants, are things commonly named with regard to Right Livelihood. Just to give you an example. The rest of the N8FP has its own descriptions.

[Anonymous No.17517590]

>>17517538
But how can there be a right resolve, a right speech, a right conduct, a right livelihood, a right effort, a right mindfulness, and a right meditation if there is not a right way?

[Anonymous No.17517597]

>>17517562
But then, why was anything said at all?

[Anonymous No.17517603]

>>17517563
Yes, Nirvana is completely ineffable, but there are still some approximations of it provided in the suttas, the most frequent ones being "bliss", "the unconditioned", etc, so I thought it was good to mention that to someone asking about it rather than just hit them with "it's impossible to describe, just meditate". It is also known that Nirvana is the end of suffering, though it is not "only" that.

>>17517590
What do you mean? The right way is the noble eightfold path, because it leads to Nirvana.

[Anonymous No.17517604]

>>17517442
>Buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy.
and because of that is impossible a conversation because you really presuppose nirvana exist as something beyond human experience. i agree with you, buddhims is a religion. but almost all budhists here resent view themselves as religious, i dont know why.

[Anonymous No.17517613]

>>17517604
>almost all budhists here resent view themselves as religious
I have never seen a single Buddhist on /lit/ say this. Buddhism has acquired this strange reputation in the west for various reasons, but I don't think any seriously practicing Buddhist would ever say this.
>beyond human experience.
Just to be clear, Nirvana is not beyond human experience, otherwise it could not be realized. It is perfectly within the grasp of experience, but it is outside of the grasp of intellectualization and conventional truths conveyed through words.

[Anonymous No.17517627]

The way Buddhists behave on this board have ironically pushed me away from Buddhism more than anything.

[Anonymous No.17517635]

>>17517627
Why is that?
The neverending fruitless debates and shitflinging between Buddhists and Advaitins shouldn't be taken as representative of either of these religions' adherents.

[Anonymous No.17517662]

>>17517526
Here you go. Although I would advice you to stay with Christianity since you're clearly someone that would like someone else to do all the work for you.

[Anonymous No.17517672]

>>17517662
>you're clearly someone that would like someone else to do all the work for you.
>>17516787

[Anonymous No.17517676]

>>17517597
I don't know man

[Anonymous No.17517688]

>>17517672
>muh Pure Land Buddhism

[Anonymous No.17517697]

>>17515663
That you must figure out yourself, all the anons here already gave you great recommendations in theory and spiritual texts, but the comparison of which one makes the most sense is for you to decide, think about it long and good, inform yourself from both sides, your spiritual faith shouldn't be taken lightly, apart from the fact that books that say "X good, Y bad" Tend to be shit for tribalism and are the dominion of butthurt tribals as a result, you should not get another guy to answer this question for you, compare both religions and just find out which one is the correct one through analysis and your own thoughts, take some hours apart from the rest of the day and just think about, you can even write things down if it helps you, in general, it's something you should decide for yourself, maybe you can even write a book about it someday

[Anonymous No.17517703]

>>17517688
Since you pointed the other anon towards right speech, why not start by practicing it yourself instead of disparaging the Dharma? Such posts are part of the reason why >>17517627 happens.

[Anonymous No.17517714]

>>17517603
But you, or someone said there is no orthodoxy. There is no defined, right teaching. The right way is the eightfold path. One part of the eightfold path is right speech. What speech is right, and what speech is not right?

[Anonymous No.17517722]

>>17517662
So then you have taught yourself? Or have you needed someone to teach you?

[Anonymous No.17517728]

>>17517604
>nirvana exist as something beyond human experience
I don't think it itself is beyond human experience. Not at all, in fact I think nirvana is as blatant as smell. Now, could you describe a smell to someone who can't smell? Sure you can give the definition of smell, and someone else can give you the definition of nirvana: a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering nor desire. Sounds easy enough, even imaginable. But in soot, you can't really comprehend it right now, the same way you couldn't comprehend a sense which you can't feel.

[Anonymous No.17517746]

>>17517703
Cope posting about Pure Land in order to cloud the distinctions between Buddhism and Christianity is not Dhamma.
>>17517722
I'm trying to teach you how to fish but you're hellbent on groveling in the street.

[Anonymous No.17517756]

>>17517714
You can find probably a mountain of papers describing right speech. Straight from the Pali Canon:
"And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter: This is called right speech."
Four Noble Truths, Noble 8 Fold Path, meditation ideally learned from a respected and authentic teacher/monk, listening to teachings, are great places to start, in my deluded opinion.
The world of Buddhism covers a continent so massive it has its own subcontinent.

[Anonymous No.17517758]

>>17517714
There is no orthodoxy. There are currently two branches of Buddhism and both are equally valid despite some disagreements on the method and doctrine. This doesn't mean there is no right teaching. As I said: a teaching that helps realize Nirvana is part of the Dharma. One branch won't tell you you're damned for following another branch's take on the methods.
The noble eightfold path is the skeleton. It provides all the tools you need to realize Nirvana.
As such, it can be called the right way. All of the schools agree on the noble eightfold path, on the four noble truths, and other such basic principles. They provide different methods in order to reach Nirvana. Have I addressed the misunderstanding?

>What speech is right, and what speech is not right?
Right speech is defined as "abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter". More generally, it's speaking the truth, and speaking in a way that is beneficial to others and to yourself.

[Anonymous No.17517773]

>>17517746
Pure Land does not cloud the distinction between Buddhism and Christianity at all. They only seem superficially similar because they both put a strong emphasis on faith.
Again: why do you not practice right speech?

[Anonymous No.17517798]

>>17517773
>why do you not practice right speech?
I am. Hence the reason why I am calling out your perverted ways.

[Anonymous No.17517803]

>>17517773
they seem similar because they kinda are. There are catholics and orthodox, along with many protestants, that live, in what many evangelicals call "easy believism." These Christians believe that all they have to do is believe in Christ in order to be saved. They believe they don't have to repent in any way shape or form, kinda like how (from a quick google search) pure land buddhism seems to attract individuals that can't seem to meditate on their own and devote their time to good works.

[Anonymous No.17517805]

>>17517613
>>17517613
>and conventional truths conveyed through words.
but this is so simple, so basic knowledge in a way. words are a vehicle of expression, they are expression, everything is outside of their intellectualization, words are symbols. in a way is unnecesary say this, say that this specific experience are inexpressible, we invent words to approximate one to another.
and this is where i think buddhists are uncomfortable. because they need this experience as inexpressable and ineffable because they connect it with other words and other planes of existence. my point is that is not more outside of intellectualization that you and me, a tree or a window. i think is important people see it in that way.

>I have never seen a single Buddhist on /lit/ say this.
i do. and outside of /lit/ too. they tend to omit reincarnation and try to explain nirvana as an "experience", just like me, but with all the sacralization of buddhism at the same time.

[Anonymous No.17517831]

>>17517756
Is posting on this website not idle chatter?

[Anonymous No.17517836]

>>17517798
Abusive and divisive speech is wrong speech.
Let's stop here, this isn't a fruitful conversation.

>>17517803
>from a quick google search
Pure Land incorporates rigorous practice, it's not just about believing in Sukhavati. It also does not exclude samatha and vipassana.

>>17517805
What you're saying sounds similar to Nagarjuna's two truths doctrine, I don't think we're in disagreement.

>they tend to omit reincarnation
Buddhists believe in rebirth, not reincarnation.

[Anonymous No.17517847]

>>17517728
>But in soot, you can't really comprehend it right now
why not?. i disagree with this. and i think if you believe you cant really comprehend it in an easy way, its because you believe in the system more than in the experience itself. i think is a pretty common experience, in fact, im sure every human in earth experience this in some way or another. on the other hand, you want them to only experience that, you make a hierarchy of experiences where this one is THE ONE. and that is, like i said in my first post, fuck, is just all too human.

[Anonymous No.17517851]

>>17517831
Only if you shitpost.
Seriously though, what is meant by "idle chatter" isn't that you should stay silent unless you have something extremely important to say, it's that you should pay attention to your words and speak truthfully.

[Anonymous No.17517879]

>>17517831
Depends.
In this context? No, this is talking about the teachings of the Buddha, and I'm doing my best to strictly reference those teachings and help a beginner. So, I feel it is quite the opposite of idle chatter.
If I head over to /v/, I can guarantee you nothing I'm going to say there is valuable in any way. So that'd be idle chatter for sure.
You can find a lot of talk on the internet and from monks and teachers about what Idle Chatter is or can be defined as.

[Anonymous No.17517884]

>>17517758
How can they both be valid if they disagree about method and doctrine? As a counter example to show my reasoning: I am Catholic, the Catholic Church has a different doctrine than the Lutheran Church; they cannot both be valid. They contradict each other, and the truth cannot contradict itself. Therefore, at least one of them must be wrong.

Based on what has been said, it would seem like the case should be similar in Buddhism. The purpose of the teaching is to help free people from pain, no? This is done by following the eightfold path, no? If someone does not follow the eightfold path, they will suffer, no? If someone teaches the eightfold path incorrectly, the person they taught will die having not followed the eightfold path, no? Therefore, there are wrong teachings and right teachings, for some teachings lead to the end of suffering, and some teachings seem to lead to the end of suffering but do not, no? So if these branches of Buddhism disagree about doctrine and methods, at least one of them does not teach correctly the eightfold path, no? Therefore, at least one of the schools is leading people into suffering, no?

[Anonymous No.17517897]

>>17517851
The passage quoted lists both lying, abusive speech, divisive speech, and idle chatter. If to refrain from idle chatter just means make sure to speak truthfully, why is it listed alongside lying?

[Anonymous No.17517918]

>>17517851
>>17517879
You two do not seem to agree in your answer. Is this a difference in school, or a personal disagreement in interpretation?

[Anonymous No.17517920]

>>17517831
In my personal opinion I don't think that helping a beginner with the fundamental tenets, mindful of what I'm saying, directly referencing scripture, of the Buddha's teachings, is idle talk.
>>17517897
You can find mountains of discussions and input of teachers and monks on this topic, like any topic.

[Anonymous No.17517937]

>>17517836
>What you're saying sounds similar to Nagarjuna's two truths doctrine, I don't think we're in disagreement.
my point is that communication is useful. and saying something is "inexpressable" is boring and lazy. my point is that "this is ineffable" is the starting point of communication. the origin of it. i dont try to say that everything is incommunicable, but that communication is just a simbolic system, we are barking one another. what im traying to say is... keep barking, dont respect nothing.
the nirvana and all that experiences are ultra sacralized and just because of that we tend to view it that in that way. but they are common and part of ourselves.

[Anonymous No.17517941]

>>17517918
Sorry, I reposted.
I don't think we disagree at all. We're presenting our input differently, and not saying the same words, but you can pick up the gist of it.

[Anonymous No.17517965]

>>17517884
They do not disagree about the truth.
Your example is not a good one, because Christianity is not the same as Buddhism. As I said, Buddhism has no orthodoxy.
The Buddha taught that there is a way to the end of suffering. The goal is to end suffering. Anything that helps reach that goal is skillful. Even if it hasn't been taught by the Buddha directly.
Several schools can be valid, because they do not contradict each other on the truth, which is the goal. They have slightly different methods to reach it, some of which might be more helpful to some, less to others. Buddhism is a method to end suffering. The dogma itself is not to be taken as absolute, refer to the raft analogy of earlier.

Just to be clear, you're not going to understand anything if you keep being so rigid about the doctrine instead of the truth it points towards. I recommend you read up on the two truths doctrine, upaya and the raft analogy.
I have to leave now, hopefully someone else can pick up this conversation if needed. I hope I've helped you understand some things at least.

[Anonymous No.17518062]

>>17517941
>>17517965
>>17517920
Is the gist sufficient for the detachment from all desire? One says that many posts, even ones not about Buddhism, do not fall under idle chatter. The other says that what saves these posts from being idle chatter is that they are about Buddhism and scripture. Another poster above said that to teach on matters you aren't fully versed in will condemn both the listener and the teacher to the same hells. If freedom from all suffering requires freedom from all desire, it would seem even a slight desire would lead to suffering. Therefore, will not even slight idleness of the tongue prevent someone from reaching nirvana? And then also, would not any error in teaching be a violation of right speech? If a difference in teaching would lead to a difference in acting, then would that not mean that the result would not be right action? How then can there be any difference in teaching?

[Anonymous No.17518097]

>>17518062
You're torturing yourself over non-issues. It's way simpler than that
Watch Bhikku Bodhi's intro to Buddhism on YouTube, it'll be way better than asking 4chan tbqh

[Anonymous No.17518107]

>>17518062
The goal you refer to is a multifaceted approach that involves every fiber of your being.
Most people are reserved about teaching doctrine they aren't 100% fluent in.
I don't know, to most of your questions. I'm not sure they'll get you to where you want to be.

We all begin somewhere. A good place to begin would be to study the Four Noble Truths, the N8FP, the Suttas/Sutras. Connect with authentic, respected teachers and ask them to teach you.
This doctrine is a flower that blossoms. Don't worry so much.

[Anonymous No.17518141]

>>17518097
>>17518107
I'm not asking 4chan. I'm asking you. If you don't understand what you're saying, why do you go around the internet telling people buddhism is the way to eternal salvation? You're taking it on faith, but you can't explain your faith. I understand less than I did when I began and have a lower estimation of what is taught.

[Anonymous No.17518177]

>>17518141
Everything was explained to you very clearly and patiently by several anons
You're being obtuse on purpose, so that's really your problem. You're obviously not unbiased and are just looking for things to argue against

[Anonymous No.17518193]

>>17518177
So you have never asked the questions I have asked?

[Anonymous No.17518198]

>>17518141
>If you don't understand what you're saying, why do you go around the internet telling people buddhism is the way to eternal salvation?
I came into this thread relatively late. You were asking straightforward questions about things like the N8FP, which are readily defined, and answered in their very definitions. That's really it.
I feel some of these questions won't get you what you want though, and will lead to more confusion. It is indeed a lot simpler than that, like >>17518097 said. He also provided an excellent starting point.
Would you like the opinions of Anonymous posters or a 50 year career Monk with strict commitment to the teachings and ethics, a verifiable lineage, who's walked the walk and can talk the talk?

[Anonymous No.17518225]

>>17518193
I have, and received clear answers to them that satisfied me because I was looking for genuine understanding, not pointless arguments, and which I complemented with the resources you've already been recommended yet refused to check out
Your posts show you don't care about understanding as much as you want to look for a "gotcha" in the explanations being given to you

[Anonymous No.17518266]

>>17518225
you are just a conformist fag. you dont answer him, you are trying to say he is making stupid nonsensical points. and he is not. fuck, you are just a stupid believer. you dont even understand his complaints because you dont need to think.

[Anonymous No.17518267]

>>17515663
read anything related with Moloch, then you'll figure out who is wrong and who isn't

[Anonymous No.17518293]

>>17518266
Yes anon, Buddhism is a religion and requires faith
All his points were answered clearly by the other anons, he keeps nitpicking meaningless details

[Anonymous No.17518317]

>>17518293
>meaningless details
i dont see it that way. i think your faith spoils your critical spirit. its not meaningless at all.

[Anonymous No.17518326]

Anyone know if the PTS' translation of the Sutta Nipata is the only good one or if Bhikkhu Bodhi's can be trusted?

[Anonymous No.17518358]

>>17518317
>i think your faith spoils your critical spirit.
I disagree, but I guess that's the thing with faith

[Anonymous No.17518367]

>>17515663
Why not both?

[Anonymous No.17518399]

>>17518367
Because they are utterly contradictory. Either heaven or Nibbana is the highest goal, not both. Either morality and sacraments or insight is the key, not both. Either you have an individual unperishable soul or you don't, not both. Either a gift(grace) from God is necessary for salvation or it isn't, not both. Either Jews are the chosen people or they are not, not both.

[Anonymous No.17518754]

>>17518399
>Either Jews are the chosen people or they are not, not both.
This one's the trickiest

[Anonymous No.17518785]

>>17518754
Might be a sticking point for some

[Anonymous No.17518868]

So I am curious if someone had reached nirvana, and is sitting in the living room. And someone came in with a flame thrower and just started burning. Him, his family, his wife his duaghters. Constant screaming? He wouldn't suffer? Despite the massive amounts of physical pain. His detachment would leave him perfectly sterile and at peace.

Am I getting this correctly?

[Anonymous No.17518876]

>>17518868
He would feel the pain, but he would not suffer from it

[Anonymous No.17518941]

>>17518754
It is actually the most obvious truth. No other people has survived, and yet no other people has been more hated. It is inexplicable that they still exist. They killed God, so their suffering is understandable enough, as is their wickedness; but that they should persist, and that all who attack them perish, what could this be but the hand of a God who loves man not because of his virtues, but in spite of his wretchedness. The Jews are a symbol of all mankind. This is a role for which they have been chosen by God, and try as they might, they cannot escape their fate. Some day they will accept the Messiah, and then the world will end, for there will be no story left to tell.

[Anonymous No.17518951]

>>17518941
This shit sounds so tiresome

[Anonymous No.17519096]

>>17517697
If Christianity makes no sense to me should I still make an effort to pursue it? Not trying to shit on their faith or anything but I am just absolutely not moved by it at all, yet there seem to be many people who consider it to be a deep truth and espouse christian beliefs after having been neoplatonists or whatever. I'm thinking maybe I'm missing out on some crucial information since to me there's absolutely nothing attractive about that religion. Again not an attack, just an inquiry.

[Anonymous No.17519111]

>>17519096
What questions do you have?

[Anonymous No.17519120]

>>17518951
How so?

[Anonymous No.17519121]

>>17519111
I don't have any questions other than the one I asked in my first sentence. I know what Christianity is about, it just doesn't do anything for me. So should I force it or look elsewhere?

[Anonymous No.17519127]

>>17519111
>>17519121
To elaborate a bit, you Christians are very attached to your faith and have no doubts at all about it, which I find impressive and respectable yet strange because I am absolutely insensitive to christian doctrine. So I guess there's this kind of dissonance in seeing people genuinely embrace something that makes no sense at all to me, which prompts me to wonder if I should force it.

[Anonymous No.17519136]

>>17518225
Your answers satisfy you and they are clear to you, but they are not clear to me. To my eyes, the responses I've been given appear more tautological than pedagogical. Is right speech that which is satisfying to the speaker, or that which is useful to the hearer?

[Anonymous No.17519178]

>>17518876
And the movement of Buddhism. Is a movement in this direction. There is nothing else to talk about. Basically antinatalists.

[Anonymous No.17519182]

>>17515663
If you follow Christ you will also follow the Buddha but not vice versa so go with that

[Anonymous No.17519186]

>>17519182
This is absolutely untrue, see >>17518399

[Anonymous No.17519197]

>>17519121
I'm sorry, I might be confused. I thought you said Christianity does not make sense to you. In a variety of ways, it seems like you're also saying it's not emotionally motivating to you. Do I have that right?

As a Christian, I absolutely think it is still worth pursuing, and I would go so far as to say it is the only thing worth pursuing. But then again, what else could you expect a Christian to say? The stakes are eternal happiness and eternal suffering; perhaps not so different from the Buddhists. But there is not another life to try again, and there is only one way, and it is the way taught by Jesus Christ. These are the reasons I would say it is worth pursuing, and so if you find them unmoving, would I be right to assume that you have not been convinced that what I have said is true?

[Anonymous No.17519228]

>>17519127
>>17519197
I'm afraid this doesn't clarify much. Faith is not something we can force. Rather, Faith is a gift from God which we either accept or reject. God offers faith so that we might be saved from death and sin. I would be happy to try and alleviate any confusion you might have, if I am able, but I am not sure what the nature of your confusion is.

[Anonymous No.17519261]

>>17516874
What did you think of Buddha interrupted

[Anonymous No.17519265]

>>17519197
Well, it's both. It doesn't make sense to me because the statements it makes regarding reality are statements I don't agree with (those mentioned by the poster above who compared the two religions). It's also not emotionally motivating because although I can see what people find beautiful in the passion of the Christ, it doesn't compel me to accept his teachings.
>what else could you expect a Christian to say?
Yes, I understand my question might not make a lot of sense. It's just that when I occasionally check out Christian threads on here, the posters seem genuinely driven by their faith and believe wholeheartedly in the teachings, they have no doubt at all. I think this is quite special and if I could have such a strong faith, I would like to.
Maybe I'm just being self-centered because my interrogation (from my perspective) boils down to "even though it makes no sense [to me], they believe in it and devote themselves to it" and this makes me doubt myself.
I must sound completely autistic, sorry for the rambling.
The reasons you stated indeed do not work for me but that was to be expected. I wish I could see things from your perspective.

[Anonymous No.17519278]

>>17519178
If that is your conclusion, it's fine

[Anonymous No.17519330]

>>17519265
What in particular are the parts of Christian doctrine which you think are wrong? It would seem you are inspired by the sense of zeal and devotion you see in some Christians; of course, you are right to think it would be a false devotion if you did not genuinely believe. So you desire that strength and fire, but lack the conviction. I would wager that this is almost certainly due to some misconception, but I cannot be sure that I, or anyone, will be able to help you resolve this difference between what you think and what you wish you could think.

[Anonymous No.17519332]

>>17517613
>I don't think any seriously practicing Buddhist would ever say this
I've been told by Zen monks in America that Buddhism is not a religion. It might be a Zen idea rather than a western one, idk.

[Anonymous No.17519338]

>>17519261
I don't understand your question

[Anonymous No.17519402]

>>17519278
i understand that technically pain =/= suffering in the frame work. But the antinatlists are just practical buddihists. There is fundumentally no difference in objective jusut methodoligy.

it's not one or the other in this instance. These are both compatible. Both the 'negation' of suffering.

[Anonymous No.17519419]

>>17517847
>im sure every human in earth experience this in some way or another
Nope, what most people think of as spiritual bliss is just the first dhyana.

[Anonymous No.17519422]

>>17518941
The Chinese has survived. But yes outside of those two people group maybe there are no others.

[Anonymous No.17519443]

>>17519330
The idea of a personal god (or even an impersonal one, really) who creates the world and makes certain "rules" concerning good and its absence, the uniqueness of this world (as in, it being the only plane of existence aside from heaven/hell), the anthropocentrism, the necessity of sacraments, the necessity of accepting Christ's sacrifice to be saved by him...
The biggest obstacle is just my general impression of Christianity as a very "specific" doctrine, that is inherently predicated on the cultural context from which it arose to make sense. It requires history to be linear and this world to be the only world, and these are two things that I am skeptical of.
Of course I'm not saying all this to have a debate on theology, I'm just trying to explain why the religion doesn't do anything for me.
Yes, I am inspired by the zeal most Christians display. Why do you think my desire for "fire" in the sense of faith is motivated by a misconception?

[Anonymous No.17519460]

>>17519422
The Chinese are not really a people in the way that the Jews are. China accepts all foreigners, and they are always being conquered from the outside, with the conquerors eventually sublimating into the nation. Moreover, the land we now called China is full of many different peoples, most of whom would not have called themselves Chinese. The Jewish people came out from Egypt and survives as a distinct, carefully guarded ethnicity with tight family units to this day. Though I will admit, China, Land of the Dragon, is a rather mysterious figure in the story.

[Anonymous No.17519464]

>>17516573
>Nirvana
>Godhood
Its okay to be willfully ignorant if you want to maintain your Christian faith, but come on. You can't be willfully ignorant AND pretend you know a shred of what you're talking about. You have to pick one.

[Anonymous No.17519468]

>>17519419
>tfw been trying for the first jhana for weeks and I'm getting jack shit
>>17519460
I'm pretty sure the jews aren't the only people in history to survive for a long period, there are definitely some smaller tribes in the same case, like the mandaeans or whatever

[Anonymous No.17519485]

>>17519468
Sila helps a lot, I've heard.

[Anonymous No.17519488]

>>17519485
yeah I've been neglecting that part and just trying mindfulness of breathing alone. thanks

[Anonymous No.17519489]

>>17519443
That is really quite a lot. I'm not sure that I can unpack it all.

I did not mean your desire is a misconception. What I meant is, you admire and desire the zeal of Christians, and Christianity is true, but you do not believe. Since I would not assume you are wicked, I can only assume that you have at least some misconception about the doctrine which prevents you from accepting it. I say all this knowing of course that it will not ring true for you, since you do not believe Christianity to be true.

Also, I agree, a debate on theology would probably not be very productive. We agree on so little, we would probably not have time to get to anything substantial before the thread ended.

But if you had just one question, what would it be?

[Anonymous No.17519506]

>>17519338
Whoops I meant speaking for Buddha’s by nance

[Anonymous No.17519510]

>>17517560
No matter how you explain it, it's functionally no different than the Buddhist position.

[Anonymous No.17519531]

>>17519489
It's fine. As I said, I don't want a debate. Most of the things I said are about belief, not thought, so what is there to argue about anyway?
I understand where you're coming from.
>But if you had just one question, what would it be?
That's hard. I guess "why does there need to be a God" is a big one, but this eventually gets into pure faith and I'm really not convinced by the first mover arguments.
One thing that bothers me particularly though: which such specificity and focus on humanity and this world in particular? Why wouldn't there be other worlds, other beings not subservient or peripheral to it? For lack of a better word, Christianity feels very "localized" as opposed to broad and all-encompassing, and this is something that prevents me from being touched by its metaphysical claims, since I cannot believe that this world is the only one and that there is nothing else than humanity. I strongly believe in an immense plurality of existence, which is not something Christian doctrine agrees with.

[Anonymous No.17519534]

>>17519468
Certainly, other peoples have existed for a long time. But the Jews are peculiar in that they are currently the oldest nation. And this is made more peculiar by the power of the nations that have existed alongside, the animosity borne toward them, and to some extent how understandable that animosity is. The Mandaeans are a good counter example; while the cultural roots are pretty deep, they are not a distinct people until much later than the Jews, they have not recorded a history for themselves, and they have mostly existed on the fringes of the broader global history; they have remained in one place, with little role in larger affairs until recently, when US international interests nearly destroyed their existence accidentally. The Jews have not only been under the elephant's foot, as it were, they have often been the target of the elephant's ire, and yet each time that foot has fallen, it is the Jews that remain, and not the elephant.

[Anonymous No.17519543]

>>17519534
Well, they're a resilient and resourceful people, and this resilience only increases as they face constant opposition. I agree with you but I'm not sure how that is a proof of anything.

[Anonymous No.17519583]

>>17519443
>The biggest obstacle is just my general impression of Christianity as a very "specific" doctrine, that is inherently predicated on the cultural context from which it arose to make sense. It requires history to be linear and this world to be the only world, and these are two things that I am skeptical of

Different anon here. It's been so long since I've thought about these issues (sometimes called 'the scandal of particularity'). I know there are Christian writers who address these matters, and with some care, but I can't recall any of them atm.

I do think perhaps CS Lewis touches on this in Mere Christianity and/or The Abolition of Man. Perhaps some anon familiar with those works could confirm or disconfirm.

[Anonymous No.17519601]

>>17519332
>I've been told by Zen monks in America that Buddhism is not a religion. It might be a Zen idea rather than a western one, idk.
This is sort of meaningless without further context. Consider: if Americans think religion=theology and worship of god(s), then Buddhism is not a religion and the Zen monks are correct to say this to Americans. But it could also be one of those infamously cryptic sort of Zen statements meant to warn against using Buddhism as an emotional crutch or clinging to it as a rigid system of dogma and ritual.

[Anonymous No.17519631]

>>17519583
>scandal of particularity
Well, that's part of it, but Jesus being the savior doesn't bother me as much as him only appearing once, his doctrine only being taught once at one point in history, and being dependent on various factors in history rather than detached from context altogether.
Again "doctrinal competition" is not my intention but for example, buddhists say that the dharma doesn't depend on Siddhartha teaching it, doesn't depend on India being there, it arises in various aeons, various universes, is taught by various beings, etc. It is truly and entirely universal. Perhaps this makes my issue with "specificity" a bit clearer.
Maybe this just depends on one's perspective: if you are convinced that the particularity of your existence as a human being is inherently meaningful, then Christianity makes sense. If you believe existence as a human is circumstantial and meaningful insofar as it is just one state among others, then the Christian doctrine wouldn't make much sense. This is my interpretation.

[Anonymous No.17519662]

>>17519531
Yes, the "why does there need to be a God" question is challenging you you remain unconvinced by first mover arguments. Personally (as could be guessed), I don't find that reasonable. But again, there is no real why to wrestle with that issue with a prolonged and high level theological debate, which this site and this time are not well suited for. But, if you were interested in reading anything to try and approach this subject differently, I might recommend Prior Analytics, by Aristotle. I have read very little of it personally, but it would seem in resisting first mover arguments, what you are resisting most is the Aristotelean system of logic which it uses.

To the second part, though, I think I understand much more what you mean. It would seem you are asking, essentially, "why is this all that there is?" You of course are disposed to think there is more than this. And if this is taken to be only this earth, than as a Catholic, I also think there is more than this. It would seem the real difference is that you are looking for a greater variety of things, of material--worlds, trees, bodies, forms. In contrast, I would say Christianity goes even further the opposite way than simply being "localized;" In Christianity, we hold even this earth already to be dust; it even says in scripture--there is nothing new under the Sun. If we conceived of other worlds, they would likewise be dust. All is empty and dead and void; one blade of grass is much like any other, whether it is blue or green, near or far. But in God and with God, we find meaning. As an object alone, the blade of grass is nothing; but in God, each blade of grass becomes distinct and meaningful as a creation of his hand. I know that I can never humanly understand why the grass grows as it does, but I can marvel at God when I realize that he has put each blade of grass in a particular place at a particular time for a particular reason that is genuinely essential to existence itself. So I am not so moved by variety or novelty, but rather by the order and meaning--the craftsmanship--of reality.

[Anonymous No.17519683]

>>17519543
I would argue that the manner of their survival can only be explained by a particular and peculiar divine intervention which keeps them from destruction, but grants them no peace.

[Anonymous No.17519787]

>>17519662
Thank you for the recommendation.
>in resisting first mover arguments, what you are resisting most is the Aristotelean system of logic
Maybe so. Though wouldn't you agree that there is no real "better answer" regarding the origin of the universe? As far as reason goes, either a first mover or an infinite universe is to be taken on faith, no?

>"why is this all that there is?"
Yes, pretty much, alongside "why, among all there is, are we at the center" but for this the answer would be the same as the one you have already provided.
>I also think there is more than this.
I think we both agree that this Earth alone is not all there is, of course. Our disagreement comes from the fact that my view could be represented by Indra's net while your conception of cosmology is completely different, and, as I understand it, "centered" around God and his creation (which I think is only the Earth and the heavens, with hell being debated, but I am not knowledgeable enough about this so maybe you could tell me more).
>you are looking for a greater variety of things, of material
Not only of material. I'd say I'm looking for infinity rather than specificity.
>I am not so moved by variety or novelty, but rather by the order and meaning--the craftsmanship--of reality.
I think I understand your view better now. So for you, the reason for the specificity is not so much a lack of variety or imagination but rather the expression of a perfectly ordered creation of which every single component is part of an ineffable plan?

[Anonymous No.17520156]

>>17519787
Unfortunately, (but perhaps unsurprisingly) the nature of God has become the center of our conversation. For now then, which may be to the detriment of our agreement, you will have to suppose that God is the first mover.

For, when we say God is omnipotent, we do not mean merely that he can do anything, but rather that God has the power to do all that he wills. Therefore, whatsoever he wills, is. He alone wills his own being, and it is by his will that all else exists. So, in this, the infinite and the specific reside together, for God's power is without limit, end, or restriction, and his will is particular and specific to an infinite degree of precision.

And when we consider our own clear freedom of will and freedom of action, our admiration of God's will and intelligence only increases, for from the beginning of all things, he willed things so particularly and with such wisdom that even when other free wills disobey his will and reorder his creation, out of this disorder arises an even greater and more profound order.

We can also then realize that God, as a matter of his power, could have willed existence to be some other way. And that he willed it to be this way can be due only to his judgement. And as all exists as a consequence of his will, his will is the only proper measure of goodness, for either what exists serves his will or does not serve his will; and yet even those things which do not actively serve his will necessarily accomplish his will against their own will.

This existence then, even if it does not seem so, must then be the best of all possible existences, and it must necessarily be the most meaningful.

Lastly, then, it is necessarily so that all things are "centered" around God, as it were, for he is the cause of all things. As all things share that same origin, all things reflect God. And as things continue to exist by God's will, and as their state belongs to his will also, he is the end of all things. This is a fundamental attribute of all things, because all things are created, and what is created necessarily reflects its creator.

I apologize however, because I don't know that what I have said will be remotely convincing. In many ways, it is probably a repetition of what you have heard before. But hopefully this explanation gives at least some more insight to our faith.

[Anonymous No.17520177]

>>17515663
Anon you need to make a choice like i did. Before i became a Christian i was interested in Buddhism but ultimately i became reconciled to the lost faith of my childhood after a spiritual experience that opened by eyes to the existence of God and the reality of who Christ was to me. While i still admire Buddhism it is not compatible with Christian theology and vice versa. If you believe in samsara, nirvana and reincarnation become a Buddhist if you believe in an Eternal Heaven for man and who Christ said he was and what he did for all men upon the cross and in his resurrection then become a Christian, the time for choosing is now anon.

[Anonymous No.17520220]

>>17515663
There is merit to both, but Christianity wins out for a number of reasons, imo. You have to care about people for their own sake in Christianity instead as just as a contribution to your eventual escape from suffering.

[Anonymous No.17520227]

>>17520156
Yes, your explanation was insightful. I'm too tired to write up a proper response so you'll have to excuse me for not addressing the points you made, but this isn't necessary anyway because I think I understand the reasons for Christian faith better now, and that was the aim all along. Whereas I was completely unable to fathom why someone would believe in Christianity, now I'm at least able to understand better, I think.
I'll go get some rest now, thank you for your help and willingness to discuss things with an open mind anon. Be well

[Anonymous No.17520276]

>>17519419
we are again with this. you believe more in the system than in the experience. buddhists try to maximize a natural experience, they try to make their life revolve about this experience and they make different levels because of this.
look at it in this way. you are playing footbal, you dedicate more time to play it and with the time you see you are improving your game and maybe at some point, you say to the others that you are at another level of football, and maybe you believe your hierarchical nonsense, but in the end you are just playing football. dont believe monks. they are just humans.

[Anonymous No.17520285]

>>17520227
God bless anon. I'm glad we could have this discussion.

[Anonymous No.17520292]

>>17520220
>You have to care about people for their own sake in Christianity instead as just as a contribution to your eventual escape from suffering.
This is the path of the bodhisattva in mahayana as well, friend. As a bodhisattva, you vow not only to save yourself, but also to save all sentient beings.

[Anonymous No.17520347]

>>17516894
Literally the reverse, kek ---> http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/dharmakirti-and-maimonides-on-divine.html

[Anonymous No.17520360]

>>17520292
In Christianity, man does not have the power to save. Faith is an unmerited grace from God, as is salvation. It is available to all, but many, if not most, reject this gift.

[Anonymous No.17520369]

>>17516894
>>17520347
Spending your time trying to "refute" and "destroy" other views is pointless and will rarely, if ever, lead to a meaningful realization or to you convincing another person to abandon their faith
Stop treating religion like pokemon battles

[Anonymous No.17520379]

>>17520360
I understand, I'm just saying that Buddhism isn't as self-centered as you think, one of its schools focuses on compassion and saving others (which is thought to be possible in Buddhism, contrary to Christianity)

[Anonymous No.17520415]

>>17520292
But the bodhisattva is fearless in the face of the realization there are actually no sentient beings to save and cannot be attached to them for their own sake outside of their liberation.

[Anonymous No.17520469]

>>17520369
What if the philosopher in question actually caught pocket monsters and made them fight?

[Anonymous No.17520488]

>>17515663
the jewish book of why, great jewish debates & dilemnas
judaism is more philosophy and tradition than strict scripture at this point

[Anonymous No.17520511]

>>17520379
Sorry, I should have noted, I wasn't the anon you were responding to before. The point I was making is that there is a subtle pride in thinking we have any power of our own to save other people, and that an essential component of Christianity is that we are only saved by God's grace, and we are only able to do real good by his grace.

[Anonymous No.17520514]

>>17520469
It would be extremely autistic

[Anonymous No.17520560]

>>17520511
Christianity holds the view that humans are fundamentally incomplete and flawed because of the Fall, and therefore need to be saved by God, but Mahayana Buddhism, with the view of emptiness making enlightenment and samsara one and the same, kind of negates that incompleteness in the first place. The viewpoints really are absolutely incompatible, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.17520765]

>>17520514
For you

[Anonymous No.17520877]

>>17516011
there is a lot of contradiction between the old and new testament, they aren't very hard to come by. obviously they're effectively two separate religions so that's to be expected

[Anonymous No.17521170]

>>17519631
>buddhists say that the dharma doesn't depend on Siddhartha teaching it, doesn't depend on India being there, it arises in various aeons, various universes, is taught by various beings, etc. It is truly and entirely universal. Perhaps this makes my issue with "specificity" a bit clearer.

Fair enough. Believing that God chose to reveal Himself in the historically particular way the Bible recounts is admittedly and ultimately a matter of faith.

There is a book called The Meaning of Sacred Scripture by Louis Bouyer that contains a very profound exposition of how that meaning developed over time (i.e., through the generations from Abraham to Christ), and ultimately flowered in the New Testament. Although I don't think he intended it as an apologetic, the book arguably works as one because, without going beyond the known facts, Bouyer examines and unpacks those facts in a way that irresistibly suggests the necessary cooperation of a divine being in the growth and development of the teachings of the OT. And the story is particularly fascinating because it involves cooperation between God and man. It's unfortunate that the book is out of print and used copies are relatively pricey.

Anyway, Bouyer was a world-class theologian, and that book is a work of literature that might help you figure out who is worth following.

And I might kindly add, do not neglect to pray, anon, as you seek to discern your path.

[Anonymous No.17521605]

>>17516033
Actually he's an esoteric schizoist, show some respect.

[Anonymous No.17522772]

bump

[Anonymous No.17522795]

Read the Bible
Buddhists don't even believe in a soul

[Anonymous No.17522806]

>>17515663
the trick is reading them all and realizing you then kick away the ladder after youve reached the cloud

[Anonymous No.17522826]

>>17522795
>Buddhists don't even believe in a soul
So what

[Anonymous No.17523568]

>>17516864
>And any doctrine with an unresolved infinite regress is false.
You haven't read Kant, didn't you?

[Anonymous No.17523601]

>>17518941
Them being parasitic and isolationist scum helped them survive.