Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi

If nothing other than suffering arises, then how do wholesome states arise?

>>8335517
>Siderits' Buddhism as Philosophy. It removes all the religious elements, sets down the core ethical and metaphysical beliefs, and shows the logical connection between ideas.

Then you're simply not studying Buddhism. You're studying some modern system of thought tangentially related to Buddhism.

"And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions (karma). There is no this world, no next world (i.e. rebirth), no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings (opapātika, i.e. divine and infernal beings); no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view."

Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta 117

>a religion of inquiry

In your post I get the sense that you're trying to present a very rational face of Buddhism. Sure, there's the kalamas sutta but if you were an actual monk you had to accept the teachings. Doubt is one of the five hindrances. And causing a schism in the sangha is one of the ānantarika kamma that will send you to the Avīci hell for eons and eons.

Siddhartha "Foremost of the Bipeds" Gautama knew he had already perfected the Dhamma.

>I actually wouldn't recommend a primary source.

I'd say start with the primary sources (maybe in anthologies) and use commentaries to fill in the gaps. So much has been translated, and outside of stuff like the abhidhamma it's not very hard to digest either.

Here's a great place to read up on the Pali Canon:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

>>8337420
Suffering only arises from craving of something or aversion of something. Break these two habits and you'll start to feel fucking splendid for no reason at all.

>>8337420
By right view, aka seeing impermanence. right view starts at stream entry.
Your will does not make them arise, this is the problem of normies. The will is disappointing once you want to be happy.
So when you flee pains and seek pleasures, either directly or through a lack of energy or the opposite, a surplus of energy, you remember, as a non stream winner, that all this is not you and the desire to stop the practice is exactly what you must follow to be unhappy.
before this you must see the hindrances, by analyzing your self and then taking a step back from what you think and feel, then since you want to be happy, you apply right view to all these perceptions, which means let go, seeking always more tranquil states while being aware of them, then you affirm stillness.
as soon as you have stillness at this new state, you will again apply the recipe : take a step back from this new state, to see what is happening in you in this new state, then tranquilize, then get still. the new state becomes the old state and a even more tranquil state arises. repeat.

>>8337485
Non buddhist pleb here. How does one not feel averse or attracted to anything? And even if you could accomplish it why would it be desirable to be so seperated from the world?

Im really drawn to the non attachment, accepting impermanence and no expectations aspects of buddhism but i cant reconcile the parts i understand as being completely impartial.

>>8337418
does anyone have a download link for like, the basic scriptures?
I've read some about buddhism, but is from recent autors and not the original scriptures

>>8337511
emotions matter to hedonists who think hedonism is a good life style.
But of course, most people love hedonism far too much to stop being scared of leaving hedonism. Most people are not meant to be something else than hedonist. In fact, the whole humanity is here because people love to cling to what they feel and think and refuse to do something else with their life.

for people saying that hedonism is relevant,
>life=what you feel+what you think+what you expect from your desires from what you feel and think
therefore,
>grade your desires
and
>non acting on your favorite desires = non life = death


hedonism is not an effective doctrine to be happy. Hedonists believe that you literally die if you ''do not think nor do feel''. They have faith that 'no moving' is death.

of course, doing the opposite brings you a better life:
>perpetual evanescence and lack of control of what you think and feel, therefore cannot be taken seriously (to be happy) => stay still towards what you think and feel.

Once you try to reach stillness, you are more equanimous and benevolent.

>>8337539
suttacentral can be downloaded

>>8337580
I understand this. But besides the negative connotations of being a hedonist, and the positive of being enlightened, I don't see why it is necessary to forsake desires entirely. Couldnt someone still desire sex and adventure and comfort, while understanding that those things are ultimately fleeting and futile?

>>8337599
The short answer is that desires will add more pain than their fulfillment will add pleasure.

>>8337599

>Couldnt someone still desire sex and adventure and comfort, while understanding that those things are ultimately fleeting and futile?
yes you can care until you no longer care about hedonism of the body,what they call anagami, the stage just before arhant. But when you will desire this between stream entry and anagami, you will know that it is disappointing, which will pollute the desire and the pleasure that you retrieve form this, compared to when you were an hedonist and had faith in hedonism.

>"I would go on all fours to the cow-pens when the cattle had gone out and the cowherd had left them, and I would feed on the dung of the young suckling calves. As long as my own excrement and urine lasted, I fed on my own excrement and urine. Such was my great distortion in feeding.

"Wrong view" is not no view, and so on.

Stepping away from the bare doctrines for a moment, think about what it all means. Let's take the most common real world case, someone who starts spiritual practice believing in an eternal soul. This is their wrong view. This informs the various path factors, all of which are technically "wrong".

Here, wrong doesn't mean "bad". They may have very good speech, great livelihood and so on. But it's wrong in the sense that it doesn't lead to liberation, to release from samsara.

So, they get into jhanas, see great lights, a state of eternal bliss and peace, and, naturally enough, take this to be their "soul". After the experience, they believe that their view has been confirmed. After all, now they don't just believe in an eternal soul, they've actually seen it. This is their "wrong knowledge".

As a result of this, they're "free" from doubts and so on, which is "wrong freedom".

Again, it's not that these things are bad per se: they may well be very wise, peaceful, happy people. It's simply wrong in the sense that it's not true liberation. Ultimately it will betray them.

Since the experience of meditation has removed hindrances, it may be that they can readily shed their wrong view. Hence the Buddha's first teachers had "little dust in their eyes".

But this can't be automatically assumed. I think it ultimately depends on the ego (ahamkara). If someone has narcissistic tendencies, they're very unlikely to admit that they're wrong, especially if they have already started a new religion …

File: 1467812954406.jpg (183KB, 817x907px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 817x907px

>>8338515
Gotta love that progressive Sweden.

lel

>>8337511
Non-attachment does not mean that you separate yourself from the world. It's actually the exact opposite, according to Buddhism. It is when you misapprehend thoughts, identify with them and thus the ego, that you separate yourself from the genuine nature of existence and through misunderstanding you become attached to various things.
Non-attachment is a state in which there is no divide between a subject and an object, although the functional understanding of how to interact with the phenomenal world still persists.

>>8338515
>>8339594

You guys already have /his/, what the fuck do you want here?

kys

>>8337418
nah

>>8339594
Sweden's rape statistics are inflated because their legal system considers fucking everything rape. They were already high before /pol/ memes about muslim immigrants

>>8337599
take it as it happens (although... you know ;) )

Just bought The Tibetan Book of the Dead today. What am I in for anons?

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>8343345
>>8343345
I'm not a fan of the parts where he tries to sell the "magic" stuff some über monk can do.
Apart from that it is an okay read, but I would not start with this at all
Actually I do not feel it is a must read if you are trying to get into Buddhism, if that means anything
Would recommend pic attached though

>>8337418
>nihilists not welcome

>starting a religion thread
>only acceptable religiousness in the 21st century is to be a nihilist who says "yeah some of Buddha/Jesus' teachings are okay but there's no supernatural powers or other faggot shit involved"

die

File: image.jpg (280KB, 1280x933px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1280x933px

>>8344604
Relax dude or be more eloquent pls

>>8344639
lmao that PICC

>>8344639
I like simpson's subtle humour

>>8337425
Jumping in here, but I'd say given the hermeneutic problem inherent in reading millennia old texts from an alien culture it can be quite efficacious for any Westerner to start with something that will midwife them over to a place where the source material will have greater meaning.

As for the other anon, and to your point, I don't agree with the preeminence placed on rationality, and the whole question of secular vs religious Buddhism is a silly imposition predicated on the erroneous belief that religion is just ossified dogma.

>>8342818
it is nobody's fault if women are the most pleased with the BBC.