Can we have a thread on Buddhism?
Ask questions, discuss historical Buddhism, talk practice and meditation with others, and whatever else you want to do.
When the Buddhist says he denies the reality of the soul, what does he mean? Are there multiple understandings of that phrase between schools.
There are two understandings of it in the west for Christianity:
>The form of the body
>Some immaterial essence which grants intellect and life
I'm curious what the general Buddhist view is of both views, if anything authoritative is said at all.
The only knowledge I have relating to the soul is the teaching given in the Pali canon, that the soul does not exist as no permanent, everlasting "you" exists in anything.
Now this is the view, but there is still something that continues after death, or else we wouldn't need to work to end rebirth, as suffering would be over at death.
I think this is where complications seem to arise. Mahayana adherents take a more reincarnation-oriented view of rebirth, with the belief that bodhisattvas choose where they are born and are ultimately the same person in a different body and time. The Dalai Lama is a good example of this.
For Theravadins, bodhisattvas don't have that much emphasis, as they're generally just regarded as future-buddhas, and not beings that can help you by praying to them or giving homage in their name.
If anyone more versed in Mahayana or Vajrayana can correct me, I'd appreciate it.
It's not that you literally, actually, don't exist right now but any "I" that you point to say and say is the real you is fundamentally without any intrinsic, metaphysical identity. All I have to do is sock you in the nuts when you ain't looking and that "I" will disappear in the blink of an eye. That is what Buddhism means by detaching yourself, living your life and not letting life live you through neurotic complexes, sensuality, anxiety, restlessness, and other negative patterns of thought and behavior.
What ultimately does exist is Buddha nature, original, luminous mind. That is your true self, but it is also the true self of everything else. You are not so much this ground "I" as much as this ground "I" is you
As for reincarnation, what is reincarnated is not a soul but the sum of karmic tendencies built up over countless lifetimes, something like a fire that consumes everything in its path. The body, your contingent small Is, are the wood this fire burns on, its bodily fuel, the fire (dukkha, thirst) is what is expressed through you as samsaric cravings that keep you bound to the material form. Only by liberating yourself and realizing your true nature can you escape from this cycle. In the metaphor this nature can be the air that fuels the flame itself. Air has the potentiality to fuel fire/craving but it is not the negative tendency in an of itself, much like you wouldn't necessarily call a kitchen knife a weapon in its proper context because the sharp bit can hurt you
>Now this is the view, but there is still something that continues after death, or else we wouldn't need to work to end rebirth, as suffering would be over at death.
the point is really that there is no difference, on the level of existence, between what you call daily life and what you call death and after death.
the purpose of the dhamma is to reach, BEFORE YOU DIE, a happiness that is worth it [=permanent, irremediable], and to reach this you must be resolute to reach it as an hedonist, after you gain stream entry, you still care, but less and you know that you cannot really escape the path.
your daily life has always been the same: you seek happiness through your identification of what you call your ego.self/persona with your emotions/ideas and it fails miserably, day after day, year after year. the manifestation of this failure is
-you still have pains
-you cannot avoid pains to cease
-your aversion towards pains, which turn into suffering
-you still have avidity towards pleasures
-you struggle to reach pleasures
-you struggle to keep pleasures
-you cannot avoid pleasures to cease
-you still have hate, greed, resentment which leads to both pleasures and displeasures for you, and displeasure for others
all of this stems form you taking seriously your emotions, feelings, fantasies....
kamma is just activity, or rather ''creation'', or desire of becoming as many say which is precisely your choice to identify with your hedonistic misery.. as an hedonist, and atheist hedonist, you think that your daily life differs from what you call death [and by the way, you have no certainty that you will die, yet you claim to have faith in your death] but there is no difference.
a better question would be ''why do we not die right after total nibbana, since kamma/creation has ceased?'', but even this question is not so good. the fact that you do not die shows that kamma is not existence, that there is something more fundamental than kamma. after nibbanna, kamma and all the taints are replaced with the paramitas, which is usually translated as virtues.
I try to have sati , but it does last only a few seconds. the problems of people like me is that it is easier to dwell in entertainment than to meditate.
are you good in meditation ? what you have learnt and that you think are goods tips that you do not see stated enough to followers ?
>The only knowledge I have relating to the soul is the teaching given in the Pali canon, that the soul does not exist as no permanent, everlasting "you" exists in anything.
I get that idea to a degree but in response to the "soul", I'm not sure how relevant it is. The way I read it speaks from a more materialistic view, which can say something for the "immaterial essence" explanation of the soul but says nothing for the "form of the body" explanation.
Oh yes, I totally get that. However, I'm also aware there are various understandings of the "luminous mind". I am most familiar with the idea of the luminous mind used by the Theravada Buddhists - the ground of being. They refer to it as the Bhavanga. For me, I see this as very close to the conception of the Ground of Being known as God in Classical Theism, albeit with less overall detail. However, how different are these different understandings of "luminous mind" in other schools of Buddhism?
>You are not so much this ground "I" as much as this ground "I" is you
So this would say that their understanding of an "I" does not refer to the metaphysical concept of immaterial forms and thus says nothing about the "form of the body" understanding of soul?
If anyone here is into meditation or is thinking about it I would highly recommend attending a SN Goenka Vipassana meditation retreat. Its completely free and you just have to show up and as long as you follow the rules of the course you are given free food and a shared room. They have them in most major countries and there are around 8-10 in N. America alone.
reminder that dating sites means women can whore themselves out to an audience of thousands of men instead of a few guys at a bar.
=> women have been expressing regularly that they have never been on earth to be prude, saying thus that they cannot go far into the dhamma, up to until a few years after their menopause or unless they get deep in the dhamma before puberty...
I'll answer that. In order to cross-compare two different ideas, we have to establish how the grounds are established first. Buddhism operates on a different starting axiom than one you're used to. I'm not familiar with what your grounds are for basing an existence of a soul, so you'll have to do that comparison yourself. For Buddhists, the axioms are simple. Things change and things have no-self existence(Three marks of existence, third is existence of suffering (applies to living beings)). First is apparent as any existence is always in constant change. The second means for all things that are said to exist, they cannot exist by themselves and they don't have any "inner" existence that establishes their uniqueness from all other existence. In other words, no object is can be self-reference. All objects exists in relation to others. By existence, the Buddhist mean any phenomena, mental and physical.
Buddhists understand that we refer to ourselves as "I am" or "you are" or "he is", etc. They understand there exists a nominal self-reference. They do not deny there is no self-reference going on when we are using language. During Buddha's time, there were many theories regarding that self-reference. One such popular view was, the self-reference was a real existence that resides in the body and can transcend death. This thing was called as atman (or soul). It is said to be immortal and can jump bodies, etc.
Buddha tackled this view by going back to his axiom (change, no self). First by identifying what we commonly refer to as the "I" or the "soul" or the self-reference we bring up. He identified that the self-reference is a collection of 5 main things(skandha lookup) like our perception, our senses, our body, consciousness(awareness), our impulses (pattern build up over time from memory). He goes in detail on each of the accounts and breaks them down. Ultimately concluding all these are subject to initial axiom(change, no-self) and the atman is an illusion.
Their are multiple forms to reach enlightenment.
>Drug use (psychedelics)
The ways to reach enlightenment are innumerable, and once you grasp it, it is like like a switch turning on in your brain. Their is a soul, and it took the Buddha to escape royalty and live among the poor to reach enlightenment. When you have a complete ego 'death,' you realize you never existed, the I, rather. Without an ego, we simply could not exist. The Buddha knew of the forces of karma, reincarnation, and the unseen forces that guide us. I relate this to Gaia, our mother earth, some others relate this to the olden gods. Look to Atlantis, myth or no. A highly advanced society that focused it's wisdom upon conquest, rather than furthering their enlightenment.
You can read the great breakdown of each of those through the Abhidhamma collections if you really want to as it goes in much more indepth detail and gives definition on many of the conditions, etc.
Anyway, the Buddha concluded atman(soul) as an illusion. However self-reference as we refer commonly during speech as a product of a bigger problem of ignorance of the true nature of the world. Not just a superficial ignorance, but ignorance builtin to our very formation of our thoughts and habits. Meditation is supposed to unravel how thoughts form, how you can steer clear of bad habits, etc. He says, if we don't pay attention to how our thoughts are formed, we will become a slave to habits that misguide us. Btw, Dhammapada is a good general read(or reread after learning more about buddhism as it will give you more depth to the already read book) to further understand Buddhist thoughts.
In any case, this case is mainly what the theravada teaches. Buddha mostly stops short around personal truth about the nature of reality. Nagarjuna, the "founder" of Mahayana goes deeper into the core axioms and brings out the sunyata as a term to prominence. Sunyata can mean emptiness but for the well understood, its generally the same thing. It goes deeper into the nature of reality and the nature of existence and nature of change, motion, etc He is sometimes referenced when people bring up Zeno's paradox of motion, change, etc.
Thank you, man, I very much appreciate the post.
Now it seems the "soul" being discussed here is largely a response to the indoeuropean belief of the "essential self" that is contained within the body. I would say that that is relevant to the modern conception of the soul in the west (the Cartesian "immaterial object" I speak of as one of the definitions) but it seems like the classical interpretation of the soul in the west - the form of the body - has little relevance to what Buddha is talking about.
The classical interpretation of the soul in relation to being is that being is a compound of both matter and form (lookup Hylomorphism). The substantial form of the body is synonymous with the soul in this sense. When the Buddha speaks of the soul as an illusion it seems to me that he's simply refuting the notion of anything that simply exists in itself (that is to say that nothing of reality exists by its own essence but depends on others things) and so rejects a kind of "material" soul as well that has its own being. This, I wouldn't think, have any relevance to the Western concept of Forms by Plato or Aristotle's understanding. Instead, this deals with the dependency of all existence on other things.
Now, on the dependency of all existence, would I be right to say that the Buddha-nature (as I understand it, it would also be called the Bhavanga) is what can be considered the wellspring of that existence? If not, does Buddhism provide an answer towards what ends that chain of dependency from moment to moment?
Thanks again, for working with me.
Why do people think Buddhism is this hippy happy flappy stuff? It has a massive caste issue where those born to poor families are stuck in that niche and not allowed to elevate themselves via education
Also why do Jews love the trappings of Buddhism so much? Is it due to being idol worshiping scum at heart?
I read up a bit on the holomorphism and the soul of western/aristotle-plato sense, so correct me if I got it wrong or is incomplete. The framework of soul and body lies in the understanding of forms and essences. From my understanding of essences, this would be same as the self. Plato/Aristotle seems to affirm a belief in existence of a self/essence of an object. With it, there are properties attached to that existence. These are then used to distinguish things from another. From what I see it, the methodology/conclusion seems to be different. Would it be correct to say the plato/aristotles way of doing is top to bottom and the buddhist is bottom to top? (Things are different because each things have different essence VS Things have no essence and change is what distinguishes one from another)
That would be direct opposite of buddhist axiom wouldn't it?
>It has a massive caste issue where those born to poor families are stuck in that niche and not allowed to elevate themselves via education
Where do you get this from? Who's not allowing them to educate themselves? What scriptural basis would they have in doing this?
The Buddha spoke of castes as irrelevant, as anyone can practice and reach liberation.
No, because there would be a desire to do drugs. Buddhists don't believe desire is a favourable thing, or even that it can lead to enlightenment. So, now. Only meditation can, to my understanding of it.
There is no fucking caste system in buddhism, in fact pretty much every single buddhist leader was opposed to any kind of caste, and buddhism can literally be seen as a proto version of communism in a way.
Taoism is literally chinese folk beliefs and traditions formalized through writing. It has no relations to Buddha at all m8
Their is an innumerable ways to reach enlightenment, and in the west, we only have so many options. c-cant, stop stuttering, son. I've done away with drugs, I've gotten what I have wanted out of them, now I have no need.
I have an IQ of 140, not saying this to lord above people, which people usually take it as, however nature always has a way to correct itself. In that, I see that as a break out in mental "dis"orders. In the west, we just lock them up, as to where in the past, they would lead the tribe, or be the next shaman in training.
I'm curious as to how psychedelic users justify their stance that drug use can lead to enlightenment when there is no scriptural backing for this in the tipitaka.
The Buddha mentioned many times that his life too was limited, and that he couldn't teach all that he knew even if he wanted to. For this reason, he taught the most important lessons that can help being escape samsara. Drug use as a means of liberation is found nowhere in the suttas, so why do people so adamantly defend their substance use as completely in line with the dhamma?
>No two ideals could be more opposite than a Christian saint in a Gothic cathedral and a Buddhist saint in a Chinese temple. The opposition exists at every point; but perhaps the shortest statement of it is that the Buddhist saint always has his eyes shut, while the Christian saint always has them very wide open. The Buddhist saint has a sleek and harmonious body, but his eyes are heavy and sealed with sleep. The medieval saint’s body is wasted to its crazy bones, but his eyes are frightfully alive. There cannot be any real continuity between forces that produce symbols so different as that. Granted that both images are extravagances, are perversions of the pure creed, it must be a real divergence which could produce such opposite extravagances. The Buddhist is looking with a peculiar intentness inwards. The Christian is staring with a frantic intentness outwards.
I just one but it was a really good experience. Before I had gone there the most I had ever meditated in a day was an hour or two but if you are going to stay for the duration of the course they usually require about 5 hours of meditation spaced throughout the day and then there have additional time for optional meditation. Just being there means you are doing way more meditation then you would ever do on your own which in itself is a good thing, after the course is over you feel good.
Young people in their teens or early 20's who are just starting to use psychedelics and have only a superficial understanding of Buddhism usually are the only ones who say that. When people gain both a detailing understanding of and experience with Buddhism and psychedelics they usually stop equating them in that manner. Use of psychedelics can lead to helpful insights and improvements in peoples life but they are not a substitute for Buddhist practice or mindfulness.
You become the world, and the world becomes you then.
Your consciousness is united with the consciousness of all things (the human being, the animal, the thing, and even the time).
The motif of Evangelion of the Japanese anime was Christianity, but the last inning was like Buddhism.
There are many people who don't understand or don't like the last inning of Evangelion of 1st TV vet. As for the last inning, several versions were made.
This is just like the common feelings for the concept of the Buddhism, and very interesting.
You will lose yourself at the terminus ad quem of the Buddhism by receiving all others.
If you lose yourself what is the purpose to study Buddhism for?
Tantra=angel and saint veneration
This comparison isn't intended to be entirely accurate, just a so-so comparison. In the past Mahayana was considered the Protestant equivalent of Buddhism (and in some regards might be), but this view is now outdated and some aspects of Theravada are more similar to Protestantism than Mahayana.
Theravada is probably the closest to the Buddhas original teachings, however to my knowledge there was never a centralized body to decide Buddhist doctrines like in the case of Christianity. It should be noted that some lines of Buddhism like Zen claim you must have a direct connection with the Buddha similar to apostolic succession.
Mahayana came later, and tended to adopt practices from the native religions it encountered, thus making it far more popular.
>Vajrayana is a little whacky
You may say so.
There are many systems in Vajrayana and may become the destruction pou sto of the cult religious community.
However, you should not deny them.
What you can do are teaching a law of nature, studying so that you can accept others as they are, and waiting until they change their selves.
Buddhism lives along with long time.
theravada - orthodox (most faithful to the core teachings)
mahayana - catholic (lots of saints and angels and mythos to appeal to the masses)
Vajrayana - santeria (withcraft plus religion)
Zen - quakers (overrated but fairly chill)
This. Comparing Christian denominations and branches to Buddhist sects/denominations/branches doesn't work at all as there is no central Buddhist heirarchy, they more or less all accept each other as legitimate, and there is no group trying to reform the religion back to what it is "supposed" to be (ala protestantism).
You will all be reincarnated into a spirit-body in He'll that knows only pain and separation from God's love and His power as attested by creation. All of these things that you take for granted are the sweetest and most subtle underpinnings of our experience on Earth. They're only subtle because your physical nature, being tied so seemingly intrinsically to this world by sin and, thus, separated from God, His calls are distant and muffled. If you listen for His calls, you will hear. If you seek, you will find. If you cry out, He will answer.
Or, don't try, and be condemned to an eternity of being deaf, blind, and dumb in a lake of fire that is the furthest removed place from God that ever was or ever will be. I pray you are found.
Whatever, Buddhist history is full of sects calling eachother heretics and derogatory names such as 'Hinaya' and one claiming to have a superior teaching to the other, if not why the reason for the divisions then?
It was an attempt to break free from that, I'm sorry you ended back to polytheistic deities... Probably you venerate Shiva, which is no less than Satan in Judeo-Orthodox tradition.
Or Set in Egyptian one, or Baal
Well most people won't venerate Shiva anymore since God Himself revealed on earth in human flesh.
No point to give Satan masks and waste time with rituals anymore, God said it's fine - He forgives us and waits us home after our death.
>jigoku kurayami hana mo naki.
>Hell is wrapped in darkness and even the flowers don't bloom
>jigoku nanayama nanatani meguru,
>Circling around Hell's seven mountains and seven streams,
>excerpts from the poem, Tomino's Hell
Mainly if they should have leaders after the Buddha's death or not, some debate about what some teachings meant, who should be responsible for memorizing the suttas, etc.
Eventually, in I believe the Third Buddhist Council, differences between monks lead to a schism in which Theravada and Mahayana were formed.
> Not adhereing to the 'Path of Sincerity'
Negligence. You can belive in God. (I'm a Christfag) and still accept and learn from other religions.
>A certain person said, "In the Saint's mausoleum there is a poem that goes :
>"If in one's heart
>He follows the path of sincerity,
>Though he does not pray
>Will not the gods protect him?"
>What is this path of sincerity?"
>A man answered him by saying, ''You seem to like poetry. I will answer you with a poem.
>As everything in this world is but a sham, >Death is the only sincerity.
>It is said that becoming as a dead man in one's daily living is the following of the path of sincerity."
>-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, The Hagakure
>"Now departure from the world of men is nothing to fear, if gods exist: because they would not involve you in any harm. If they do not exist, or if they have no care for humankind, then what is life to me in a world devoid of gods, or devoid of providence? But they do exist, and they do care for humankind: and they have put it absolutely in man's power to avoid falling into the true kinds of harm."
> —Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 2.11
>"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but...will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
Mah nigga. One of my favorite Zen stories:
>A big, tough samurai once went to see a little monk.
>He barked, in a voice accustomed to instant obedience. "Teach me about heaven and hell!"
>The monk looked up at the mighty warrior and replied with utter disdain.
>"Teach you about heaven and hell? I couldn't teach you about anything. You're dumb, dirty, and a disgrace, an embarrassment to the samurai class. Get out of my sight. I can't stand you."
>The samurai was furious. He shook, red in the face, speechless with rage. He pulled out his sword, and prepared to slay the monk.
>Looking straight into the samurai's eyes, the samurai's eyes, the monk said softly, "that's hell."
>The samurai froze, realizing the compassion of the monk who had risked his life to show him hell! He put down his sword and fell to his knees, filled with gratitude.
>The monk said softly, "and that's heaven."
So fucking based
Japan Spirit and Form #2 and 3 - https://youtu.be/1RpvLtwdrP8
The Zen Mind - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xla6g6_the-zen-mind_shortfilms
Zen - Principles and Practices - https://youtu.be/CfR_ZkRQz3Q
Tantra of Gyuto - https://youtu.be/qUmU-AL2GMI
The Message of the Tibetans I and II - https://youtu.be/kTakhRLJXAw
>From my understanding of essences, this would be same as the self. Plato/Aristotle seems to affirm a belief in existence of a self/essence of an object. With it, there are properties attached to that existence. These are then used to distinguish things from another.
Rather, an essence is the set of attributes that make something what it is. Like clay, the substantial form gives matter its shape and thus its attributes that allow it to be a thing distinguishable from other things (its essence).
I wouldn't say saying an essence is a label of self but rather saying "your essence" is a label of self. It is, as you said, a nominal self-reference that has little to do with the actual metaphysical claims being presented by the system of hylomorphism. When I speak of the form of you I am really talking about the form of the body as a whole, each part having its own essence. The "you" part is still an issue of my language while what is actually spoken about is the overall human being. The identity given is just an afterthought.
Now in that is where I find the distinction between Buddhism and Scholasticism. Buddhism would say that something is what it is currently due to what caused it to be that way rather than something becoming to be that way on its own or simply something physical (no matter how material) that is retained in essence without causal influence constantly working on it. It is all conditioned by the things that allow it to be this way (correct me if I'm wrong). Scholastics (and many of the Greeks) would agree with that but make the distinction that these things are still yet distinct from one another and essence is the attributes for what the thing is. These don't seem to be contradictory concepts so far. Substantial Forms compound with matter to provide the object as it is (its essence) while this reality still derives from constant causality. These situations don't seem to overlap much at all and seem largely semantics.
However I will say the idea of the eternity of the soul (all still understood as existing eternally by God's causal power) is a contentious issue. It seems fairly blunt that the eternity of the soul could conflict with Buddhist doctrine but with the soul not explained in a substance dualism way but rather as substantial form isnt so clear I don't think. This would depend heavily, it seems, on the Buddhist answer to the Problem of Universals and it doesn't seem to me that the Buddha was giving a response to the Problem of Universals or even implying one by his teaching of dependent origination. Am I wrong in that respect?
Further, do you have an answer for my last question in >>578281 ?
Sorry for the late response, I've been at work.
If you want people to take you and your posts seriously instead of ignoring them as shitposts then make it clear that its your opinion and not a fact and give your reasoning for that belief. Otherwise the posts is worthless and its not even worth the effort to type it out because people won't pay any attention to it.
My patrician, based indeed
Not the Buddhist guy, but it seems to me that Buddhist metaphysics is pretty Heraclitean- all is flux and dependent being, which, lacking an intrinsic principle of being, turns out to be nothing, or an illusion. They didn't have a Plato or an Aristotle. Without Forms or some principle which can reify things other than absolute being (i.e., potency), it becomes impossible to affirm created reality as anything other than illusion.
The whole Buddhist project is to transcend the illusion of conditioned, contingent existence, and strive for the Unconditioned (in Scholasticism, we would call this 'God'). This is impossible, however, without eliminating human nature itself. The Christian tradition alone seems to reconcile humanity with divinity without compromising either.
>Not the Buddhist guy, but it seems to me that Buddhist metaphysics is pretty Heraclitean- all is flux and dependent being, which, lacking an intrinsic principle of being, turns out to be nothing, or an illusion.
Right, and while I do not know much of Heraclitus, but what you're saying doesn't seem too contentious with divine conservation, which all apostolic Christian faiths would hold. All reality (of all sorts) are dependent on the ground of being known as God and do not exist on their own at any particular time but are constantly requiring God's act keep them in being from moment to moment.
I don't know how the doctrine of divine conservation stacks up against the Buddhist teaching dependent origination. If they are in line, then the idea of a soul in the classical sense is fine but I'm not quite sure.
>They didn't have a Plato or an Aristotle. Without Forms or some principle which can reify things other than absolute being (i.e., potency), it becomes impossible to affirm created reality as anything other than illusion.
Oh I'm fully aware. This is why we're discussing the basics first. Much work needs to be done to synthesize the eastern and western traditions so they can be coherent.
I'm not buddhist myself, but read up a bit on it, so take this as a grain of salt or rather take it as a starting point more so than a conclusive answer.
My understanding of Bhavanga/Buddha-nature suggests that its talking about consciousness (or awareness) in its pure form. When someone is awakened (buddha), their minds are purified from old habits, their perception becomes clear, etc. The buddhists say that as we are now, the awareness is "dirty and Underneath that dirt, lies a clear awareness that leads to awakening.
So going by that, if a person removes the taints from their mind (through various meditation exercises and etc), they will reach a point where the mind becomes awakened. Thats supposed to be the mind of a buddha, aka buddha-nature.
>doctrine of divine conservation stacks up against the Buddhist teaching dependent origination
Buddhist dependent origination suggests or rather demands there not being a all powerful creator/destroyer. If such a powerful architect were present, the buddhist dependent origination would fall apart. You could try to compromise and say our existence is dependent on god's existence, but would this apply to god? Would god's existence depend on our existence? Christian god is supposed to exist outside causality/time/universe. As such, it would be incompatible with buddhist metaphysics about annica, anatta, and dukka.
As we see with >>579865, the difference between Scholastic divine conservation and dependent origination, is that the dependent-originating system is itself in a sense "self-contained." The Unconditioned is somewhere, but it is wholly transcendent of the illusion, and doesn't have much to do with it.
On the Christian metaphysics, by contrast, the Unconditioned is the conserver and creator of the contingent order, hence the contingent order derives its existence from Him, and can truly be said to have some existence of its own, insofar as it exists in relation to Him.
Contra >>579865, moreover, it seems that to avoid incoherence the interdependent system must have depend on an independent creator. Whatever has dependent existence has no existence in and of itself, hence if there were only dependent existence, there would be absolutely nothing. There must, therefore, be unconditioned being, and if there is unconditioned being, there can also be conditioned being, and we don't have to deny everything as an illusion.
As unconditioned, of course, God does not himself arise from any cause, nor can he lack any form of being without possessing that being more perfectly in himself.
But this is actually completes rather than conflicts with what I take to be genuinely true Buddhist insights about contingency and suffering. Considered in ourselves, we really do lack an intrinsic principle of being, hence considered absolutely in ourselves, we do not exist, hence chasing aspects ourselves or even the contingent world as our ultimate end is futile and leads to illusion, despair, and self-annihilating suffering.
With the Creator, however, there is something which it is not vain to seek, which does have inherent being, in virtue of which we can have being, and so is worthy of our desire. There remains question of how the desire can be fulfilled given the radical difference between the created and uncreated order, but at least the end is in sight.
Buddha's teachings were first committed to writing by a group of monks who belonged to a large community of monks who would listen to and memorize recitals of Buddhas discourses that were recited by the older monks. From the time of Buddha's death all of his discourses and sayings were agreed on and memorized by groups and then the memorizations would be taught to other groups to insure accuracy and the memorizations would be passed on from one generation of monks to the next one. It is generally agreed upon by historians that this went on for about 200-300 years before the memorized discourses were committed to writing.
It is completely implausible that this situation could have arisen as anything besides what the generally-agreed upon version holds. The vast majority of scholars agree that Buddha existed and that the evidence is pretty solid. There isn't really any other way to explain why a community would suddenly appear that was made up of a large amount of monks who had memorized thousands of pages of text describing a single and largely-coherent religious teaching/philosophy.
Contemporary references are not the only way to tell that someone existed. The standard is, how likely is it that the works and community attributed to him would have arisen, had he not existed? And by that standard the evidence for the existence of the Buddha is pretty good.
Contemporary of Buddha would be the Jains and the various Hindu traditions. There would be also be small time materialistic schools and bunch of other ascetic gurus. None of those tradition really had a well advanced written tradition. We know that Buddha references the Jain practices in his teachings. Some of his sutras make references to Jain communities/followers and by the time Buddha was learning/teaching he had met several of those followers. He himself has also said to have learned from the Jain ascetics during his quest.
But in any case, it would be roughly 200 years after Buddha's death that it really grew its base. That was due to Ashoka's promotion of the religion itself. His works and existence can be seen all across India. Before that, Buddhism was probably no bigger than the scientology cult of today. During Ashoka's reign, it became a national zeal.
>is itself in a sense "self-contained." The Unconditioned is somewhere, but it is wholly transcendent of the illusion, and doesn't have much to do with it.
How does that make sense though?
-The Buddha Nature is explained as expressed by many things in nature in Buddhism
-The unconditioned explained as wholly transcendent would conflict with the idea of reaching Enlightenment. From how I see the teaching, removing illusions leaves one to become the Buddha-nature rather than transcending reality in some such way.
Thank you for the post. I'm very interested in seeing some well read Buddhist speak on the subject.
Now I asked previously about the Bhavanga. If anything at all, could you tell me what you know of it?
Vajrayana : for the most hedonist and average rationalist, typically westerner, typically women
Zen/chan: for the most rationalist and average hedonist
Theravada: for the least rationalist and least hedonistic: fast track to nirvana
I think that the metaphor of "shedding" of the illusion betrays the absolute transcendence of the "Buddha nature" from the dependent-originating order: to achieve it means to shed all contingency, to reject it as illusory. The Real is evident through the illusion in some sense, but the relationship between the Real and contingent is not one in which the contingent has its roots in the Real.
I happen to think that this project is deeply incoherent. Rejecting everything that the Buddhist rejects as an illusion leaves *only* unconditioned being, whereas, as essentially conditioned creatures, such unconditioned being could not be attained by us. Where only unconditioned being is "left," everything of the creature is wholly extinguished. The ultimate rejection of the created order for the happiness of the divine, thus turns out to be unattainable and merely another form of self-annihilation.
I can't say much about Bhavanga, but as a type of condition, no doubt it turns out to be ultimately just as ephemeral as the rest of qualified being, on the Buddhist metaphysics.
Of course, I am not a Buddhist, so my own understanding of their doctrines should be taken with a grain of salt.
>Thank you for the post. I'm very interested in seeing some well read Buddhist speak on the subject.
first, you must tell us why you have faith in language and ''reason'' to understand a doctrine ?
then you must tell us what logical principles you choose, in order to communicate.
Before you ask that question to that guy, you should ask yourself. Why you have faith in your language and reasoning when you try to convey your question. Why do you place faith in the other person's ability to understand and reason your question.
>first, you must tell us why you have faith in language and ''reason'' to understand a doctrine ?
There is little faith to be had in language. Where simple words lack, discourse can be abound so that we can display ideas to give and seek guidance.
I have faith in the ability to understand doctrine as doctrine is beliefs and believes must be understood to some extent so to even be believed.
>then you must tell us what logical principles you choose, in order to communicate.
I am a Scholastic but I am aware and fairly knowledgeable of different traditions outside the world.
How do you practice Therevada when most communites in the west seem to be Mayahanna?
Have you read much of the Pali Cannon?
Would it be correct to say that Buddhism is the answer to the question of how one would commit suicide in a world where there is reincarnaiton?
>How do you practice Therevada when most communites in the west seem to be Mayahanna?
You don't really bee a community to practice unless you want to get more serious with it e.g. giving offerings to monks, or even ordai ing temporarily.
>Have you read much of the Pali Cannon?
Currently reading through the Majjhima Nikaya. Have also read Bhikkhu Bodhi's overview of the tipitaka.
>Would it be correct to say that Buddhism is the answer to the question of how one would commit suicide in a world where there is reincarnaiton?
If you're talking about ceasing to exist completely, then yes.
Where do you guys usually draw the line with the fifth precept?
I don't drink or do recreational drugs, but I recently started vaping to help me quit smoking. Would some schools view inhaling nicotine to be a violation of the fifth precept?
420BlazeIt school of buddhism is what you're looking for, if you want to blaze it.
No traditional buddhist school endorses mind-altering drugs. Not only do they fuck with perception, it creates attachment, it creates bad habits, and it creates dependence.
Nicotine is an addictive agent. The precepts are there to get you away from addiction/attachments/bad habits. If what you're doing creates those, then it would be against those precepts. Its ultimately a guide. If you believe smoking weed or smoking cigarettes is healthy for you and it doesn't do anything to you, then do those. However I'd suggest you get your head examined or read up more on the effects of weed/cigarettes before taking up the buddhist precepts.
What does /his / think about the Venerable Dhammavuddho Mahathera. His videos are the first results when searching for Digha Nikaya. After living the homeless life for three years under the Mahayana tradition, he was reordained into the Theravada tradition and now leads a school of reconstructionist Buddhism.
>You don't really bee a community to practice unless you want to get more serious with it e.g. giving offerings to monks, or even ordai ing temporarily.
But isnt the point of Therevada to become a monk as there isnt really Nirvana for the lay members?
I'll add a bit here, one of the main weakness of Buddhism has always been the connection of Karma, Rebirth and Anatta. Many people mistakenly say buddhists believe in reincarnation, but statement completely ignores a fundamental aspect of Buddhism, anatta.
The problem starts with trying to explain rebirth. What is rebirth? Early examples use metaphors like a lit candle lighting another candle. Does it mean the rebirth is not linear? Is there anything even passing between? Or is it just setting the initial conditions?
Karma is defined as the intention/act that builds/creates an action or a result. The common view is its a linear process (you do good things, good things happen, and opposite applies). But the buddhist text doesn't say such. They clearly say its hard to determine the effects and the causes as such things are often too complex. Both the mahayana and the theravada suggests this view.
With the two vague definition, it becomes hard to understand what gets reborn and how karma and anatta are connected. Some say its some parts of consciousness goes through rebirth, but its still a very vague answer.
Overall, the vagueness of rebirth and karma will create problems for furthering buddhist understanding. Some buddhists say you should take these with faith given other how buddhist teachings have been clear. These two are supposed to be make sense the closer you are to enlightenment. So who knows.
You can focus on living a virtuous life as a lay follower. Monks depend on the laity for food and other donations. You may not be able to reach enlightenment, but you can still practice, accrue merit, and works towards a better rebirth. Hopefully one in which reaching enlightenment is easier for you.
wow nice. since two days ago, i am listening to him from
he is the only one discussing something else than MN. Currently, I am listening to
Udana (Khuddaka Nikaya) Chapter 4 by Ven. Dhammavudho Mahathera_May 18, 2015.mp4
I will then listen to the SN, the AN.
it is a pity that the recordings are not as good as the ones of bikkhu bohdi.
the kamma does not matter. the explicit goal of the dhamma is to live without kamma. so if you do not care about kamma, you do not care about the mechanism. if you care about kamma, you are given the solution to stop caring about it.
The Bhavanga-Citta is not a ground of being. It is just another conditioned mind that is basically just blank, and the mind reverts to that state in between other mind states arising and ceasing. There really isn't any metaphysical significance to it.
>meditation can only do so much
>implying you need anything more than meditation
No you don't. Gurus have no place in an individual's Buddhist practice. All a person needs to do is to study Buddhism by reading a good amount of high-quality material on it and then they can either meditate perfectly fine after reading about differant types of meditation or they can attend a few meditation practices. There is nothing important in Buddhism that you can't read about and figure out how to do on your own.
>No you don't.
Yes you do. A qualified teacher is essential to Buddhist practice especially when developing the greater vehicle with boddhicitta, but also for inspiration, understanding, and progress on the spiritual path.
I had some particularly troubling experiences surrounding Buddhists growing up in Boulder, Colorado. I had trouble avoiding contact with Buddhists, as many of the most interesting cultural events in town were put on by the Naropa Institute (now Naropa University), and they sometimes got involved in the wildlife community. I remember hearing that Buddhism was about kindness, compassion and suffering, but got confused when I encountered a lot of seemingly rude, cruel and disrespectful behavior on the part of these “Buddhists.” I also (wrongly) thought Buddhism was about giving up material possessions and so was very confused by all the gold, Volvos and nice suits I saw on people from Naropa. I mean really, nobody in Boulder wears a suit outside of city government (and not most people in it, even then).
I think I know what you're talking about, but correct me if I'm wrong. From what I read, a lot of rich people donate their goods to the buddhists centers. Not just material or monetary, but also time through voluntary works.
Buddhist monks are told to avoid owning those and take what they are given (thats why eating meat is allowed if given by another). Now the lay buddhist are just regular common folks that accept some buddhist precepts but mostly live a common life of consumerism and stuff. Lays sometimes try to do buddhist stuff but most of the time, they are simply regular folks like us. This includes regular human emotions like anger, greed, rage, rudeness, cruelty, disrespectful, etc.
If everyone was naturally good, then there wouldn't be a need for buddhist ethics. Not trying to justify these buddhists, but if they are rude, either try somewhere else till you find a good place join the buddhist sangha or simply go alone and make the most of it.
that is right, many claim being a buddhist to enhance their hedonism. before what the buddhist call ''stream entry'', where you understand that the notion of self is not worth it, does not make sense, followers rely on faith (they have, at best, one foot in hedonism and one foot in the dhamma). even the stream-enterer can fail to have a proper behavior, but at least this one knows that he is wrong, and he is far less hedonistic than the followers relying on faith. the problem of the stream enterer is that he may lack energy, will to continue on the path and may prefer to pass the time doing nothing.
It certainly does seem like the mind is a function of the brain, given the mental effects of brain damage, or drugs and alcohol. Assuming you've been meditating on death appropriately you're well aware that the brain rots away after death. While it's true that the hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and sulfur atoms making up the brain will still exist, they won't be in a configuration that behaves in a manner consistent with an "I".
Like the Buddha, I think the self and the mind are analogous to fire. To claim that the mind still avoids pain, still seeks pleasure and still experiences emotions after death is like saying a fire still gives off light and heat after it stops burning.
>the mind is a function of the brain, given the mental effects of brain damage, or drugs and alcohol
The "I" is not the mind, but rather think of it as that which dwells on the mind. Those mental phenomenon that arise from the physical machinations and influences of and on the brain organ are not the self, but rather they are with what the self may occupy itself.
>fire still gives off light and heat after it stops burning
Fire as we know it is actually just the visual of heat and light given off by the process of combustion. The analogy is no good.
>Fire as we know it is actually just the visual of heat and light given off by the process of combustion. The analogy is no good.
Sure it is. We both know that fire isn't actually a thing that exists in and of itself, but as you say is just part of the process of combustion. I'm saying that like this, consciousness and the self don't have any actual existence except as part of the process of neurotransmitters being released and detected by brain cells.
It is possible that you dualists have it right and consciousness can exist without a brain or similar physical structure, but you yourself say that such a consciousness wouldn't experience any mental phenomena. In that case, after death the consciousness currently associated with this brain's set of mental phenomena will have no brain to generate feelings of suffering, anxiety, dissatisfaction, or any other negative emotion. So how is the state of a consciousness after the destruction of the brain it's associated with any different from buddhist liberation?
>guy on Cambodian finger puppet board blows out hundreds of years of Vajrayana scholarship with one post
>Dalai Lama calls it all off
>hundreds of thousands convert en masse to whatever he feels is "Buddhist"
Tantra is extra buddhist development that later merged with the mahayana buddhism.
Even the vajrayana gurus tells that. But its still a tool that some use. Not all tantra are used by buddhist and not all buddhis tantra are used outside buddhist sect.
Also wrong reply?
Isn't the Dalai Lama currently trying to quash a certain Buddhist sect because he thinks one of the deities is evil and dangerous? Goes to show you how "Buddhist" the whole situation in Tibet is.
He's been modernizing Tibetan buddhism by making all the sects work together, where in the past they would be estranged and create conflicts. At the same time, removing the fringe elements like worshiping of guardian deities, which aren't really buddhism but rather pre-buddhist remnants of bon.
That was the entire joke I was making. The Dalai Lama considers tsok rituals involving alcohol to be un-buddhist, while those who perform them argue that the lay precepts are advice for people not otherwise working towards enlightenment rather than absolute rules for all buddhists
>Because what the hell does Buddhism have anything to do with worshiping evil gods?
What are you on about? Like I said, you are over-simplifying a split within a Buddhist community.
Buddhism isn't some monolithic organization.
The Dalai Lama isn't trying to convert people, hell, he writes in books about how even Islam is a-okay as a tradition. He's a popular figurehead who in the secular realm likes to explain basic Buddhist concepts. In the non-secular realm he does a great job at explaining lam rim and other topics, too.
He doesn't consider tsog rituals involving alcohol to be unbiddhist, though. His followers like Zopa Rinpoche have discussed this at length.
If Pope is the face of Christians, then Dalai Lama is the face of Buddhism. Their popular roles are same. Internally they only lead their own sect of catholicism/tibetan, but worldwide, they're the faces of Christianity and Buddhism.
There are no bigger name than those two when regarding those religion.
only to burgerlanders.
The current dalai lama is so popularized because he is a romantic figure - a former ruler of a state that has been exiled by an evil empire. the fact that he got a nobel peace prize helps too.
Actually Gnostic and even Orthodox beliefs are similar to mainstream Buddhists precepts which has led many to wonder if Jesus and Christianity were influenced by Buddhists from the outer fringes of the Buddhist world.
Mani the founder of Manichaeism claimed to be the reincarnation of the Buddha. The religion references Buddhist and other eastern beliefs.
The priority in tantra in performing rituals and venerating deities and wisdom kings and queens/protectors of the Buddha as a form of mediation between the layman and God echoes the practices of rosary prayers, prayers to saints and angels, penances and other practices in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
>Yes you do. A qualified teacher is essential to Buddhist practice especially when developing the greater vehicle with boddhicitta, but also for inspiration, understanding, and progress on the spiritual path.
The Buddha made it very clear in his discourses that the way to attaining enlightenment was through following the 8-fold path and the other precepts. As far as I am aware he did not state or imply that a teacher was important or necessary.
The notion that a teacher is essential for understanding or progress directly contradicts all of the Buddhas rhetoric about how one had to do the work themselves and rely on themselves.
"One is one's own refuge; what other refuge can there be?"
If you attend or belong to a certain teaching center or sect that believes gurus are important or essential then that is your decision but it is definitely a mischaracterization to frame that belief and being representative of Buddhism in general or of what the Buddha taught. Unless you have authentic citations from the Pali Canon that describe where Buddha said a guru was essential or important then you should refrain from attempting to frame it in this manner because it obscures the truth.
You're stretching the relevance of "one is one's own refuge; what other refuge ca there be?" to something like a teacher. Buddha himself was a teacher. He himself learned from teachers. Monks are teachers. In a perfect world, all his teachings can be simmed through without any problems, but we live in an imperfect world and thus there will always come a need when you are confused on which directions to take and how to interpret the meaning behind certain teachings. Guru reverence is mainly a part of Tibetan dogma, but the importance of guru is well understood within conventional theravada and general mahayana. The importance of a good teacher is well accepted.
For the secluded recluse meditator, teachers and gurus might not be needed, but for the lays, absolutely. Either through guru, a teacher, a community of teachers in a sangha, or an experienced person in the stream.
>Actually Gnostic and even Orthodox beliefs are similar to mainstream Buddhists precepts which has led many to wonder if Jesus and Christianity were influenced by Buddhists from the outer fringes of the Buddhist world.
Its likely this happened to some extent. Some greek philosophers traveled east with Alexander and met Hindu ascetics and Buddhists and then returned home and incorporated or were influenced by some of their ideas and this had an impact on Greek philosophy. Pakistan and Afghanistan around this time were mostly Buddhist and many of the greeks that stayed in the region and formed kingdoms like Bactria ended up becoming Buddhist. Buddhist-like monks were described living in BC times at Alexandria in Egypt which had trading links with India. Some historians actually think that during Jesus's childhood in Egypt described in the scripture that he learnt from this Buddhist-like community when he was there.
While it is true that teachers are widely accepted as playing an active role in Buddhism for many people especially in Asia, I view it more as a cultural thing. Because as far as I know Buddha did not place much emphasis on gurus or teachers in his teachings I still think its wrong to say it is essential or important even for lay people or non lay-people. If it was that important then in my opinion Buddha himself would have placed a greater emphasis on it but he didn't. IMO there isn't that much to be confused about. Even lay-people just trying to follow the 8-fold path and meditate frequently don't need to know all the details about arcane aspects of it and everything else is pretty simple and easy. Some people might find its helpful but IMO its not that complicated and any intelligent person who reads enough good material on should be able to figure it out on their own.
>tfw no half Tibetan Buddhist or Zen Buddhist and half Christian or Orthodox independent Manchu nation-state
all these cumskin and pigskin edgelords thinking they are so edgy and unique picking up buddhism instead of christianity
whitu piggu go hom!
>meditating in a cave in order to receive enlightenment
>Muhammed receiving his revelation from the "angel Gabriel" in a cave
>having your etheric field and soul raped and invaded by a demon
>demons and reptilians, not living in caves
Reminder, this proves Buddhism and Islam are scam religions infested by cave demons.
So just out of curiosity, and wanting to see a Buddhist's POV:
What are your thoughts on using Buddhist ideals and practices (a.k.a. meditating, chants, etc.) in terms of other religions?
Can it work?
Should it work?
Can it benefit the believer any more than usual/traditional methods?
I'm honestly would like to know, preferably from a Buddhistfag
Meditation is ultimate a tool to better understand or unravel the mind.
You can use the buddhist meditation to do that but without any guidance, all you'd get is a superficial understanding. Which may or may not help you with whatever goal you are trying to achieve.
Buddhist goal is to understand and reverse engineer the formation of thoughts and habits. Ultimately leading it to eradication of the old habits and old way of thinking. Purification of the mind is what Buddhism is about.
As a Female, I lost my interest in Buddhism since its teachings discriminate against women, especially in the spiritual and traditional context.
Sikhism (or Sikhi) is something that makes so much MORE sense than Buddhism. The Guru Granth Sahib book written by the Sikh Gurus (they wrote the text themselves unlike Buddhist manuscripts which were written 300-400 years AFTER Siddhartha died) is the beautiful poetry written that is song.
The Sikh school (youtube video) I went to along with other westerns in Amritsar (holy Sikh City which is less than 4 hours away from Dharmashala where Dali lama lives.)
No, it developed ONLY in Asia.
India/Nepal is Asia.
Gandhara/Northern Pakistan is Asia.
Tibet is Asia.
China is Asia.
Mongolia is Asia.
Japan is Asia.
Sri Lanka is Asia.
Indo-european can mean the civilization that came before India/Europe, their language or it can mean a combination of Indo and european. Neither of this is applicable.
So you're 100% wrong.
According to the Roman naming of the continents names yes but the culture of Buddhism is very Indo-European which would relate it to the pre Christian European cultures, which is what I meant by JUST Asians or Sinitic eastern peoples.
The term 'Asia' is only relative to the mind of western geographers you linear thinking pleb. Buddhists deities and terminology are related to ancient European mythology.
>their language or it can mean a combination of Indo and european. Neither of this is applicable.
What are Indo-Aryan Languages?
I'm interested heavily in Daoism and unsure of a Buddhist Lineage to ascribe to, currently it's between Zen and Therevada but which one is better for the western individual far away from the culture that nourished these philopshies; Therevada or Zen?
>Buddhists deities and terminology are related to ancient European mythology.
Which ones exactly?
>Buddhists deities and terminology are related to ancient European mythology.
it doesn't matter. read both
Also you the best way to understand Daoism and Chinese "Zen" Chan Buddhism is through Qigong and some Kung Fu. There really isn't a set "lineage" or whatever. Just do some Taichi, Qigong, or Vissappana instead of reading and knowing only intellectually. You feel better and feel healthier
The thing about is you do not want to have all "in your head." You actively want to practice meditation, whatever it is sitting down, walking meditation or taichi movements. Slowly incorporate it into every day actions, the breathing and awareness.
It's the easiest thing yet most helpful thing I have learned in my life
Not sure if you're genuine or just "wannabe".
You should ignore the labels and the preconceived notion behind things like Dao, Zen, Theravada, etc. If you really want to learn about any of them or anything else for matter, you have to drop your bias first. After that, you can start with any tradition and learn it fully.
Vajrapani is (was?) Hercules, namely.
The first group to convert to Buddhism en masse were the Greco-Bactrians, Greeks who had come east to colonize the lands conquered by Alexander. They brought their Greek Paganism with them.
We're talking about a 2,000+ year old cultural transmission here involving a religion that is spread across an entire continent of course, and said religion has also been vastly altered by other cultures and faiths much more recently, but the point still stands.
Why can I always discuss religion on 4chan more easily than on reddit? Stereotypes about that place seem pretty true; it's full of edgy atheists who so literally reject anything that cant be empirically proven.
Religion is also trees like a stupid child on reddit. No one thinks to need to know about religion before you mock it, because it's "obviously bullshit."
The Sanskrit term jñāna is cognate with Greek gnosis.
Much of the Indian pantheon is akin those of Europe.
Also compare the man bun hairstyles of the Celts and the Germanic peoples with those of the Brahmins and other Indian peoples and the one the Shākyamuni Buddha is depicted with.
>We're talking about a 2,000+ year old cultural transmission here involving a religion that is spread across an entire continent of course, and said religion has also been vastly altered by other cultures and faiths much more recently, but the point still stands.
Did you miss that part? Or the fact that Buddhism draws heavily from is Hinduism, which itself is an Indo-European religion?
That's proto-indo-european culture. Before the aryan migration to India took place. Before the migration to Europe took place. Buddhism happened thousands of year after the split.
Buddhism rose from a sramana tradition, which if prehistory archeological records suggests is older than the Aryan migration to India. The Harappan civilization had meditation techniques on some of their buildings..
By that same logic, you should extend the line further to current day. Buddhism is related to American culture and language. English word "knowledge" has same roots as "jhana". American christianity religion and buddhist are related via sharing of saints and deities.
It's a known fact that the Indian subcontinent was conquered by a nomadic Indo-Aryan peoples in the second millenium b.c. who then proceeded to incorporate their beliefs into society and blend it with some pre-Vedic customs. Buddhism drew heavily from Vedic tradition and made itself more appealing to the other castes.
Buddha was a Scythian. Buddha Sakyamuni (Sakya - Saka)
Europe was almost entirely repopulated by people of Indo-European descent, that wasn't the case in India however as the only people in India who have a genetic affinity to a European population are the Brahmins.
>nomadic Indo-Aryan peoples
Aryans from Turan.
> In them the Vedic hymns were composed; an the steady supply of water led the Aryans to settle down from their old state of wandering pastoral tribes into communities of husbandmen. The Vedic poets praised the rivers which enabled them to make this great change—perhaps the most important step in the progress of a race. "May the Indus," they sang, "the far-famed giver of wealth, hear us,—(fertilizing our) broad fields with water." The Himálayans, through whose passes they had reached India, and at whose southern base they long dwelt made a lasting impression on their memory. The Vedic singer praised "Him whose greatness the snowy ranges, and the sea, and the aerial river declare." In all its long wandering through India the Ryan race never forgot its northern home. There dwelt its gods and holy singers, and their eloquence descended from heaven among men.
It's not that different a situation from that in the Americas today where you have people of African descent practicing a religion and speaking a language of European peoples along with a few native groups who might still preserve their language but are culturally assimilated.
No matter the extent of demographic changes associated with the spread of Indo-European speakers, the point I was trying to make is that their languages didn't spread by military conquest.
I think most of the anti-woman writings were intended to assist male monks in the renunciation of sex. See if you can rewrite them to fit your own sexual orientation, to help you destroy your own sexual desires.
one thing to remember about ALL tibetan schools of buddhism is that they require preliminary practices before one can receive ANY teachings at all. these include, amoung other things 111,111 mantra recitations 111,111 prostrations and other time consuming preparations designed to reduce pride, develop faith in the guru, which is essential in their view. another thing not often know about the vajrayana / mantrayana schools is that they practice shamatha and vipassana meditation for a long time before they begin the tantric bits.
The notion of western and eastern wasn't defined back then. The definition of Asia applied back then to the greeks. So Greeco-Bactrian were in Asian territory. Greeco-bactrian were not a "western" polities either, they were a fusion of central asian, greek, indian and chinese mingling.
Here is something that might give you a giggle, here is the East Orthodox Church's view on Buddhism
"There is no real worship or prayer in Buddhism, since the belief in a God separate from one’s self or anything else or in One Who could have personal interaction with us or be at all moved by such acts does not exist. For example, one popular form of Japanese Buddhist ‘worship’ service consists in simple endless repetition of the phrase: “I am the Mystic Law of the Universe” - that is, a hypnotic mental exercise intended to cement the consciousness of one’s unity with “the mystic law of the universe” or the “All”, the pantheistic corporate whole. Buddhism ultimately rests its hope for its idea of salvation in the power to perfect one’s self alone, relying on this ‘self-savior’ to provide himself with what he is himself lacking. Who can give what he himself has not? Only God has immortality, freedom from suffering, and everything else the Buddhist seeks. Only God has it, and only He can give it - but the Buddhist not only does not seek Him, but does not even believe in the existence of such a Being at all. Thus, lacking any relation to Christ, the true God Incarnate, the blind religion of Buddhism is an endeavor doomed to failure, unless the mere feeling of complacency in self-delusion and self-deception in Buddhism is all one is seeking."
Well that's the choice you make.
If you have prior obligations or don't think you'd be able to live the lifestyle, you can live a virtuous lay life and there's nothing wrong with that.
But if you think you're ready to fully commit yourself to reaching liberation, then you can ask about the process of ordination from a monk.
>Who can give what he himself has not? Only God has immortality, freedom from suffering, and everything else the Buddhist seeks. Only God has it, and only He can give it - but the Buddhist not only does not seek Him, but does not even believe in the existence of such a Being at all.
this is why the followers of the dhamma seek the consequences of nibanna, and not they do not need faith, since beforehand, they gain certainty at stream-entry. only people before stream-entry rely on faith.
christians are in a predicament since they explicit say that they you cannot become god, but you only feel his energy, so they constantly rely on faith.
I can't speak for lay buddhists but Buddha knew that the soul was neither the body (obviously) nor a separable thing from the body. He would tell you his soul is "Atman",the universal truth, in the trees and the sky as much as his body. That much is obvious when you consider that ultimately the universe is one indivisible creation and the body is a bag of senses meant to perceive it.
>conflating Nepalese/any religion with Buddhism
Reincarnation and karma are largely vestiges in buddhist tradition, from the spiritual beliefs common south Asia. They aren't integral parts of Buddha's middle way or even necessary to be a buddhist.
If he had been born in Galilee Buddhists would give similar attention to the 10 commandments and if he were Greek they would be superstitious of nature being influenced by the gods
Vedics learned early that whatever the Gods powers, they were ultimately just as much a part of creation as humanity. They don't represent ultimate truth and if they did you can't learn it from them, so in other words they are not worth worshipping. God may give you the gift grace but not through worship but through practicing your own humanity. God doesn't want you to be slaves
It's a misguided /Churchian view and interpretation of Buddhism which clearly shows they took no steps to actually understand what they were talking about.
You can't expect anything different from people who choose to think that way
Very true spot on anon. I love the story of Blood and Steel I posted and others like that have similar themes exactly like this,and the pages
Were very profound and interested me when I first read them, Especially after reading the passage about sincerity in the Hagakure. `The God's can be respected but shouldn't be relied upon` is found in some way in pretty much every culture and religion. The Vedics and other ancients held this precept to teach people to trust in their own strength and capabilities and that while it was alright pray to the gods, venerate them and sometimes ask for things; there were some things you would have to do on your own. Being a slave to the gods is a wrong interpretation that seems,especiallyo me, to have proliferated over the right `Path of Sincerity`. When people are slaves to God's and don't think for themselves theyre just willing to do what anyone (ie the preacher/church, etc.) says without ever once looking into their religion in more detail or critically thinking about it. Like some who goes to church but doesn't bother to understand the Bible
Strictly speaking, if you were a buddhist monk and you were given coffee as donation, there's probably no harm to it. Same with coffee. But they probably wouldn't accept alcohol or cigarettes or weed if donated.
Coffee/Tea mostly functions as a water/liquid replenishment for the body. Coffee's caffine might be a problem for the body/mind depending on person to person. Its all up to you to decide whether certain things hinder your goal or helps you in your practice. If you're a lay, your guiding principle should be clarity of mind so you can practice mindfulness.
Buddha taught that rebirth exists but the distinction between the classical Buddhist conception of rebirth and the Hindu reincarnation is that in reincarnation the same core soul or spirit passes from life to life while always remaining the same soul while with the Buddhist idea of rebirth there is no soul, self, atman or spirit that exists but that peoples cravings and attachments cause rebirth after death but that there is no fundamental soul or self that is being transferred from body to body. It is sort of a subtle idea that a lot of people forget or get confused over but its an important distinction.
so you acknowledge god and then make others more worthy of worship than he is ? you're on the right track to eternal damnation.
this bullshit isn't doing anyone any good.
if a person is skeptical about the fact that god can see the blackest ant beneath the blackest rock in the darkest night there ever was, there's no hope for them.
if they are skeptical about god being able to destroy this world and crush it to dust and return it as it was without anyone knowing about it, there's no hope for them.
if god truly sees all things, hears all things, able to do all things with no need of anyone's help, why do people insist on making others before him in worship and prayer ?
What do they have to say about the Buddha having a feast day in the Eastern Orthodox calendar?
there are exceptions to these descripions but they generally hold true
Theravada: seen as the more vanilla, bare-bones Buddhism with the most emphasis on sticking to the Pali Canon, usually thinks Buddha was just a human who attained enlightenment and not anything holy or supernatural, seen as the more orthodox. Centers around meditation and following the 8-fold path. Big in SE asia and sri lanka and to some exent in the west.
Mahayana: developed when Theravada spread to the middle east, Tibet and then China. more eclectic and religious version. Influenced by and sometimes incorporates the local religion or philosophy such as Daoism in China or Bon in Tibet. Usually sees Buddha as more then just a human, god-like, superhuman, angel-like etc. More philosophical then Theravada and many differant Buddhist theories and practices have arisen out of it due to it placing not as much importance on not straying from the Pali canon compard to thervada. Big in Tibet and China. Some in the west not not as much as the others IMO.
Zen: developed when Mahayana spread from China to Japan. Influenced by Shinto and incorporates some of it. Usually sees Buddha as more then just a man like Mahayana. For most of its development had only learnt of Buddhism through Mahayana and had not received large amounts of the Pali Canon and so there is another degree of difference from Theravada. Huge emphasis on meditation. Sometimes has an emphasis on guru-like teachers who use word puzzles and unusual lessons and demonstrations to bring about understanding in their students. Mostly only in Japan or in the West.
Thanks for the great answers guys. I was in Japan for the first time last March visiting girlfriends family and got to visit a few temples in Tokyo, including Senso Ji Temple.
It got me super interested and I will be going again in 2 months so I am trying to learn as much as I can before I go again. Want to visit a ton of shrines outside of Tokyo this time.
I want to visit Nezu and Meiji Shrine the most right now
If you want to develop a decent understanding of Buddhism before you go so you understand what all the temples and stuff are about, I would recommend reading the revised and expanded edition of the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. Its one of the best intro to Buddhism books in english and is only 130ish pages with not much text per page and can easily be read in a day or two. You would be better able to understand and appreciate Zen Buddhism firsthand if you have a good understanding of Buddhism rather then if you read a bit about Zen but dont really understand Buddhism itself, plus you can also read about Zen after reading it. There is a free PDF of it that is readable online.
Why do people always ask these silly questions?
You know what you're doing is wrong, so stop. Don't waste your energy trying to argue for the bad action, use that energy to tame and subside the action.
It's like you don't understand the basics of Buddhism, yet you want to cling to the precepts as if they have some benefit to you...
If you don't truly grasp the precepts and the four noble truths study those before you waste your time reading anything else. As it is in the basics you grow. Not the more complicated ideas.
Japanese Bhuddism can be distinguished in a common way by what has been termed the Ryobu Synthesis. The fusion of Buddhism with Japanese Shintoism/ancestral veneration/animism. You'll see Kamis like Amaterasu, Susanoo, Bishamonten And Hachiman references and mixed with Buddhist bodhisattvas, avatars and `dieties`. The goddess Kanon an incarnation of Avalokiteshvara is one example
"Japanese Buddhism" includes a whole range of schools from Zen to Nichiren to Pure Land to Shingon. The number one characteristic is the synthesis with Shinto. Also Amidism (worship of Amida Buddha that pretty much escalated into monotheist levels) is pretty much exclusive to Japan.
Modern day Japanese Buddhism can be partly defined as still not having recovered from the damage it suffered during the Meiji era. Visible marks include the religion undergoing something of a crisis due to lack of solid adherents and understanding (many have tried explaining this away with "japanese uniqueness" and how the Japanese live religion differently than everyone else, but the simple fact is that most Japanese don't know much about Buddhism) and the break up of vinaya rules regarding sex and food still not being repealed.
Shrines are generally Shinto places, and temples Buddhist places.
I can't speak for the other aspects of Japanese Buddhism, such as Nichiren or the connection to Shinto, but Zen has two main traits: a strong belief in a lineage of teachers that goes back to the Buddha himself, and a strong emphasis on personal insight through seated meditation and "joriki", or self-power, the capacity of one's own effort to bring about enlightenment. Contrast this with Amidism which believes in "tariki" or other-power, the power of Amitabha to bring about your enlightenment.
There's less emphasis on learning written literature, such as repeating long sutras, but it's rigidly scheduled in monastic work. Besides meditation and work around the Zendo, chanting and other religious practices are present. Monks are not required to be celibate, and there's a lot of appreciation of lay or non-monastic practice in Zen, as well as the presence of humorous and controversial characters. However, the teacher-student relationship is so essential that one cannot be said to study Zen without a teacher in a formal setting, until one's practice has grown strong at least. Dokusan or consultation with one's teacher occurs frequently, even for people who do not live in monasteries, and some (including myself) travel quite far to engage their teacher on a regular basis.
Rinzai students engage koan studies as part of religious practice, while Soto ones mainly engages shikantaza or just sitting. The former is more energetic and emphasizes quick breakthrough experiences that have to be verified by the teacher, while the latter is more serene and takes longer to refine.
Ordinary mahayana sutras are often studied but there's a lot of specific zen literature such as the koans, various records of sayings between masters and students that can be a bit mysterious for the newcomer, but are said to point at the heart of buddhism and reality.
So is buddhism actually got any good practices for disconnecting yourself from desire and getting ready to die, or is it just a meme religion for baka laowai hippies like yoga shit?
Buddhist knowledge is fine but it isn't necessary. As much a meme as this may sound none of it matters if you can't think for yourself.
Unless you can believe literally samsara without any issue it will just be an obstacle, it won't facilitate further learning
"Teachings" is literally all buddhism is.
The thought that you need to be able to have faith and think for yourself is also a by teaching.
That's like saying you don't need to read the Qur'an to be a muslim. Yeah, you can live by what the faith says, but why wouldn't you want to read your holy book?
>It's Hinduism without using the word god.
That's the most idiotic thing I'be heard all week, and I talk about religion on reddit with those ignorant atheists.
Look up forms of buddhist meditation.
Bed is meditation, there are practices to help you see the impermanence in everything, to help you desire those things less. There are meditations where you envision your own corpse in a field, and you contemplate how it decays. This helps to cement in your mind the fact that you are going to die one day, and that no one is exempt from this fate.
Some good quotes to BTFO the "practitioners"
>Fundamental principal of Buddhism: No Purpose
>A zen master came upon his student and saw him sitting, and asked him what he was doing
>the student replied that he was practicing sazen meditation so that he might be enlightened
>the master told him that just as you may never polish a brick into a mirror you can never meditate to reach enlightenment
Overall Buddhism is a decent philosophy, but it was hijacked by people who couldn't grasp it's deeper meaning and got hung up on convention, or in modern times, people concerned with being trendy.
I agree, Zen should have never hijacked it. Japanese Zen doesn't even try to be as buddhist as it can be. Buddhism was never truly engrained in Japanese culture, and so Buddhism mixed greatly with local culture, religions, and rituals.
The classic story is that Zen is said to have begun when Makashyapa smiled at the Buddha holding up a flower. But the philosophical essence began more or less with the Yogacara (Mind-only) and Ekayana (One-vehicle) schools in India as early as 300AD. The Lankavatara was an indian Ekayana sutra that found its way into China, through Bodhidharma - the "father" of Zen, somewhere between 350-400AD.
The essential ideas of Zen did not began with some haphazard assimilation into Japanese Shinto, the Meji restoration and a general population's "half-hearted" understanding of Buddhism. They were developed long before Buddhism ever made its way into China.
Also anon it should be noted Bodhidarma`s existence is still fishy. With many scholars agreeing that he did not exist. The tales that he founded, Shaolin and it's king fu style have particularly been debunked. Some even say that he did not transmit Chan to China as Buddhism in China seems to predate his journey. Many of the dates credited for his arrival are also in question. The Shaolin Temple especially predates him as it was definitely already there and practicing Buddhism before he came.
hey, i'm interested in joining up with an asian/eastern religion, I had taoism in mind, but my question applies to buddhism as well -
How do you reconcile a modern-day life, with its temptation and stressfulness together with meditation? How can you recieve the stimulation we do today, but still cultivate a spiritual life of meditation, introspection and so on that living a life like that would require?
I can't balance both desu, how do you do it?
>How do you reconcile a modern-day life, with its temptation and stressfulness together with meditation?
by meditating when you have the time and by putting effort into being mindful of whatever you are doing even if it involves temptation or boring/stressful work
>How can you recieve the stimulation we do today, but still cultivate a spiritual life of meditation, introspection and so on that living a life like that would require?
by choosing to remain detached from the stimulations of modern life, not going out of the way to avoid them but to simply acknowledge they are stimulations that stir up craving/emotions etc and choosing to just not pay them much attention and to just move on and not dwell on them when you encounter them
Something that is sort of unrelated but complimentary to this topic is the book "Society of the Spectacle" by Debord. Reading that in addition to Buddhist stuff has helped me personally not be caught up in consumerist thought and the cravings/delusions that are common with modern life
>hurr durr Jesus was human after all, but never fucked or shit or ate food that wasn't stale bread or fish, and didn't hang around women that weren't his mum.
>he's like totally easy to identify with
or something like that, I guess.
Well, you kind of answered your own question you'll have to balance if you want to do it well. You don't have to meditate for 5,000 hours per day, just do what you can and always keep learning in your practice. Remember there are even `experienced` so called "experts" who actually don't know a damn thing about what their doing and don't care. As long as your do your best and are righteous and sincere. Your on the right track
>A certain person said, "In the Saint's mausoleum there is a poem that goes :
>"If in one's heart
>He follows the path of sincerity,
>Though he does not pray
>Will not the gods protect him?"
>What is this path of sincerity?"
>A man answered him by saying, ''You seem to like poetry. I will answer you with a poem.
>As everything in this world is but a sham, >Death is the only sincerity.
>>It is said that becoming as a dead man in one's daily living is the following of the path of sincerity."
>-Yamamoto Tsunetomo, The Hagakure
Buddhism was "never truly engrained" in any culture though. And the mixing with local culture, religions, and rituals basically describes the entire evolution of the religion, and the process is ongoing today as it reaches Western lands (mixing up with secular Christianity or secularism/scientism etc). It's thanks to this flexibility that Buddhism still exists. This isn't to say that the mix-up doesn't create aberrations, of course, but Japanese Buddhism shouldn't only be equated with Amidism and Nichiren.
>Monks are not required to be celibate,
They technically are because AFAIK the vinaya was never rewritten to allow them to marry. They just choose to go along with the order given by a long defunct regime and pretend that the whims of people without any special meaning (any person that had a say in formulating that "law") should be taken seriously.
Buddhism in China definitely did predate his supposed journey and arrival, there were a couple chinese translations of Buddhist scriptures already in China by the 3rd-4th centuries. Whether Bodhidharma existed as a singular figure or not, there's probably some historical truth to the passing-down of specific scriptures such as the Lanka as a basis for Chán teachings.
The Vinaya is not a series of laws that allow and forbid certain things, they're a series of vows for monks to undertake. The vow in question is the vow not to engage in sexual misconduct. The Mahayana view of sexual misconduct differs from the Theravada, Zen is not alone and certainly wasn't the first in this approach (the Vimalakirti sutra was written already in 100AD)
>specific scriptures such as the Lanka as a basis for Chán teachings.
Yeah definitely at least this. If he did exist, he at most made journey
Check out What The Buddha Taught
BTW hey guys. Has anyone here read Evolas Doctrine of Awakening? I read it after being exposed to Buddhism for years and found his conception of Ariyan Buddhism extremely fascinating. Not only for how hardcore it is, how it totally demolishes popular western notions of Buddhism like how Buddhism is a sugary religion of compassion, but also his metaphysics.
For example, we are emanations of a single samsaric stem of craving, and we are less our bodies and minds and more just an assemblage of cravings. I found this compatible with what I knew about Buddhism already but was surprised how dark his idea of it is. The extrasamsaric element does not so much emanate beautiful but progressively imperfect realities like in say, Platonism, but becomes enmeshed in craving. He speaks constantly of the primordial anguish of reality. obviously existence can be horrific but Idk, is he overstating it?
Please no rumproasted liberal shit, I just want to hear from peeps who know their Buddhist doctrine
Thanissaro Bhikkhu is fantastic for Theravada translations and commentary.
I am partial to Hubert Nearman's translation of the Shōbōgenzō, lots of helpful commentary
William F. Powell and Thomas Cleary's translations of various chinese works are recommended
You should avoid DT Suzuki's translation of the Lankavatara, try to get the monumental one made by Red Pine (Bill Porter). Suzuki's other books are fine. Anything by Red Pine is pretty great.
>what are the sutra's should one read
Gotama Buddha: A Biography Based on the Most Reliable Texts, Hajime Nakamura
In the Buddha's Words, Bhikkhu Bodhi
Song of the Jeweled Mirror Samadhi, Dongshan Liangjie
Sandokai, Shitou Xiqian
Hsin Hsin Ming, Sengcan
The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-Chi, Burton Watson
Satipatthana (Establishing of Mindfulness)
Anapanasati (Mindfulness of Breathing)
Anatta-lakkhana (Discourse on Not-self)
There has been nothing in any school of Buddhism called vipassana as a training method. It's a relatively new (20th-century) type of practice that has not been trained and taught for thousands of years. Not saying it's bad, but one should know this before heading into it.
That was a stupid post anon. If you had searched through the thread you would find that people had already posted here about Vipassana. People can talk about other Buddhism-related things as well if they want to and there is nothing wrong with that.
>Evolas Doctrine of Awakening
I am only a little familiar with Evola's writings but he's not the first to render an edgy version proposed to be more in line with the original teachings. What often happens with these translations is that people throw key aspects of the eightfold path out with the bathwater, and infuse their own philosophy, intentionally or not.
My initial impressions were that he's not well-versed in buddhist terminology & language, nor really a practicioner (self-admittedly, but still), but he made a decent job of outlining the basic ascetic practice. His approach to the Pali word Ariya is glaringly mistaken in my opinion, and some of his philosophies are completely incompatible with practicing Buddha Dharma.
Regarding the whole edgy outlook, there's a strong importance in recognizing dukkha (suffering) in reality in order to be open to the teachings at all. It leads to samvega (disgust, existential angst, inner turmoil) which is what brings one to the spiritual practice. Samvega is an important element for coming into fruition of the path but it's only an intermediary stage, a way to urge on the peace-seeker to find a better way. It's essentially wrong-view to get stuck in the view of the "horrific anguish" of reality.
The 2nd noble truth is NOT that life is suffering. It establishes that "there is suffering", and goes on to explain elements of it. It is important to know that only through antithetical and discriminatory conceptualization does suffering arise, not through the actual process of life itself.
>how Buddhism is a sugary religion of compassion
Take away compassion and there's no Buddhism. There's no way around this.
Anyone here ever visited a temple?
There's a Sri Lankan Theravada vihara about an hour away from me that I've visited twice.
If you want to feel like you're in a place of absolute peace, take a trip to a vihara one day. I'm in Georgia and the temple's in Atlanta, so not much in the way of Buddhism here. The vihara itself is just a house that they converted; the living room is the shrine/discussion room, and the monks sleep in the bedrooms, I assume.
Even though it's not ornate, it's one of the most comforting places I've ever visited. Seeing monks in person and knowing that these are people that, if they truly live by the Dhamma, will never do you wrong is a great feeling.