It's unnecessary. Buddhism seems about as necessary as learning a musical instrument or lifting weights. It can be a way to feel better, but it's not like it will save you. In the end, I'm still convinced that no matter what color robes you're wearing and what you do every morning you're still a living human going about your rounds, doing the things that humans do- eating, sleeping, seeing, shitting, thinking. Eastern people ended up thinking in different ways than Western people. I'm sure many people have found just as much comfort and joy in philosophy or Christianity as Buddhists find in Buddhism.
Buddhism is a death cult. They worship oblivion and strive for self-annihilation. Buddhism is nothing more than contentment with one's own damnation. There is no God in Buddhism, no salvation. Buddhism is nihilism. They will get what they are looking for on Judgement Day, when God will cast these godless heathens into the Outer Darkness where they will at last have the nothingness they seek. Only a fool would walk that path.
I've determined that the four noble truths are about as true as a religion or philosophy can be, but I'm not sure I could abandon desire, nor do I find the idea of nirvana (at least the way it's been described in the literature I've been able to read in English) obtainable or desirable. Suffering sucks yes, but somehow not suffering seems just as bad to me.
Maybe if I had some spiritual teacher I'd consider practicing it, but as it stands, it's just a bunch of slightly depressing trueisms. I feel like there is still something missing I'm not getting though.
>>6487546 Desire/suffering seems like something essential to life itself. Because we are human beings we have an innate desire to live, to fuck, to eat, etc. These kind of desires are absurd and strange, but they are so demanding that we all end up caving into them. There are other desires that do make me suffer, though. The desire of fame, the desire of money, the desire of knowledge, the desire of being remembered, the desire to change the world. While fame and being remembered and changing the world all seem like decent things to strive for, when I really thought about why I wanted them I had no clue. I'm now more thankful for the life I have and just being able to live.
>>6487540 Thich Nhat Hanh writes decent introductory books. I would recommend reading a comprehensive history of buddhism and the evolution of it's thought and sects (which some other people ITT clearly haven't done) before making any decisions about it.
buddhizm is thanatropic schizotechnics, it is the cult of the final death, the escape from the labyrinth of suffering, the transcendental nihilism, the holographic diamond, the destruction of delusion, the zero self equation, it is all and nothing. i want to join a monastery but am torn between theravada and vajrayana.
you're solving the wrong problem. you don't need buddhism unless you believe that life is suffering. if you believe life is suffering, it's probably because you are currently suffering. so you need to figure out what's wrong in your life and fix it. easier said than done, but not impossible.
>>6487546 If you truly believed in the four noble truths then you would pursue the Buddha's path. The fourth noble truth is that the noble eightfold path is the way to escape desire and further becoming. I don't know what sounds bad about nirvana. It's supposed to be pleasurable and enlightening.
Suffering and happiness serve the same purpose: to lead puppets(individual bodies) back to the master(singular spirit).
Everything material already moves for the master, but nothing on Earth can react to its bidding as well as the human mind. If you will yourself to consciously follow the master, suffering and happiness will become obsolete and fall away.
>>6487527 >So is there anything wrong with Buddhism at all? Nope. Teachings-wise, that is. >It seems irrefutable, perfect. Pretty much. Although of course this is a personal feeling, no other philosophy, outlook on life or anything of the sort clicks with me the way Buddhism does. The primary difference is that the Buddha talks the talk but also walks the walk, and his explanations about how things work is very consistent and exists to give a grounding to the teachings.
>>6487546 >Suffering sucks yes, but somehow not suffering seems just as bad to me. Well, you feel that way because you are attached to suffering in the first place, even if you don't like it.
>>6487586 >if you believe life is suffering, it's probably because you are currently suffering. Dukkha does not only mean the experience of bad feelings. Literally everything that exists is suffering (dukkha) because of their impermanent, self-less nature.
>>6487540 The book "Foundations of Buddhism" is a good starting point.
Not all but quite a lot of the literature I've read and the Buddhists I've talked to have always had something significant to say about language. Usually it is that language is deception, "watch your clever tongue", that sort of thing.
It is a very large wall to get over. The Buddha not taking a stance on things metaphysical but then engaging in conversations about reincarnation is also puzzling.
I would say the two main problems I see with Buddhism are with it's strange stance on language and its various stances on reincarnation/metaphysics. For example, say you want to get into a conversation about how to define and categorize the concept of suffering. You most likely would get a puzzling response.
>>6487974 An example of being careful about language can be the passage "form is emptiness" in the Heart Sutra. It's easy to think that this indicates some sort of nihilism, where in reality there is nothing but the concept of an empty void. An example regarding your post, I prefer using the term "rebirth" rather than "reincarnation" when talking about the Buddha's explanations on the matter. I think most Buddhists also prefer using that term. It's simply because reincarnation supposes something that endures and that finds itself a new body.
>The Buddha not taking a stance on things metaphysical but then engaging in conversations about reincarnation is also puzzling. Well he did take a stance on some metaphysics, rebirth being one of them. He said that he came to know it as a fact. Rebirth is in fact a central concept in Buddhism, but at the same time it's not something worth spending too much time thinking over. In a purely practical way it's useful to know about it because one then sees that actions have repercussions not only over one lifetime but many, which gives additional motivation for correct action.
> For example, say you want to get into a conversation about how to define and categorize the concept of suffering. You most likely would get a puzzling response. I'd say it's more or less clearly defined in the Sutta Pitaka or the Agamas.
>>6487994 >Rebirth is in fact a central concept in Buddhism
That would depend entirely on the Buddhist sect we are dealing with. Most of Zen completely dismisses bhava.
>I'd say it's more or less clearly defined in the Sutta Pitaka or the Agamas. I meant as a problem for our dear OP.
I personally don't have a problem with anything I listed in the above, though I know it can be very troublesome for someone to try and understand Buddhism when their practice of philosophy can be very different from the western approach.
>>6488001 >Most of Zen completely dismisses bhava. They rather think that it's not worth spending much time over the concept. But there's no actual rejection of it whatsoever in the teachings. The whole Buddha-nature concept which is central to Zen is meaningless without rebirth, and at least in Japan most Zen was mixed with Pure Land teachings, which again are completely nonsensical if you take rebirth out of the equation.
If you feel you need a religion in your life to get by, Buddhism is a fine symbolic map of the world. Then again, so is Christianity if you manage to sift through the tribalism and violence and appreciate it's messages metaphorically, which are how many of the tales were intended to be interpreted before they were cast through the lens of the tribe
A lot of it is good if you approach it properly. Some people sort of miss it or go too far. Take the stuff about attachment - people get excited and start binning all their possessions and shaving their heads and they start becoming obsessed with minimalism and making life harder for themselves by having nothing.
The thing a lot of people forget is that Buddhism is literally "the middle path". You don't just replace one extremity with another or replace your attachment to consumerism with an attachment to religious doctrine. It's like your still seeing the world as having or not having instead of not giving a shit.
That's my biggest issue with Buddhism as well. I don't think it's that valuable. It's good to read and understand and try to take on some of it's thinking but I feel that becoming a "Buddhist" is almost a non-Buddhist thing to do. Trying so hard to avoid suffering seems almost manic and you can convince yourself you don't like some things that you really love because you're not sure it's right to like them and you really don't want to suffer.
Take for example an expensive coat. You can get a bit hung up on the fact when it has to be thrown away you'll suffer or that you don't really appreciate it. But, you can also really enjoy the fucking coat every time you put it on and you'll get over it pretty quickly when it's gone. So some of the teachings are good - you shouldn't give too much of a shit about your coat but at the same time you don't have to try and float above everything like a fart because you're scared of not being a good Buddhist.
>>6488042 Hardly take a look at the abrahamic faiths, there is a place in the afterlife for all members of society. As far as Buddism goes the best you can do is support a monk(s) and hope you become one in another life.
There is literallly *no* enlightenment and end of Dukkha for lay buddhists.
>>6488054 >fine symbolic map of the world. But there are no symbols in it. It deals with reality.
>>6488059 >Trying so hard to avoid suffering seems almost manic and you can convince yourself you don't like some things that you really love because you're not sure it's right to like them and you really don't want to suffer. >Take for example an expensive coat. You can get a bit hung up on the fact when it has to be thrown away you'll suffer or that you don't really appreciate it. But, you can also really enjoy the fucking coat every time you put it on and you'll get over it pretty quickly when it's gone. So some of the teachings are good - you shouldn't give too much of a shit about your coat but at the same time you don't have to try and float above everything like a fart because you're scared of not being a good Buddhist. Nothing in the teachings want to prevent you from enjoying a coat. But on the other hand, there's no need whatsoever to buy something you don't need or truly appreciate in a very particular way. Even then, it ultimately means you have certain attachments, but buying a coat doesn't necessarily mean you're massively delusional and blind to suffering.
>>6488065 The Sutta Pitaka and the Agamas directly reject and contradict your claims. Laymen can reach the stage of Once-returner while remaining as laymen (and reaching that stage depends at the minimum living an ethical life in accordance to the Noble Eightfold Path, not just giving food to monks), and can progress further into Non-returner and Arahantship (at which point they will leave the layman life). In forms of Mahayana that are focused on the Bodhisattva path, the lay life itself can be used as a powerful tool to develop faculties over many lifetimes to eventually attain Buddhahood; this is done purposefully by the lay disciples and not because they cannot into enlightenment. In Vajrayana Buddhism, tantras can be used by lay people to progress towards or attain enlightenment.
>>6488086 Whilst I might have been a tad flippant when I said that the life only consisted in giving monks food what you say here
>can progress further into Non-returner and Arahantship (at which point they will leave the layman life). In forms of Mahayana that are focused on the Bodhisattva path, the lay life itself can be used as a powerful tool to develop faculties over many lifetimes to eventually attain Buddhahood; this is done purposefully by the lay disciples and not because they cannot into enlightenment.
Is wholly in line with that I was talking about. They still cannot end dukkha and reach enlightenment, they literally have to die and come back as a non lay person.
>>6488097 Did you miss the part where I said >this is done purposefully ? Also, progress into Non-returning and Arahantship is done within this life.
Maybe I haven't been clear enough for the first perspective. By "attaining Buddhahood" in this instance I mean attaining attaining 'perfect enlightenment', "tathagatha-hood" if you like. This leads to becoming a Tathagatha like Shakyamuni was and the future Maitreya will be, in order to lead many beings into salvation. Disciples that decide to follow that path purposefully accept to be reborn over and over so that they can perfect all requisite faculties of attaining perfect enlightenment. One can still decide to pursue more "mundane" (this is a very stereotypical and caricatural view of Arahantship that some Mahayana followers put forth, as it supposes that the Arahant will be selfish) enlightenment and become an enlightened being, but not a perfectly enlightened one, a Tathagatha.
My point was that you could convince yourself you didn't enjoy a coat that you do. You can start going "Oh fuck! Am I appreciating this in a particular way? Is it making me suffer? Am I terrified of losing it? Do I need it?" about something that really wasn't weighing on you and you in fact enjoyed quite a bit.
I know that's not theoretically what you are supposed to do but I think that probably is what people end up doing quite a bit. I've known a few people that have just thrown away all their shit because they'd read some of this Buddhist shit and the reality was that their shelf of books wasn't causing them suffering and they just convinced themselves it was. Ultimately it didn't matter, the books sometimes gave them joy and they didn't address any of the real issues in their life.
>>6488127 >"Oh fuck! Am I appreciating this in a particular way? Is it making me suffer? Am I terrified of losing it? " >Am I appreciating this in a particular way? Meaning, do I get absorbed in myself, or in the pleasant sensation I get from wearing the coat; do I feel myself even slightly superior to others, am I absorbed in the image I project to others, etc. If negatives such as enjoying the coat due to self-image are present, then I should work on them. If neutrals/positives such as enjoying the coat because it keeps you warm on days where you'd be pretty much freezing, then I should take note of how I feel and why I feel. >Is it making me suffer? The answer to this is always yes, all is dukkha. Being conscious of it however shouldn't make one unhappy. It just should be recognized as a fact. >Am I terrified of losing it? Meaning, how deep is my attachment to it? If it's deep, I should practice non-attachment, even if just slightly. >Do I need it? A question to be asked before buying the coat, being aware that generally more possessions mean more burdens to take care of. By being more rigorous on the categories by which one buys objects, one can simplify their lives (which is always a good thing) and save the money to be used for something better.
These are good questions. What is problematic is giving a bad answer to them, in the form of developing an aversion to objects. Aversion being another form of attachment and dukkha, it actually doesn't solve anything.
>I've known a few people that have just thrown away all their shit because they'd read some of this Buddhist shit and the reality was that their shelf of books wasn't causing them suffering and they just convinced themselves it was. Yeah, I understand what you're talking about. In the same way that cutting off desires does not mean becoming apathetic and unfeeling, recognizing that material pleasures and objects create suffering does not mean that they must necessarily be thrown away. Some people should, if they are obsessed about objects; others can try to eliminate superfluous or redundant possessions. Letting go is always positive, but if you're "letting go" (throwing away) of things because deep down you hate them and reject them then you're not letting go of anything at all. It has to be natural, and coming from the heart, because you understood how exactly they relate to suffering.
Misunderstandings of this kind are unfortunately common, at least in Western Buddhism.
>>6488141 Rebirth, not reincarnation. Last I checked rebirth wasn't disproven nor proven. It's one of the few things you need to trust the Buddha for, but unlike objectively knowing the existence of a God it is said that objectively knowing the reality of samsara is possible for those advanced enough in the path. Karma and rebirth have been explained by the Buddha because they are helpful for practice, and he said that the Dharma brings benefits even if such a system did not exist.
How exactly is that process making your life better? Asking all those questions? It's over thinking and trying to create problems where there are none and those questions are ultimately kind of pointless.
>>6488170 >Rebirth, not reincarnation >simply have to trust the Buddha
So you not see how this blind faith is identical to those proffered in other religions? It 'not being disproven' says absolutely nothing; it is adherence to anecdotal teachings of a messianic figure, flimsily predicated on the notion that only individuals 'advanced enough in the teachings' will understand. Do you not see how that is the same argument to 'we mere humans are incapable of understanding god, therefore we should just trust his omnipotence and benevolence because we are imperfect'?
>>6488182 Ultimately, anything and everything that is not attaining enlightenment pointless. This is the most extreme thing you can say with Buddhism. It's also quite simplistic, even wrong actually. So expanding on this we should say that everything that is not attaining enlightenment and helpful for enlightenment is pointless. What exactly will be helpful or not depends on Buddhist ethical principles as well as the individual's own capabilities. Even watching films can then have a point. If even that is the case, then identifying the causes and mechanics of suffering, being lucid of your own relationship with them is even more purposeful. This is what meditation exists for, but meditation isn't just what you do while sitting eyes closed for a couple minutes, it should extend to all activities. So by asking those questions, you are performing a kind of meditation where you remain vigilant of what phenomena arise and how your own phenomena are affected by them. Is it over thinking? From the point of view of those whose outlooks on life are rather materialistic, it is. For those on the Buddhist path it isn't, because they will be helpful one way or the other. Does it create problems? We can say that from a Buddhist point of view there are problems everywhere. In fact, again talking from an extreme point of view, existence itself is a problem. So recognizing these problems as they are and properly dealing with them doesn't create problems but resolves them.
Buddhism isn't only concerned with making life better here and now, but also with developing deep insight and wisdom on the nature of all things. So things that do not provide immediate visible benefit (because at least on some tiny psychological level they do bring benefits) aren't necessarily useless.
>>6488197 The difference is that you are invited to practice for yourself and test the Buddha's claims. Starting on the Buddhist path necessarily involves confidence in the Buddha (and so does trusting your doctor on the fact that you are sick and should take the medicine prescribed by him), but the questioning and skeptical attitude should not be abandoned until one finally obtains a vision large and penetrating enough to come to realize the claims as facts. The Buddha himself said this (MN27). Buddhism openly embraces doubt and inquiry, but it also says that those will gradually disappear when one is earnestly seeking the truth and is not actually attached to his doubts either. For stream-entry, one needs to be confident that the Buddha is legit, so to speak, but he cannot yet actually conclude via having seen irrefutable evidence that he is legit. Another difference is that regular human beings are able to become advanced enough to understand this for themselves, whereas with God this is simply impossible. Furthermore trust and confirmation are not like an on-off switch, there's a process of going towards confirmation that separates them. Oh also, there's the fact that God and the afterlife are the 2 top things in Abrahamic faiths and being able to know them only after death holds a special importance, whereas death and rebirth are just trivia for Buddhism and the only reason why they have been explained is because they are necessary pieces to the explanation of how things work. They are necessary for the Buddha's explanation of samsara to be coherent and logical, whereas the whole system of a human-like God and an eternal afterlife in Abrahamic religions actually make no sense from the get-go and the only explanation about them that can be given is "cuz God wanted so".
It's unfortunate, but objective knowledge is pretty much only the domain of perfectly enlightened beings. Everything else is subjective, incomplete and requires trust in something or someone (yourself included, trusting your intelligence and wisdom to be good enough to correctly see what is fact and what isn't). Nothing, philosophy or science, will be able to go beyond this.
>>6488205 >I learned all I know about Buddhism from /pol/ >shitposting is good
>>6488264 >That doesn't matter if you are perusing it as an intellectual exercise but I feel that is all Buddhism is in the end.
It's a religion for rich people by rich people.
It can't exist without a slave class. It we try to remove the need for a lay class to do everything for us so that we can be nothing, then we have Hinduism or Christianity, in which salvation can be attained in different ways, one of which by simply doing your duties.
Doing what you gotta do can be "selfless." The pinnacle of selflnessness is not to not do anything just because doing something would imply that you are something.
>>6488255 >>6488277 The thing is, back in the day in India, doing spiritual practices and teaching those who wanted to hear about them was seen as a very valid course of action by the society of the time. Monks were purposefully forbidden in the Vinaya to be self-sufficient so as not the be isolated from the lay people (as Buddhism expanded this was sometimes altered for various reasons, though in general even monasteries that were mostly self-sufficient did not isolate themselves from the lay community). Lay people were happy to support them because they gained various benefits. You seem to be hung up on the concept of "selfless". Being selfless in Buddhism means that you have defeated the illusion of an enduring self, realized the teaching on anatta. It doesn't mean that you are sacrificing your life to help people in a material way, but in whatever action you do you are selfless and when you help people you are truly acting without any residue of self.
I respect your opinion on Hinduism and Christianity, but it would be better to come to that conclusion after actually having gained comprehensive knowledge on what Buddhism teaches, which you are not doing. You're apparently hurt, offended and scared of Buddhism for whatever reason, and are having trouble reconciling it with the world because your worldview is essentially materialistic and in need of a simple, easy and effortless way to salvation (which neither Hinduism nor Christianity actually are, by the way, but I won't comment much more on this because I don't have a lot of knowledge on these 2 religions). Lastly, your entire frustration is (again) defeated by the fact that laymen can become enlightened. No matter how much you cry about this, it's an irrefutable fact that they can, did and do.
>>6488259 You don't "fuck off". Buddhism is not nihilism and Nirvana is not annihilation.
>>6488264 >Practically it seems to be a waste of time for relatively happy and content people. That happiness and contention is only temporary. When they're gone, the strength gained through having lived a life where you asked those questions will be useful. That's the least benefit you can get. And the end of contention and happiness will come, you can be sure of that. >That doesn't matter if you are perusing it as an intellectual exercise but I feel that is all Buddhism is in the end. Well, sorry to hear you feel that way, but like the other anon it's up to you to be honest to yourself and know whether you've arrived at that conclusion after having studied and tried Buddhism properly or whether you're just clinging to opinions based on partial knowledge amassed from here and there.
>>6488300 >Lastly, your entire frustration is (again) defeated by the fact that laymen can become enlightened. No matter how much you cry about this, it's an irrefutable fact that they can, did and do.
Yes and only once they stop being laymen.
You can't argue your way out of this with "dude you're scared of the truth!"
I don't have time now to read all thread and I apologize for commenting without having done that.
That being said, I want to share a little bit about being a Buddhist practitioner for 7 years, and traveling to Japan to live in a Zen temple. I am in Japan right now but I'm not living in a temple anymore. I'm at my in-laws' house.
I studied the following sutras quite in depth: the Lankavatara sutra, Shurangama sutra, Diamond sutra, Lotus sutra, Vimalakirti Nirdesa sutra, the Infinite Life Sutra, and many others.
I read commentaries and philosophical treatieses focusing more on hte Chinese, Korean and Japanese commentarial traditions (I know almost nothing about Tibetan and little about Theravadin); I've studied Tiantai Master/Patriarch Zhiyi, the Chan masters both Tang and Song period, the Pure Land masters, all the way up to the Korean Jinul.
I want to tell you that what Buddhism is pointing to is something real and something you all already know. But it is so near to you that you can't see it.
The German philosopher, Martin Heidegger, once gave this metaphor: when you enter a new room, you notice the windows, the courtains, then the chair, then the person sittin on the chair, and what have you. but your spectacles on your nose is the last thing you notice, if you notice it at all.
It's similar to being born. We're born and we notice all kinds of things but the unborn mind is the last thing you notice.
The Zen masters point to that unborn mind by cutting through and waking you up with something that goes beyond common sense. A Zen master will say: "Show me what your face was like before your mother and father were born! Now!" - How will you respond? Most likely by thinking of a possible response. Or thinking about how to formulate a rebuttal, to prove his question was absurd, etc.
But that is what is referred to as "already being too late". You already identified with thought, hesitated, and thus you left your unborn mind. Japanese master Bankei gave this advice to people: "Don't get born!" - Does it sound absurd? When you understand, it will be the most clear injunction you've ever heard. As clear as "Don't cross the road!" or "Don't eat that, it's rotten!"
What is this unborn mind? As I said it's very close to you. It is closer to you than what you call "you". It is closer to you than what you refer to when you say "I". What could be closer to you than you are close to yourself?
Whatever you think it is, it's not it. So how can you discover it?
Master Zhiyi said all the complexity of Buddhist teachings can be reduced to two things; shamatha and vipasyana. Stopping and seeing. Or an alternative translation: cessation and contemplation.
First you stop. You stop the incessant attaching to this or that thing. You are constantly opening new tabs in your mental-browser and clicking on all kinds of mental hyperlinks. You are lost in the labyrinth of your own thought-constructed phantom city.
>>6488327 Well I decided I won't continue this; the second part is Vipasyana where you actually realize the abiding, unborn mind that "neither exists, nor doesn't exist"
It is not a something, it is not a thing.
Really be careful to not be trapped by:
1) thinking too much about buddhist philosophy without doing any practice (practice = actively seeking the pure mind)
2) mistaking modern day "Zen centers" and "Buddhist sanghas" for the real thing, sometimes they will just propagate New Age ideology
3) not studying any sutras and just practicing mindfulness.. .this is also not OK you need to verify if what you are doing is consistent with the tradition / lineage
4) not having a clear, systematic, almost scientific approach to introspection: you need to have a clear goal, goal is to see your self-nature, the essence of mind; how will you do that? in a relative sense: through study and practice, observation and concentration; in an absolute sense: you already possess the buddha-nature, the immaculare, pure mind... so why are you confused?
5) getting sidetracked by the tradition's religion, superstitions, community etc. and bullshit that has nothing to do with the spiritual quest of realizing the essence of mind which is the only thing that counts
6) not having the courage to challenge your preconception
7) not having the strength/will to go to the end
8) not enough solitude
9) attachment to ideas like "materialism", "scientism", "pietism", "idealism", ... just ditch it all and become tabula rasa before you start practice
10) realize that when you become a Buddha and save all beings, in a way, nothing will have happened and you will realize something that you already have now and have had since forever. And still, you have to practice.
>>6488332 It is just expediently referred to as "personal enlightenment". In reality, there is no person to become enlightened. Read the Diamond Sutra to understand. It's short... you can read it in 1 hour or even less. So there's no excuse! Go and study it!
>>6488059 >But, you can also really enjoy the fucking coat every time you put it on and you'll get over it pretty quickly when it's gone. So some of the teachings are good - you shouldn't give too much of a shit about your coat but at the same time you don't have to try and float above everything like a fart because you're scared of not being a good Buddhist.
this tbh. I am perfectly fine in giving away stuff. Your story happenned to me with a watch (a fancy one) when I was a child.
I lost it in some playground, and then, I just told myself that it will please somebody else to have it and after all I do not need a watch. I never had a watch since then. If I need one, I would buy one. I dam no longer clingy and accept loss of the few things that I possess
>>6488320 >Yes and only once they stop being laymen. Yes. And what's wrong with it again? Those who are attached to such empty concepts like "duty" can stay in the lay life as once-returners. In their next life they will take the path of monk, and others will fill the layman void they leave behind. Those who do realize that things like duty are ultimately meaningless will make arrangements so that they can leave the lay life without harming anyone and then leave it, becoming non-returners at that point. There is literally nothing wrong with the way this works, but to a person who thinks the works of men have an inherent value, that duty has absolute meaning and that mankind is a thing that must be maintained and has to move forward and prosper it will of course be nonsensical. I'm not saying that you are exactly like this, but I doubt you will object to my claim that you at least share parts of this outlook. Since this outlook is defeated by the fact true selflessness cannot exist in a society based on working for one's own benefit in the first place (which our society is, and will always be unless we reach a post-scarcity utopian society), there's no sense in claiming that those who remain in the rat race are somehow better than those who don't.
There are also multiple new outlooks on how "leaving the family" works in modern times, where most of us actually leave our families some time in our youth. Google this.
Because monks will always require that there are laymen feeding them and sustaining them. It's easy to sit around and say there's no self when everything is given to you in exchange for "I'm praying for you, bro, soon you'll be able to live off the laymen like I do."
> that duty has absolute meaning and that mankind is a thing that must be maintained and has to move forward and prosper it will
No, I'm simply saying that there should be as much possibility for salvation in say, being a nurse, looking after family, generally doing stuff for others than being the guy who does nothing but think about how he doesn't exist.
Hinduism offers more paths to salvation and doesn't claim that asceticism is the only one yet still recognizes its validity. Buddhism is just narrow-minded while thinking it's the most liberating.
>>6488438 Ugh. Buddhism isn't about Asceticism so much as it's about not wanting more than you need. You aren't supposed to indulge. It is only after abandoning extreme Asceticism that Siddahartha found Enlightenment.
However, I agree with you that the relationship between some sects of Buddhism and the "lay" is concerning.
>>6488364 >There is literally nothing wrong with the way this works, but to a person who thinks the works of men have an inherent value, that duty has absolute meaning and that mankind is a thing that must be maintained and has to move forward and prosper it will of course be nonsensical. I'm not saying that you are exactly like this, but I doubt you will object to my claim that you at least share parts of this outlook. wait this is my view, has been for a few years. Does this mean that I am already engaged on the path without knowing it ?
>>6488438 >Because monks will always require that there are laymen feeding them and sustaining them Again, you're displaying a lack of doctrinal and historical knowledge and also a disregard for what I wrote. Nothing practical prevents monks from operating self-sufficient monasteries. Traditionally however this is forbidden because read my previous posts. >"I'm praying for you, bro, soon you'll be able to live off the laymen like I do." Monks do not pray for laymen. Prayers and rituals have no effect at all. At this point I'm beginning to think that you actually don't know anything about Buddhism.
>No, I'm simply saying that there should be as much possibility for salvation in say, being a nurse, looking after family, generally doing stuff for others And it's just too bad that's not the case. It's almost like it's one of those things that make samsara such a terrible system, isn't it?
>than being the guy who does nothing but think about how he doesn't exist. You're insisting on a soteriology that only functions via deeds. Buddhist practitioners don't do "noting but think about how they don't exist" any more than Christians damn themselves to eternal suffering by doing things that have no ultimate meaning or value. The whole of Buddhist practice is perfecting yourself as a human being in conduct and thought (and there's no measure of a good person according to whether he helped many people or just one person) and uprooting the fundamental delusion that puts you within samsara. Good actions can only net you good rebirths and good fortune, but not liberation, because nothing prevents those good, "selfless" people from being fools (bad people are always fools). Only wisdom can do that. And that wisdom cannot be gained independently of perfecting yourself as a human being in conduct and thought. You mention asceticism, but Buddhism is the middle path between asceticism and worldliness. That's why it's called the Middle Way, and that's why Shakyamuni went from a comfy worldly man to an extreme ascetic to a Buddha.
Now that you've confirmed your total lack of knowledge on Buddhist soteriology, please go read some texts on the subject. You'll notice that I'm not commenting on Christian and Hindu soteriology as I'm not well equipped enough to discuss them, so it's only civil to expect the same from you.
>>6488445 >How can you really affirm that there is no self when what sustains your saying this statement is that others must maintain their sense of self. Because the anatta doctrine doesn't actually say what you think it says. Thank you for your informed and intelligent comment that contributed nothing whatsoever to this thread.
>>6488499 If you think that "the works of men have an inherent & absolute value, that duty has absolute meaning and that mankind is a thing that must be maintained and has to move forward and prosper" you're not engaged on the Buddhist path. If you think that the works of men have no value whatsoever, that duty has no meaning whatsoever and that mankind should die, you're not engaged on the Buddhist path either.
How did the Buddha teach meditation? I'm sick of seeing all of those tumblr type images with quirky art styles showing some diagram with really simple and dumb sounding explanations for 'effect' telling me how to meditate. I want to know how the fucking Buddha did it, and how he explained it. I'm willing to give this shit a try, but first I'm going to need some sort of book I can find online with all of the Buddha's key teachings.
>>6488870 Why do you want some superficial condensed version? If you actually want to get anywhere close to what they are talking about go read the "canonical" texts. Stop looking for short cuts or summaries.
>>6488899 >Why do you want some superficial condensed version? If you actually want to get anywhere close to what they are talking about go read the "canonical" texts. Stop looking for short cuts or summaries. I don't want short cuts or summaries. Anything in what I said that makes you think I want the easy way out was a mistake on my part. I want to read the canonical texts. I just don't know where to find them.
i like the idea of being here and now without being preoccupied by anxiety for the future. it's difficult to adjust to because my mind's addicted to worrying about stupid shit, because it gives me a false sense of control.
>>6488870 You can start with Mindfulness in Plain English. It's a methodical explanation of what is said in the Pali Canon. There are also some other meditation books available on buddhanet.
If you're really insistent on reading Pali Canon or Agama sources on meditation get ready for quite a bit of digging because there are different expositions in different and completely unrelated suttas, and also get ready for a lot of head scratching trying to figure out what exactly is being said in them. As a complete beginner there's no reason whatsoever to do this, but it's your choice.
>>6488973 >implying buddhism doesn't embrace suffering >implying they don't force their bodies to suffer so they understand the nature of the world >implying they don't suffer as much as possible to learn to overcome that lie Nietzsche is an armchair pro at suffering, but he has nothing against Buddhism.
>>6489016 If everyone was a buddhist we would all die from boredom, one must journey through deserts for impossible loves, cry til you feel like you died and laugh till you feel like you are being reborn . Negating the will to live and accepting voluntary slavery is mental suicide
The only argument against Buddhism I've considered is that it trains you to be content with mere existence and that desire/suffering is a necessary component of the human experience that drives innovation, competition, art, expression and civilization itself.
Notice much great art came from suffering and hardship.
>>6489168 Sure, but ultimately all those things are distractions and attachments. Although I think that in a hypothetical enlightened society art and expression would still exist, because enlightenment does not kill creativity. They would just be globally quite different from what we're used to.
>>6489204 Just because it's a distraction doesn't mean it's bad, anon. It just means that it's a distraction. If you watch a terrible movie that makes you develop feelings of hate and revulsion, that's bad. Very rarely you can "experience" a work of art that will bring you even if slightly closer to wisdom and truth, and that's anything but bad, that's an instance of a distraction being used as a skillful means.
I'll give you a very simplistic rundown: >Buddha describes samsara, a cycle of infinite rebirths where beings are subject to dukkha under various forms since forever >the only way to stop being subject to dukkha and get out of samsara permanently is to attain enlightenment >therefore, this is the most important action that can be performed in any lifetime >this involves -but is not restricted to- letting go of attachments to avidity, aversion, ... >enjoying anything with the senses the way unenlightened beings do is necessarily linked with attachments, seeking pleasures is necessarily linked with attachments >the more one indulges in sensual pleasures, the more attachments take deeper roots, which distances one from progressing towards enlightenment >therefore they are just distractions
This is just an objective description of what has been taught, without any comment on how to deal with such distractions and what attitude to have. Read up on dukkha and the five aggregates if you want to know more.
>>6489293 Different anon here, it's clear you're biased and uneducated on the subject, like really clear. Buddhism is basically stoicism, wanting things is bad because you will forever desire things and it's very probable that you won't always get what you want, if you don't want anything you will be content forever.
>>6489307 What kind of crazy man would believe this? So what if I don't get what I want? It's the drive to live that makes one want to get out in the morning. Even the desire to don't have a desire is enough
>>6489345 You sound ridiculous, I'm leaving this thread so you can keep masturbating your "enlightened" friends and making fun of "blind" people like me (kek. I actually hope believing this kind of thing helps you (and whoever) become a better person, tho.
>>6489375 As you should be. But cosmology really occupies a secondary position even though it's interesting to note that the Buddha described quite literally infinite universes and multiverses that are cyclically expanding and contracting.
>>6487527 They've got some right stuff but to 90% of everyone thinks Buddhism is just some vague meditation bullshit and you'll just be surrounded by these people unless you travel to Nepal.
I just don't see why you would bother with putting a label on yourself to follow certain rules. Just do you, think what you want to think. You don't have to be "Aligned" with some group to make it true.
>>6487527 karma/rebirth/higher planes of existence that can only be accessed by arahants are all stupid concepts, does a mentally handicapped person accumulate karma if he's not responsible for his own actions?
>>6487605 You're thinking of Nietzsche matey. But yes, I believe Nietzsche makes a good point that Buddhism is a religion for the most degenerate people mentally, that is, those who have very weak wills and little self mastery. A tempered person won't feel so much pain and anxiety that they have to give up on life just to ease the burden. Honestly, if Buddha hadn't held a belief in reincarnation, he'd have been better off killing himself.
>>6491852 >Zen Buddhism Which is essentially Taoism. OP's image, and the people in the thread's apparent conception of Buddhism, is the dogmatic one that exists most plentifully today.
I would say that Hesse was affirming Taoism pretty strongly (albeit not by name), and pointing out the flaws which the TEACHINGS of the Buddha had, rather than the method itself. So I concede that much.
>>6487527 Buddhism is an interesting practice and makes strong arguments about the nature and ways of thinking that need to be respected and practiced, but outside of that it is limited, in my opinion. The most glaring problem probably being that Buddhism envelops its doctrines of interdependent relationships and anatman onto the world itself, but we know the world has a beginning and it will have an end. Buddhism also necessarily becomes extraordinarily complex and schismatic because philosophy is so inherent and important to its dogma and practice.
>tfw i've known for years very firmly that taoism has it right but i've been too lazy to follow through with it because i've always just told myself "well, i'm not in despair at the moment, so there's no reason to look for inner peace yet" fuck... i've strayed so far from what i know is right; this summer i'm going to make it happen.
>>6491916 You realize that someone can do research, even an adequate amount of it, and still fail to understand a subject? Consider replacing your passive-aggressive shitposting with something more constructive next time.
>>6491947 Saying "it's doubtful" makes it sound like you're phrasing it in a historical context, like part of a timeline of his life, which is why I pointed out that he did in fact thoroughly study it. Whether or not he comprehended it properly is a different story.
>>6487527 Most people have already pointed out the various flaws, but in short...
>there is nothing about Buddhism that cannot be applied to a Christian or Atheist >It has elements of a deathcult >Both Buddhism and Hinduism believe you deserve to be born in the position you're in, which is rubbish >Following the "abandoning of desires" more often than not is cruel to other people, and harmful to society >But following your desires can also harm people, and will give you bad karma and you will stay in this world longer
>>6488170 I often feel that one of my main issues is the fact that I feel attachment to the image which I project of myself to others. It often occupies my mind. I become obsessed with fitting into a mould and this eats up my energy. Are there any suggestions you may give for tackling this?
>>6495148 There are zen centers in most major cities. And nowadays other sects are becoming popular. If you believe in buddhism it might be good to figure out what sect you prefer and meet professionals. It's foolish otherwise. It'd be like calling yourself a Christian without ever talking to a priest or fellow follower.
>>6495187 Buddhism is basically just a more pessimistic version of Hinduism. Karma, dharma, dharana, dhyana, samadhi, avidya, maya. Main difference is atman versus anatman, but buddha nature is basically advaita vedanta. Either way you're trying for escape from rebirth (moksha/nirvana) via action, philosophy and meditation. Main advantage is that theistic views of cosmology seem more consistent than co-dependent arising given what we know of the Big Bang. Just my 2c.
I will say this OP. Many people in the West think of terms of submitting to the Lord, God.
If you wish to be a Buddhist or a Taoist (which has more philosophical implications by the very nature of their faith) you must think in terms of the Law, the Dharma. When you breathe in you must breathe out, and when you act you must know reactions are to follow. Think of this as you study not only Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, but the Dharma as a whole.
>>6488870 meditation in buddhism is not an isolated technique for anybody to use, it comes part and parcel with the buddhist view of life and death. to meditate, then, is really to think and act in the mode of a buddha. in this sense, buddhist meditation involves contemplation on impermanence for the sake of detachment, dispassion, and liberation from clinging.
I wonder if there are others here like me who have a deep interest in Buddhism, read a lot about it, and yet feel reluctant to bother getting into discussions about it here on /lit/.
I've tried and something about it just puts me right off. Maybe it's the exhausting nature of scanning through ten shitposts for a genuine one, or the clusterfuck of know-it-all's from contradictory traditions writing as if they are possessed of final knowledge and unwilling to modify their views, I don't know. Something about it annoys me so I usually don't bother.
But then I read threads and see the confusion and misunderstandings about Buddhism and it makes me want to get involved in it all again. Do I have a responsibility to any of you, to share what I consider the right-view? Is it selfish to ignore you all and keep it to myself?
I think this is just the wrong forum for the discussion. It taints it from the very beginning, although we have got into interesting territory in some past threads. I don't think we respect each other here, we are too accustomed to the 4chan style to interact with the patience we'd probably display in a different context.
Overall I'd advise those with the interest to continue pursuing it yourselves, alone, and engaging the controversies through books, not living debates with others online, which can turn nasty. It's easier to keep a detached perspective just reading about the issues from books. We're not missing anything or any new lines of argument by ignoring online discussions, it's all old territory inasmuch as monks have been discussing it for 2500 years.
>>6495803 I'd like to add that, as Buddhists, or whatever we may consider ourselves (preservers of Buddhist intellectual culture, perhaps) need not worry ourselves about "converting" unbelievers. It will never harm the true dhamma if a handful of anons on 4chan post insults and crude misunderstandings about Buddhism. It will not make the books from monks, scholars, historians, etc disappear. It will not wipe Buddhism from the face of the earth.
There will probably always persist a small sect of people who invest their time and effort into Buddhist studies and practice. All I know is from books and my own thinking, very little has resulted from online discussions, if anything other than a distaste for discussing it here. The only thing that concerns me is a steadying decline in overall interest resulting in the eventual non-publication of essential works on the subject.
I find the quality of online discussions, even on Buddhist forums, to be quite lacking in depth and experience. What I tend to find is beginners with an entry level grasp of things wasting each others time on points they could research in greater depth alone through books. And a plethora of "don't think too much about it, just say om" types of simpletons who are anathema to scholars.
>>6487527 Seems like you have to restrict yourself an awful lot to achieve nirvana, but I also value its historical significance in Asia, and to a lesser extent recent movements in the United States. I think Taoism is a bit cooler, but there's a fair amount of literature in each religion I have still yet to read.
>>6495132 I think it happens to pretty much all of us to some degree. Although I don't have any deep suggestions to give, I can share some thoughts.
The mold of course actually doesn't exist. Although people will at a distant glance appear to fit into a mold, if you were to examine each person and question them you'd find out that everyone has a different view of that mold they supposedly belong to, and that "normal" people should belong to. In the same way, one's own Self (your "image") and their idealized Self (which is created due to desires, wants and opinions; and which they consciously or unconsciously compare with their own Selves and become dissatisfied as a result) are only illusory and don't exist. Trying to see yourself as you actually are, you can see that most other people aren't better or worse. With that you can conduct an independent examination of yourself and discern what actually needs to be changed, on the basis of good and bad actions. For example if you thought that you gave the image of a loud person, you could realize that you were actually just exaggerating your talking in your head. Or you could realize that you actually were being loud. You could realize that you're actively thinking negatively about other people. Once you accept yourself for what you are without feeling aversion to yourself, you can examine yourself this way in the light of the Noble Eightfold Path and little by little start changing your actions accordingly. The projected image will progressively disappear. To cut to the heart of the matter, what needs to be done is simply to let go of the attachment to the Self. This isn't simple, but growing up we've actually done it many times, though we replaced what we discarded. There is a fearful opposition by oneself against discarding that image, but keeping in mind that aforementioned fact about the many images that have come and gone, it's possible to realize that it's a baseless fear and start the letting go.
>>6495803 >>6495883 Good posts. Although most of the time there won't be much that results from online discussions (since Buddhism is not an intellectual-only field and one makes the greatest advances via practice and not talk), it's not always the case. A lot of people appreciated the posts by the person they affectionately came to call buddhabro for example. For genuinely interested people, discussion will be valuable and there are always a few of them that pop up. As for those who post insults or misunderstandings, the ones doing it to troll and the ones doing it because they genuinely think they are in a position to do so must be discerned. There's no need to concern yourself with what the first group says, but correcting what the second group says isn't bad, I think. Purely philosophical opinions don't need to be discussed deeply, since Buddhism is not just a philosophy, but it's different with people who claim that Buddhism says X when it says Y and then go on ranting about it. Overall as you said online discussion should definitely not be overdone. It can be helpful for a couple people, but outside of that it won't change much.
>To cut to the heart of the matter, what needs to be done is simply to let go of the attachment to the Self. This isn't simple, but growing up we've actually done it many times, though we replaced what we discarded.
I found this particularly helpful.
I have realised that I cling to self image, obsessing of material possessions and acts which I believe fit whichever image I am currently fixated on. (The image isn't even neccesarily for other people, in fact it is usually just for myself, strangely) This continues until I grow weary of this particular obsession and then replace it with a new one. The only times when I am not clinging to image and obsessing over what I will need to gain this image is when I am mediating and practising mindfulness.
Daily reminder that Descartes btfo this pseudo-religion in a single sentence without knowing it.
Daily reminder that the "self" is there. Buddhism is in direct, explicit, no-dialectics-will-ever-get-you-out-of-this contradiction with Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Hume, Stirner, Husserl, ...
Daily reminder that desire is the greatest thing there is. Love between friends, between husband and wife, striving for greatness, either heroic or more prosaic virtue, are all desires.
Daily reminder that, while Hinduism has gone full retard in the last 1500 years, Vedic religion is superior in every way to Buddhism.
Dailt reminder that mysticism needs to be purged, among Christians as well as fedoras and Muslims or any others.
"Such is the essence of the teachings of various Indian philosophies, especially of Buddhism, and of Schopenhauer. Praxeology does not comment upon them. It is neutral with regard to all judgments of value and the choice of ultimate ends. Its task is not to approve or to disapprove, but to describe what is. The subject matter of praxeology is human action. It deals with acting man, not with man transformed into a plant and reduced to a merely vegetative existence." Ludwig von Mises
>>6497422 I don't know if I'd call myself a Buddhist, but after studying Buddhism for about a year, internalizing some of the more personally significant ideas, I began to enjoy life a lot more. I used to compartmentalize everything with -isms, constantly evaluating everything in the world, but now the world seems boundless, I observe without evaluating, and I'm much happier and less anxious. Buddhism helped rid me of my sp00ks, and now my mind is clear.
>>6497908 your daily reminders sound desperate. let the buddha and descartes meet and let's see who is convinced of the other's superiority.
you are probably a theistic egotist who needs constant reassurance of your divinely created and life and purpose and eternal existence so buddhism terrifies you. like the sutta where the buddha says he is like the lion who comes out at night roaring making the other animals hide and run and shit themselves with fear. he teaches the impermanence of identity, the not-self nature of consciousness. ordinary beings attached to identity feel fear when confronted with the thought of their own impermanence, changing nature, eventual decay and death, rebirth...
>>6487564 >buddhizm is thanatropic schizotechnics, it is the cult of the final death, the escape from the labyrinth of suffering, the transcendental nihilism, the holographic diamond, the destruction of delusion, the zero self equation, it is all and nothing. i want to join a monastery but am torn between theravada and vajrayana.
why join a monastery? why not just live alone or with some close friends with similar views? if you join a monastery, you must submit to a code of behavior, lots of rules to follow that you are not habituated to, it will be a complete overhaul of your life.
i think the rules in the patimokkha are not necessary all from gotama buddha but extensions of an original archaic monastic code that had much wider reaches. there are many cases in the pali suttas where ascetics and monks from other sects signed up and the fact that they had not been following any precise and specifically buddhist monastic rules, but rather their own or from their previous cult, did not lessen their status or deter their attainments. from this it could be concluded that there is no necessity to actually join a monastic order to be fully buddhist. if your own way of being, thinking, doing is genuinely inspired and informed by buddhist concepts, history, practices, etc then why isn't that sufficient?
i see the monastic order as a cultural artifact of india and its rules reflect the times. in today's world, in a different scene, i think it is sufficient to live in buddha mode alone or with friends rather than doing this odd thing of going to live with other, oftentimes, young and confused men. monastic life seems to crush individuality and keep everyone locked in a pathetic hierarchy. in the past, 2500 years ago in india, the buddha's cult must have been very impressive. nowadays, seeing white monks in bright orange or red robes looks a little crazy. it is impotent.
>>6498453 >i think it is sufficient to live in buddha mode alone or with friends rather than doing this odd thing of going to live with other, oftentimes, young and confused men. I think that, in practice, you can do this, only after going deep in the path, in other words, after seeing a few monks and probably living with them
>>6487579 in the kaccayanagotta-sutta (nidana-vagga, samyutta nikaya) the buddha says his teaching is the middle (neither/nor) between non-existence and existence. it is a refutation of nihilism and eternalism: the view that "it is not" and "it is". nagarjuna directly referred to this sutta by name in his magnum opus, giving it the distinct honor of recognition above all else by a master thinker.
the buddha taught the impermanence and emptiness of conditioned phenomena but not the inefficiency of kharmic actions or the non-arising of their necessary consequence. death is not a simple cessation as far as the buddha was concerned. the body dies, and the pali suttas are full of vivid reminders of the decaying nature of the physical body, and the personality and identity is gone forever (you will not meet your grandpa existing eternally in heaven running in meadows), but the kharmic force does not get cut off, it regenerates in a new body and continues. this is the process of samsara. the buddha taught that for the fool and the wise man alike, the only reason they have come to be is fueled by past ignorance and craving, and the only difference between them is that the wise has abandoned ignorance and cut off craving, bring his life process in samsaara to the point of extinction, which is nibbana.
>>6489276 He asked what made you worthy of deciding what was a distraction and you fed him your religious view, then called him blind when he rejected your clearly biased as fuck response especially since you gave such a response to a question against religious authority itself petrntious cunt.
>>6498483 ignorance in this context specifically means the ariya-sacca's, the noble truths. it is important to realize that the 4 noble truths were part of the content of the buddha's illumination and not logical postulates to be debated in line at the supermarket. in other words, it was due to ignorance of the ariya-sacca that the buddha-to-be in past lives did not attain complete enlightenment. it was not until his mid-30s, after living a luxurious youth, after years of harsh asceticism, after so much living and thinking, that he finally made the breakthrough into the truth. the more i explore the early suttas the more respect i gain for the 4 noble truths. they are reflected everywhere.
>(samsaara is) suffering [dukkha] >(is given continuity by) craving & clinging >(is brought to extinction by) abandoning craving & cutting off clinging >ariyo-atthangiko-magga, noble eightlimbed path is the method:
>>6498562 this is from a sutta in the khanda-vagga where a monk asks, is there any permanence in identity at all? the buddha relates to him how in a past life he was a wealthy king who had 84,000 horses and 84,000 gold plates and all this kind of thing, going down a long list. the point is to show that he had reached that station in life where everything is indulgent and life is good. yet due to the impermanence of all things, that mode of life has vanished, now he is here with the other monks, on a desolate empty mountain side, at the last stages of life. what is quoted in pali in the previous post is the summary of the sutta, where the buddha says just so monks, all those conditioned things of the past have ceased, changed. so impermanent are conditioned things, it is enough to become disillusioned & disgusted, dispassionate & detached, and liberated from attachment to all conditioned things.
rather than seeking a specific station in life, which is by nature impermanent and subject to change and decay, the buddha taught the way out of coming and going, out of birth and death, out of samsaara.
>>6498522 Yeah I called him blind. Are you going to tell me I was wrong and that I've been actually talking to an enlightened being? All of us are blind. And why shouldn't I have responded from a Buddhist point of view? It's at the very least as valid as your ghostbuster philosophies and the rest. Since I was talking about the Buddhist point of view in the first place, a response from the same point of view had to be expected. I explained why the Buddha himself deemed those things distractions. Take it or leave it. Being defensive about what he thinks is like super important or meaningful in life doesn't solve anything.
>>6498453 Becoming a monastic more or less means that you're committing yourself 100% to the path with single-mindedness. It is not, and can never be, the same thing as living a worldly life in an ultracapitalist society. The rules and codes of behavior aren't there to be funny, they're part of the training. There's a reason why through the history of Buddhism monks have been most of the time those who've made the significant contributions to Buddhism, or those who've made the farthest progress in the path (there are more reasons than just this, but still). As for >monastic life seems to crush individuality This is simply not true >and keep everyone locked in a pathetic hierarchy. There's no hierarchy unlike in Christian monasteries, aside from the fact that obviously the less experienced person is respectful of the more experienced one. Now with that being said, >there is no necessity to actually join a monastic order to be fully buddhist. if your own way of being, thinking, doing is genuinely inspired and informed by buddhist concepts, history, practices, etc then why isn't that sufficient? This is correct. The Canon and the Agamas confirm it via the presence of lay disciples going as far as arhatship. However, "being, thinking, doing is genuinely inspired and informed by buddhist concepts, history, practices, etc" is precisely what is extremely hard to do. In a closed, controlled and strict environment training will go much smoother and better as you will be forced to adhere to it: there's a reason why soldiers aren't trained at their homes. After all, who has a better chance of progressing faster: someone who devotes 100% of his time to an activity with 100% dedication, or someone who does the same with varying percentages? Whether a different kind of monastic establishment can be made or not today is another matter. A lot of things in modern society are quite different compared to even a century ago. Perhaps today a good learning of the teachings and sincere practice with everything these entail, combined with periodical meditation and study retreats can permit good progress, but I'm skeptical about these ever surpassing monastic life. What should change for Buddhist monasticism worldwide today IMO is the re-institution of nun orders in countries where they disappeared, and the Sangha basically implementing a tough screening process for all those wishing to join, since being a corrupt monk is pretty bad.
>>6498907 Actually, wherever screening processes exist, it's if you display traits of being an unruly hothead who wants to join the monastery not because he has committed to Buddhism, but because he wants to escape his problems or because he thinks it'll be an adventure. Today (though this was also sometimes the case historically), globally, the Sangha is full of people who have no business of being there. Those are the ones who break the precepts, know nothing much about the teachings and just enjoy the privileges of being a monk. At best they are just scammers, at worst they kill people. Meanwhile, individual personalities that are anything but "submissive beta males" and were or are genuine practitioners abound in monasticism: starting from the Buddha himself, to Nagarjuna, to Tsongkhapa, to Chinul, to Dogen and Hakuin, to Ajahn Chah, to Henepola Gunaratana, and countless more. So no, monasticism does not crush individuality, but it sure will mold you.
Also please do not use the term "beta male" unironically.
>>6497523 Cool, but I never said it wasn't, I just said it wasn't for people who 'already' enjoy life (hence the 'like me' part). Why would I want to go through a process, unfitting of my current desires, of abtaining a different form of absolute enjoyment when I'm already infinitely times satisfied with experiencing absolute enjoyment everyday?
the teaching of the buddha can be stripped of its monastic bacterial growth and lived unhindered by the various social annoyances present in monasteries.
be suspicious of those urging conversion or official suicide into monastic life. it is far better to stay with your families, becoming a light of the way, easing them into death and rebirth, teaching by example, than sequestering yourself away with other repressed homosexuals and addicts in a monastery, where you will be so exhausted from rote repetition of non-essential prayer-like ritual chanting that you won't bother studying the suttas - just like most monks in asia don't bother now.
don't fall for the naive idealism of believing you are ill equipped to reach enlightenment in your bedroom in america and need to move to a monastery in asia.
the future of monastic buddhism belongs to the hikikomoris.
>>6499064 your enjoyment now is impermanent, subject to change. will you not age, decay, die? or will your present circumstances persist forever, simply because things have been steady for a short while? think deeply, friend.
>>6499037 Normally no. But the less experienced ones assist and help the "elders" and most likely address them in a specific respectful way, which as you know is a staple of many Eastern cultures. There's a story recorded in the Canon commentary concerning Sariputta about how a 7-year old novice pointed at him that his robes were not perfectly adjusted. Sariputta, who had become an arahant already, adjusted his robes, saluted the novice and said "now it is correct, teacher".
>>6499064 The sangha is the second jewel of the triple gem. It is a life of devotion and service. Not only will you go further in your meditation but you will also serve to further the dharma and exercise compassion to all sentient beings. The greatest temptations of the Buddha was not Mara attempting to trick him but his decision whether or not to teach or just live life and enter nirvana when he died on his own. If you don't see the beauty in that then I pity you.
>>6499083 I wouldn't mind suiciding monastically. I'm a repressed homosexual addict, my parents are conservative Catholics, and my ability to live a hikikomori life is hindered by constant pressuring to get a job. I'd rather just discuss Buddhist philosophy and meditate all day with some bros.
>>6499064 Because your enjoyment is not absolute. It's not perfect, it's dependent on your faulty senses, it's subject to the whims of fortune, and most importantly it's not accompanied by wisdom but delusion. Don't bother replying with something like how you know better than the Buddha and how your enjoyment is either absolute, or whenever it isn't that it is more than sufficient. I'm not writing this to change anything about your views which are obviously too far gone for a simple discussion to change them. I'm just giving you the Buddhist perspective, you're free to think whatever you want about it. You should rectify your grossly incorrect projection about how Buddhists must fundamentally not enjoy life so they must seek this religion to find enjoyment though. That's far from being correct.
>>6499083 At least make an effort, Mara. Literally no one will fall for these posts and you'll be back to sitting in a corner, sad and by yourself, making holes in the soil with a stick just like you did 2500 years ago.
Buddhism is incompatible with Western living through and through - you want to live like a lazy motherfucker you get the fuck out of the country and go live in the dustbowls out in the middle of butt fuck no where - your enlightenment is worth absolutely nothing absolutely jack shit.
hikikomori buddhizm: withdrawing from normal life into reclusive room buddha robots. shocked awake by impermanence, suffering, emptiness, disease, decay, death. detached from desires, going against the genetic grain, solitary and celibate. disgusted by the body, disillusioned by the dependently arisen conditioned nature of mental states, hikikomori monk bots meditate and vegetate on soy buddha bean honey whole grain diets.
>>6499090 >>6499117 >>6499170 This is nice and makes your tummy feel warm and all, but who are you guys to characterize my absolute enjoyment? How does my leading a healthy flourishing physical life, constantly adjusting to age and being infinitely satisfied not fulfill the relative end I am situated in, as opposed to buddhists fulfilling their relative end? Protip: one sincerely claimed absolute enjoyment is no better than another sincerely claimed absolute enjoyment, it's the fulfillment of relative ends on either side that determines for them whether they experience this enjoyment.
>>6499170 >You should rectify your grossly incorrect projection about how Buddhists must fundamentally not enjoy life so they must seek this religion to find enjoyment though. That's far from being correct.
Also, I would like you to show me where I said that in this thread.
>>6499881 >To clarify, Buddhism isn't for people who are already satisfied with the relative enjoyment they are experiencing in life. Why not? Do you mean "not for them" in that they won't be interested in trying it?
>>6499946 In effect, Buddhism isn't for anyone who doesn't practice it, and therefore you can't say who it's for or not until after it's been established that they practice it or not during their lifetime?
>>6499969 Do you need to circumnavigate the world to find out that it's round? Do you need to read a shit book to find out it's shit? No, you resort to critical evaluations that inform your interpretations/opinions of thingsin order to decide where you want to go from there, and the general idea of Buddism and what it entails can be understood in exactly the same manner.
>>6500083 >Person reads detailed critical evaluations of a Terry Pratchett book written by qualified experts with high, legitimate degrees in their areas of expertise with the best critical analyses available
So tell me bro, how is this any different than trusting the experts that tell you the world is round?
>>6500218 Where do you think you get the oppurtunity to understand their data from? If they pulled it out of their asses and presented the same thing to you, would you say "makes sense, the world is round"? By claiming to understand anything you are conforming to a set of conventions that fulfill some relative end, in this case the end being determining whether the world is round. By appealing to these conventions you appeal to the consensus or authority that set them in the first place. How is this not logically equivalent to placing your trust in the applicability of these conventions?
>>6500386 >man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night >writes down suggested explanation for observed events in the form of empirical data (arbitrary conventions)
>man sees sun coming up and going down every day and night >writes down suggested explanation for observed event in the form of God-Almighty (arbitrary conventions)
>third man joins in, hasn't been watching the sun as attentively as the other two but the first explanation makes more sense to him (conforming/adhering to a convention)
>relative ends: all three men want to learn about the world surrounding them (relative end #1), two of the men decide to create a spaceship that could take them closer to where the sun is (relative end #2), the other one decides to get closer to God-Almighty by praying to the sun (relative end #3)
>>6500479 If he simply trusts the empirical explanation without understanding it, then he doesn't understand it, no. That makes it the same as a religious belief. The empirical data itself isn't belief-based, however, and can be analyzed without placing any trust in the conclusions drawn by whoever collected it. Then there's of course the thing about trusting his observations, since he may be wrong or lying about those as well. If I'm really curious, if it matters to me, then I make observations of my own, and study the observations of as many other observers as possible, and then I do the same with conclusions. Then, whenever it's relevant, I recheck and rethink, and I say, "as far as I can tell, the most plausible theory is that..." without placing either trust or belief into it, because neither trust nor belief makes anything more accurate or well-informed. By the way, are you suggesting that empirical observation is the same as religious belief? Because that's retarded.
>>6500588 >If he simply trusts the empirical explanation without understanding it >the first explanation makes more sense to him (conforming/adhering to a convention) He understands it insofar as anyone can understand something according to the conventions their understanding is based on. What he placed his trust on was the man's claim to having observed the sun's "movement" before establishing those conventions, much like the person who placed his trust on the expert that circumnavigated the world. Neither experimented those conventions firsthand, so they placed their trust on the empirical observations of the experts/authority/consensus from whom these conventions were derived from in the first place.
>That makes it the same as a religious belief. The empirical data itself isn't belief-based
Religious belief isn't relavent to this discussion, both cases are a matter of differing interpretations.
>can be analyzed without placing any trust in the conclusions drawn by whoever collected it.
>Then there's of course the thing about trusting his observations, since he may be wrong or lying about those as well.
Read above. Also, it's entirely on him if he trusts observations unrelated to the conventions at hand.
>If I'm really curious, if it matters to me, then I make observations of my own, and study the observations of as many other observers as possible, and then I do the same with conclusions.
Cool and there's nothing wrong with that.
>Then, whenever it's relevant, I recheck and rethink, and I say, "as far as I can tell, the most plausible theory is that..." without placing either trust or belief into it, because neither trust nor belief makes anything more accurate or well-informed.
Once again, you place your trust in the practical/experimental aspects that these particular conventions are derived from.
>By the way, are you suggesting that empirical observation is the same as religious belief? Because that's retarded.
No, I'm saying that both are differing interpretations that fulfill relative ends.
>>6499765 >but who are you guys to characterize my absolute enjoyment? You yourself say in this very post that your "absolute enjoyment" stems from phenomena, is based on objects. Which means that it's not absolute at all after all because it's conditioned, and so sooner or later will pass away one day the same way it arose one day. It may arise again and die yet again, but the periods in-between won't be made of enjoyment. As long as you're not Enlightened, you keep having a relative enjoyment of course, but as you keep letting go of things the very nature of enjoyment starts changing into something people mundanely enjoying sense pleasures can't imagine. With enlightenment, the transformation is complete and the bliss of Nirvana arises, which is actually absolute because it isn't conditioned and does not depend on phenomena, on objects.
>With enlightenment, the transformation is complete and the bliss of Nirvana arises, which is actually absolute because it isn't conditioned and does not depend on phenomena, on objects.
It's stemmed from your being situated in the world in relation to other objects, so how does the transformation not depend on phenomena and objects? It doesn't come out of a vacuum or pop out of your ass afaik
>>6501031 To pursue enlightenment you must desire enlightenment. When you become enlightened you abandon the desire for enlightenment along with all other desires. Or better yet, read this: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html
I have no eternal soul. I conform to a sense of self that doesn't exist. My every action is conditioned by desires and material circumstances. My will is not truly free.
Am I right according to the Buddha? Cause this just makes me feel hopeless. I must have had bad karma in a previous life to deserve all the suffering I experience. I would try to change thing but I'm stuck in samskaras and destructive patterns of behavior.
>>6501117 >It's stemmed from your being situated in the world in relation to other objects, so how does the transformation not depend on phenomena and objects? It doesn't come out of a vacuum or pop out of your ass afaik Your whole perception of the world changes. The result is a state where even not doing anything and just sitting there is blissful because all the conventional links of contact(perception)-craving-dejection are broken. Phenomena are perceived in a way beyond mere logic, simply as the way they are, and in a way they become completely normal (so an enlightened being who gets hurt does continue to experience the feeling of pain, but he doesn't suffer from it). "In AN 9.34, the venerable Sariputta exclaims: "Nibbana is happiness, friend; Nibbana is happiness, indeed!" The monk Udayi then asked: "How can there be happiness when there is no feeling?" The venerable Sariputta replied: "Just this is happiness, friend, that therein there is no feeling."" (meaning what is beyond a sense of ease or well-being obtained through the six senses). There's a further explanation here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.019.nypo.html
>>6499090 >your enjoyment now is impermanent, subject to change. will you not age, decay, die? or will your present circumstances persist forever, simply because things have been steady for a short while? think deeply, friend. >>6499170 >Because your enjoyment is not absolute. It's not perfect, it's dependent on your faulty senses, it's subject to the whims of fortune, and most importantly it's not accompanied by wisdom but delusion.
is buddhism still the way to go if we accept the faultness of this enjoyment ?
>>6502311 >faultness of the usual enjoyments of the typical perosn on earth.
For instance, I enjoy eating such meal, but I am fine with eating something else, that I enjoy less. I am fine with things being temporary. I do not seek to cling on enjoyments. I welocme them, but not do not seek them actively.
I do not mind to not do something.
>>6502286 >The result is a state where even not doing anything and just sitting there is blissful because all the conventional links of contact(perception)-craving-dejection are broken.
With me, not doing anything and just sitting there is not blissful, is just is. I have no enjoyment but no pain either.
I do not understand the rest of the sentence >the conventional links of contact(perception)-craving-dejection are broken.
but I know that I crave little things in life. Basically, a shelter and food with internet.
So I am not enjoyed, do not seek enjoyment and thus I wonder if buddhism is for me or not.
>>6502286 That's nice and all but it doesn't change the fact that all of that stems from your being situated in the world in relation to other objects where transformation depends on phenomena and objects, which is what was being disputed in the first place. And you or anyone else has yet to provide me with a single example where this doesn't apply. Until then, you can keep your Buddhism lanuage-game to yourself, I'm not interested.
>>6502363 So basically, you claim to be a complete blank who is not perturbed by anything and only experiences neutral feelings? This either means that something is wrong with your head (depression frequently causes this kind of existence in-between real moments of sadness or frustration that erupt spontaneously or are induced after thinking about "deep" stuff), or that you have a distorted/unaware vision of yourself. Considering that you claimed your cravings are little and yet included the internet in those cravings, I'm inclined towards the latter.
>>6498393 Yep, theoist and egoist. Nice try to make psychobabble though.
By the way, if nothing is permanent, is Buddhism permanent ? There can obviously be no permanent doctrina of Buddhism, which then becomes a meaningless term. You speak of change. How can you have an idea of what change means if it is not permanent? You claim I do things out of "fear". What does fear mean if I have no permanence? I have a fear at one time and another at another time? How can we even have a scale of time, since it imply a permanent valuation of time?
>>6498409 What does this mean? If you know the existence of something, then you know something about it. Why claim it is "unknowable"? When Leibniz describes the logical structure of symbols, when Husserl describes the noematic foundation of objetcs, ... it dangerously seems like knowledge about the self.
>>6499796 >Not differentiating the self from reality elements cuch as human psychism Topkek, Buddhism enlightment. >action without cause That strawman.
>>6500927 >"externally" External to what? Besides it has nothing to do with souls or psychology.
Question for Buddhists : is the number 3 permanent? Oh no some permanent identity ! Is the color yellow permanent ? Oups, a permanent identity ! How is the power of a mind to recognize such things not permanent in its identity? >But youself are not permanent I swear. Perhaps, but there would still be permanence of identifiable things.
>By the way, if nothing is permanent, is Buddhism permanent ? It isn't. Like everything that is dukkha, it will fade one day (and reappear eons later, as it did infinite times before this and as it will do infinite times after this). >You speak of change. How can you have an idea of what change means if it is not permanent? Impermanence itself is change. The fact that something isn't permanent doesn't mean that you can't conceptualize it. >What does fear mean if I have no permanence? I have a fear at one time and another at another time? That's exactly it. Also, something not being permanent doesn't mean that its existence must be felt on a momentary basis, if that was the case it would be easy to get rid of the illusion of the self. And impermanence does not imply discontinuity either. >How can we even have a scale of time, since it imply a permanent valuation of time? Time is a relative measure that you evaluate based on experience or observation. As long as things and actions and observers exist time will also exist, this doesn't mean it's permanent because one or all 3 of those things can disappear.
>What does this mean? He actually did deny the existence of a self, as long as by "self" we mean some sort of unchanging permanent substance. The Buddha made his own description of what constitutes that illusory self, namely the five skandhas.
>>6502452 >>6502456 >1 hour long I want to give the benefit of doubt to Zizek but I'm pretty sure he's having big misunderstandings if he thinks Buddhism rationalizes any kind of evil.
>>6502474 >Question for Buddhists : is the number 3 permanent? >Is the color yellow permanent ? "yellow" is the way your sensors interpret contact with reflected light from a certain object. There are animals unable to perceive it as such, and there are probably beings that are able to perceive it in a different way. Who has the right perception here? Is the color yellow permanent if you're born blind? The number 3 is an abstract concept that springs forward via cognitive, discriminative and logical processes. It's a label that you stick on a grouping of 3 objects. It's permanent in your mind as long as you keep it mind, except it has no bearing on reality whatsoever so is not even an identity in the first place. Or do you think "dog" and "star" are also permanent identities?
>>6502553 > label that you stick on a grouping of 3 objects Are there seriously unironical psychologism here? Even that's not the point. As conception, it is permanent. What you claim imply that I cannot think twice about the number 3. Hence it becomes a pure coincidence that 3+3=6 is always true.
Yellow is not a interprettion of light. That is a metabasis of highest order. No amount of dialectics will ever, ever make data of sense into an "external" thing like you describe.
As for "star" it is indeed permanent. The sun exploding doesn't mean "star" has changed. All eidetic object are permanent.
>no bearing on reality whatsoever so is not even an identity Topkek, you actually say that "reality" is the ultimate criterium. The number 3 is eidetic (hence unreal) and it has its identity. It is the same number 3 that I, Gauss and Cauchy speak about.
Note that your doctrina of impermanence of ideas implies that communication is impossible since it is impossible that people have the same objects in mind. Of course it also works about one man at different times : I cannot conceive what I conceived 2 days ago.
Well, it's even more fucked up than that since I should not be able to speak about "I two days ago".
>>6502513 Why is there eternal return ? There would be no difficulty in having perpetual change with nothing ever reappearing. Actually, eternal return is a permanent feature. It is pointless to say that nothing is permanent when eternal return is assured. Eternal return is itself is permanent.
>The fact that something isn't permanent doesn't mean that you can't conceptualize it. Yes, it does mean it. Ideas are not "in the mind" in any real way. The number 3 is not "in" anyones mind. A concept is entirely out of reality, it never changes.
I certainly did not created the number 3 when I thought about it the first time. I even less recreate it every time I think about it. It is the same that every mathematician ever spoke about. It won't "disappear" when I die. All men and all thinking creatures could die that it would change absolutely nothing to the number 3.
>>6502682 >As conception, it is permanent And it has no basis on reality. And it exists as long as it's on your mind. Will a number 3 exist when the universe is destroyed?
>Yellow is not a interprettion of light. Wow, you better call scientists and tell them that they are a bunch of idiots then. This is a major discovery. I also never claimed that data of sense is external. There's no internal, so what is it external to? And yet, color does not exist the way you think it does, and this is just a fact.
>As for "star" it is indeed permanent A star does not exist. It's a collection of objects that you discriminate and label as a star. It doesn't represent the reality of the star. As a purely mind-made concept it is, again, permanent as long as you keep in in your mind. But it's unreal so who cares.
>eidetic, of eidos >the formal content of a culture, encompassing its system of ideas, criteria for interpreting experience, etc. Eidetic things are completely subjective, and unreal, as you said. Therefore they are mind constructs that have no identity and no basis on reality. Read up on the two levels of truth in Buddhism.
>Note that your doctrina of impermanence of ideas implies that communication is impossible since it is impossible that people have the same objects in mind. Of course it also works about one man at different times : I cannot conceive what I conceived 2 days ago. Impermanence does not mean that: a) when a thing will disappears a copy of it cannot appear later b) continuity does not exist It means that: a) what has appeared will disappear b) what has appeared is not unchanging and fixed
If you stop arguing out of frustration and google a little bit you'll find that every protest you brought up has been countered multiple times in different sources starting from the Pali Canon. Else you're putting yourself in a ridiculous position by bringing up 6th grader tier arguments against a 2500 years old philosophy that people much brighter than you have tried to disprove or contradict and failed since its inception.
>>6502716 >Will a number 3 exist when the universe is destroyed? First it is the number 3, and yes it has nothing to do with reality and would be completely unchanged shall the world be extinguished.
>Wow, you better call scientists and tell them that they are a bunch of idiots then. Yep, I distinctly remember my reading of Max Born from a few years ago, and even Aristotle. Once again, you are using the metabasis or confusion of genres. Color is not just a fact. It is a category of experience. Is space "factual"?
>It's a collection of objects A collection of objects is an objects. > It doesn't represent the reality of the star. Even in your pseudo-naturalism, it does. It perfectly serve as representation. >But it's unreal so who cares. >Therefore they are mind constructs that have no identity and no basis on reality. Once gain, idolatry of reality. Many things are unreal. Dismissing them as irrelevant on that basis, you should just stop using logic (which is permanent and its propositions are unreal). Considering the usual Buddhist dialectics, I'm afraid you do think like that.
Note that reality itself is an idea. Hence I should be able to mismiss your petty realism by simply dismissing everything you say about reality.
I'm curious by the way. When will the "current" number 3 disappear? When did it appear? Why would it be even linked to time constraints?
And it took me to read your last sentence to know you were a troll. Hinduism is older than Buddhism, which is a travesty of the former. I guess Hinduism is better then.
What is intriguing is why you try to turn all of this into a pleb version of realistic arguments. Why are you trying to turn this into pseudo-freudian stuff about "frustration"?
Is there nothing more to Buddhism that cheap psychology?
>>6502689 >Why is there eternal return ? Because. Why is there anything in the first place?
>Actually, eternal return is a permanent feature As long as you're subject to it. Guess what happens when you nirvana. And guess what the fact that you can do that implies for the supposed permanence feature.
>Yes, it does mean it. Nope. Basic example, life is not permanent. Events are not permanent, memories are not permanent.
>Ideas are not "in the mind" in any real way. The number 3 is not "in" anyones mind. A concept is entirely out of reality, it never changes. It's out of reality, so it doesn't exist in reality, so it exists in your mind and is part of the discriminative process that is dependent on your sense faculties.
>I certainly did not created the number 3 when I thought about it the first time. I even less recreate it every time I think about it. But you do. Whenever you talk about a 3, you're not talking about something that exists as an absolute permanent reality with a self. You're talking about a concept that has been taught to you, and which describes a grouping of 1 thing + 1 thing + 1 thing in a logical frame. Whenever you talk about numbers, you make in a way an absolute and irrefutable affirmation that has a place within a purely logical system (which is maths). This could not be otherwise, or else mathematics wouldn't exist. This logical system, however, is subjective and is a representation of reality, not reality itself. When they are evoked, the unreal concepts arise in the mind of the listeners, when there's no more talk of them the mind activity that brings them disappears. There's a pretty good discussion in this about idealism, materialism and reality: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Dogen_Teachings/understandingShobo.pdf
>All men and all thinking creatures could die that it would change absolutely nothing to the number 3. If you say so.
>>6502759 All right, I get it. You don't even care about the Buddha but are pushing a cheap pseudo-realism.
I insist on the cheap part. Not even Mill would be this dense about denying things unreal. Maybe you might read John Struart Mill, who at least attempts at not sounding philistine "muh reality and the rest is illusion". With "reality" meaning very different things for every philosopher, of course.
My concern is that you would take such philosophy and turn it into a cult.
You insist on saying that nothing in reality is lasting, and claim it to be some kind of big revelation. Actually I would go much further and say that nothing in reality has any objective character and no "identity". All of the objects we use when we speak are "mind conceptions" as you call them. For instance, the computer in front is a conception taken from reality. It is important to see that electrons and photons are no any more real but are purely mind conceptions from data of sense, which is never identifiable and always in heraclitean flux.
>>6502753 >And it took me to read your last sentence to know you were a troll. OK. I've been trolling you by trying to have a respectful normal discussion. You've found me out! >Why are you trying to turn this into pseudo-freudian stuff about "frustration"? Because of your attitude, maybe. And you've made it explicit again in this post by claiming that Buddhism is a travesty of Hinduism.
No, to be honest, I'm getting out of our "discussion". Both because you've clearly indicated that you don't consider me as a person worthy of having a normal discussion with, and because you have a certain view of the world that you're convinced is the truth, and I also have one. Nothing I say will ever convince you, because when did philosophical dispute ever manage to do that, again? Now that you've also come to a conclusion about Buddhism and firmly established your opinions as superior, there's even less reason to continue.
>>6502783 >You don't even care about the Buddha If you say so.
>My concern is that you would take such philosophy and turn it into a cult. Thank you for the thinly veiled insult. My concern however is that you will never actually read any source material or commentary (just like how you didn't read the Shobogenzo link I posted) and keep thinking that you've done anything worthwhile by debating a person with incomplete knowledge in a chinese cartoon forum.
>Actually I would go much further and say that nothing in reality has any objective character and no "identity". Yep, Sunyata. I did mention reading up on "two levels of truth", but...
The last thing I will say to you (like I said before) is that in its 2500 years Buddhist philosophy has covered pretty much everything you've raised against it and has done this with a strict basis on sutras. If you truly want to challenge it and your own opinions, you will read source materials, primary or not. You'll find pretty much everything you can throw already being covered, in a concise and comprehensive manner. Or you can ascribe significance to a debate made with an incompetent debater. The choice is yours.
>>6502442 >If you know the existence of something, then you know something about it. Why claim it is "unknowable"? Something isn't everything, and if you only know something about the self you certainly don't know your self. Buddhism is about how the self functions, but it's not about every last detail about how your specific self is, because it's constantly subject to change. When you say "I know my self" your self has already been altered by the process of examining your self and claiming knowledge about it. Perhaps in the future, neuroscience will be so advanced that it can examine and explain every last detail of your various levels of consciousness, and even predict how that explanation will alter you ahead of time, but even then, do you know it just because a machine tells you about it? It would require a language which is always perfectly understood and able to explain the totality of the process which is you as it is the exact moment it is that way.
>>6502812 Indeed. There has been 2500 years of philosophy that exploded any attempt at denigrating ideas as irrelevant and fetishizing whatever each guy said is reality. Only the four elements were considered reality by Democrite and the rest was illusory. Some others only recognised water as "actual real reality" and the rest was mind construct (i.e. some kind of non-existence and irrelevance for them). Schopenhauer was convinced the "will" was the one all-pervasive thing-in-itself and only reality while everything else we can think of was "representation". Engels was all about his material productive forces, the rest being irrelevant epiphenomenon providing a superstructure.
First we had Eleates, then Emmanatism, then Averroism, then Spinozism, then Psychologism, then Marxism and many others in between. And that's only one of the points raised here. Buddhism is much worse.
No wonder one may search for extinction then. I wish you to find what you are looking for.
>>6502956 What if two people who have different levels of understanding of the system of abstraction that makes them both abstract an object as "3"? Prime numbers have many uses in math, for example. What if one person has great understanding of the use of prime numbers, while the other doesn't even know he's using something called the decimal numeral system? Is their understanding the same?
>>6487527 The problem is that they fail to see that suffering is a part of life equally as important as happiness and love, because without it we would have neither. Buddhism is a refusal to play the game that so obviously is the whole point of life, is life.
The buddhists seem to say: "I am enlightened because I see that life is just a dance of all things." But then they dance a very poor dance, like a painting without contrast of color.
What is better art? The crucifixion of Christ or the buddha sitting smugly under a tree? Which scene is more human?
It is obvious that the godhead resides just as well in pain and suffering as in pleasure and happiness. What is the point in eliminating one part of the godhead?
>>6501878 >This hikikomori buddhizt bot is malfunctioning.
dear friend, try not to get too caught up in temporary mood weather, just let it pass and change. if you get caught up, you give it continuity. don't worry too much about those deeper, obscure issues at the moment. sometimes i think a major error in buddhism was leaving its highest doctrines totally exposed. it should have remained secret, for higher initiation, otherwise we get this confusion prevalent on /lit/ where non-practicing non-buddhists debate anatta theory, as if they have any ground to stand on at all.
if i may give you some life advice quite independently of buddhizm, be like a rock, let time wither you away and erode your surface, but keep standing. if you can learn to persist through all difficulties, not even death can disturb you.
ITT: college-aged philosoraptors borrowing the charisma of wiser men to debate issues they hardly understand nor have any experience of
i'd love to meet you weaklings, i'm sure it would be quite amusing to behold you in person with your short hair cuts and fashionable clothing, death grips records, preened for the deep debate on life, death, and rebirth.
>>6502906 >There has been 2500 years of philosophy that exploded any attempt at denigrating ideas as irrelevant and fetishizing whatever each guy said is reality. That's true for those who talked about what reality is. The Buddha never did that aside from saying that subjectivity is not reality, and he pointed out a way to see reality as it is. And that reality cannot be expressed, for obvious reasons related to language. That's why for example Zen is so preoccupied with things that seem nonsensical and koans are intellectually meaningless, the whole pursuit is to see things as they are. The end goal is not extinction, if that's what you're referring to. It's outside the scope of existence.
>>6503301 ITP: college-aged smug guy who has nothing of value to say so he'll just talk shit instead
>>6503317 With your description, I get the impression everyone should shup up about Buddhism since anyway you won't express it. There is nothing is our mind that will be reality or expressing it hence why even talk about it.
Like the infamous thing in themselves, you make it seem like Buddhism is about things unthinkable, hence it would be pointless to talk about that. I can't think about it and neither can you.
check out this 1hr20m talk by prof. karel werner. i'm going to listen to it again now if anyone wants to discuss anything about it.
Entering the Stream by Karel Werner
>Professor Karel Werner, PhD, FRAS, taught Sanskrit and Indian civilisation in the University of Olomouc, Czechoslovakia (1947-51), but as a non-conformist was dismissed by the communist regime, sent for re-education to the coal mines and subsequently allocated to various manual jobs. He came to England as a refugee in the wake of the Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) and was appointed as a supervisor in Sanskrit at Churchill College, Cambridge followed by Spalding Lectureship in Indian Religion and Philosophy at the University of Durham (1969). When he retired (1990), he was given the status of Professorial Research Associate in SOAS, University of London. After the collapse of communism, he was for seven years visiting professor in the Masaryk University in Brno. He has also lectured in Germany, India, Sri Lanka and South Korea. His personal involvement in Buddhist practice started at the age of fourteen.
>"Hello Yuttadhammo, my question is, Through meditation, could I learn to control my mind in a way that would enable me to destroy an addiction, or addictive tendencies? I'm addicted to pornography and masturbation. It's ruining my life, can you help?"
>The problem is that they fail to see that suffering is a part of life equally as important as happiness and love, because without it we would have neither. Buddhism is a refusal to play the game that so obviously is the whole point of life, is life.
your point is hardly worth addressing but buddhism is based on the idea of a cyclical life process where birth is not a true beginning nor death a final end but transitional points in a series of lives in this realm of existence. that's the view of the world underlying buddhist theories. if you think that the point of life is life, in other words, are affirming the life process, then enjoy your rebirths. you are not ready yet for buddhism. i mean, when you were 6 years old and reading goosebumps books how would you have interpreted these discussions on buddhism? there's a time and place for these things, sometimes you have to live more, mature more, go through more of life's horrors, to see the appeal of buddhism.
>The buddhists seem to say: "I am enlightened because I see that life is just a dance of all things."
so you judge buddhism - one of the greatest intellectual cultures of human history - by some random anons on 4chan misquoting eckhart tolle and labeling it buddhism?
>But then they dance a very poor dance, like a painting without contrast of color.
i am 14 and reading thus spake anonathustra
>What is better art? >The crucifixion of Christ or the buddha sitting smugly under a tree? Which scene is more human?
what is better art? christ's crucifiction with cock dangling down or the blessed one absorbed in profound meditation?
see what i did there?
>It is obvious that the godhead resides just as well in pain and suffering as in pleasure and happiness. What is the point in eliminating one part of the godhead?
you will get constipated if you hold in the godhead, let go of it. void yourself of waste.
>>6503557 i don't think he ever became a monk but he has been involved in buddhist studies for decades and apparently some kind of personal identity as a buddhist. he speaks of his own entering the stream (being in the process thereof) so he must take the teaching seriously on a personal level.
imagine it was proven that "something like rebirth" occurs and buddhism basically got it all right. it's now a fact that death is not the complete end, birth is not the beginning, but we are all involved in a round of existence determined by our kharma. now, buddhism is not a theistic "god said you will rot in hell without him!" conversion meme like theistic religions; you are under no obligation to become a buddhist monk just because rebirth is proven. you can have as many rebirths as you like, it's automatic recylcing for you. keeping one fact in mind, that your kharmic actions condition your life and rebirth, would you continue to affirm the life process (which will never end as long as you engage it) or seek liberation from it? if all things are impermanent, all stations in life are impermanent. you may arrive at a relatively comfortable situation for a few years in one life, but things go downhill. will you keep wanting to repeat impermanent life after life, knowing nothing lasts forever, you must let go of everything every time? or will you seek a way out? will you find buddhism radically useful for your present predicament (existing in samsara)?
tl;dr rebirth conditioned by kharma is proven as fact, how do you live? affirming rebirth after rebirth or seek liberation and nirvana?
Buddhism is precisely not an intellectual culture because if you don't understand it, you just have to suffer more. And if you do understand it, you have accepted things without basis.
Why is it that the cyclical process won't end on it's own as Hindus believe? In that sense it's logical to assume that all the parts of life are to be lived and there's nothing to do but enjoy the ride. Really "enjoy" is an inadequate word because if there were no "dislike" the would be no "enjoy", but you see that without these opposites what you have is a perfectly flatline existance.
As for the art yeah you can skew it both ways but in order to say one is more beautiful than the other you are already desiring, so you see you've already failed. You can't rid yourself of all desire because desire is all you want, by definiton.
>>6503557 >>6503538 >>6503508 the discussion at the end after his main talk is so fascinating. he talks about j krishnamurti and others who indirectly indicate they have a high spiritual attainment (and therefore authority to teach) and yet their lives often have private breakdowns and fatal flaws that contradict the sanctity of their image.
>>6503450 >With your description, I get the impression everyone should shup up about Buddhism since anyway you won't express it. What? Just because you can't express what reality is doesn't mean you can't talk about Buddhism. Buddhism is the path to perfect you as a human being, to lead you to seeing things as they are (enlightenment) and to let you understand samsara, karma and rebirth. Expression of reality factors in at no point in this.
>>6503731 Same thing happened with a lot of Zen teachers who went to the West or were formed in the West, and with others like Chogyam Trungpa. Why does anyone still show any kind of admiration for him today is beyond me.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.