/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22975103]

If everything is empty then why does Mahayana Buddhist prioritize sentient beings any more than entities in general? Wouldn't we want Nirvana for all things in general, not just sentient ones?

I realize there are conventional truths that are necessary supports, but since the consciousness of others can't be known it doesn't strike me as even being conventionally real. Why not prioritize all beings not just sentient ones?

[Anonymous No.22975111]

>>22975103
Stop wasting your time

[Anonymous No.22975451]

>>22975103
>If everything is empty then why does Mahayana Buddhist prioritize sentient beings any more than entities in general?
How do you "save" non-sentient beings? They can't even suffer. Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.22975472]

>>22975103
lol This is what happens when you get bogged down in heretical Mahayanist gobbledygook.
Try this:
https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Lectures/IMC/20081006-Thanissaro_Bhikkhu-IMC-what_is_wrong_with_buddha_nature.mp3

[Anonymous No.22975474]

Well, how would you go about "prioritizing" the awakening of a pot (to use the classic Indian example of an insentient thing)? I have yet to study Madhyamaka myself, but I suspect their answer would be that there's just no reason to assume that a pot has experiences or thoughts in the same way a human or even an ant does, and there is no way to address its needs even if it did. The principle of emptiness has more to do with things' essences than with their minds, fron my understanding.

If you'd like to read a thoroughly panpsychist work of Indian philosophy, you might take a look at the Śivad.r.s.ti of Somānanda, a Śaiva theologian. The first half has been translated as The Ubiquitous Śiva by John Nemec, though I should say that you have to take his translations with a grain of salt, as it's a difficult text and he's often gotten it wrong.

[Anonymous No.22975493]

>>22975472
>Mahayana is gobbledygook
>posts a Tibetan Buddhist
You have to be fucking with me.

[Anonymous No.22975605]

>>22975103
>prioritize sentient beings
You don't empty an empty bucket.

[Anonymous No.22976062]

>>22975103
Nirvana goal is to end suffering. Non sentient beings and things can not cling to the aggregates thus they can't suffer. Not something Buddhism worries about.

>>22975111
That is the guy that while being a homeless in London went to seek refuge at the Ramakrishna mission?

[Anonymous No.22976070]

Showed gf this thread and she said you might be interested in Dōgen, who advocates panpsychism from a Zen perspective

[Anonymous No.22976702]

>>22976062
Conventionally that is true, but ultimately there is no self and consciousness is totally empty according to nagarjua, so I am confused about what is to be done in relation to that absolute truth. Why even specify beings and not just all things.

>>22975605
The emptiness of self is just as empty for humans as for non animate things. So conventionally that makes sense, but ultimately I don't really get it.

>>22976070
Ok Ill check him out ty :)

[Anonymous No.22976747]

>>22975103
What about the sukhadik budhism?

[Anonymous No.22976794]

>>22975103
It's a level of commitment thing. The mythical saint-monks offered themselves to hungry lionesses. The purpose of generousity is to realize non-attachment, non-self, non-permanence, etc. Even Spinoza said a rock could have a will. We only accord intelligence where we recognize it

[Anonymous No.22976852]

>>22975103
Vasubandhu solved this problem, read him & Xuanzang

[Anonymous No.22978289]

>>22975103
If everything is empty why would there by any ethics or compassion, let alone a cosmic force of justice and punishment? And not just no ethical obligations to empty non-things which every(non-)thing would (not-)be, but the concepts of ethics, compassion, and karma themselves must be empty, and the supposed force of karma found empty too, let alone the myriad hell and heaven worlds that karma orders and implements. Such a stupid religion.

[Anonymous No.22978366]

>>22975103
>prioritize sentient beings any more than entities in general
They don't? Bodhisattva does not see individuals, they do not see sentient beings.

[Anonymous No.22978520]

which Buddhist branch would I want to delve more into if I enjoyed reading and philosophy? Theravada? There's a Zen branch near me but these folks appear to be anti-text and anti-philosophy - it's more about the actual meditation and some koans that turn my head in circles.

[Anonymous No.22978646]

>>22978520
buddhism is anti philosophy. buddhism is 1% memorizing the path do know what to do , ie cultivate what the buddha calls good and eradicate what the buddha calls bad, and the practice is 99% meditation and then 1% insights, but it's insight which seals the deal, ie that which gets you at least stream entry.

[Anonymous No.22979460]

>>22978520
Early Mahayana texts have sophisticated philosophical outlooks. Try reading Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu, these guys are actual philosophers. The Buddha wasn't so bad himself also.

[Anonymous No.22979483]

>>22979460
Does Nagarjuna use infinite regression? It seems that the claim that everything is empty, including emptiness itself is infinite regression, though I haven't read Nagarjuna

[Anonymous No.22979583]

>>22979483
infinite regression was invented by theologians to defend god

[Anonymous No.22979617]

>>22979483
Attempting to force an opponent into an infinite regress is one of Nagarjuna's favourite moves, that has to be said. It's also useful to try to understand Nagarjunan emptiness by what it is: a privation of svabhava which, copypasting from Wikipedia here,
> literally means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It is the intrinsic nature, essential nature or essence of beings.
When Nagarjuna says that emptiness is empty, he is trying to pre-empt a position that emptiness is the svabhava of entities, or that emptiness really has svabhava, when he would rather that you banish such conceptions from your worldview. Instead Nagarjuna wants you, in my reading, to believe that all 'dharmas' (a class which includes virtually everything) have only a relative existence, and as such all things dependently originate on each other. To quote Plato who was probably quoting Protagorus.

[Anonymous No.22979623]

>>2297961
>'There is a law which binds them to each other, but no laws which bind them to themselves.'

[Anonymous No.22979741]

>>22979583
No way, that's crazy

[Anonymous No.22979823]

>>22978520
Tibetan Buddhism

[Anonymous No.22979896]

>>22975103
The emptiness of the mind is not the same as the emptiness of inanimate objects, the mind has cognizance. We can assume other sentient beings have minds because they act like they do. We care about the suffering of sentient beings because on a relative level we all suffer. If you kick a rock, telling yourself that you and the rock are empty doesn't make the pain go away.

[Anonymous No.22979929]

>>22979483
Yes, all of the time. He repeatedly demonstrates that Atmans require an infinite regress and as such are absurd and illogical.

This is different from an infinite historical past, however, which the Madhyamaka, like all forms of Buddhism, absolutely affirms.

>>22978520
Theravada is hyperscholastic but it's not really "here's MY special snowflake opinion on Peepeepoopoo 14:88" like Catholicism/Orthodoxy are. You don't get to have opinions or takes, you shut the fuck up and think what the Elders tell you to think ("Theravada" means "Way of the Elders"). Vajrayana and Huayan (I'm being silly, all Chinese Mahayana is Huayan at this point) are very "doxalogical" in a way that's similar to Christianity, however.

[Anonymous No.22979966]

>>22979929
How is it different from an infinite past?

[Anonymous No.22980124]

>>22979966
An infinite chain of proximal causes which are analogous to presently occurring phenomena is a lot less embarrassing to be seen upholding than an infinite chain where at each step you posit a more abstract and ad hoc entity.

[Anonymous No.22980144]

>>22980124
Yeah but that sounds like a strawman of what an atman is

[Anonymous No.22981477]

>>22975103
Not related to the OP's question, but this seems to be the only Buddhism thread up.
Is it possible to be an adherent of Theravada but still hold some Mahayana beliefs? I prefer Theravada thought so far, and I just cannot get into the whole Buddhist cosmology of Mahayana, but I do like the Mahayana idea of helping others as much as possible and being 'of service', so to speak

[Anonymous No.22981532]

>>22976070
>Showed gf this thread and she said you might be interested in Dōgen, who advocates panpsychism from a Zen perspective
to solutions Muditā or Īrṣyā

[Anonymous No.22981607]

>>22981477
>>Is it possible to be an adherent of Theravada but still hold some Mahayana beliefs?
The starting point of mahayana is the dogma that aharants are not enlightened and they kick started a religion based on the Bodhisattva instead and expanded it over several centuries.

>>22981477
>but I do like the Mahayana idea of helping others as much as possible and being 'of service', so to speak
Being of service is nice and all but you can't help other people when you know nothing about enlightenment yourself.

If you want to help others, then you strive for stream entry. But even that you won't be able to help much, because you can't force buddhism onto other people. This is why there can't be a buddhist society for instance. Forcing by law or physically, people to follow the 5 precepts, to meditate and be a recluse is the exact opposite of what people want in a society lol.

And the dogma that unconditional love is enlightenment is a brahmin one. Brahmins literally believe that they brahmaviharas are the peak human experience. And they don't like to hear it's not. Hinduism and Mahayana don't lead to enlightenment because they don't have the buddhist wisdom which is necessary to jump from meditation to enlightenment... That's the spiritual danger of meditation if you will: being stuck on those states and then building a narrative that just because you have equanimity or universal love while normies don't have that means you're enlightened.
The truth is that equanimity and universal love are very good states and a huge achievement, but they remain fettered by ignorance, ie no wisdom. That's the interpretative danger of the 4th jhana and you need a buddha to go beyond this.

[Anonymous No.22981617]

>>22981607
How does one perform the jump from meditation to enlightenment, anon?

[Anonymous No.22981646]

>>22981617
yeah that's the whole question and since people struggle for the jhanas already, nobody really knows by direct experience. The best the suttas say is ''go into the jhanas an think really hard about the dhamma''. Something like this, exactly like in the 4th tetrad of anapanasati :
>‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.
https://suttacentral.net/an9.36/en/sujato


In one word, that's the famous yoniso manasikara. In buddhism you have to think about the dhamma 24/7, literally all the time until you even dream about it, like when people binge watch a tv show and they even dream about it. That's typically the situation for stream enterer, since being excellent at meditation doesn't seem required for this stage, while pondering the dhamma all day and all night is really crucial.

Anyway in his book, Bucknell has a little diagram. His book is on libgen if you want to read it.

The suttas are more or less impermeable to later addition by brahmins and jains and abidhamma followers, but a few brahmin views have sipped. The brahmin view that meditation alone leads to enlightenment has sipped into buddhism through Nirodha-Samapatti, ie nirvana is a meditative state and it's the highest, and it follows from a whole bunch of lower meditative steps. Exactly like their uppekha, mudita, karuna, metta.

Since it's in the canon, it cannot be removed, so the theravadan cope is that this state is actually just a special meditative state unlocked only by arahants after they became arahants.

[Anonymous No.22981651]

>>22981607
With that being said, Sutras considered to be Mahayana are the greatest wisdom texts unto Enlightment. I.e: Lankavatara Sutra and Surangama.

I suppose they should be adequately considered a perfect crossbreeding between Yogachara and Madhyamaka instead?

[Anonymous No.22981664]

>>22981646
Thank you for the answer. Is it "Reconstructing Early Buddhism" ?

Could you speak a little bit on the diagram if you are so inclined?

[Anonymous No.22981689]

>>22981607
thanks for the insight. I do still have some questions, if you don't mind.
>The starting point of mahayana is the dogma that aharants are not enlightened and they kick started a religion based on the Bodhisattva instead and expanded it over several centuries.
Is this something negative? I understand the idea of wanting to 'reevaluate' some parts of the belief system, but I can't get myself to believe in the whole buddhist cosmology, like I said.
>Being of service is nice and all but you can't help other people when you know nothing about enlightenment yourself.
I don't necessarily mean helping others in Buddhist beliefs like a missionary of some kind. I mostly mean helping people in everyday life and being of service in 'normal' things. I'm very new to all of this, so I could very much be mistaken but so far I've seen that helping people in this way is much more of a Mahayana aspect than a Theravada aspect. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Also, a slightly strange question. Can you meditate in forms other than the stereotypical lotus position and being silent? I feel most 'at peace' and meditative on long runs, hence the question.

[Anonymous No.22981975]

Here's how bucknell views the jhanas and insights

It follows that the charioteer, standing ready at the jhāna 1 crossroads,
has three options – or four, if one allows for possible backsliding into the
pre-jhāna condition prior to complete elimination of “sensual desires and
unwholesome states” – that is, turning back against the direction of the
uppermost arrow in the figure. The three possibilities are: to develop the
sublime abodes (brahma-vihāra), which is a form of “right effort”;49 or to
cultivate the deeper jhānas and continue on to the āruppas, which is the
path of “right concentration”; or to develop the super-knowledges that lead to liberation, which constitutes “right knowing”.50 For the monk
who has achieved the deep concentration of the fourth jhāna, the path
to liberation is blocked unless he is able to reduce the intensity of his
concentration just sufficiently to allow the appearance of the reviewing-
sign that enables the transition to the meditative practices leading to
insight. Insofar as this entails being conscious of a kind of image, devel-
oping the reviewing-sign would appear to require returning to a state of
mind that would permit such an image to arise. Given that jhānas 2 to
4 have eliminated all thought (vitakka-vicāra), allowing the reviewing-
sign to arise would only be possible in some highly controlled form of
the first jhāna. This is why the first jhāna is so pivotal and sits at the
centre of the mental crossroads schematically represented in the figure.

[Anonymous No.22982426]

>>22978289
You’re almost there. Once you realize emptiness is empty as well you will have grasped it.

[Anonymous No.22982438]

>>22979483
It’s not an infinite regress. It’s just a contradiction. But contradictions can exist within a system of philosophy. Look into dialetheism and paraconsistent logic if you want to learn more about this.

[Anonymous No.22983974]

>>22981607
>The starting point of mahayana is the dogma that aharants are not enlightened
Even Shravakayana schools hold that Arhats have a nonafflictive knowledge obscuration, while Buddhas have completely purified all obscurations.
>Being of service is nice and all but you can't help other people when you know nothing about enlightenment yourself.
The goal of Mahayana is to achieve Buddhahood as swiftly as possible to benefit sentient beings, bodhisattvas don't delay their enlightenment.
>And the dogma that unconditional love is enlightenment is a brahmin one
This isn't a Mahayana belief, the brahmaviharas practiced without an understanding of emptiness only lead to deva realms.
>They don't have the buddhist wisdom which is necessary to jump from meditation to enlightenment...
Dependent origination, the four noble truths, and anatta are as fundamental to Mahayana as they are to Theravada.

[Anonymous No.22984181]

>>22975103
If every thing was empty there would be no selves to experience suffering, there would be no "illusions" or ignorance to overcome
But there are
So Buddhism can't account for the problem it tries to solve, and contradictions itself

[Anonymous No.22984330]

>>22984181
>But there are
big assumption you've got there

[Anonymous No.22984395]

>>22984181
Emptiness doesn't mean there aren't illusory appearances. While we don't realize emptiness, we are under the influence of illusion and suffer because of it.

[Anonymous No.22984440]

>>22982426
*empty bladder onto your head*

[Anonymous No.22984499]

>>22984395
There's no "we" or "I" to experience illusions in the Buddhist system.

[Anonymous No.22984507]

>>22984499
Not only that but suffering and illusions themselves would be empty and thus working to overcome them pointless as pursuing any other empty thing

[Anonymous No.22984529]

>>22984507
We have a Buddhist "monk" visit our university to give a presentation. (He was a white guy lol and psych professor) I asked him if there is no self then who suffers and who struggles to overcome suffering? And he said "no one, that's part of the anata teaching of no self, ultimately..."
"So I don't really suffer?"
"Correct"

Bruh

[Anonymous No.22984538]

>>22984499
There are mindstreams which appropriate the aggregates and impute a self upon them. This illusory self experiences illusory suffering. Buddhism doesn't deny a conventional self.

[Anonymous No.22984584]

>>22984529
If there is an immortal, eternal, permanent self, how could it possibly experience "suffering," which arises in reaction to changing stimuli, mental environment, unsatiated drives, etc.? If it changes constantly along with the pressures on it, it can hardly be extracted from them as a separate thing, nor could suffering be elimited from it.
>>22984538
>Buddhism doesn't deny a conventional self.
Exactly. This is always lost in these low-context English debates on what English words mean rather than what the underlying Buddhist vocabulary meant. A "self" experiences "suffering" but if either of these were "real" that is to say permanent and unchanging, not only would Buddhist soteriology be nonsensical, but we wouldn't even be able to account for suffering at all—again, how would something unchanging suffer in response to changing conditions?

[Anonymous No.22984817]

>>22978520
Zen is for weaboos and white women.
Tibetan is for weirdos who think sex contains magic powers, and are big fans of Aleister Crowley.
Chinese Mahayana are for socialists who haven't given up religion, but at the same time don't want to deal with religion having 'too much' structure.
Theravada are for geeks and incels who think that as 21st century white people living in Western countries they are totally capable of learning and practicing the authentic practices the Buddha taught to a T, and even more funnily, they think this matters.

[Anonymous No.22984925]

>>22984817
>weirdos who think sex contains magic powers
the ability of sex to bind and manipulate minds to achieve ends, Buddhist or otherwise, is almost completely unrivaled

[Anonymous No.22985152]

>>22984538
>>22984584
The buddha never said the self exists. He said there is a sense of self which is just grasping at the aggregates, and this is bad because it paves the way to suffering, because the aggregates are inherently decaying, not meant for happiness

[Anonymous No.22985169]

>>22981689
Bump

[Anonymous No.22985232]

>>22982426
So all Buddhism boils down to is a trite metaphysical point about essence being non-being.

[Anonymous No.22985452]

Direct knowing of dhamma

In SN 45.159, the Buddha describes "higher knowledge" (abhiññā) as a corollary to the pursuit of the Noble Eightfold Path:[3]

[A] monk who cultivates the Noble Eightfold Path, who assiduously practices the Noble Eightfold Path, comprehends with higher knowledge those states that are to be so comprehended, abandons with higher knowledge those states that are to be so abandoned, comes to experience with higher knowledge those states that are to be so experienced, and cultivates with higher knowledge those states that are to be so cultivated.

What, monks, are the states to be comprehended with higher knowledge?
They are the five groups of clinging. Which five? The body-group, the feeling-group, the perception-group, the mental-formation group, the consciousness-group...

What, monks, are the states to be abandoned with higher knowledge?
They are ignorance and the desire for [further] becoming. And what, monks, are the states to be experienced with higher knowledge?
They are knowledge and liberation.

And what, monk, are the states to be cultivated with higher knowledge?
They are calm and insight.

Such direct knowledge, according to the Buddha, is obscured by desire and passion (chanda-rāga):[6]

Monks, any desire-passion with regard to the eye is a defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to the ear... the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect is a defilement of the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation. The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct knowing of those qualities worth realizing.

[Anonymous No.22985480]

Good illustration of the garbage by hindusim and mahayana.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/ak4ha6/the_wishfulfilling_mantra_of_akasagarbha/

In those religions the will is absolutely important. Like in all religion they really want the will to be supramundane and be at the center of whatever is alive.

And the idiots keep repeating over and over that wishing is compatible with dependent origination whereas the whole point of this is that the will has no place in it. It's mechanical. And of course they babble about how the ''buddha taught different things to different people'' lmao and they try to be passive aggressive and how they are here only to share. Turns out sharing a load of crap is not beneficial to anybody, but they don't really think about that.
>The Buddha will not and did not lie, and this is not magic btw, I guess you could say it's related to the "paṭicca-samuppāda" (the dependent origination, one of the important principles in Buddhism) and the vows of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas when they delivered the Dharani; hard to explain, though, I guess the best way to understand it is to practice it and drink the water to know it's hot or cold. It's for some people to obtain the (worldly) settlement/happiness first and alleviate their suffering, so they can continue to walk on this Bodhi-path. But it may be different for another group of people. Again, people come across the Bodhi differently, so Buddha taught many ways for them to come to the enlightenment. Some wishes can be granted, but they must be the wishes that do no harm to others. There are lots of examples in my country and I've read many people's stories they shared online because Mahayana Buddhism is prevalent there. But one thing for sure is that one has to be sincere and the wish has to be reasonable...well it's ok if you don't think it's true for now. Hope you achieve the enlightenment one day. I'm here to share ~

[Anonymous No.22985516]

>>22979929
Orthodoxy isn't like Catholicism in that respect. It's all about being in line with the fathers. The title of theologian in Orthodoxy goes to mystics who express their experience rationally, not to rationalist scholars who reason from the ground up. Catholic theology changes with the political expediency of the pope

[Anonymous No.22985623]

>>22985516
>orthodox theology has never changed over time
ok

[Anonymous No.22987015]

>>22984925
any books for this?

[Anonymous No.22987059]

>>22978520
what does a proper study structure even look like? how do actual monks even begin studying this shit? am i just supposed to dive into sutras and heavyweight guys works directly like a moron what about the prereqs
how am i supposed to know what methods of argument they're employing >>22979483

[Anonymous No.22987197]

>>22987059
https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/monasteries-in-tibet/the-gelug-monastic-education-system

[Anonymous No.22987252]

>>22987059
Tibetan Buddhism is primarily a system of economic and sexual exploitation, where local peasants have to tithe their crops and yaks, and their sisters and daughters, to monkish overlords, who they intimidate and scare through daemon stories, threats of magic spells, and promises of thousands of years in Buddhist hell worlds being alternatively burnt and frozen. Very dreary and bleak religion.

[Anonymous No.22987265]

>>22975103
this is a dumb post
>why value higher-attained life over lesser creatures?
I think they would beat students for being so moronic
>I can't read your mind so your mind isn't real so why are you more valuable then a clay pot?

>>22975474
smart post
the consciousness of others can be known but perhaps not fully.

[Anonymous No.22987279]

>>22975111
Good quote, but the point isn't to stop searching, it's that the process of searching is the answer, that there is no end to it.

[Anonymous No.22987287]

>>22987015
God Emperor of Dune and the last two after it

[Anonymous No.22987349]

>>22987197
>set theory, ways of knowing, lines of reasoning
are there texts for these
if you have a western education on logic and sets can you just get into ornaments of realization how advanced is this

[Anonymous No.22988430]

>>22984584
>If there is an immortal, eternal, permanent self, how could it possibly experience "suffering"
Why would you need an immortal self to experience suffering?

[Anonymous No.22988434]

>>22988430
Oh shit sorry i read your text wron
g

[Anonymous No.22988568]

>>22979929
>He repeatedly demonstrates that Atmans require an infinite regress and as such are absurd and illogical.
No, he doesn't, this is a wholly baseless claim.

[Anonymous No.22988569]

>>22975111
Maybe tangential but I feel like a lot of people "on the path" come off very tryhardy, and seem even more stuck in their own head/ego than the average person.
I thought I was an exemption but recently I read some messages I sent over 5 years ago, before knowing there was anything to search, and I seemed a lot more genuine and free, weirdly enough.

[Anonymous No.22988571]

>>22988569
>exemption
Exception, phonefag :(

[Anonymous No.22988606]

>>22987197
zero suttas and only tons and tons of commentaries and commentaries of commentaries. Woah. Vajrayana is like an Abrahamic religion at this point.

[Anonymous No.22988990]

I still don't get the difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. I know one is more mystical while the other one is more about meditation, but that's it. Why do they hate each other?

[Anonymous No.22989106]

>>22988606
>and here we see a three-eyed blue-skinned god having sex with his wife, which is a metaphor for god not being real outside of your imagination
yeah it's totally Abrahamism

[Anonymous No.22989112]

>>22988990
>too lazy to skim wikipedia
poor zoomer

[Anonymous No.22989495]

>>22988990
Mahayana isn't mystical

[Anonymous No.22989497]

>>22988606
Just reading suttas isn't the approach of any actual Buddhist traditions, that was invented by the British

[Anonymous No.22990997]

>>22989497
>invented by the British
What actually happened was that the old guard lost its authority. They were teaching alchemy, magick, and other weird stuff that looks more like maha and vajrayana. They even had a parallel idea to mappō that jhāna is impossible in the modern age. Once they lost the backing of the old government, you could have more diversity of teachings, and textual conservatives who referred to the actual tipitaka could spring up. Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, etc. were not British but benefitted from British rule; the old guard spoke out against them but ultimately lost out for lack of both royal and scriptural authority.
Even long before the British you still had textual conservatives. Sautrantikas stuck with the suttas only, and all of the savaka schools (Sarvastivada and Theravada) stuck up against the Mahayana inventions.
Don't listen to the bullshit communist narrative that everything native to Asia is actually because of European exoticism.

[Anonymous No.22991053]

>>22990997
Sautrantika still had Abhidharma, it just rejected ideas that couldn't directly be found in sutras, like the Sarvastivadin avijnapti

[Anonymous No.22991164]

I like reading these types of "Buddhist" threads that appear every so often and laughing at all while watching Ken Wheeler videos.

[Anonymous No.22991334]

>>22991164
>Ken Wheeler